Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables
- List of figures
- Acknowledgments
- List of contributors
- 1 Introduction: forging global accountabilities
- Part I Public accountability: participatory spheres from global to local
- Part II Experiments in forging NGO accountability: mutuality and context
- 5 Multiparty social action and mutual accountability
- 6 Not accountable to anyone? Collective action and the role of NGOs in the campaign to ban “blood diamonds”
- 7 Bringing in society, culture, and politics: values and accountability in a Bangladeshi NGO
- Part III Reflective accountability: new directions for participatory practices
- Part IV Global accountability frameworks and corporate social responsibility
- Index
- References
5 - Multiparty social action and mutual accountability
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables
- List of figures
- Acknowledgments
- List of contributors
- 1 Introduction: forging global accountabilities
- Part I Public accountability: participatory spheres from global to local
- Part II Experiments in forging NGO accountability: mutuality and context
- 5 Multiparty social action and mutual accountability
- 6 Not accountable to anyone? Collective action and the role of NGOs in the campaign to ban “blood diamonds”
- 7 Bringing in society, culture, and politics: values and accountability in a Bangladeshi NGO
- Part III Reflective accountability: new directions for participatory practices
- Part IV Global accountability frameworks and corporate social responsibility
- Index
- References
Summary
Accountability in multiparty initiatives is an issue for many actors, from governments to businesses to civil society organizations. This chapter focuses on multiparty social action initiatives that seek solutions for complex, uncertain, and changing social problems.
The accountability problem is particularly acute for cause-oriented civil society organizations, both because they are inherently obligated to many stakeholders (Kanter and Summers, 1987; Brown and Moore, 2001) and because they must often combine with other actors to gain resources and leverage (Edwards and Hulme, 1992; Uvin et al., 2000). As civil society actors have become increasingly important in social action initiatives, they have also been increasingly subject to demands to articulate and meet their own accountabilities (Brown and Moore, 2001; Edwards, 2000).
The concept of “multiparty social action initiatives” may be illustrated by two examples, one focused on influencing government and international policies and the other focused on solving business and industry problems:
The campaign against the Mount Apo thermal plant
In the early 1980s the Philippines government proposed to build a geothermal plant on Mount Apo. The project generated strong resistance from local, regional, national, and international coalitions of dozens of civil society organizations, including indigenous peoples groups, farmer associations, environmental and development NGOs, church groups, and human rights organizations. The campaign sought to influence government agencies and courts in the Philippines as well as World Bank support for the project. It focused on environmental impacts of the proposed plant and on its siting on land sacred to local indigenous groups.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Global AccountabilitiesParticipation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics, pp. 89 - 111Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
and (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar
(2001) “Strengthening North–South Partnerships for Sustainable Development,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30(1), 74–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boon, S. D. and J. G. Holmes (1991) “The Dynamics of Interpersonal Trust: Resolving Uncertainty in the Face of Risk,” in and (eds.) Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior. Cambridge University Press, pp. 190–211.Google Scholar
(2002) Partnership for International Development: Rhetoric or Results?Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Brown, L. D. (1999) “Social Learning in South–North Coalitions: Constructing Knowledge across Social Chasms,” in (ed.) International Perspectives on Voluntary Action: Reshaping the Third Sector. London: Earthscan, pp. 39–59.Google Scholar
Brown, L. D. and D. Ashman (1999) “Capital, Mutual Influence and Social Learning in Intersectoral Problem-Solving in Africa and Asia,” in and (eds.) Organizational Dimensions of Global Change: No Limits to Cooperation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 139–59.Google Scholar
Brown, L. D. and J. Fox (1998) “Accountability within Transnational Coalitions,” in and (eds.) The Struggle for Accountability: NGOs, Social Movements, and the World Bank. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 439–84.Google Scholar
and (2001) “Accountability, Strategy and International Nongovernmental Organizations,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30(3), 569–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1995) “Building Cooperation in a Competitive Industry: SEMATECH and the Semiconductor Industry,” Academy of Management Journal 38(1), 113–53.Google Scholar
and (2000) Accountability and Effectiveness Evaluation in Non-profit Organizations. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1997) “Toward a Stewardship Theory of Management,” Academy of Management Review 22(1), 20–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005) “Accountability Myopia: Losing Sight of Organizational Learning,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 34(1), 56–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000) NGO Rights and Responsibilities: A New Deal for Global Governance. London: The Foreign Policy Centre.Google Scholar
Gaventa, J. and A. Cornwall (2001) “Power and Knowledge,” in and (eds.) Handbook of Action Research. London: Sage, pp. 70–90.Google Scholar
(2003) Democratic Accountability: The Third Sector and All. Cambridge, MA: Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations.Google Scholar
(1989) Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
and (1986) “Political Limits to Interorganizational Consensus and Change,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 22(2), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1981) “Conflict, Power and Organization in a Changing Community,” Human Relations 34(10), 877–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1976) “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Capital Structure,” Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2000) “Political Responsibility in Transnational NGO Advocacy,” World Development 28(12), 2051–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanter, R. M. and D. V. Summers (1987) “Doing Well While Doing Good: Dilemmas of Performance Measurement in Nonprofit Organizations and the Need for a Multiple-Constituency Approach,” in (ed.) The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 154–67.Google Scholar
(2002) “Network Learning: Exploring Learning by Interorganizational Networks,” Human Relations 55(4), 427–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewicki, R. J. and B. B. Bunker (1996) “Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships,” in and (eds.) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 114–39.Google Scholar
and (2001) Going Global: Transforming Relief and Development NGOs. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
, and (2002) “Negotiating Accountability: Managerial Lessons from Identity-Based Nonprofit Organizations,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 31(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, W. W. (1996) “Trust-Based Forms of Governance,” in and (eds.) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 51–67.Google Scholar
and (1994) “Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships,” Strategic Management Journal 19(1), 483–98.Google Scholar
and (1992) “Structuring Cooperative Relationships between Organizations,” Academy of Management Review 13, 483–98.Google Scholar
(2001) “Trust and Control in Anglo-American Systems of Corporate Governance: The Individualizing and Socializing Effects of Processes of Accountability,” Human Relations 54(12), 1547–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royo, A. (1998) “Against the People's Will: The Mount Apo Story,” in and (eds.) The Struggle for Accountability: NGOs, Social Movements and the World Bank. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
(2001) Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks. Vol. I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
and (1987) Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
, and (eds.) (1999) The Consensus Building Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
, and (2000) “Think Large and Act Small: Toward a New Paradigm for NGO Scaling Up,” World Development 28(8), 1409–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003) “Nurturing Collaborative Relations: Building Trust in Interorganizational Collaboration,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002) “Understanding Accountability: Theoretical Models and their Implications for Social Service Organizations,” Social Policy and Administration 36(1), 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Bringing Society Back In: Grassroots Ecosystem Management, Accountability and Sustainable Communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 9
- Cited by