New Rights Advocacy: Changing Strategies of Development and Human Rights NGOs

Organizational Fields and the Division of Human Rights and Development

15 Organizational Fields on one side the legal positivist approaches that give priority to international treaties and the juridical mechanisms created to implement them, and on the other side approaches that see rights claims as arising out of social movements’ efforts to assert power or limit the powers of states and other actors. We argue that while new human rights claims have arisen out of social movement mobilization, legal codification of the standards is critical to achieving sufficient power to influence national and international policy decisions. Third, we argue that the relationship between NGOs, human rights, and states requires rethinking in light of the new rights advocacy . NGOs’ frequent adoption of strategies that go beyond identifying the violating state alone, and that in some instances seek to shore up, rather than limit, states’ policy options, leads us to offer a new model for international NGOs as political actors. Fourth, we consider the implications for development theory, which has historically been a theory of economics, markets, and institutions, but not one of economic or social rights and entitlements. At the conclusion of the chapter we return to the diversity of the organizational fields to observe the divergent ways international development and human rights NGOs confront trends in the international political economy and embrace human rights themselves. Organizational Fields and the Division of Human Rights and Development The two new organizational fields grew along separate tracks, and the clear division of institutions, professional skills, and organizational cultures runs through the UN system, foreign affairs and international development agencies of most of the bilateral aid donors, and profoundly through the world of NGOs. From the end of World War II to the mid-1990s, “human rights,” “development,” and “environmental” operated in distinct organizational fields, distinguishable by their organizational missions and agendas, patterns of association, funding, disciplinary affiliation, and organizational cultures and myths. They share certain strategic priorities, but they have largely operated in parallel, strategizing around related but seldom overlapping agendas, drawing financial support from distinct sources, and maintaining primary relationships with distinct sets of government offices and grant makers. To grasp the differences between their methods and cultures, one need only reflect on the two most visible and memorable symbols of major international NGOs during the period: Amnesty International’s barbed wire and candle and the “CARE package.” One logo symbolizes citizen action to light the flame of hope and redress human rights violations, and the other a humanitarian response to alleviate acute human misery. But the symbols are more than contrasting logos. They also imply different methods and objectives, with human rights groups building an international community of trained investigators and activists to pressure for change, and development organizations soliciting financial support for community development projects or emergency relief, and mobilizing advocacy campaigns targeting primarily aid donors. These organizational fields are most clearly demarcated at the international level. Their influence makes international NGOs interesting , but it is important to note that the division between sectors is not universal. While international NGOs have historically operated in distinct sectors, human rights and development activists in the poor countries have worked together to develop strategies to respond to the changing world political economy. This is a theme we will return to in each chapter: as NGOs begin to grow rapidly in the countries of the global South in the late 1980s and early 1990s, they have an impact on the methods and outlooks of international NGOs in both development and human rights. Organizational fields are recognized by their intensive interaction, shared recognition of a common identity and common purpose, and practice of cooperation as well as competition as evidence of their involvement in a “shared endeavor” (Dimaggio and Powell 1983). Consider three of the core characteristics for development and human rights NGOs summarized in table 1.1: their allegiances, professional ties, and core methodologies. Human rights NGOs articulate their agendas and missions in terms of strengthening international human 16 New Rights Advocacy rights norms and protecting and implementing recognized human rights. Most human rights NGOs have focused on civil and political rights, and largely on the conduct of governments. They associate with UN and governmental human rights agencies and offices and with other human rights NGOs, and they receive much of their funding from private donors and foundations. Although their methodologies vary, the core activities of human rights advocacy are promotion of standards, investigation and documentation of violations...