Invasion or Infusion? Understanding the Role of NGOs in Contemporary Haiti

Abstract

It is impossible to discuss development in Haiti without talking about nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Currently, most grant aid to Haiti is directed to one of more than 300 officially recognized NGOs. Given this, a critical understanding and evaluation of NGOs is essential; however, there have been very few scholarly articles published which specifically examine them.1 Despite a paucity of scholarship on NGOs in Haiti, they are being discussed and debated within certain circles in the country, and several methods for evaluating and understanding NGOs have been proposed. Two studies of NGOs have particular significance because of their scope and institutional location.2 World Bank published Haiti: NGO sector Study in March 1997, around the same time that the Centre de Recherche Sociale et de Formation Economique pour le Developpement (CRESFED) published Haiti: Invasion des ONG. former valorized NGOs and referred to the funds channeled through NGOs as an infusion, while the latter was critical of NGOs, calling their apparently sudden appearance and role an invasion. While there have been studies before and since,3 these two set the tone for discourse and policies in Haiti from 1997 to the present, defining two distinct orientations. Which is correct? Are NGOs good or bad for Haiti's development? Are they closer to Haiti's people and less corrupt than the government, or are they tools of foreign imperialism? Should Haitian people-either living in Haiti or in the tenth province (now eleventh4)-support NGOs? Should blan concerned about democracy and Haiti's development support NGOs? If so, which NGOs should be supported? Are NGOs the solution to Haiti's poverty, exclusion, and centralization, or are they part of the problem? More importantly, how can we make or evaluate such claims? This article attempts to provide a framework for addressing these larger, admittedly polemical questions. To begin to answer these questions requires a clear definition and conception of NGOs; this article therefore begins with a comparison of how NGOs are conceived and defined by different institutions. Several model typologies have been proposed for classifying NGOs. Given the statistically oriented survey data available through the current database of the officially registered NGOs (updated in February 2005), validation of these models is impossible. However useful these typologies are as a conceptual tool, they appear a priori and thus are of limited utility in assessing claims about the ability of NGOs to democratize development. question hinges on participation, another concept that has wide currency across ideological and institutional divisions with similarly elusive meanings. This article is an attempt to provide a methodological and theoretical grounding for this key concept of participation. Definition and Conception of NGOs As Fisher and others have noted, it is easier to define what an NGO is not rather than what it is, as suggested by the term nongovernmental organization (1997: 441). Agreeing upon a definition of NGOs is not an easy task, as it is an inherently politicized process. According to one anthropologist, The ways in which people construct the meaning of NGOs-what they are supposed to accomplish, what actually constitutes a genuine nongovernmental organization, and how much definitions really matter-are highly contestable (Abramson 1999: 240). World Bank defines NGOs as private organizations that pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social services, or undertake community development. (Operational Directive 14.70) United Nations's definition clarifies the role of NGOs as advocates to promote the interests of the poor: A non-governmental organization (NGO) is any non-profit, voluntary citizens' group which is organized on a local, national or international level. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 39 citations exist upstream.