James Ron
Bio      Rights-Based Organizations (RBOs)
Print this pageAdd to Favorite

 Rights Based Organizations (RBOs) for Development and Social Justice: Local Legitimacy and Sustainability


Background

Development and social justice organizations in the global South are increasingly identifying themselves as “rights-based organizations” (RBOs), which means that they typically do one or more of the following:

Define the social, political or economic problems they work on in explicit human rights terms: Thus, for example, an RBO seeks to “eliminate government discrimination,” rather than to “reduce inequality.” Discrimination is a violation of internationally recognized human rights; inequality is not, as there is no universally recognized “right” to equality.


Legitimize themselves through reference to universal rights treaties and principles:An RBO will often explicitly justify its existence by reference to internationally recognized human rights treaties and principles, including documents such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR), or the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).


Work through the judicial system to shape government policy: Among other methods, an RBO will typically make use of laws, lawyers, and legislative bodies at the local, national or international level. Thus, for example, an RBO addressing the needs of sex workers would typically include an effort to change state legislation on sex work, rather than simply offering sex trade victims shelter or job training.

In some cases, Northern-based development organizations have begun mainstreaming “rights-based approaches,” transforming themselves into explicit RBOs. As a result, many of their Southern partners have begun a similar process, leading to a global RBO cascade.

 

In other cases, Northern donors have explicit mandates to support human rights actors, promote rights based approaches to development, or build up rights-based discourses in Southern countries. As a result, more and more Southern NGOs are converting to RBO status, either officially or implicitly.  


The Question

How are RBOs received in Southern communities? What kind of relations do they forge with other NGOs, faith based organizations (FBOs), political parties, and governments? Does being “rights-based” improve their credibility and efficacy within their local contexts, or does it make their work more difficult? More specifically, when does it help, and when does it hinder?  How do RBOs raise money, and are their fundraising methods sustainable and judicious over the long term?


Phase I research

From 2005 to 2010, Ron and his research team conducted 140 interviews with NGO workers from 60 developing world countries. These Phase I interviews led to the following preliminary findings:

Local credibility: RBOs find it challenging to sink deep roots among their desired local constituencies, and this stems, in part, from their embeddedness in the rights language itself, which is perceived by many as technical, legalistic, or “elitist.”

Local competitors: Contrary to expectations, relations with political parties were not particularly important to RBOs. Faith-based organizations (FBOs) from the Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim traditions, by contrast, were RBOs’ chief competitors for local legitimacy and funding.

Partnerships with FBOs: Partnerships with local FBOs were often crucial to their success, and there is some evidence to suggest that RBO-FBO partnerships are more likely when the latter are embedded in certain Christian traditions. Partnerships with other faith traditions are possible, but they are more difficult to create and sustain.

Economic sustainability : RBOs are heavily dependent on Northern funding, and although Southern charitable giving is widespread, individual and organized Southern donors are reluctant to support RBOs. The latter are alternately viewed as alien, foreign-funded, politically challenging, or untrustworthy. Given the current availability of Northern funding, moreover, Southern RBOs are not developing sufficient skills or inclinations to cultivate local charitable resources.

Phase II research

In April 2009, Ron received a Social Science and Humanities Council (SSHRC) research grant of $106,800 to conduct fieldwork in Mexico, India and Morocco. The goal of this Phase II research is to explore the early findings across different faith contexts - Catholic (Mexico), Muslim (Morocco), and Hindu (India).

 

The Phase II research team is composed of former & current graduate students at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.

 

Ron's team completed the Mexico City and Chiapas surveys in late 2010; the Mumbai interviews in April 2011; and the Rabat/ Morocco survey in May 2011. 


Written Outputs

The findings from this research are still unfolding, but Prof. Ron is designing a book-length manuscript, and has been in discussion with Oxford University Press about possible publication.

 

Recent project articles & working papers include:

PANDYA, A. & J. RON. "Social Activism Can Thrive Even Amid Mumbai's Wild Growth." Ottawa Citizen, Calgary Herald, Regina Leader Post & Montreal Gazette, February 28, 2011.

RON, J. “Human Rights NGOs Can’t Rely on Western Funding Anymore.” Ottawa Citizen, March 27, 2010. (A version appeared on Stephen Walt's Foreign Policy blog).

KINDORNAY, S. & J. RON. "The Rights-Based Approach to Development: Implications for NGOs." Submitted to Human Rights Quarterly in January 2011. 

Oral Presentations

Prof. Ron has presented the project's preliminary findings at the: