Humanities
Duke University Approaches of INGOs in Poverty Eradication Responses

NLM 570

Duke University

NLM

Question Description

I’m studying for my Social Science class and don’t understand how to answer this. Can you help me study?

Read:

Morton, Bill. (n.d.) An Overview of International NGOs in Development Cooperation. United Nations Development Program.

Sparr & Moser. (2007). International NGOs and poverty reduction strategies: The contribution of an asset-based approach. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.

Murdie, A. & Webeck, S. (2014). Responding to the call: Human security INGOs and countries with a history of civil war.

Eikenbery, et al. (2007). Administrative failure and the international NGO response to Hurricane Katrina.

Module 2 Lecture- Lecture Notes:

INGO_Relief_development_1perpage.pdf

INGO_Relief_development_2perpage.pdf

INGO_Relief_development_4perpage.pdf

Skim:

UNDP. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019, Overview and Goal 1 of the report.

Stares, Sally, Global Poverty Statistics and Civil Society, from Global Civil Society Yearbook, 2009, Chapter 2.

Zanotti. (2010). Cacophonies of aid, failed state building and NGOs in Haiti: Setting the stage for disaster, envisioning the future. Third World Quarterly, 31(5), pp. 755-771.

This discussion requires three posts, an initial post and a two response post.

As a general guideline, initial posts should be well-developed, use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Response posts should be substantive and move the discussion forward. This is your opportunity to discuss the information further with your classmates or to discuss whether you agree or disagree and state why or why not. Keep your comments professional.

You are encouraged to incorporate your personal and professional experiences in discussion board responses.

This week, we will discuss the topic together. Our discussion will be based on the required reading, optional reading, and additional materials you find relevant to this topic. I have provided some guiding discussion questions, but you’re welcome to propose new questions or discuss something you find interesting regarding this week’s reading. Please focus your discussion on THREE groups of questions/themes and comment on/respond to at least one other students’ post. Later in the day will need to respond to two other posting. 100 words each so a total of 200 in responses to two other students. Total of 850- 950 words, reference not included in the word counting. I will upload the required pdfs

Nongovernmental development organizations (NGDOs) account for a large share of INGOs, and they play an indispensable role in international development. The approaches that INGOs take to address development issues have evolved in the past few decades, as the conceptualization of poverty (or development) has shifted from basic sets of human needs to the ability to influence decisions which affect peoples’ access to opportunities or control over resources. The authors of this week’s reading touched upon issues such as the causes of poverty, relative poverty vs. absolute poverty, the approaches to poverty reduction, Sustainable Development Goals, INGOs’ role in international development, and so on.

In addition to international development, the world has experienced several major natural disasters in the past few decades (i.e. the 2011 Japan earthquake, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, Hurricane Katrina in the U.S.), which resulted in huge loss of human lives, properties, and infrastructure. INGOs are an integral part of the global relief system. They are active in emergency preparedness, rescue and relief missions, and post-disaster redevelopment. To improve their effectiveness and efficiency in disaster relief, INGOs need to be aware of the major operational, structural, and other types of impediments they’ll face in their disaster relief mission. They also need to learn from their own experiences, as well as others’, in terms of what worked, what failed, and why.

Based on this week’s reading, here are the guiding discussion questions and themes.

  1. How would you define poverty? What indicators would you use to measure poverty? What are the causes of poverty? Do you think poverty alleviation should focus on relative poverty or absolute poverty, or both? Why?
  2. What approaches do INGOs use to alleviate/reduce poverty? Please conduct research on at least three approaches INGOs use and compare/contrast these approaches. If you’re an INGO leader, how would you decide which approach(s) to use?
  3. What issues/challenges INGOs may encounter when they implement poverty reduction programs in developing countries? What are some of the potential negative consequences of INGO implementing poverty reduction programs in developing countries?
  4. The Huffington Post had a blog on two reports of global inequality, one from Bill Gates and one from Oxfam. Please read the blog (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philippe-dousteblazy/a-tale-of-two-reports-glo_b_4661037.html) (Links to an external site.) and the two reports (The link to Bill Gates's annual letter 2014 is https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-Media/Annual-Letters-List/Annual-Letter-2014 (Links to an external site.) and the link to Oxfam's report is https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/bp-working-for-few-political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-en_3.pdf (Links to an external site.)).

What do you think of these two reports? Which report do you think paint the right picture? Why do you think so? Please connect your discussion with this week's reading and lecture.

  1. I’d like you to conduct some research and discuss the strength of INGOs in responding to natural disasters, and the potential barriers to a successful disaster relief mission for an INGO (i.e. Eikenbery, et al. 2007 is a starting point). You need to tie your discussion to one of the major disasters happened in the past 10 years. You may also share success stories and discuss what lead(s) to the success.
  2. Another type of disaster—man-made crises which include ethnic, religious and political conflict and resulted wars, genocide and massacres—has also caused great human sufferings in the past few decades. INGOs (i.e. the International Rescue Committee, MSF, the Carter Center, etc.) have worked alongside the United Nations and nation-states to prevent conflicts, offer humanitarian aid to refugees and internally displaced people, bear witness to war-related crimes and atrocities, and help with refugee resettlement. Unlike their counterparts working on natural disaster relief, INGOs helping the victims of man-made crises often face different types of challenges and risks. I’d like you to conduct some research and discuss the challenges and risks INGOs face in humanitarian aid work related to man-made crises. You need to tie your discussion to one of the major man-made crises in the past two decades (i.e. Murdie & Webeck, 2014 is a starting point).
  3. Based on Desai & Kharas (2010) and/or Marten & Witte (2008). What is/should be the role of private philanthropy (i.e. individual donors and private foundations, etc.) in disaster relief and development?
  4. Jacqueline Novogratz is the founder of Acumen Fund, a US-based INGO that takes a businesslike approach to address the issue of poverty. She gave several talks on how the organization invests in local business to improve people’s lives. Please watch one of the video clips at the bottom of the following webpage and share your thoughts. http://www.ted.com/speakers/jacqueline_novogratz.html (Links to an external site.)

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Angela M. Eikenberry University of Nebraska at Omaha Verónica Arroyave Tracy Cooper Virginia Tech Part III—The Future: Hindsight, Foresight, and Rear-View Mirror Politics Administrative Failure and the International NGO Response to Hurricane Katrina Angela M. Eikenberry is an assistant professor in the School of Public Administration at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her main research interests are civil society, nonprofit organizations, and philanthropy and their role in democratic society. She has published articles in The devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent failure of government agencies and public administrators elicited an unprecedented response by international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) to a disaster in the United States. This paper focuses on why so many INGOs were compelled to provide humanitarian assistance and relief in the United States for the first time and the administrative barriers they faced while doing so. What does such a response reveal about administrative failures in the wake of Katrina, and what might the implications be for reconceptualizing roles for nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations in disaster relief? The authors answer these questions using data from interviews with INGO representatives, organizational press releases and Web sites, news articles, and official reports and documentation. Public Administration Review, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, and Administrative Theory and Praxis. E-mail: aeikenberry@mail.unomaha.edu Verónica M. Arroyave is a doctoral student in planning, globalization, and governance at Virginia Tech’s School of Public and International Affairs. Her main research focus is corporate social responsibility and its role in humanitarian action by way of nongovernmental organizations. She has several years of experience working with global health and humanitarian organizations. E-mail: varroya@vt.edu Tracy Cooper is a doctoral student in planning, globalization, and governance at Virginia Tech’s School of Public and International Affairs. Her main research interests are leadership issues affecting international nongovernmental organizations, humanitarian relief, and international development. E-mail: coopertl@vt.edu 160 International NGOs operate across multiple countries or regions as opposed to operating in a single country. Oxfam, Save the Children, Amnesty International, and World Relief are well-known examples of INGOs (though they do not necessarily represent the vast majority of INGOs that are smaller in size, scope, and assets). In comparison to U.S.-based nonprofit organizations—legal entities operating in the United States that conduct work related to the arts, education, health care, and social welfare—INGOs typically serve developing countries and regions, frequently conducting work in areas related to development, humanitarian assistance, and advocacy (Anheier 2005). In the case of Katrina, more than one dozen INGOs provided significant humanitarian assistance and relief for the first time ever in the United States; INGOs such as the International Rescue Committee, Oxfam, urricane Katrina created one of the most and UNICEF had never before, in their decades-long devastating “natural” disasters in United histories, responded to a humanitarian crisis in the States history. The poor response to HurriUnited States until Katrina. Although 9/11 elicited a cane Katrina may rank as the biggest administrative strong response from local and national nonprofit failure in U.S. history (Kettl 2005, 2). It may also organizations and emergent or serve as a defining (or redefining) spontaneous volunteers (Lowe moment in the role that nongovIn the case of Katrina, more and Fothergill 2003), the attacks ernmental organizations play in than one dozen INGOs did not compel as considerable a providing disaster relief and provided significant response from the international humanitarian assistance in the community (Richard 2006). United States. Although several humanitarian assistance and Such an unprecedented response official government reports have relief for the first time ever in by so many INGOs—in addition recognized widespread nonprofit the United States…. to offers of aid from many small and voluntary assistance in reand developing countries around sponse to Katrina (Fagnoni the world (Richard 2006)—is astounding considering 2005; U.S. House 2006; White House 2006), public the common perception that the United States is a world administration and policy literature published to date leader in helping other countries in times of crises. has largely ignored this response (for at least one exception, see Waugh and Streib 2006). A growing body of literature is emerging to make sense of the government and public bureaucracy’s Our focus in this essay is the unparalleled response by international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) inadequate response to Katrina, but very little of this literature has focused on the INGO response. Why to a disaster in the United States in the wake of were so many INGOs, several of which had been in Hurricane Katrina. Nongovernmental organization existence for decades and were headquartered in the is the term typically used to discuss nonprofit-like United States, compelled to provide humanitarian organizations operating outside the United States. H Public Administration Review • December 2007 • Special Issue assistance and relief in the United States for the first time? What does this response reveal about U.S. government administrative failures in the wake of Katrina? What might the implications be for the future roles that nongovernmental organizations might play in responding to disasters and other emergencies in the United States? We answer these questions using data from 12 interviews with representatives of INGOs responding for the first time to a disaster in the United States, supplemented by eight interviews with representatives of INGOs that rarely provide relief in the United States. We also draw on data from organizational press releases and Web sites, news articles, and official government reports and documentation.1 The rest of the article is organized in the following manner. First, we provide an introduction to humanitarian disaster relief, with a focus on the response to Katrina and the roles played by nonprofits and INGOs. Next, we discuss the reasons for the substantial INGO response to a disaster in the United States. The findings indicate that INGOs responded largely because of pressure from donors, staff, and organizational leaders in the affected area, all of whom were reacting to the horrifying images on television and perceived lack of response by the U.S. government and administrators. Another layer of failure emerged in the state and federal government’s lack of coordination in relation to international and local nongovernmental relief efforts. Finally, the article closes with a discussion of the implications of the findings for reconceptualizing nonprofit and NGO roles in disaster relief. We argue that in the face of eroding state capacity, the growing expectations for nonprofits and NGOs to assist and even play a leadership role in disaster response must be balanced against their own shortcomings and complexities. The International NGO Response to Hurricane Katrina In the last decade, disasters have occurred with increasing frequency, magnitude, destructiveness, and cost around the world, raising the need for adequate preparation to respond immediately and effectively to disasters (Annan 1999; Brough 2002). The overall goals of disaster relief are “to reduce physical, social, and economic vulnerability and to facilitate the effective provision of short-term emergency assistance and longer-term recovery aid” (Tierney, Lindell, and Perry 2001, 256). To achieve these goals, an overwhelming number of participants is often needed during disaster relief efforts: coordinating agencies, transportation agents, freight forwarders, health personnel, government agencies, the media, recipients, and increasingly, nongovernmental organizations, donors, and volunteers. Nongovernmental organizations have always played an important role in disaster relief operations around the world; however, this role has grown substantially in recent years (Özerdem and Jacoby 2006). A central reason for this is that civil society organizations, especially NGOs, have become the “magic bullet” for solving all types of collective problems in the face of extensive government cutbacks and privatization (Chandoke 2003; Edwards and Hulme 1995).2 A growing number of INGOs dedicated to relief and development have taken on a large portion of this burden. It is estimated that INGOs dedicated to relief and development have combined expenditures totaling more than $13 billion, nearly equal to the official aid budget of the United States in 2003 (Anheier and Cho 2005, 1). By most official accounts, nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations played a substantial role in the response to Katrina. According to the White House report on Katrina, “virtually every national, regional and local charitable organization in the United States, and many from abroad, contributed aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina” (White House 2006, 125). Testimony by the U.S. Government Accountability Office also recognized the widespread provision of charitable assistance in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (Fagnoni 2005), and the final report of the U.S. House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina highlighted contributions by charitable organizations (although noting some of the shortcomings of these efforts, especially by the American Red Cross) (U.S. House 2006). In total, it is estimated that $3.3 billion in private donations was raised in response to Katrina. The American Red Cross garnered most of this ($2.1 billion), but Mercy Corps and World Vision—INGOs headquartered in the United States— received $10 and nearly $11 million, respectively (Kerkman 2006). Despite their remarkable contributions to the Katrina relief efforts, little has been written about the INGO response to Katrina (for exceptions, see Pipa 2006; Strom 2006; Wilhelm 2005). While INGO relief efforts typically focus on developing countries and territories, the destruction caused by Katrina and subsequent administrative failures to respond led more than one dozen INGOs to provide humanitarian relief for the first time in the United States. (Table 1 provides brief information about each of these organizations, and Box 1 summarizes actions taken by some of these organizations.) These “first-time responders” did so in many cases by disregarding their missions and organizational mandates. In at least two cases, the INGOs responded even though they had organizational mandates in place stating that they only work outside the United States. In two other cases, by charter, the organizations typically do not respond to disasters because they focus on long-term health development. Oxfam America also indicated that responding to Katrina was a major shift in organizational policy (Oxfam American 2005). Why such an unprecedented response, and International Response to Hurricane Katrina 161 162 Public Administration Review • December 2007 • Special Issue 1945 1960 1984 1998 1933 1984 1999 1978 1970 1958 1932 1947 1944 CARE USA Interchurch Medical Assistance International Medical Corps International Relief and Development International Rescue Committee Islamic Relief* Jewish Health Care International Mercy Ships* Oxfam America Project HOPE Save the Children U.S. Fund for UNICEF World Relief* Baltimore, Maryland New York Westport, Connecticut/ Washington, D.C. Millwood, Virginia Boston, Massachusetts Garden Valley, Texas Atlanta, Georgia Buena Park, California New York Arlington, Virginia Santa Monica, California New Windsor, Maryland Atlanta, Georgia Minneapolis, Minnesota Headquarters Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Balkans Americas and Caribbean, Eastern and Southern Africa, West and Central Africa, Middle East and North Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, Commonwealth of Independent States, East Asia and the Pacific, and South Asia Africa, Asia, Latin America-Caribbean, Middle East-Eurasia, and the United States Africa, the Americas and Caribbean, Asia and the Middle East, and Central Eastern Europe United States, Central America, Mexico, and Caribbean, South America, West Africa, Horn of Africa, Southern Africa, and East Asia African, Americas, Asia, and Eastern Europe Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe Africa, Asia, and Europe (Balkans) African Great Lakes, Asia, Caucasus, Horn of Africa, West Asia, and United States Balkans, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East Africa, Asia, and the Middle East Africa, East Asia, Near East, East and South Asia, Central and South America, and Eastern Europe Asia, East/Central Africa, South/West Africa, Middle East, Europe, and Latin America Balkans, Guinea, Liberia, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Thailand Typical Areas of Operation Disaster response, child development, maternal and child health, AIDS, agriculture, microfinance, refugee care, immigration service, and trafficking victim protection Early childhood development, immunization and malnutrition, girls’ education, child protection, and HIV/AIDS Economic opportunities, education, emergencies and protection, health, and hunger and malnutrition Infectious disease, women’s and children’s health, health professional education, health system and facilities, and humanitarian assistance Poor people’s rights, natural resources, peace & security, equality for women, indigenous and minority rights, and trade Surgeries and health care, community empowerment Health care, medical absorption initiative for Ethiopian immigrants in Israel and the United States, National and International Jewish Disaster Relief Corps Education and training, water and sanitation, income generation, orphan support, health and nutrition, and emergency relief Refugee rescue, anti-trafficking, emergency aid, gender-based violence, health, immigration assistance, post-conflict development, and child survival Civil society building, health, food security, relief, economic development, and infrastructure Primary health care, women’s health care, disaster response, AIDS, mental health, malaria response, sexual exploitation and gender-based violence, and restoring livelihoods Emergency aid, health, and development Special focus on women; basic education, AIDS, sanitation, economic development, environmental protection, and emergency relief to survivors of war and natural disasters Health care, shelter repair, legal aid, trauma counseling, community development services, and repatriation assistance Focus *These organizations responded to earlier disasters in a minimal or informal fashion, but each identified Katrina as their first official and full-fledged response to a disaster in the United States. 1978 Year Founded American Refugee Committee Organization Table 1 INGOs Providing Disaster Relief for the First Time in the United States in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina what happened during this response? Answering these questions may help us understand the administrative failures in the wake of Katrina. Administrative Failures in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina The INGO response to Katrina revealed failures by multiple levels of government and public administrators in at least two ways. First, there was perceived failure by all levels of government in the immediate response to the disaster. This led staff, donors, and organizations in the affected area to pressure several INGOs to take action. Second was the administration’s failure to plan for and coordinate nonprofit and INGO relief efforts, which made it more difficult for staff and volunteers to respond. We address each of these failures next. BOX 1. Examples of First-Time INGO Responses to a Disaster in the United States in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina* The American Refugee Committee (ARC) first organized and led a relief team of experts in public health, primary health care, sexual violence prevention, mother–child health care, shelter, and logistics to the Gulf Coast. It then led Operation Minnesota Lifeline, a coalition of Minnesota organizations, to provide medical assistance to hurricane survivors. According to Hugh Palmer, president of ARC, even though committee ARC is an international nonprofit organization with humanitarian operations overseas, “because we at ARC have special expertise in providing relief to displaced people around the world, we have offered our expertise in addressing relief needs—such as water, sanitation, shelter, and health care—to both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Red Cross” (ARC 2005, para. 4). Interchurch Medical Assistance (IMA) was created in 1960 to support overseas church-based health development and emergency response activities. It “had never been called on to assist with a domestic disaster until Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf States” (Interchurch 2006, para. 2). As the extent of the damage became evident in the days immediately following the hurricane, IMA’s member relief and development agencies called on the organization to provide IMA Medicine Boxes of emergency medicines and supplies to be placed in shelters for use by medical personnel treating the health needs of displaced persons. International Medical Corps (IMC) dispatched two rapid response teams to the affected areas immediately following Hurricane Katrina, using expertise gained from years of working in disaster settings to help assess the needs of hurricane survivors. Following its initial response, which addressed the immediate disasterrelated needs of those living in shelters throughout Louisiana, IMC formalized plans for three programs: primary health care support, psychosocial support, and direct assistance for community-based organizations responding to the Katrina disaster in the form of a small grants initiative. Within a few days of Katrina, International Relief and Development (IRD) sent a team to the Mississippi Gulf Coast to assess how best to contribute to relief and recovery efforts. Within a month, IRD had distributed nine tractor-trailer loads of food, water, clothing, and health supplies to Biloxi, Gulfport, and other coastal towns in Mississippi. The supplies included everything from meals and hygiene products to bicycles and stuffed animals. In addition to responding to emergency needs, IRD created IRD-US, whose mission is to reduce the suffering of vulnerable groups in the United States and provide the tools and resources needed for their self-sufficiency. In November 2005, IRD-US established a Gulf Coast Social Services Center in Gulfport to assist hurricane survivors as they navigated existing social services while providing assistance with legal services and financial planning. The International Rescue Committee (IRC) typically focuses on humanitarian aid for victims of war and persecution. In response to Katrina, they dispatched an Emergency Response Team to Louisiana to provide support to local organizations in the areas of public health, emergency education, and mental health counseling for children and adults and then aided in relocation assistance to Katrina evacuees. According to George Rupp, IRC president, “Normally, we respond to international crises caused by humans, not natural disasters in this country…. But when we received an urgent plea for help from people in Louisiana, we decided we had to act” (Rupp 2005, para. 2). UNICEF does not normally engage in advocacy and fund-r ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Attached.

Approaches of INGOs to Poverty Eradication- Outline
Thesis Statement: Various approaches may be used to define poverty and this depends on
the intentions of the person developing the description. Basically, poverty can be defined as
the lack of essential human resources required for daily living and supporting health and
prosperity.
I. Defining poverty
II. INGO approaches
III. Issues/challenges


Running head: POVERTY ERADICATION

Approaches of INGOs in Poverty Eradication
Name
Institution

1

POVERTY ERADICATION

2

Approaches of INGOs in Poverty Eradication
Defining Poverty
Various approaches may be used to define poverty and this depends on the intentions
of the person developing the description. Basically, poverty can be defined as the lack of
essential human resources required for daily living and supporting health and prosperity.
Some of the common indicators that are universally used in defining poverty include the
absence of sufficient food which leads to hunger and malnutrition, inadequate housing and
living in hazardous or dangerous environments, and lack of resources to support health
(Stares, 2009, p. 47). These indicators of poverty are all agreeable because they refer to the
basic needs for human living including food, shelter, and health services. Other broad
indicators may include access to education and social discrimination.
When defining poverty, absolute and relative terms are commonly used, especially in
defining the statistical measures of the same. Basically, poverty may be caused by economic,
social, and cultural inequality such as women being ...

henryprofessor (72899)
Cornell University

Anonymous
Solid work, thanks.

Anonymous
The tutor was great. I’m satisfied with the service.

Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations !

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4
Similar Questions
Related Tags