When we talk about policy formulation we
are talking about policy formulation to wards certain purpose, and if
that purpose is clear, then how to bring it to the forefront, and
ensure that the required policy changes take place? For me that purpose
involves developing an alternative paradigm of self-reliant
development, and for this NGOs have to upscale their models – that is
upscale the alternative paradigm.
To do this, or to enable this alternative paradigm to grow, we need to convert our ideologies into evidences of successful models. After that we have to determine and find out other takers for that model.
In order to get to those other takers, besides the technical content of the alternative paradigm, it is important to create a conducive institutional framework which enables the up scaling of the process. This is the theme of this session -the institutional process.
A successful experience is only the first step, and it is not sufficient to take the process of developing the alternative paradigm forward. One of the critical aspects for influencing policy process is to reach a critical size of successful interventions, because it is not the evidence of a success which can lead to policy changes, but the size of the success, its up scaled version which can start influencing policy processes.
The potential takers of that policy, and in our case these are community based organisations (CBOs), have a choice whether your model is the best strategy or whether they will opt for something else. And in this choice one of the key factors is whether that model can sustain itself. And for CBOs to choose our model, the distance between the government and us has to be less. Or at least it should not be seen as completely antagonistic. One important way of doing this is to develop and focus on the CBO, because for whatever reason, over the last two decades the dominant paradigm is shifting wherein the CBOs are playing a larger role in the development process.
And from our point of view the most effective model for the alternative paradigm also seems to be that CBOs should be at the centre of the whole process. Therefore it is crucial that CBOs undergo what I call structural refinements, which will make the platform of CBO viable, strong.
There are three types of community based organisations:
Credit & thrift based organisations
Commodity-based cooperative societies and
Natural resource based organisations
In my paper, I have analysed and examined the strengths and weakness of each of these types, their situation. I have also examined what structural changes are required for them to become conducive for up-scaling the alternative paradigm.
Structural refinement of community based organizations
All the three types of CBOs have shown successful performance over a wide range of situations in terms of proper management of external funds. This is essentially because of proper functioning of internal group pressure for adoption of disciplinary norms (e.g. fine for late comers, penal interest for defaulters, restriction on sharing of common fund with those who are unwilling to abide by the norms, etc.). This strength led to the emergence of a range of successful micro-finance institutions (MFI), commonly called Self-Help Groups (SHGs). Their strength is essentially in three areas namely social capital formation; equity for resource-poor families, and empowerment of women.
The institutional framework of SHG
Presently a majority of SHGs have only women members and they concentrate mainly on micro-enterprises. Within the SHGs, there is homogeneity in socio-economic status but heterogeneity with respect to adoption of livelihoods, and nature of enterprises. Thus while the SHG is able to handle external funds well, they do not have an institutional framework which can facilitate their use of external technology. These competencies could be more accessible to those groups who have a common livelihood, or similar enterprise. I call them Common Interest Group (CIGs). An appropriate institutional framework therefore would be blending the concept of SHG with CIG. This will help in integrating the strengths of the two types of CBOs.
Under such a set-up, financial transaction would be carried out within the framework of SHGs, while the non-financial transactions or the technical and management discussions, would be the domain and be carried out by concerned members within the CIGs. This type of institutional set-up would provide non-threatening space for different sections of the SHG to participate in the CIGs relevant to them, for collective processing of technical inputs. At the same time, the CIGs could also be federated at village level as well as higher level. Ultimately these federated CIG would act as thematic sub-committees at the level of the larger federation of SHGs.
This is an illustration of how structural refinement of the CBO can take place.
| <<< PREVIOUS | NEXT >>> |