What about the Middle? Thinking Systematically about Localization

IF 0.8 4区 管理学 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Leslie Wingender, María Lucía Méndez
{"title":"What about the Middle? Thinking Systematically about Localization","authors":"Leslie Wingender, María Lucía Méndez","doi":"10.1111/nejo.12445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Colombia offers a unique case study for the localization debate. Unlike in other conflict‐affected countries, international nongovernmental organizations are not the main channel through which international aid flows. Instead, Colombia has strong state capacity and a historically well‐established civil society, including national‐ and regional‐level social organizations, think tanks, universities, and community‐based organizations throughout the country, all of which have extensive experience working for peace, security, and human rights. Particularly, the national‐level organizations, such as think tanks, human rights organizations, and peace organizations, are not “community‐based” because they do not represent a single community or population, but work at the national level, with deep connections to different communities and regions. Arguably, these “middle” organizations are considered local in the localization literature but with national‐level operational capacity. However, this type of organization does not seem to fit within the localization narrative, and the role of these organizations is largely hidden from the debate. More so, the very processes and mechanisms through which international aid is disbursed in Colombia detract from these national‐level organizations' ability to grow and meet their missions. This article aims to pull out how “middle” or national‐level organizations in Colombia face five key constraints to tailoring aid so that it is accessible to local communities and local organizations. It then presents a deep dive into how one national‐level organization engaged with an American philanthropy to create a transformed way of working in partnership and develop a new model for systemic collaboration and networks in Colombia. It ends with recommendations for how to continue to adapt the localization debate into meaningful action through partnerships throughout the Colombian and global ecosystems.","PeriodicalId":46597,"journal":{"name":"Negotiation Journal","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Negotiation Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12445","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Colombia offers a unique case study for the localization debate. Unlike in other conflict‐affected countries, international nongovernmental organizations are not the main channel through which international aid flows. Instead, Colombia has strong state capacity and a historically well‐established civil society, including national‐ and regional‐level social organizations, think tanks, universities, and community‐based organizations throughout the country, all of which have extensive experience working for peace, security, and human rights. Particularly, the national‐level organizations, such as think tanks, human rights organizations, and peace organizations, are not “community‐based” because they do not represent a single community or population, but work at the national level, with deep connections to different communities and regions. Arguably, these “middle” organizations are considered local in the localization literature but with national‐level operational capacity. However, this type of organization does not seem to fit within the localization narrative, and the role of these organizations is largely hidden from the debate. More so, the very processes and mechanisms through which international aid is disbursed in Colombia detract from these national‐level organizations' ability to grow and meet their missions. This article aims to pull out how “middle” or national‐level organizations in Colombia face five key constraints to tailoring aid so that it is accessible to local communities and local organizations. It then presents a deep dive into how one national‐level organization engaged with an American philanthropy to create a transformed way of working in partnership and develop a new model for systemic collaboration and networks in Colombia. It ends with recommendations for how to continue to adapt the localization debate into meaningful action through partnerships throughout the Colombian and global ecosystems.
中产阶级呢?系统思考本地化
哥伦比亚为本地化辩论提供了一个独特的研究案例。与其他受冲突影响的国家不同,国际非政府组织不是国际援助流动的主要渠道。相反,哥伦比亚拥有强大的国家能力和历史上建立良好的公民社会,包括国家和地区层面的社会组织、智库、大学和全国各地的社区组织,所有这些组织都有丰富的和平、安全和人权工作经验。特别是,国家层面的组织,如智库、人权组织、和平组织等,不是“以社区为基础”的,因为它们不代表单一的社区或人口,而是在国家层面上工作,与不同的社区和地区有着深厚的联系。可以说,这些“中间”组织在本地化文献中被认为是地方性的,但具有国家层面的运营能力。然而,这种类型的组织似乎不适合本地化叙事,这些组织的角色在很大程度上被隐藏在辩论中。更重要的是,在哥伦比亚支付国际援助的过程和机制削弱了这些国家一级组织的发展和完成任务的能力。本文旨在指出哥伦比亚的“中层”或国家级组织在提供量身定制的援助时面临的五个关键限制,以使当地社区和地方组织能够获得援助。然后,深入探讨了一个国家级组织如何与美国慈善机构合作,创造了一种转变的合作方式,并为哥伦比亚的系统合作和网络开发了一种新的模式。报告最后提出了如何通过哥伦比亚和全球生态系统的伙伴关系,继续将本地化辩论转化为有意义的行动的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Negotiation Journal is committed to the development of better strategies for resolving differences through the give-and-take process of negotiation. Negotiation Journal"s eclectic, multidisciplinary approach reinforces its reputation as an invaluable international resource for anyone interested in the practice and analysis of negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution including: - educators - researchers - diplomats - lawyers - business leaders - labor negotiators - government officials - and mediators
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信