{"title":"中产阶级呢?系统思考本地化","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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}
What about the Middle? Thinking Systematically about Localization
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.
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