Dr. Denise Horn: Foreign Funding as a Strategy for Manipulation

Sujata Tuladhar
TUFTS Fletcher
Date: March 10, 2008

“Powerful states do engage in exploitation of NGO networks and are very specific about it,” stated Dr. Denise Horn, Assistant Professor of International Affairs at Northeastern University.

At a talk entitled “NGO Funding and the Manipulation of Civil Society within Transitional States” organized by the Boston Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights at The Fletcher School on February 19th, Dr. Horn discussed the development of a new international trend in which hegemonic states use funding for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as a tool to control social agenda. The event was co-sponsored by Global Women, a student group at The Fletcher School that invites speakers and sponsors a mentoring program.

Using case studies from Moldova and Estonia, Dr. Horn established three main findings. First, she described how foreign countries help establish the rules for civil society. They can delineate the boundaries of the issues they identify as being important. An outstanding example is that of the United States, which through NGO funding, has significantly contributed to the emergence of a particular notion of democracy and the process of democratization. Only aspects of democracy valuable to US foreign policy have been funded. “Because the US has a lot of power and a lot of money to invest in democracy programs and policy, they get to determine what democracy looks like and what policies are democratic.”

Her second finding is that “foreign donors frame the debate within civil society and domestic politics by focusing on particular issues and funding local NGOs willing to support those targeted issues.” For instance, US-funded programs focus on free and fair elections, promote multi-party participation, encourage women in political parties and free market reforms as part of the process of democratization. NGOs who do not subscribe to these means of democratization are not funded, thus reducing their voice in political discourse.

Through analysis of the ‘requests for proposals’ published by donors and the proposals written in response to them, Dr. Horn also found that “because foreign funding can shape the language of the projects that develop, it shapes the way individuals perceive themselves vis-à-vis civil society and the state through the programs and social campaigns that are implemented by local NGOs.”

For instance, Moldova received heavy funding for programs dealing with human trafficking. The US approaches trafficking as an economic problem alone and thus fails to address the social and economic underpinning of the issue. Therefore, resulting programs focused on providing women with economic skills without understanding why women participate in trafficking in the first place. Similarly, in Estonia, US funding concentrated on domestic violence. As a result, people claiming to be victims or perpetrators of domestic abuse rose significantly.

Dr. Horn went on to elaborate that the decision of donor states such as the US to engage in funding NGOs is, in fact, a strategy to fulfill their respective national interests. Through funding NGOs, they shape what kind of civil society networks emerge, which will in turn serve their foreign policies. For instance, the US encourages countries to democratize because it believes that states that believe in the American notion of democracy are more responsive to US foreign policy. Most often, civil society is leveraged for such interventions because it serves as a less threatening approach.

How far this strategy has reached and whether or not other big states are also following similar strategies is a question yet to be answered. However, with a growing number of research studies like the one Dr. Horn pursues, there is bound to be a growing pool of knowledge on this issue soon.