Winning a Battle but Losing the War? Third Sector and Social Policy in Latin America: The Case of Uruguay

Abstract

This paper analyzes some aspects of the third sector's involvement process in the provision of public social services. Using evidence garnered in previous research based on in-depth interviews, I offer elements toward an assessment of the consequences this process has produced not only in terms of the gains and losses it has produced for social policy, but also for the very identity and constitutive characteristics of the third sector. The evidence hereby compiled strengthens skepticism toward the hypothesis that sees a transformative potential in the role of the third sector in social policy in Latin America. This skepticism arises from issues detected by involved actors themselves and that are linked to the weakness of the sector as a whole.Résumé Cet article analyse certains aspects du processus de participation du secteur tiers pour la fourniture de services sociaux publics. À l'aide d'informations recueillies dans des recherches antérieures basées sur des entretiens approfondis, je propose des éléments en vue d'évaluer les conséquences que ce processus a produit, non seulement concernant les gains et les pertes pour la politique sociale, mais aussi pour l'identité même et les caractéristiques constitutives du tiers secteur. Les informations réunies ici renforcent le scepticisme envers l'hypothèse qui voit un potentiel de transformation du rôle du tiers secteur dans les politiques sociales en Amérique latine. Ce scepticisme découle des problèmes détectés par les acteurs euxmêmes et qui sont liés à la faiblesse du secteur dans son ensemble.Sozialdienstleistungen. Unter Verwendung von Anhaltspunkten aus früheren Studien, welche auf umfassenden Befragungen beruhen, biete ich Elemente für eine Bewertung der Konsequenzen dieses Prozesses an, und zwar nicht nur im Hinblick auf Gewinne und Verluste für die Sozialpolitik, sondern ebenso für die Identität und die konstitutiven Merkmale des Dritten Sektors. Die hier zusammengetragenen Belege verstärken die Skepsis gegenüber der Hypothese, die ein Transformationspotenzial in der Rolle des Dritten Sektors in der Sozialpolitik Lateinamerikas erkennt. Diese Skepsis rührt von Problemen, die die involvierten Akteure selbst erkannt haben und die mit der Schwäche des gesamten Sektors zusammenhängen.Resumen El presente documento analiza algunos aspectos del proceso de implicación del sector terciario en la provisión de servicios sociales públicos. Utilizando evidencias proporcionadas en investigaciones previas basadas en entrevistas en profundidad, ofrezco elementos para una evaluación de las consecuencias que este proceso ha producido no sólo en términos de las ganancias y pérdidas que ha producido para la política social, sinotambién para la propia identidad y características constitutivas del sector terciario. Las evidencias aquí compiladas fortalecen el escepticismo ante la hipótesis que ve un potencial transformador en el papel del sector terciario en la política social en Latinoamérica. Este escepticismo surge de problemas detectados por los propios actores implicados y q...

Transnational social protection infrastructures: African migrants in Mexico

“…In a context of little formal social protection, such as Mexico, social protection strategies for migrants (especially those in transit) are particularly complex, depending almost exclusively on the TS (Rossel, 2016). Due to the relatively weak and highly stratified welfare policies, the TS in Mexico has gained enough relevance, guarantying access to certain basic rights to populations often excluded from existing social protection instruments (ibid.…”

Critical Scholarship on Global Civil Society: NGO/CSO–Funder Relationships

“…Regarding NGO/CSO-funder relationships, the articles included here reveal that resource dependence on government or private funders often leads to asymmetries in power relations that can influence how nongovernmental or civil society organizations operate (Ebrahim, 2001;Jakimow, 2012), coopt or shift NGO accountabilities toward donors or the government rather than citizens or constituencies (Atia & Herrold, 2018;Chahim & Prakash, 2014;Mir & Bala, 2015), and limit NGOs' or voluntary associations' abilities to create social change (Atia & Herrold, 2018;Chahim & Prakash, 2014;Vu, 2017) or transform social policy (Rossel, 2016). These challenges arise largely through development discourse and the governing technologies of professionalization, bureaucratization, and upward accountability (Atia & Herrold, 2018;Chahim & Prakash, 2014;Ebrahim, 2001;Jakimow, 2012;Mir & Bala, 2015) or government control (Vu, 2017).…”

“…All the articles in some way pay attention to power and knowledge, showing that forms of knowledge and practice, which appear to be neutral, can reflect and reinforce asymmetrical relations of power. Atia and Herrold (2018), Chahim and Prakash (2014), Ebrahim (2001), Jakimow (2012), Mir and Bala (2015), Rossel (2016), andVu (2017) all show how the power of funders, their discourses or regulations, and governing technologies affect NGO operations in various (mostly negative) ways. However, Ebrahim (2001), Elsayed (2018), and Leggett (2017) also show that despite such power asymmetries, some NGOs/CSOs are able to assert their own power, even if under the radar, maintaining space for future social movement action in Egypt (Elsayed, 2018), or influencing social attitudes and policy, as with domestic violence in China (Leggett, 2017), or structural change in India (Ebrahim, 2001).…”

“…Nearly all the articles also question taken for granted assumptions within organizations and among management practices or societies more broadly. Atia and Herrold (2018), Ebrahim (2001) Jakimow (2012), andRossel (2016) all raise questions about the assumed benefits of receiving funding from government and other funders. Some question assumptions about the abilities of NGOs/ CSOs to create positive social change and policies when funded by government or others (Atia & Herrold, 2018;Chahim & Prakash, 2014;Rossel, 2016;Vu, 2017).…”

“…Atia and Herrold (2018), Ebrahim (2001) Jakimow (2012), andRossel (2016) all raise questions about the assumed benefits of receiving funding from government and other funders. Some question assumptions about the abilities of NGOs/ CSOs to create positive social change and policies when funded by government or others (Atia & Herrold, 2018;Chahim & Prakash, 2014;Rossel, 2016;Vu, 2017). Others question the assumption that NGOs/CSOs, particularly those operating in authoritarian contexts, are not able to effect change due to funders (Ebrahim, 2001) or government control (Elsayed, 2018;Leggett, 2017), when evidence suggests that they, in fact, can and do.…”