Terrorist financing is a major fuel for political violence and extremist operations in the world. The increasing advancement of digital technologies, cryptocurrencies, crowdfunding platforms, and social media has significantly transformed how extremist groups raise, transfer, and conceal funds, yet little has been done to examine the broader digital transformation of terrorist financing and its implications for the United States. This scoping review examined evolving trends, financing strategies, and operational challenges associated with terrorist financing networks and assessed their implications for the United States counterterrorism agenda. Following the Arksey and OâMalley guidelines for scoping reviews, relevant studies were identified through systematic database searches and screened using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ten studies were selected and analyzed thematically. The findings underscored four major themes: the digitalization of terrorist financing, the fusion of lawful and unlawful funding mediums, administrative and institutional weaknesses, and the growing need for collaborative and intelligence-driven disruption strategies. The review found that extremist financing increasingly operates within ordinary digital and financial ecosystems, making detection more difficult for regulators, financial institutions, and law enforcement agencies. The study concludes that terrorist financing has become more decentralized, adaptive, and technologically sophisticated than many existing counterterrorism frameworks are prepared to address. Hence, strengthening United States national security will require a more proactive digital financial monitoring, sophisticated regulatory systems, and stronger inter-sectoral collaborations to disrupt evolving extremist financing networks before they escalate into acts of violence.
Open access
2 source records
Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Lumu Emmanuel Roy Muyingo A, Brenda Nabachwa B, Faith Mugisha Ahabyoona C
This study evaluates the Parish Development Model (PDM) as a decentralized rural development initiative aimed at enhancing the economic empowerment of coffee smallholder farmers in Hoima District, Uganda. Using a convergent mixed-methods approach, the research integrates Senâs Capability Approach, Resilience Theory, and Social Capital Theory to examine three dimensions: institutional support, resource capacity building, and community engagement. Quantitative data were collected from 278 farmers through stratified random sampling, while qualitative insights were obtained from 12 key informant interviews and 8 focus group discussions. Findings indicate that while PDM has improved coffee yields by 37% among beneficiaries and strengthened trust in SACCOs with transformational leadership, significant barriers persist, including elite capture, gender-based land tenure disparities, and low uptake of climate-smart practices. Policy recommendations include community-vetted beneficiary selection, gender-responsive governance measures, and climate-resilient financing. The results offer lessons for scalable decentralized development models applicable in ASEAN and other Global South contexts.
In 2000, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation tackled an issue concerning the American education system: unsatisfactory high school graduation rates and college entry rates, especially in urban school districts (Ravitch, 2011). Between 2000 and 2008, this foundation donated more than $2 billion to 2600 schools across 45 US states. Bill and Melinda Gates's aim was clearly spelled out: they saw the Kâ121 education system as âobsoleteâ2 and in need of drastic reforms (Ravitch, 2011). The Gates Foundation's leaders observed that some schools in the United States could host up to 4000 or 5000 pupils, leading to the neglect of a portion of students who needed extra attention. Based on contemporary research and already-existing movements in civil society,3 they concluded that smaller schools were the key to studentsâ success. In a context of public budget cuts, not many school boards could refuse a multimillion-dollar philanthropic donation. Hence, the Gates Foundation started to distribute money all over the United States, tying its gifts to conditions that would promote an effectiveness-based conception of education. At first, schools were asked to restructure and split themselves into independent units of no more than 400 students. Later, performance-based pay for teachers and national-standards tests, serving as effectiveness yardsticks, became mandatory for funding. Although this system benefited some schools, it created more problems than it solved in the great majority of cases. For example, the fragmentation of large schools into small autonomous units increased conflict and competition for resources and deprived students of a significant range of activities that were only provided in larger institutions. Praised in the beginning, the Gates program was sharply criticized in 2005 when the first evaluations came out. In 2008, the foundation's directors recognized the bad start of their program and mostly put the blame on the lack of receptivity of the schools they helped or on teachersâ lack of competence. A few months later, the foundation decided to all but shut the program down. In a democracy, there are good reasons to believe that the making of collectively binding decisions about such public goods as school infrastructures, education programs, and teachersâ salary should be carried out by citizens or people who speak in their name. However, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's case shows a sense in which some people or organizations, by virtue of their private resources, have an additional and sometimes larger say on such questions. This raises the question whether the logics of democracy and philanthropy are compatible. The question is more pressing because philanthropic donations are generally tax subsidized, representing therefore a redirection of public money (Pevnick, 2013) toward aims likely to advance donorsâ personal interests. Political philosophers have debated the role that philanthropy should have in liberal democratic states. On the one hand, a good amount of work argues that philanthropy should not assume a role in distributive justice, as private and voluntary redistribution of basic goods is too unreliable (Beerbohm, 2016), might affect egalitarian values (Cordelli, 2012), reinforces power asymmetries (Lechterman, 2021), and constitutes a paternalistic type of assistance (Saunders-Hastings, 2022). On the other hand, philanthropy may help promote social innovations (Reich, 2018), foster a vibrant cultural life (Pevnick, 2013), serve as a means for intergenerational justice (Cordelli & Reich, 2016), uphold public institutional action (Ceva, 2021), or supplement the provision of goods unrequired by justice (Lechterman, 2021). All in all, philanthropic actions have been praised for allowing a variety of interests to be included in collective decision-making while being criticized for the unequal manner by which it includes them (Saunders-Hastings, 2022). While many political philosophers have thus discussed the normative question of why philanthropy might or might not be desirable in a democracy, few have paused to address the prior and more fundamental analytical question of what, if anything, makes philanthropy inherently specific in such a way that it may raise issues of compatibility with democracy. I argue in this paper that, although philanthropy and democracy aim at the same goal, they instantiate two distinct forms of political authority. Political authority is the morally and legally legitimate power of an individual or institution to give direction to public In a democratic such a of is carried out by collectively binding I while democratic people to binding decisions philanthropic them to give direction to public decisions and actions on their on this basic I argue that philanthropic donations may be of and when they they a specific of authority that that the democratic of authority. This paper in the I start with a of democracy as a of authority I a of it be of as an authority I an of of the philanthropy and democracy I of philanthropy as an by the of first & and of The aim of this work is Hence, when I to a the democratic and philanthropic logics of I not one the as is the case in political analytical and work may serve to normative For example, that the analytical that philanthropy and democracy are decision-making which the normative question of a should that the would for or the of the in In this while in the paper is the I normative of the role of philanthropy in a democracy. This paper into philanthropy a of social and political democracy. a of I when I to a the democratic and philanthropic logics of I the I on and paper and the of which a of democracy. and the basic of the of democracy. not reasons why should democracy over other of political they themselves with democracy. aim is to making democratic decisions and decisions For and democracy is a social and political means that democratic are by a of that instantiate actions and that only means that who in the democratic are specific in the of normative power and in a way that is to this of & 2021). of the specific by democratic is that of of collectively binding decisions & 2021). the authority to decisions or by and decisions citizens to a specific of and and this authority other of decision-making power as or is the of that the of the democratic In and are democratic authority is & 2021). to the democratic authority is means that the democratic and the decisions that is by all that this is makes citizens of the and (Beerbohm, This for example, with the power of a who that people but not democratic are & 2021). The of to the of an that the reasons that is the that action is as in an because of the specific type of that are this are a who this of they are the specific the for example, that I an this specific type of and with a the to for a that by a to give at the of the I have the to and be the only to the to give The of democracy citizens in their of power in the same all democratic citizens are they are This means that, for example, when citizens on a it them the authority to collectively the of a and it citizens to the of the decided because of them a and a toward the by virtue of their in the democratic citizens the and of and This and to that democratic a a collective of in that and no other as the on their and the democratic authority is by all while the of for action and I a of democratic authority to and it the This an authority its I to the resources that the authority in the making of collectively binding is to about the of an authority as a In a democracy, citizens may only of one specific type of This which is at the of all democratic is the democratic citizens the democratic decision-making they are as the basic of a system: they are at the same and are because of their all are in the sense that they are the same amount of a a they no more authority than of their only have the democratic decision-making not prior or the democratic not have this type of authority over is this of authority by virtue of For example, it is not that a of in of a for other people in the to to the its binding on a only if carried out a institutional it is democratic when this other as they are in and I the of democracy in when I their of I that, I the of that the of this work been I with a of This to the conception of philanthropy as a social and political of philanthropy not such as and the action or context of For and this is because philanthropy is a and is because it is of being by that of its and in while its is by the the as as the competition that the normative of philanthropy of the many of philanthropy it as a voluntary of private resources but goods or for public and for which the not in the sense may or of other to voluntary may be by or as as by (Saunders-Hastings, philanthropy be as the voluntary of private for public as a social and political that is by and (Lechterman, 2021). this philanthropy private to have a say in is of public this I of philanthropic it only be by private or it be by the or its A philanthropic but it give money or goods in a philanthropic that, a to an money to their this the to extra the be that the people by this benefited the this money a with democratic they have a to which a for action by the This philanthropy actions by public such as as in this case the to resources public While be and of only private and philanthropic to be as an action aim at public For I this as a public many However, not be as to the way that a is to with the means to pay for a the way that are to all of a as as and would to In this or private would to their gifts one makes to one of or or donations to of which one is a The of is that philanthropic aims at the means that it should be to donations to research which may a of would as philanthropic this of may be in the context it is that philanthropy should an philanthropy be as not being be as philanthropy because the its power to citizens to pay they and they are to pay & philanthropy is with the of private money is the first type of that to when one about philanthropic it is being the only and may all be donated as While philanthropy is by the amount of money that such as 2021), is the of institutions. be provided on a large and may a of but their are not In philanthropy be of as a social and political as being only by private at a public being and being with the of private it is to a is that the philanthropy the for of This to the conception of philanthropy as a of or for the good of in or of a more (Saunders-Hastings, as as with they are However, I to argue that the as as are not to a political of have their reasons for in a they it because they it is morally because their are too to the that they are good or to is is that whether the is for or not the of power one when authority philanthropic In the case of the Gates it been that its to promote and in schools (Ravitch, 2011). all, it is that philanthropy not only but may be an of private political or (Reich, However, this of philanthropy should not be as in liberal The all, a conception of education that was by many other US citizens at that as citizens the are to for their conception of education. the by this case the way this specific conception of education was to the it is one to a for in the education and to democratic by and the political of a education because one the resources to as Bill and Melinda Gates the reasons one may have to the of authority that it the that the of philanthropy as a is that philanthropy and democracy to some public are to give direction to actions that may advance social justice, foster a vibrant cultural basic and democratic of a or Hence, philanthropy and democracy be as and decision-making for public way to the competition is that democratic in may of resources, and a may have to be public and private of goods and A the one I in the of philanthropy and democracy for the making of collectively binding For many the of philanthropy is that it to a of power that resources (Beerbohm, & Reich, & Reich, Reich, that of them argue that philanthropy is at in democratic decisions in be collectively and For philanthropy and in public life and over public and the to (Saunders-Hastings, to in a as they and of political for philanthropy is a of private power with have in a of normative However, the issue in the that the not about inherently philanthropy in a way that might raise its compatibility with democracy. is a analytical that the fundamental philanthropy and democracy concerning their in making collectively binding an in this In work and while the that philanthropy democratic in this is I to the philanthropy and democracy by a of the role philanthropy might in a (Pevnick, this by the role of philanthropy in two distinct of democracy and democratic democracy and democratic in fundamental liberal in their of individual and of the role philanthropy should assume democratic as a and justice toward to reasons of and (Pevnick, of democracy thus philanthropy as in and democratic individual citizens as in a a democracy, and justice by liberal While of this democratic might philanthropy it might the of a by argues that democratic should philanthropic for cultural This the to that although philanthropy and democracy may in democratic this not them The of compatibility on the specific type of democracy, such as its conception of or However, while this work the philanthropy and democracy it in a analytical of the This because on normative of democracy. to this issue could a that of democracy, the role philanthropy should in and might a of democracy by a analytical of and of democracy this and is therefore the for of a of philanthropy as an by of this analytical to philanthropy in its to sense of the philanthropic that For a that political might the and of this in the with the the of in more and This is especially they their of which the private foundation is the This is when that philanthropy be or in its (Saunders-Hastings, that while philanthropy generally with democracy, more issues in philanthropic donations to individual While I believe that that when may as many issues as is that of philanthropic action their basic democratic For to the of small and philanthropy is it is only because of the of the of authority that philanthropy In a in which the the more one the more one Bill and Melinda Gates's power is than that of a who to the only at who the power the of the democracy and The fundamental philanthropy and democracy and they give direction to political action and they authority is and in the of the of this authority be that which democratic which is and personal and in which is to the decision-making when one to a school one may power than one who in an this authority is democratic authority. In this although a small not the of of a they the of authority that them to give direction to is of public therefore to the of the in in a way that a democratic way of of analytical in its to two for making collectively binding which in are and for the tax for issue with such is that they to the public and private are by to to to money to specific or philanthropic in such they are to a portion or the of their donations would have been their tax The tax but political generally that are to a tax in to the of social goods and the of life by in its (Reich, it to argue that philanthropy a distinct of private power democratic when by public in democracy. However, tax which philanthropic are they not philanthropy more democratic in of an authority that is and is to the decision-making For an at be as an to or as a of not a of and two as is observed in by if philanthropic are by public they distinct democratic This to a of which is their of a by This their and the as as one of the of democracy, would the the In democracy its democratic only when the type of authority by and an philanthropic authority democratic authority in this I to the that the of philanthropic In the two I a of the of philanthropy and a of democracy as a with a of authority is In this I the of philanthropy as authority and by a of In this by the of the of philanthropy of the of democracy, I argue that the philanthropy and democracy is that they instantiate two logics for the making of collectively binding its authority is its of authority is at the same and and its its is to the of the first philanthropic authority is be as a specific of and as authority that is on a and at in the first one their authority in the of to with or the of who be to the to the Gates Foundation example, Bill and Melinda Gates a of decisions in a way that could have a democratic of For example, all by they the American education system and its aim should be and they would to than that, the foundation conditions that schools in to funding. In this Bill and Melinda Gates their authority. as the have been by not the of their their democratic is that the was in their this would have if the or However, as this paper aims at being I not whether the legitimate in to their provided that the aims were not the or on This is thus I by than being and decisions one individual or a of to This the of democracy, in which no of democratic authority their decisions on as the democratic collective is the are the in and when citizens they not an individual but their portion of normative that only to the in with the same of by other This is not to say that decisions a philanthropic context are For example, as as the Gates Foundation may have that that the decisions are the of an of power all of the Bill and Melinda Gates may have the same decision-making power as the who to the American school as to democratic as they may to the making their authority to that of a or a in the a of private at the making of collectively binding private and promote and in that their conception of about may with good but they However, this is an to as it to private public by for public However, that this good is by the small of who in and not by the public as a The of the of philanthropy is the and of its authority. to an of that is on and that are to normative reasons reasons that give reasons for for to way to it would be to to reasons that are to For example, could that on and that would to this This might and that should not be This is a in the sense that it to to whether to way would be to to reasons to or not For example, could a and to if not to because of is by a that is to it a this case a could to on have an on to In would give a to This is because it as a for In this the of is for action an but the and a of is and and that have a of the of to the philanthropic of authority. is and This authority two forms of and not the because the philanthropic is a type of the be as a to reasons when to for a public they are to reasons that are to reasons many education for people in of the and the or cultural is specific with reasons is that their a of is not to the of to have because are into the democratic this means that Bill and Melinda of authority is to be in their that they not because they were asked to would they decided to the American school system on their of the on their conception of the authority is it an of to who be to making one on their their of public should be money to put a conception of to the school Bill and Melinda Gates reasons for and students to in a The resources they to a of the conditions of in schools by to to and is for with the of for normative reasons that were to the by by the In that democracy means that citizens the authority to other citizens for is to Hence, the philanthropic of decision-making this of as the authority over their and this philanthropy is at the same and as a reasons for action in their reasons and as reasons for that not on their in the help to why of philanthropy such as by tax not philanthropic authority distinct democratic Although philanthropy to could be as a the of their authority and because of their reasons for in the sense that it is not a by is in the sense that the way give direction to public activities are not in a of of authority. This the type of that philanthropy a the to give direction to on the of their reasons for However, authority the of citizens for reasons that are to reasons for as in democratic may be because of their of and they citizens in a way than philanthropy citizens that and public action is for reasons with which they are The and and could be as should public are out of their for or all citizens a collective system on of on the of authority to in of the For example, one system on and one on voluntary donations not the same and social if the is In the first the resources who have benefited more social to who benefited is the that some citizens to In the are to the to their of to the more the of its authority. that by I to the resources that the authority to collectively binding In the case of its in donations the of and This is why philanthropy is generally as a of the of its authority is This makes which to its power social resources such as of and social democracy, philanthropy its prior to and its decision-making for example, is a that and they to in a philanthropic This is in a democracy. that of one citizens have unequal amount of as legitimate the authority resources, philanthropy a of as the of this or some have more of resources than the decisions of philanthropic resources prior to and the decision-making the may be with more than democratic of on or philanthropy might and I two for the a could money and it could resources to that are an of a cultural life and that the should The are not the as the first one would the with more decision-making power over the but the shows the of authority on In on philanthropic resources to public than on the democratic large and small philanthropic clearly in resources action is that the Bill and Melinda foundation of more resources to the American system than a smaller philanthropic However, it should not be that the political authority are more or distinct democratic authority on the they have on or public is democratic as as the of authority by at the same and its is the of resources at direction to public decisions and actions be the of instantiate by such democratic forms of In this I have that philanthropy a specific of authority. authority is allowing the to have a and individual say in public its a of and to reasons that are not to of the of its to the decision-making than being created as in a authority philanthropic is that democratic which is by the of and of of philanthropic authority is in at two it to clearly philanthropy for public decisions and it to democracy. This thus shows should be into when which of decision-making should be for public two logics of authority to it might be to philanthropy in a democracy for or the of by of philanthropy to its inherently political that philanthropy is not it be as a to affect the making of public that it is at the of A manner in which this is significant is that of making sense of the philanthropic that on the of authority that philanthropy to a of forms of philanthropy the to the by the This paper shows that is not and if the of two decision-making may be the or if their action power is the the of the by the an of or such as when philanthropy is tax that by them be by a the of that In this it is not to philanthropy more democratic by it a public or normative concerning philanthropy a democracy. the of philanthropic desirable or in a democratic be specific For the of philanthropy is on its democratic However, the normative reasons or of philanthropy in a democracy not the analytical of the authority is first and reasons for and its is to the collectively binding decision-making it the philanthropic authority and other forms of private might For a a and I to a of philanthropy to a The authority as a could that of decision-making to the and the in personal reasons for and with an on citizens the that philanthropic and activities but their in their public as to However, and actions was the of this I to a of that philanthropy and democracy two distinct forms of authority not inherently or philanthropic actions in public aim in philanthropy is to the of making collectively binding decisions this and its for democracy. is not to argue for or the normative values of as by the political in this on democratic some might the of philanthropy of this the of philanthropy over public might believe that by resources, a range of to the This with of the for philanthropic However, other may that the first and of philanthropy citizens to the of their I have that there is a philanthropy and democracy. as two for the making of collectively binding they instantiate two forms of authority by their of authority is and its citizens are and of philanthropic authority is in the sense of being on the of democratic authority is reasons for action in the they all In philanthropy is and that reasons for action are to themselves while an of in to who be to of authority is created the decision-making philanthropy its authority resources that are to the and This paper on philanthropy and democracy as forms of authority if they aim at the same public analytical of philanthropy of the should be into in normative of the of decision-making to for making collectively binding The of this work to a of forms of philanthropy the to the I to and for their The research for this paper was carried out the of the the of research by the Foundation is a in Political at the of research interests are in the normative political of philanthropy and organizations, with to issues of democracy and
Sanjaya Kuruppu, D.M.R. Dissanayake, Charl de Villiers
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore how blockchain and triple-entry accounting technologies may improve non-governmental organisation (NGO) accountability by amplifying the social and economic outcomes of aid. It also provides a critique of these technologies from an accountability perspective. Design/methodology/approach An in-depth case study of a large NGO, relying on semi-structured interviews, document analysis and non-participant observation, provides an understanding of current issues in existing NGO accountability and reporting systems. A novel case-conceptual critical analysis is then used to explore how blockchain and triple-entry accounting systems may potentially address some of the challenges identified with NGO accountability. Findings An empirical case study outlines the current processes which discharge accountability to a range of stakeholders, emphasising how âupwardâ accountability is privileged over other forms. This provides a foundation to illustrate how new technology can improve upward accountability to donors by enabling more efficient, accurate and auditable record-keeping and reporting, creating space for an NGO to focus on horizontal accountability to partner organisations and downward accountability to beneficiaries. Greater accountability exposes NGOs to diverse views from partner organisations and beneficiaries, potentially enhancing opportunities for learning and growth, i.e. greater impact. However, blockchain and triple-entry accounting can also create âover-accountingâ and further entrench the power of upward stakeholders, such as donors, if not implemented carefully. Research limitations/implications A novel case-conceptual critical analysis furnishes new insights into how existing NGO accountability systems can be improved with technology. Despite the growing excitement about the possibilities of blockchain and triple-entry accounting systems, this paper offers a critical reflection on the limitations of these technologies and suggests avenues for future research. Practical implications Examples of how blockchain and triple-entry accounting systems can be integrated into NGO systems are presented. This research also raises the importance of creating a strong nexus between humans and technology, which ensures that âsocialisingâ forms of accountability that empower vulnerable stakeholders, are embedded into international aid. Originality/value This research provides insight into present challenges with NGO accountability, using empirical evidence, furnishing potential solutions using novel blockchain and triple-entry accounting systems. Greater accountability to partner organisations and beneficiaries is important, as it potentially enables NGOs to learn how to be more impactful. Therefore, this paper introduces rich, contextually embedded perspectives on how NGO managers can exploit such technologies to enhance accountability and impact.
Raja Aishah binti Raja Adnan, Mahazan Abdul Mutalib, Muhammad Ridhwan Ab Aziz
Purpose This research paper aims to determine the factors needed to propose a platform where waqf (Islamic endowment) organizations can collaborate with government public hospitals to develop corporate waqf hospitals. Consequently, the elements of governance and sustainability are included in the management of corporate waqf hospitals thereby leading to the corporatization of public hospitals. Design/methodology/approach This study adopts the qualitative research methodology and undertakes content analysis of data collected from journal articles, magazines and official websites. Data analysis involves open coding with NVivo 12. Findings General findings from the literature review have shown that architectural and engineering fundamentals were essential factors in the success of past waqf hospitals of the era between 8th and 14th centuries. In that era, the decentralized waqf-based hospitals employed the mutawalli (the trustee/manager of the waqf assets) to govern the administration of the hospitals. Present corporate waqf hospitals can exploit the elements identified from past waqf-based hospitals and additionally adopt the private-public partnership model in the form of a muážÄrabah (profit-sharing contract) agreement to design a sustainable waqf governance model for Malaysian public healthcare services. Research limitations/implications The proposed platform is designed for a corporate waqf model developed in collaboration between Malaysian waqf institutions and public healthcare services. It abides by both the Malaysian fatwa (Islamic rulings) on waqf and the laws of the Malaysian Government. Practical implications There is potential for developing the Malaysian corporate waqf-governance healthcare model which will enable the hospital to provide better quality healthcare to more patients through upgrading the quality of equipment used in hospitals and/or better facilities at equal or lower costs. Consequently, this will not only improve waqf management and distribution but also result in reduction of government expenditure. Social implications This research promotes the concept of a corporate waqf hospital which will provide innumerable beneficial healthcare services in terms of improved healthcare quality at affordable costs to the general public and at no cost to the poor and the underprivileged. Originality/value Although waqf has played an important role as a vehicle for Islamic financing in the society for centuries, a model of collaboration or partnership of waqf with public healthcare services has yet to be explored and developed. With proper corporate governance and well-managed sustainability in a corporate waqf model, this newly developed partnership between waqf institutions and public healthcare providers can be a first step in many more interesting collaborative arrangements that can be established between waqf institutions and public services in the future.
Research on Chinese civil society has tended to focus on the relationship between non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the state. Such work has underestimated the complexity of the emerging institutional environment where Chinese NGOs are often caught between the state, the market, and a constrained civil society. How do civil society organizations and their respective nonprofit sectors emerge, what forms do they take? More specifically, how do organizational forms and strategies reflect political and market structures at the time? Chinese nonprofit sectors re-emerged in the late 1990s, and their relationships with the state have been contentious. The rapid transformation of the nonprofit sectors provides a unique opportunity to look at the emergence of a new organizational field. Using strategic action fields (SAFs) theory, I examine how organizations within the field of nonprofit organizations attempted to establish and defend their positions vis-Ă -vis the state and market. I conducted comparative case studies of two leading China's NGOs âCivil Society Center (CSC) in the city of Guangzhou and Excellence Promoter (EP) in the city of Shanghai. I traced the histories and current development of CSC and EP and their connected organizations and used ethnographic, interview, and survey data to triangulate the emerging urban nonprofit sectors in the context of an authoritarian state. I argue that, in different periods, the nonprofit organizational fields of Guangzhou and Shanghai reflected political and market structures at the time. In the early 2000s, Guangzhouâs nonprofit organizations were grassroots-driven, and a State Avoidance Autonomous field arose as large organizations decentralized into smaller organizations to decrease state scrutiny and intervention. In contrast, in Shanghai, where the state promoted nonprofit organizations as an extension of governmental programs, a State Alliance Social Market Field developed. This State Alliance Social Market Field prioritized business values and practices to guide organizational strategies rather than the ethical commitments that had been the center of the State Avoidance Autonomous field. By partnering with government, EP was able to rapidly expand while its Guangzhou counterpart, CSC, remained small and marginal. Powerful e-commerce companies such as Tencent, however, have been changing the rules and norms that used to govern the field. They entered the nonprofit field through the creation of a new fundraising platform that opened up alternative resources for Chinese NGOs. The involvement of the market through corporate foundations and new technologies has provided alternative funding for grassroots NGOs under the attack from the state. My study contributes to nonprofit studies and China studies by providing insight into how NGOs interact with different state and market players and the consequences of such interactions on organizational strategies.
Fear of a creeping Islamization of the âWestâ and its secular legal and constitutional orders has fueled debates on immigration in the media and politics for several years. With the ascent of the so-called âIslamic Stateâ and the horrific terror attacks it claimed or inspired, as well as the waves of refugees from Muslim-majority countries reaching European shores, debates have further intensified. They are turning increasingly populist, further feeding the flames of fear. In the United Kingdom, the successful but divisive campaign for the UK to leave the European Union is said to have strongly benefitted from voters hoping to stop Muslim (alongside East European) immigration. In the US, president-elect Donald Trump appealed to supporters during his campaign promising a complete ban on Muslimsâ entering the US, if elected president. In Germany, the far right and anti-Islam movement âPatriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West,â abbreviated âPEGIDA,â has won many followers; the AfD, a folkish-populist right wing party has prospered on a divisive anti-immigration, anti-Islam platform and threatens the dominance of mainstream parties. A common claim is that Muslims in the West are building states within states, where parallel legal structures in the form of Shariâa councils are the first step to erode the statesâ secular constitutional order. The spread of extremist thought subversive to the state by homegrown Islamists further heightens the fear. Two recent books by Machteld Zee and John R. Bowen promise to take a closer look at Shariâa councils, their constitutional basis, practice and (in)compatibility with the constitutional order of Western states. Reviewing the books side by side, it becomes quickly clear that though they cover the same ground, and in fact, evaluate the very same institutions and their leaders, their assessment starkly diverges; itself a mirror of the prevailing polarization. The concurrent reading of both books also highlights the pitfalls of Zeeâs book, while cementing Bowenâs reputation as distinguished expert on Islam and anthropology. Unfortunately, Zeeâs book is beset with inaccuracies and errors, which are largely rebutted by Bowenâs book. Zee sets out asserting that âthe development of British Sharia councils is the result of the combination of multiculturalism and Islamic fundamentalism.â She passionately stresses the need to talk about Islamic fundamentalism, which âchallenges the relationship between religion and the state as we know it in the Westâ (Zee, at xi). Throughout the book, her main concern is womenâs rights, a legitimate concern generally, but particularly so when considering the undeniable inequality in treatment of men and women in many Muslim majority states. In contrast, framing the background and purpose of his book, Bowen highlights âa moral panic . . . over claims that state-aided schools in Birmingham were promoting shariâa and Islamic extremismâ and fears that âshariâa councils endanger[] the rule of law and gender equality throughout Britainâ (Bowen, at 3). In his words, Shariâa councils âhave become a flashpoint in British public debates, drawing the ire and fire of many commentators even as they adapt to the English legal environmentâ (at 4). In response, thereto, his book is intended as a âstudy of British Islam to âhighlights issues and practices surrounding shariâaâ (at 3). Accordingly, whilst Zee explicitly sets out her opinion on the desirability of Shariâa councils, Bowen frames his book as a descriptive and matter of fact analysis of the history and the current state of British Islam to unmask misconceptions. However, his work is not without bias either, and his underlying aim to calm the prevailing panic is apparent from the very start. Zeeâs book is divided into three distinct parts, in which she sets out to cover, first, a theoretical discussion of the multiculturalist ideology, second, a summary of Islamic fundamentalism, and, third, Shariâa councils as the practical consequence of the prevailing multiculturalist ideology in the West and the Islamic fundamentalism practiced in our midst. The three parts are disjointed, as she acknowledges. In Part I, reading akin to a Bachelor or Master thesis, Zee confronts the reader with two tribes in the imaginary country of âSea landistan,â expressing the hope âthat after at least 25 years of multiculturalist sensitivities a fresh case of cultural twists can open the mind for healthy judgmentâ (at 19). In Sealandistan, two vastly different groups live side by side. One group kill their eldest when they reach 90, but greatly value animal welfare; another group celebrates a monthly feast during which they enjoy kicking animals to death. She then uses this artificial scenario in an attempt to deconstruct six tenets which she alleges underlie the multicultural ideology: (i) who someone authentically is, is determined by his or her cultural identity; (ii) non-recognition of this cultural identity constitutes psychological harm; (iii) culture is good; (iv) cultures are equal; (v) cultural differences are good, but if not, they should at least be tolerated; and (vi) minority cultures must not be criticized by the dominant culture which has the positive obligation to preserve these. To support her claims, she references and quotes well-known authors relevant to the multicultural debate. At the same time, the chapter is interspersed with polemic and often irrelevant statements: âWe get told âif we were all the same the world would be a dull placeâ (imagine those poor monocultural African tribes not mixed with Asian homosexuals and Maori)â (at 34). Perhaps for reasons of brevity, or perhaps for reasons of her polemic style and lack of detachment, the author does not succeed in setting out how the claimed tenets are arrived at or how the theoretical analysis and the example of Sealandistan are relevant to the remaining parts of the book. This is unfortunate as she does mention several pitfalls of multiculturalism. In Part II she addresses Islamic fundamentalism, which is built on the premise that âthere is increasing competition between Islamic and secular law on Western soilâ (at 52). While Zee succeeds in highlighting some of the main features of Islamic fundamentalism, it becomes apparent that the authorâs knowledge of Islam, albeit not completely lacking, is limited. To illustrate, she equates Islamic fundamentalism âfor the purpose of clarity . . . with the concepts of Islamism and political Islam,â while incorrectly classifying in the same paragraph Egyptâs al-Azhar University as espousing the same (at 52). Likewise, it is disappointing that she quotes Ahadiths (Arabic, plural of Hadith, the transmitted word of the prophet) by questionable secondary literature. Zee translates the infamous daraba (beating) verse of the Quran twice in her book, but fails to comment on the difference in translation, or perhaps even fails to notice it: On page 63, she translates it as âmen have authority over women, for Allah has made the one superior to the other,â while quoting the same passage as âmen are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other . . .â twelve pages thereafter. Continuing her polemic style used in Part I, she introduces Saudi Arabia as âthe most âcompleteâ Sharia state, to see what happens if Islamist principles are the basis of a nationâs blueprint, starting with the judicial foundationâ (at 64). This is seemingly to indicate what awaits Europe if the spread of Shariâa councils is not halted. Subsequently she cites Malaysia as a nation that âintrinsically changed for the worstâ and âislamised in a short period of timeâ (at 73). In Part II, Zee entertains and supports the belief that the term âIslamophobiaâ was invented to âstifle debate and suppress criticism of Islamâ and that âthe term was created by Islamists to create an atmosphere of victimisation, where Muslims are continuously portrayed as victims suffering from hatred, discrimination and negative stereotypingâ (at 86). Sometimes the book has undertones of a conspiracy theory, such as when the author appears to espouse the belief that Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a well-known Islamic scholar, and Tareq Ramadan, Professor of Islamic Studies at Oxford University, together with Muslim and Islamist organizations are actively working towards establishing a global Shariâa state, whereby ghettoization and institutions such as Shariâa councils are only a pre-stage to the establishment of a worldwide Shariâa state. This is allegedly based on a pact between the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabi Saudi Islam, which together have succeeded in a short period to build media outlets, educational centers and, importantly Shariâa councils. That Wahhabi Saudi-Arabia has had a multifarious and regularly thorny relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly in the recent past, is nowhere considered.1 Finally, in Part III and, so to speak, the culmination of her groundwork of Part I on multiculturalism and Part II on fundamentalism, Zee takes a closer look at Shariâa councils in the UK. It is here that the qualitative difference between Zeeâs research and that of Bowen becomes most obvious. Both Zee and Bowen focus on the very same Shariâa Councils, namely the Islamic Sharia Council (ISC) in London, the Birmingham Central Mosque Sharia Council and the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in Nuneaton. We will therefore look at Bowenâs book, with references to Zeeâs. Whereas Zee extensively quotes tabloids throughout her book, Bowen derides the same and turns the rectification of tabloid messages into the raison dâĂȘtre of his book. Bowenâs book is cohesive, and unmasks many of Zeeâs assertions as erroneous. In Part I, âPathways,â Bowen provides the reader with the origins of the establishment of Shariâa councils in the UK by looking at the historical background of British Muslims in East Asia, and the current topography, i.e., their geographical concentration in Britain and internal divisions (at 10â25). In contrast, Zee qualifies British Shariâa councils as the fruits of Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood efforts to Islamize the United Kingdom (at 116 et seq.) In Part II, âPractices,â Bowen presents his findings collected through interviews, attend ance at client sessions and Shariâa councils deliberations over a period from 2007 to 2013, as well as reviews of case files, wherever available. He deals with the same institutions as Zee does, who, however, only spent two afternoons at the ISC and half a day at the Birmingham Central Mosque Sharia Council (Zee, at 131). Bowen focuses on the legal issues and procedures in divorce cases mentioning only tangentially the general reputation of the councilsâ members, with judgment reserved to the readers. This is particularly interesting in relation to the ISC, where some of the council members are known in the press as extremists or Salafists. Zee, in contrast, draws on such characterizations to further her general message of the book, i.e., that Shariâa councils are bad for our constitutional order and must be feared. Bowenâs descriptive style stands in stark contrast to Zeeâs, who considers her three afternoons at Shariâa councils as sufficient evidence to draw sweeping conclusions such as that âall Sharia councils condone violence against womenâ (at 139). Perhaps owing to his descriptive style, Bowen consist ently remains neutral and detached, even when considering controversies surrounding Shariâa councils, for example that Islamic law, as commonly interpreted by Shariâa councils, continues to disadvantage women. The core of Bowenâs work is his detailed analysis of the constitutional challenges at stake in Shariâa councils, which he labels âunstable performativityâ (Bowen, at 88â102). Given that Shariâa councils do not have legal legitimacy in the United Kingdom, with no claims to valid legal authority and only a self-proclaimed religious authority (at 89), Bowen analyses what the act of marriage dissolution performed by the Shariâa council actually amounts to in legal and constitutional terms. He explains that institutions depend on the capacity to change the world by performative acts such as decreeing, stating, affirming, announcing, pronouncing. In the works of the Shariâa councils, Bowen identifies, first, judicial performativity, whereby a marriage is dissolved by the council itself, second, the husbandâs performativity, when he agrees to a divorce, even if reluctant and, third coupleâs performativity, when the council certifies the breakdown of the marriage that has already occurred, i.e., when the marriage is dissolved due to nonperformance by one of the parties. Bowen shows that the Shariâa councils rely on all three performativity theories, despite them being mutually exclusive. Accordingly, their performativity is âintrinsically unstableâ (at 90). In Part III, Bowen provides a detailed description of the work of the Birmingham Central Mosque Sharia Council as well as the Sufi Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in Nuneaton, both of which are also covered by Zee. Bowen focuses on the heart of the Shariâa council debate in the media, in particular the popular critique that such councils hollow out womenâs constitutional protection. He highlights that within their communities Shariâa councils provide a way for women to break free from an abusive relationship, in a manner acceptable to their community. They are seen as institutions that divorce women against their husbandsâ will. Thus, he suggests that they actually support womenâs rights. In contrast, Zee argues that the existence of Shariâa councils forces women to seek religious divorces keeping them trapped in failed marriages longer than they should and forcing them to negotiate away rights (such as custody), they might not even know they have. Bowen highlights however that religious divorce proceedings may often last no longer than civil divorces in the UK. In Part IV, âBoundaries,â Bowen acknowledges, albeit indirectly, that Shariâa councils are lacking in terms of equality. At the same time, however, he points out that their services are increasingly adapting to the British constitutional and other legal expectations (Bowem, at 210â28). Perhaps his overall assessment is too positive and apologetic. But only Bowenâs book provides the necessary insights that enable readers to get a better understanding of the complex issues at play. Zeeâs book merely polarizes. Reading their texts side by side offers several examples of the complexities involved, one of which shall suffice here for illustration purposes: Comparing Shariâa councils with their Jewish equivalent, the Batei Din, Zee mentions the fact that not many Shariâa councils have thus far applied for registration under the Divorces (Religious Marriages) Act 2002, as proof of their miso gynist leanings. Yet, Bowenâs more detailed discussion shows that the issue is a lot more complicated than that. The Divorces Act was passed with the aim of preventing limping marriages in the Jewish community, whereby a couple may have a civil divorce but the husband then subsequently declines to agree to a religious divorce. Under Jewish law, as commonly interpreted, a woman cannot divorce her husband against his will, nor can a court or Bet Din for that matter. Thus, to incentivize husbands to consent to a Jewish divorce, the Act allows the courts to halt a civil divorce, until a religious divorce is finalized. Hence, as Bowen highlights, registering under the Act might not actually benefit Muslim women. Were Shariâa councils to register under the Act, a husband would be able prolong the civil proceedings by using dilatory tactics in the religious proceedings. Since he may remarry under Shariâa, as commonly interpreted, while still being married, he would not have an interest in finalizing the divorce. Moreover, a Muslim woman may under Shariâa get divorced against the husbandâs will, in stark contrast to her Jewish counterpart. There is thus no upside for Shariâa Councils to register, other than making the divorce more difficult for the wife. Bowenâs book is not without fault. While his analysis is based on extensive empirical research on Shariâa councils, he does not sufficiently address the possibility that the sessions of the Shariâa councils he attends are affected by his presence. This is true even where, as in one reported session, one of the ISC members, Haitham al-Haddad, refuses to continue the discussion since it is being recorded by Bowen (at 105). (Haitham al-Haddad is one of the members profiled by the media and Zee as misogynist and extremist.) In line with his descriptive style, Bowenâs book ends without firm conclusions or strong answers, leaving many questions open. This is due to the complex nature of the issue at stake, but can also be a little dissatisfying to the reader. In stark contrast, Zeeâs book concludes with a brief plea for states to adopt âpolitical agnosticismâ as opposed to âmulticulturalismâ to stop the advance of Shariâa councils undermining Western democracies. (At no stage does she provide any meaningful analysis of political agnosticism.) Bowenâs book ultimately provides a very valuable resource for readers interested in the workings of Shariâa councils. The same cannot be said for Zeeâs book, whose academic quality is questionable, and a good read only for those interested in affirming opinions already swayed by the anti-Muslim zeitgeist.
Professor Andharia has over 26 years of experience in the field of community organization and social development. Her areas of work focus on gender issues, environmental concerns, social planning and participatory development, addressing diverse forms of marginalization and vulnerability. She has been involved in policy work and has had a long association with grassroots organizations. She has been teaching at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) for over two decades and was Head, Department of Urban and Rural Community Development before moving on as Chairperson of the newly created Centre for Disaster Management. Community organization (CO) has come to acquire a distinct meaning in India. This special issue reflects upon the nature of intervention of community workers and forces of transformation both in the lives of ordinary people, especially the poor and the marginalized, and within the sphere of knowledge related to community studies, across diverse institutions and socio-political contexts. The selection of articles in the issue captures the theoretical refinement of CO and also represents challenges that CO practice confronts at the practical level in the contemporary Indian scenario. The history of India as a nation is replete with organizing, asserting, demanding and fighting for rights. It is the collective assertion and courage of citizens that are often celebrated on 15 August â the date in 1947 when India got her independence. A relatively young nation, India covering an area of 3,300,000 km2 and housing a large diversity of ethnic groups1 is respected as one of the largest democracies in the world. CO was introduced as a method of social work in the 1950s in several western countries, and it was also during this period that the Department of Urban and Rural Community Development (URCD) was established in the first school of Social Work in India, generating several scholars and practitioners espousing diverse perspectives and ideologies. By 1980s the term âCommunity Developmentâ was generally regarded with disdain due to the failure of the official Community Development Programme, launched by the Government in the 1950s. In India the term âCommunity Organizationâ on the other hand was regarded as far more progressive and received an impetus through the mid-1970s up until early 1990s. In 1975â1977 the country experienced political upheaval when a state of Emergency was declared suspending official democracy. This simultaneously gave rise to a large number of protests with a democratic fervour and specifically in the form of mass-based movements and voluntary organizations. It also saw a critique of social work positioned largely as an apolitical enterprise. The failure of community development programmes to impact the poverty levels or people excluded from health, education, housing, sanitation and infrastructure services forced social workers and community organizers to re-examine its excessive emphasis on local development issues. They began to recast their work to include structural factors that shape local realities. The expanding critique of social work influenced CO teachers who redefined and reshaped CO to align with, contribute to and borrow from literature on diverse forms of organizing â social movements, trade unionism and mass-based people's organization and self-help groups (SHGs). Organizing communities against atrocities and against forms of dominance is evident in almost all parts of India and is not restricted to a particular discipline. In fact, sensitive social workers draw on the history of organizing within a region or of specific communities, metaphorically invoking historical events to reach out to the masses. A generation of teachers and activists from 1980s onwards who began to associate themselves with mass-based struggles, discovered different strategies and new allies and questioned conventional moorings of western forms of institutionalized social work and its relevance to India. Grass-roots empowerment took precedence over community development and saw greater involvement of community organizers and scholars in issues of exclusion, violation and assertion of rights, discrimination against dalits, tribals and other marginalized groups. (See Figure 1 for an overview of the trajectory of CO and CD in India.) A sharper ideological orientation gave CO a political edge much to the discomfort of certain social work professionals. Historical trajectory of CO and CD in India. Source: Andharia (2007, 103). The changing perspective of CO in particular compelled the social work fraternity to review its curriculum, the choice of field work agencies and the intervention processes with which scholars aligned themselves. Modes of intervention were questioned and revised, tools of analysis underwent a shift and political frameworks were consciously used, in more fundamental ways to shape both the practice and education in CO. Despite the strong imperative to move away from a traditional social work orientation based on a naĂŻve belief of âbridging gapsâ through simple welfare means, the transition within the academia was painstakingly slow. At the end of nearly three decades of debates, most of these changes remain undocumented even as CO confronts fresh challenges in contemporary times. For example, the fact that the economic reform agenda is pursued assiduously by the government, when poverty and inequality levels remain high, exploitation is legitimized by the state and the globalizing forces are moving ahead unabashedly, is all a matter of serious concern to community organizers. Withdrawal of the state from health, education and social security sectors has caused further exclusion and deprivation of the marginalized section. The special issue on CO in India is devoted specifically to locating the challenges of the context and possibilities which community workers in India need to familiarize themselves with and it is hoped that it renews interest in collective action for social transformation in a rapidly globalizing world. A community in some ways is a microcosm of a nation. One would assume that in a democratic nation, all institutions function democratically upholding values of equity with reference to citizens and their collectives. However, in practice, this does not happen and rights have to be asserted and structures are to be negotiated. As a result the understanding of democracy, citizenship and collective action are never static. A community gets mobilized when citizens organize to take a stand and work towards specific demands. Such assertions are fundamental to the empowerment of citizens and such shifts in power balance between people and institutions are fundamental to CO. The broader context for CO practice in India can be discerned from the country's performance on human development indices and the agenda for community practice may be drawn from a critical appreciation of processes that marginalize and alienate large sections of society. India is often called a country of contradictions. For example India prides itself as a nation on the move, a nation that has witnessed, during the last century â a transformation from a colonial, agrarian economy into a modern, industrial, knowledge-based economy. As a parliamentary democratic system, the country is an acknowledged home to people of diverse cultural, faith, ethnic and social identities. The constitution provides for democratic participation of citizens giving them a voice in politics. Popular movements and struggles are credited with ensuring that parliamentary democracy has retained its vitality over the last 60 years of independence. On the other hand, despite the political democracy, the country is faced with economic inequalities, concentration of wealth and regional imbalances that work in favour of exploitative social, political and economic structures. About 70 percent of India's population is rural and agriculture is the backbone of livelihood security system for nearly two-thirds of the population. Farmer's suicides, ethnic tensions created by right-wing Hindutva forces, poverty, malnutrition, disease and deprivation, falling per-capita intake of food grains are often said to reflect the erosion of democratic principles and secular fabric of the nation. The media and the judiciary have played a significant role in highlighting the backwardness and social injustice and inequalities based on caste, class, gender and ethnicity. Besides popular struggles, new social movements led by trade unions, women's organizations, voluntary organizations and committed individuals have responded to the overwhelming poverty, illiteracy displacement, dispossession of land and rising food insecurity. Criticisms about the ability of the development agenda to ensure social inclusion and equality of opportunity for all have sparked vigorous debates about addressing the âdemocratic deficitâ. In India, the Constitution through its amendments has devolved more powers to local bodies, but they are yet to be empowered in full. Their capacity needs to be built and financial powers to be strengthened before we can expect them to adopt best practices in governance. The dalits constitute 16 percent of India's population and the tribals constitute 8 percent. According to government estimates, some 125 districts spread over 12 states, covering more than a quarter of the landmass mostly in the central part of India, is affected by extremist Naxalite activities. A combination of economic and socially oppressive factors is identified as the major cause of rise of Naxalism in India. The next section highlights the democratic deficits' that will enable an appreciation of the Indian social, economic and political fabric which constitutes the context in which community organizer sets an agenda and chooses specific strategies for action. The focus is on food security, education, access to potable water, health care facilities and housing â all of which constitute fundamental rights of every citizen â basic requirements for a life with dignity. During 2007 escalating food prices and vanishing global food reserves added about 75 million to the hunger trap of which nearly 30 million are from India according to a Food and Agriculture Organization Report [2007]. Data from the National Family Health Surveys paint a grim picture. More than one-third of the Indian population lives in sub-human poverty and a recent World Bank estimate put nearly 42 percent as absolutely poor by international standards. More than three-fourths of the population has a daily purchasing power of less than 20 rupees a and nearly the are The Development India out of a of and in the India has to out of Food security a issue in According to Development Report India the hunger the million people, nearly are in India. This it the country housing the largest food population. It in the of Despite years of economic India than nearly and all of of India's rural population or over million people are the food intake of the country's economy is percent with a population of about people, in every are It is that hunger and are in On the other hand, India its into the 12 The wealth of the was to about percent of India's in with less than percent in According to the also as the in India individuals wealth to almost a of the in were the in The Food and Agriculture organization also that percent of the poor in India, as the percent. This the of wealth and are social inequalities in the According to economic be development when it does not into of the of the of the poor in of and as as for health, housing, education and political with economic are and rise in according to be as to people's social and political India's not basic such as to and inequalities are with access to food and before a â it the of between the of 1 and by about one economic does not into hunger More of and health services and action to based on and are and progressive CO practice these issues. to food and and factors as environmental health work and This can be through a of political will and and people's and CO to the and the to work with the of the The of and global factors significant in the analysis of a context and The emphasis is on structural of and The of organizations with National Rural in in or that of in and in all the of work and the of CO. of these are in the articles in this teachers of CO to with these and their of CO move towards a more involvement in ensuring social and political rights, a life with for the The by strong global forces have had a impact on the and rural the is of an to food for and their for a in international prices of the especially who are to their For example, across districts in western nearly have committed over the last of an of poor failure and On an two were to take their lives in the last districts saw two financial several and a for who within the The impact has not been A population that and and in their social and political and to The to education in India are education in government and of and and the of of the school to or local of these constitutes significant areas of intervention by community organizers towards action and to in percent of India's population is percent of India's can the of 75 percent of in India from and the is 42 percent of the received all the and access to education and health care in India. with a rise in prices and the health has for the the in of who is from it and needs to be health and education to ensure that economic development is with and human to is of fundamental for and sanitation have a with health, a human international The by India to access â daily within a â of the World Health of at the end to be as level According to government about percent of the country's have been This is serious as about percent of the from are up or are have and are and major on and are by and The traditional of services has been and are into infrastructure does not the of the government is the need to communities in from and new such as and and take to and This has come about through a of work by rural development by the and may be but it will to a or an environmental and social on the country can put and in The 2007 is a in the history of human for the first the and rural population of the is It is that has new economic and to people who to However, it has also created the of all over the world. According to the of the one in three in are areas people not have access to basic for life with such as water, housing or that from Urban India for 30 percent of the population and its is to rise to about percent by In of a policy and housing in the housing in Indian is on the In 2007 the housing was about million and it is to 26 million by About percent of this to groups. The economy by government especially on agriculture and forced serious the history of organizing and in â the of India the population lives in Community organizing housing rights through the 1980s has been to some but She that political and a for community Her the of CO can be all and education and organizers to with experienced by the the last three decades Indian in participatory democracy, collective by social movements, and organizations a to and reflect on CO. are a of ways of in the with and The and of analysis often the forms of involvement and the choice of strategies In the contemporary of community and CO are rapidly as areas of and practice They draw from political critical and and such as environmental studies, and This nature of CO in India has received in the country has had a and experience in CO and 1950s. The country's political history is replete with movements of people of diverse cultural, social and identities. movements and struggles a strong of a democracy. CO has been through of social action of movements, movements, and is as new social movements women's to a constitute some of the most and of new social movements in human For example, special economic have been up across India with concern for the and that they are over for this The the development of specific areas as and â with infrastructure that would have a capacity and for as a new of at and large they are to be in their and local and The policy and its have serious for groups and communities their and their are largely as a trade capacity development with a to economic A number of community organizers are struggles against across India. The issues to the and of in the of environmental concerns, the to the on rights to organize and and the in which has not been in India. The political of of for development is the most critical of the the largest number of has strong from in and who have themselves into and the which have all a struggles have been in and who were to land by and in the of development. In India, popular movements that the of development is from to led will the imbalances in of economic and power at local and regional levels intervention a political is evident is that over the last three CO in India has experienced through work on health, education, housing, food security or with dalits and has a refinement at the practice level the of collective action and a strong and ideological The of assertions through in the form of trade or in the form of organizations or organization is This is it the that the one are not but collective â a shift towards understanding social issues in or structural with a critical understanding of the power of major development is a of the of CO with other or as community political and studies, community media and of these are in this special issue with The articles and the of CO and the shift and refinement of CO the in social work education in India on in India and the for equality provides an to of the that we in India as a democratic nation. on democratic which is of The for equality a collective form in CO. However, that the of communities impact the of in communities are based on the context and have of communities of caste, and gender needs to on the one hand, within the democratic against of the of and the within community to its of in the exclusion of For example, in a democracy, has an and is on who them and their against equality and gender dignity. at communities on and to the rise of right-wing forces and of of against in the in over a This the of a which to be built on principles of and in a democratic nation. are between two communities which shape both and collective which in often into and Community organizers to despite the of and and for the need to diversity and as fundamental to CO The strategies to and community the organizers to have a understanding of issues, factors and processes and in the It and to that and in community addressing and at and and communities are when CO is committed to human rights and social In this the role of social action the and of food especially on and sections of society. the exclusion faced by marginalized sections India is a food nation and that assertion of rights and community is the The work of Development is by has a with from 75 in of In with other they on education, and and at level food It has also in the specifically on and CO that towards and over local and socio-political institutions through and to the and rise of communities in the of and its The by the drawn between and CO over a â a which has and teaching of CO in India. It in the of the struggles of workers in and a strong for community practice to at issues of work and and for social workers a sharper understanding of of strategies and in grassroots organizing, especially in the of the Indian economy. and the of the for the to in of the of within the government which A long by the rural poor and activists democratic and in the of one of the most progressive in the in It is as a of that the of the citizen with the and voluntary of of and facilities by is greater and is for citizens to the of progressive community organizers are in this area and have been with the India has to In people on part of government to In of of has been from the India has had a strong women's with a of to organizing from which community practice has drawn and in diverse on the of a rising number of and activists have out that in areas have on exploitative created and for to in the and a of women's women's citizenship rights are asserted through by which the agenda of The economic of in out their and women's based on education and empowerment are by that have a financial agenda with focus on rights and social the women's several about By over to the and of work and are generally has been of government such as the Development and the the state is as the for poverty and institutions are of and of The strategies of have of activists across the world. In India, for community an of and at a when is not more and but also more They and values are to be in daily lives by individuals and to and up possibilities and can be to global as a large number of on the â â have been a social by and a young the work by in and for community organizers in a and from a strong in her work with tribals in and districts of are in this The first in rural India and both regarded as economic The on human development in rural India and such as and its education, of education, health care and in development across social groups. The is a of on that are more human than the contemporary political or and have a broader The last a on and in India. CO has political interest distinct from most which largely within of the groups or communities or a both of which have a It to the need or the is in and are through forms of and CO in India is in organizing, on development critical and is based on an analysis of state power and of It is a which all that to power that contribute to the experience of discrimination and CO not at the level of communities but with social structures and with democratic institutions of governance. to activists and a They are or and in different parts of the through are and the system is to the people's organization and their against organizers on or which remain for also their ability to out and education in CO needs to to with these this it is to that community workers have often received their orientation in social they have their of knowledge from a of In their practice, community workers are to specific issues and in of and with a focus on social equality and access to This has a sharper political and CO has in practice has drawn from the context of exclusion, violation of rights, of services and a of issues, of which are in the selection of articles in this special
The contribution of theology to control and accounting has been traced through the \nmonastic tradition demonstrating how the Cistercians used decentralized control of their \nextensive farms in contrast to the centralized control of the Benedictines (Knowles,1948). \nThe contribution of theology to political economy was traced by Weber and Tawney in \ntheir analysis of the Calvinist roots of liberal market capitalism and more subtly by Adam \nSmith in his ironic use of a phrase from Isaiah Ch 60 as the title for his seminal work on \nmarkets. \nThis paper reports upon a case of the interplay of theology and control and accountability \nwhich occurred as the Church of England set out to respond to a financial crisis. \nAccountability was theorized as stemming from the three elements of covenant, constitution \nand contract all of which were contested in the ground metaphor of autonomy. It \ndemonstrates how a group of financiers from within the evangelical tradition (which places \nstress on headship and control) led an attempt to create a new church governance body (a \nnational council) with strongly integrated central control and diminished democratic and \nconciliar participation. They had described the church as 'a cats cradle of autonomous and \nsemi autonomous organizations'. The case then demonstrates how the other theological \ntraditions (anglo-catholic and liberal) were mobilized , over a period of several years, to \npermit the new body to come into life but to unravel the proposed centralised control and \nto maintain the existing nature of governance and to enrich the complexity of the 'cat's \ncradle'. \nThe case analysis is based upon the theory of eco-systems (as a more formal view of the \ncat's cradle) to show how the loosely coupled nature of eco systems with their multiple \ntheological stances and their multi layered processes of relationships and accountabilities \nwere almost impervious to the attempt to shift them into an ordered and controlled \nhierarchy.