Networks: a Unique Solution to Old Partnership Problems? Empowering CSOs through Networks: a Case Study of a Youth CSO Network in Uganda

(1)

Networks:

A unique solution to

old partnership problems?

Louisa Boydston August 2020 Masters Thesis

MSc in International Development Studies University of Amsterdam, Netherlands Supervisor: Dr. Courtney Vegelin Second Reader: Prof. Maarten Bavinck Word Count: 28,108

Student Number: 11246790 louisaboydston@gmail.com

Empowering CSOs through

Networks

A Youth CSO Network

Case Study in Uganda

(2)

Abstract

Empowering civil society organisations (CSO) through network empowerment is increasingly recognised as critical for sustainable social development. New network structures with different actors and systems of partnership have emerged that may better empower CSOs and overcome traditional challenges in IDA-CSO partnerships in line with shared goals, participatory processes and shared power. Networks can partner with local and international organisations and governments to enhance the impact of grassroot CSOs through different means of organizational empowerment. However, there is currently limited research, particularly in the non-profit and civic sector, on these new structures and processes. Practitioners seek to better understand the roles and impact networks have in development and avoid cyclical limitations from the past.

Using grounded analysis and participatory methods, this case study examined network empowerment in a youth CSO network in Uganda through the lenses of the head governing body (secretariat), its member organisations, and external actors. This study built a framework of network empowerment grounded in the views of those it wishes to serve- local CSO practitioners. Their framework emphasized capacity, capital, and connections (Chapter 5). This became the framework of network empowerment, which the subsequent two chapters analysed. Through analyzing the network’s practices and policies, this study then investigated factors influencing success for each mechanism (Chapter 6) and found overall, having a holistic strategy, appropriate membership diversity, shared values, and network identity amongst others are imperative (Chapter 7). Throughout, it reflects on evidence of the influence international attention is having on local networks, lending to the larger discursive issue of whether networks represent more effective avenues for international support to back sustainable, locally-owned development through sectoral growth. The discussion concludes that networks are not automatically empowering or better than traditional partnerships. The network faced traditional challenges and had similar weaknesses such as donor dependency and funder dominance. However, the case study found undeniable evidence that overtime the network is harnessing unique strengths, improving, and overcoming these challenges.

The scope of this thesis extends to theoretical literature, CSO network practitioners, and international development actors. Network empowerment theory will be enriched by a framework for network empowerment rooted in voices from local CSOs. Network practitioners can find key recommendations on policy and practices for each mechanism of network empowerment and for managing network-level capacities. International actors seeking to empower civil society through networks can find in the discussion key recommendations for effective partnership qualities. Finally, an important future study will explore the present finding that ‘youth’ is not an appropriate theme for defining a theme-based network and its use may hinder efforts to build effective networks or to empower youth-related organisations through networks.

(3)

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my parents for their endless love and support in following my dreams, without which this would not be possible. I would also like to thank my Aunty Cindy for supporting me to pursue my goals and to never give up. I am eternally grateful to you all.

I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Courtney Vegelin for your ongoing positive, constructive support through every stage of the process. I would also like to thank my academic supervisor Ms. Eva van der Sleen for your unwavering encouragement and advice. Without you two, this thesis would not be possible.

Finally, I would like to thank all of the organisations and individuals in Kampala, Uganda that participated in my research. Your welcoming kindness, eager involvement, and intriguing discussions made this research an enjoyable experience sharing your poignant insights and thoughtful analysis with me.

The road was not always clear and easy, but these people, along with many friends and colleagues, with their kindness, support and advice, guided me through the process to complete my thesis.

(4)

List of Acronyms

CB Capacity Building

CBO Community-Based Organisation CD Capacity Development

CI Collaborative Implementation

CIDA Canadian International Develoment Agency CS Civil Society

CSO Civil Society Organisation

DENIVA Development Network of Indigenous Voluntary Associations (Uganda) DESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

DFID Department for International Development ECUY Equality Center for Ugandan Youth

ED Executive Director FGW Focus Group Workshop

HR Human Resources

IDA International Development Actor

ICAI Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ILO International Labour Organization

IOB The Development Cooperation and Policy Evaluation Inspectorate (Netherlands) L&S Learning and Sharing

M&E Monitoring and Evaluating MO Membership Officer

NE Network Empowerment

nNGO Northern Non-Governmental Organisation NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

ODI Overseas Development Institute (UK) OE Organisational Empowerment

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OECD-DAC Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development- Development Assistance Committee

P&P Policy and practice

sNGO Southern Non-Governmental Organisation SWYA Social Work for Youth Association

UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics

UNYN Ugandan National Youth Network (case study pseudonym) YCSL Youth Centre for School Leavers

(8)

1. Introduction

1.1 Research Background

International development policies and practices have ebbed and flowed as practitioners strive to identify better ways to support sustainable development in developing countries (c.f. Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002; Hauck & Land, 2000; Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015). Scholars perpetually look for explanations of performance, attempting to drive development practices towards sustainable empowerment (c.f. Ashman, 2001; Mohrman & Shani, 2011). In the 1970s, civil society (CS) was recognised as key for improving the quality of life of local populations and driving political and social change (Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002). However, financially backing CS did not deliver on the assumption it would catalyse socio-political development (Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002). International actors realised civil society organisations (CSOs) face significant challenges to their survival and effectiveness and turned their attention to the organisational bodies themselves (Lusthaus, Adrien, & Perstinger, 1999; de Lange, 2013).

International development actors (IDAs) conjected ‘building’ organisational capacities would empower local populations to achieve their goals. Just seven years ago, capacity development began accounting for over 25 percent of the international aid budget (de Lange, 2013). Many ways of empowering CSOs emerged, including capacity building (CB), networking, funding, research provision, political advocacy to strengthen and raise the voices of local population, and advocacy to create a more enabling legislative environment for them to operate within.

However, this assumption was again challenged by mixed results and many criticised the partnerships themselves between IDAs and local CSOs were undermining the value that justified strengthening the role of CSOs in development in the first place (Hulme & Edwards, 1996; Porsti, 2013). These partnerships were undermined by discrepancies between local and international partners in size, funding, and power, so IDAs looked for new partners that are larger and more financially stable to enter more equitable partnerships. Many IDAs arrived at the current conjecture that networks are unique and better partners for ‘achieving’ development (c.f. Mohrman & Shani, 2011; Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015). CSO network empowerment (NE) is increasingly recognised as critical for sustainable development (c.f. Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004; Bown, Harflett, & Gitsham, 2014; AbouAssi, Makhlouf, & Whalen, 2016; Provan, Fish, & Sydow, 2007). New network structures with different actors and systems of partnership have emerged, which may better support CSO empowerment in line with shared goals, participatory processes, and shared power (Agranoff, 2007). They partner with local grassroot organisations, international

(9)

through different mechanisms of organizational empowerment (DENIVA, 2006). Indeed, it is difficult to find literature on socio-sector networks that is not positive and forecasting a bright future of NE for civil society globally (Agranoff, 2007; Young, 2001).

However, there is currently limited research on these new structures and processes. Practitioners seek to better understand the roles and impact networks have in development and the influence of international partners to avoid cyclical limitations from the past. This thesis will investigate the question: how can organisational networks among youth CSOs empower local CSOs and overcome traditional problems in IDA-CSO partnerships?

1.2 Research Rationale and Case Selection

How networks can best empower CS remains a complex and theoretically underexplored question. Indeed, research on empowering organisations mostly comes from the business and for-profit sectors, qualities which are known to influence the generalizability of their conclusions to the non-profit, non-governmental sector (Hadjikhani & Thilenius, 2005). Moreover, research has been too generalised and lacked empirical case studies on the contribution of networks to their members and the factors that influence effectiveness (AbouAssi, Makhlouf, & Whalen, 2016). Given the increased funds and attention directed towards networks by IDAs, it is critical to understand the mechanisms of NE and influential factors to guide policies and practices towards sustainable empowerment. Thus, there is need for investigative case studies on the role and impact of non-profit CSO networks to understand the mechanisms of NE and explore policy and practice implications. Additionally, it is critical to explore how partnering with local networks may improve international support.

A ‘youth’ network was selected for this research for several reasons. ‘Youth empowerment’ is seen as critical to development as youth represent the largest portion of the population and the future leaders of their countries, yet face mass unemployment, limited opportunities, and are largely left out of decision-making processes (Haji & Haji, 2007; Lowe et al., 2016). A national youth organization network in Uganda (UNYN)1_{was selected for several reasons.}

Uganda has one of the largest youth populations in the world (UBOS, 2017). Ugandan youth are increasingly active in addressing their high unemployment and driving social and political change through a rapidly growing civil society (CIVICUS, 2016). Because of its relative economic progress, unique post-conflict context, rapidly growing population, and severe youth unemployment, Uganda has been at the forefront of international attention (Löwe et al., 2016; Lister & Nyamugasira, 2003). Over the last fifteen years, the landscape of CSOs in Uganda experienced a dynamic shift towards the development of locally established and managed CSO networks. The demand for youth development and the associated boom in international funds has driven a rapid rise in youth CSOs; roughly 9,000-12,000 NGOs are

(10)

currently registered in Uganda (Datzberger, 2017). This study examines a large nationwide youth CSO network established in 2002, which means it has had time to develop and evaluate its own practices and policies (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

1.3 Thesis Overview

As a case study, this thesis investigates CSO network empowerment in three layers. First it establishes a framework for the mechanisms of NE grounded in local views. Then, it evaluates UNYN’s experience with each mechanism and identifies determinants of success. This empirical case study then feeds into a discussion of early indicators of whether networks represent unique actors that overcome traditional partnership challenges in IDA-local CSO partnerships.

1.4 Thesis Outline

Chapter Two outlines the four main assumptions that international development discourse evolved through to establish the theoretical foundations for this thesis investigating the latest transition towards NE. Chapter Three deconstructs available research on CSO empowerment and networks to develop a theoretical framework from which to study NE. Then the research design and methods are described in Chapter 4.

The empirical chapters (5-7) begin with a chapter considering the question, ‘What are the main mechanisms of NE that grassroot CSOs seeks?’ in order to develop a conceptual framework for NE that is rooted in the voices of those it is intended to support- grassroot network members from a developing country. For each of these mechanisms, the next chapter evaluates the network’s programs, practices, and outcomes to identify key determinants. The final chapter adopts a network-level approach integrating these mechanisms and explores network-level determinants that emerged throughout the research.

The discussion explores the larger discursive issue of whether networks overcome the pervasive challenges inherent in international partnerships for empowering civil society. It reflects on policy and practice implications for IDAs and local CSO networks for driving CSO empowerment through networks.

(11)

2. Literature Review and Defining the Knowledge Gap

2.1 Introduction

This chapter establishes the relevance of this research by presenting the theoretical foundations underpinning the movement towards network empowerment in social development (table 1 overview). It familiarises readers with key history, framing the larger discursive issue this research contributes towards: how do networks represent a unique

Development in Practice. Evolution of Assumptions Around Civil Society Towards Network Empowerment

Assumption One Supporting civil society is important for sustainable social

development (1970s)

Particularly in fragile states, civil society plays a critical role both in guiding development processes and implementing projects. Where democracy is not well-established and corruption is rampant, CSOs are often seen as the ideal alternative and development aid bypasses local government systems that are often less effective.

Assumption Two

To support CS, we must build civil society organisations through organisational empowerment

(1990s)

Civic success depended on organisational factors. NGOs and CSOs face considerable internal and external challenges that outside actors may help address through generating empowering processes and structures through which local populations can address their own challenges and achieve their own goals.

Assumption Three

Inherent IDA-local CSO partnership challenges undermine

international support (2000s)

CSO empowerment had limited success due to inherent challenges in traditional IDA-local CSO partnerships.

Assumption Four

Networks are unique actors that can overcome typical partnering challenges to empower CSOs and

sustainably build sectors (current)

Due their position, ownership, structures, and processes, local CSO networks are better positioned to partner with IDAs and to empower CSOs.

(12)

actor in development and overcome challenges characteristic of traditional IDA-CSO partnerships2_.

2.2 The Importance of Civil Society Organisations

CSOs are key for improving quality of life for local populations and driving economic and political change (Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002; van Leeuwen & Verkoren, 2012). CSOs, made up primarily of community-based organisations and development nongovernmental organisations (CBOs and NGOs) and not orientated towards profit, perform several critical functions in development (Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002).

In developing countries where governments and infrastructure are weak and insufficient, CSOs support governments to deliver essential social services (Agranoff, 2007; Ulleberg, 2009). In hostile fragile states, political CSOs drive transformative development through influencing the national agenda or demanding governmental transparency and accountability (CIVICUS, 2016). Without a strong, active CS, corrupt and authoritarian governments may remain unchecked whilst power is disproportionately held by those who make and profit from the rules (Batliwala, 2002). Thus, CSOs provide mechanisms for participatory and inclusive development (CIVICUS, 2016).

Progression in social development and human rights is often headed by civic action (Blagescu & Young, 2005). Serving neither governmental nor profit-orientated objectives, CSOs can serve special interests and marginalised groups by increasing agency and providing services, protections and political empowerment (Batliwala, 2002). CS has been critical in driving gender equality, protecting minority groups, demanding environmental protections, and pushing for alternative forms of human-centred and sustainable development (ibid).

Furthermore, CSOs are driving forces behind youth-focused development (Byrne & Hansberry, 2007), supporting all areas of their lives with programs providing and improving education, healthcare and recreation, establishing activist platforms, and fostering

2_{‘IDA-CSO partnerships’ is the phrase coined here to delineate partnerships between large}

international development actors and small localized CSOs in developing countries. ‘North-South Partnerships’ is another common term discerning partnerships between international actors and actors in developing countries, whom until recently were generally referred to as North and South respectively. However, this term has been criticized for its oversimplification and inaccuracies as many developing countries are in the north and dominating international actors are not all northern. Other terms refer to ‘Western’ or developing/developed partners, which are similarly criticized. For instance, ‘developed’ implies a correct way to develop and an endpoint whereas now development is conceptualized as a constant process with no singular path or endpoint. Thus, the term

(13)

IDA-economic, social, and political inclusion. Youth CSOs are transformative because they represent a voice for a vulnerable group often left out of decision-making processes (Bown, Harflett, & Gitsham, 2014; Gordon, 2013; Perkins et al., 2007).

Because of their importance, since the 1980s IDAs increasingly prioritised CSOs and development NGOs in their theory of change and redirected their efforts towards partnering with and empowering civil society (Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002; Datzberger, 2015). For instance, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has established relationships with over 30,000 CSOs (UN as cited in Datzberger, 2015). Looking at funding as an example, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation (OECD), and the UK Department For International Development (DFID) dramatically increased funding and involvement with CSOs in recent decades3_{(Debiel & Sticht, 2005; ICAI, 2013 and World Bank,}

2010 as cited in Datzberger, 2015). Subsequently, the number of CSOs expanded exponentially, and CS programs and movements have created meaningful changes globally (c.f. Ulleberg, 2009; Batliwala, 2002; (van Leeuwen & Verkoren, 2012).

However, despite this increase in CSOs and their budgets, the impact on CS has been mixed. Progress towards sustainable social development was slower than expected and many criticised the legitimacy and effectiveness of this emerging civil society (Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015). The emergent CSOs were depoliticized, reluctant to lead on many issues such as social rights where they typically flourish4_{(van Leeuwen & Verkoren, 2012). They}

often have weak roots in their communities (Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002; Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015). Many CSOs struggle to survive, let alone strengthen and grow (Sanyal, 2006; James & Hailley, 2008). As such, IDAs question whether support for CS effectively supported social development and whether there exists a better approach to empower local populations towards sustainable and transformative development.

2.3 Transitioning from Civil Society Empowerment to Civil Society

Organisation Empowerment

This resulted in a shift of focus to the providing organisations (Järvinen, 2007; Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015; van Leeuwen & Verkoren, 2012). Scholars and practitioners pronounced that supporting civil society is more complicated than previously perceived and must be refocused on strengthening organisational capacities, as capacities enable empowerment (Järvinen, 2007; Hoksbergen, 2005; Ulleberg, 2009).

3_{As cited in Datzberger (2015), the World Bank reported an increase in CSO involvement}

with their projects from 21% in 1990 to 81% in 2009. (World Bank, 2010). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation (OECD) reported a stifling shift in its funding towards CSOs from $3.1 billion in 1986 to $7.1 billion in 2001 (Debiel & Sticht, 2005). The UK Department for International Development (DFID) reported spending £694 million through CSOs in 2011-12 (ICAI, 2013).

(14)

They believed empowering CS was hindered by challenges CSOs face in functioning effectively (Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002; CIVICUS, 2016). For instance, in developing countries, CS is often restricted and increasingly under threat from environmental challenges (ibid). In Uganda, the government heavily restricts political activism, and despite passionate perseverance, CS has had little impact in politics, hindered by new laws and taxes (CIVICUS Sriskandarajah, 2017). Western political and economic dominance compound the issue as CSOs struggle with international and business relations (Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002). CSOs depend on these donors and only function when they receive grants as service-deliverers to Western funders (de Lange, 2013; Lister & Nyamugasira, 2003).

Additionally, internal organisational capacities limited CSO effectiveness. For instance, many CSOs are disorganised and poorly managed (de Lange, 2013; Brass et al., 2004). They suffer from amateurism- lacking knowledge, technocratic skills and experience important for an organisation’s success (Lusthaus, Adrien, & Perstinger, 1999; Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002). These challenges can be exacerbated for youth-run organisations. They suffer from severe amateurism, fast turn-over, few resources, poor systems and weak structures (Byrne & Hansberry, 2007).

‘Empowerment’

Thus, the term ‘empowerment’ evolved. Rooted in historic activism for social equality and overcoming structural inequalities, the term initially served struggles for individuals to assert control over their lives (Freire, 1972; Adams, 1996), and evolved towards organisations that assert local collective control in development processes (Porsti, 2013).

In the 1990s empowerment was mainstreamed, largely connected with gender equality goals (Sen, 1999; Mikkelsen, 2005). In the 1970s and 1980s empowerment became attached with ideas like CB, participation, and transformation (Friedmann, 1992; Pieterse, 2001). Concurrently, it was espoused in corporate and business discourse, where it became understood more as processes of corporate management and profit, losing some of its connection with transformation and individual rights (Batliwala, 2007). Sceptics criticised the term empowerment became the ‘most widely used and abused’ in development (Batliwala, 2007, p.557). While empowerment may have parted from these roots in achieving individual social rights (Freire, 1972; Adams, 1996), the term is still tied to socio-political strategies and processes that enable individuals and collectives to participate and lead in development processes affecting them.

In this vein, over the last 15 years, ‘organizational empowerment’ continued to gain mainstream momentum (Bown, Harflett, & Gitsham, 2014). Last year the leader of CIVICUS, a leading international research institute on organised civil society globally, maintained, “it is by focusing on empowering local civil society [organisations] that we can help to build the necessary domestic, grassroots strength, resilience and expertise” (CIVICUS Sriskandarajah, 2017).

(15)

As the Millennium Development Goals were replaced with the Sustainable Development Goals, development discourse and practice continued to transition from empowerment goals, like universal education, to empowering processes fueled by local ownership and participation (c.f. Sen, 1999; van Leeuwen & Verkoren, 2012; Lusthaus, Adrien, & Perstinger, 1999; Hoksbergen, 2005; Mohrman & Shani, 2011). Terms like participation and transformation were reconceptualised alongside OE towards participatory and equitable development. This inspired a wealth of research and interventions valuing local ownership and attempting to incorporate issues of business organisational capacities, leadership, and financial management (Brinkerhoff, 2004; Järvinen, 2007; Hauck & Land, 2000). The concept of empowerment shifted and OE became the priority for achieving sustainable development (Blagescu & Young, 2005; Järvinen, 2007). Subsequently IDA OE interventions aim to help CSOs develop the skills they need to survive and succeed, with long-term visions of sustainability and financial independence (de Lange, 2013).

However, support in developing beneficial mechanisms (i.e. structures, bodies of knowledge) does not guarantee empowerment (Porsti, 2013). Thus, while pulled towards corporate and business capacities, OE must remain reflexive on how supporting the organisations supports the target populations. According to Wallerstein (1992), exploring OE requires looking at how it contributes to processes that promote participation of people, organisations, and communities towards increased individual and community control, improved quality of life and political inclusion. It becomes necessary to focus on establishing and maintaining sustainable organisations through which local populations gain control and attain their desired objectives (Lusthaus, Adrien, & Perstinger, 1999).

Desiring this sustainability and empowering development, the international agenda has prioritised civic OE by putting their economic and political clout behind CSO empowerment (de Lange, 2013; Sørensen et al., 2014). This facilitated the emergence of support organisations5_{and organisational empowerment (OE) practices, particularly capacity}

development, also referred to as capacity building (CB) (Lusthaus, Adrien, & Perstinger, 1999; Hoksbergen, 2005). Just five years ago capacity development began accounting for over 25 percent of the international aid budget (de Lange, 2013).

These support organisations and OE interventions are expected to support local CSOs to overcome internal and external challenges and become sustainable, resilient, and self-sufficient (Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002). At the sectoral level, IDAs expect changes in organisational capacities to increase achieving development goals through building strong, complex sectors comprising stable, competent organisations achieving their development goals and depending less on donors.

5_{The main types of support organisations are: Human and Organisation Development}

Agencies, Research and Information Institutes, Financial Resource Organisations, Alliance, Network or Coalitions, and Inter-sectoral bridges (Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002).

(16)

In summary, CS empowerment transitioned to CSO empowerment, widening from a focus on providing capital to building organisations and sectors. New support organisations and methods were designed to help build sustainable, independent CSOs that go on to achieve development goals.

2.4 The Crux of the Issue: ‘Authentic Partnerships’

Despite hefty investments and commitments to building local organisations, CSO empowerment interventions struggled towards their transformative and sustainable development goals. IDAs complain their empowering interventions have failed to empower local CSOs, whom still struggle to survive and create meaningful change (James & Hailley, 2008). The sectoral changes expected after IDA interventions adapted to pursue organisational empowerment, such as sectoral resourcefulness, solidarity, resilience, learning and local power, have been largely unmet (ibid). The sector evolved rapidly, fragmented and lacking coordination, regulatory systems and standards for sectoral change (Edwards & Hulme, 1996; Moore & Stewart, 2000).

Many blame the IDA-CSO partnerships themselves. IDA-CSO partnerships have fostered funder-orientated CSO evolution, pervasively reduced local ownership, stagnated organisational and sectoral learning and growth, and reduced efficiency, resourcefulness, local innovation, public legitimacy, and collaboration (c.f. de Lange, 2013; Porsti, 2013; Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002; Blagescu & Young, 2005; DENIVA, 2006). These partnerships have increased donor-dependence and sustained CSOs in service-deliverer, powerless positions (Taylor, 2002; Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002). Some scholars have gone so far as to criticise IDA-CSO partnerships as having “served to undermine the strengths that justified an increased role for NGOs in development” (Hulme & Edwards, 1996; as cited in Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015, p.707).

It is difficult for IDAs to empower CSOs effectively because there is a discrepancy between what international and local actors aim to achieve (van Leeuwen & Verkoren, 2012). Consequently, IDA-CSOs partnerships reinforce Western interests instead of serve local interests (Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015). CSOs are constantly pressured to be accountable upwards to funders rather than downwards to beneficiaries so they orientate their values and programs within the values of Western funders (Batliwala 2007; Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015). Moreover, IDAs often avoid solidarity with local CSOs, preferring to be apolitical, and thus reduce political empowerment of local interests (de Lange, 2013; van Leeuwen & Verkoren, 2012).

Furthermore, IDA-CSO partnerships are problematic because IDAs prefer short-term, low budget programming and little local ownership because it is faster, cheaper and easier to monitor (Gershon, 2006; Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002). This thwarts crucial learning that comes from long-term partnerships where parties have similar missions and shared power (Siemens, 2005a; Brehm, Harris-Curtis, Padrao, & Tanner, 2004; Brinkerhoff, 2004; Blagescu & Young, 2005). Indeed, “questions are being raised about the ability of NGOs to meet their long-term goals of social justice and transformation at a time when the development sector

(17)

is narrowly focused on short-term results and value for money” (Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015, p.707).

Scholars recommend a movement towards ‘authentic partnerships’ (Fowler, 1997; Gershon, 2006; Hakkarainen et al., 2002) where equal power distribution and increased local ownership foster partnerships and both parties collaborate, really work together, and ‘make covenants not contracts’ (Hoksbergen, 2005; Fukuda-Parr, Lopes, & Malik, 2002).

Unfortunately, authentic partnerships are difficult and after two decades IDA-CSO partnerships suffer the same challenges (Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015; van Leeuwen & Verkoren, 2012). Sceptics observe that while the rhetoric surrounding IDA-CSO partnerships changed, practices have not (Fowler, 1997; Hauck & Land, 2000; Hoksbergen, 2005; Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015; Hakkarainen, et al., 2002; Britton, 2005). The partnerships remain hampered by powerful IDA economic and academic dominance and subsequent problematic ‘partnerships’ (Taylor, 2002; Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002; Brinkerhoff, 2004; Ashman, 2001; de Lange, 2013).

“Even [now] in NNGO–SNGO6_{relationships, however, it is all too easy and common for} the daily practices associated with funding, capacity building, and advocacy to generate a de facto dominance by the Northern partner. But there is hope.” (Hoksbergen, 2005, p. 26).

For partnerships to be truly ‘authentic’, they must transfer power to southern organisations and really work together (Hoksbergen, 2005). However, funder dominance maintains residual ineffective practices and a mismatch between program goals. Given the unequal financial and political resources in IDA-CSO partnerships, power inequality remains a critical challenge towards authentic partnering (Gaventa & McGee, 2013; Britton, 2005). Subsequently, the solution to N-S partnerships challenges may lie in alternative partners rather than the partnerships.

2.5 The Transition to ‘Network Empowerment’

As IDAs struggle to foster authentic partnerships with small, local CSOs, local networks have been raised as the primary candidate for future local CSO support. Networks are larger, more stable, and possess more economic and political clout than their individual members. This makes them more equal in power and ownership with IDAs and better-suited for interacting with member CSOs than traditional IDA-CSO partnerships. Networks and their members also have more shared goals and shared power (Agranoff, 2007; Provan & Kenis, 2008). Through participatory processes they often share power in decision-making and leadership and support member-driven agendas (Taylor, 2002; Young, 2001).

(18)

In a compelling paper, “NGOs, the State and Donors Revisited”, Banks, Hulme, and Edwards (2015) praised membership-based organisations (i.e. networks) as more effective than traditional hierarchical organisations because they are accountable to members rather than donors and their program design is demand-side rather than supply-side. Thereby networks can reduce funder-orientation across the NGO sector and enable its reorientation towards their beneficiaries and growth (ibid).

In IDA-CSO partnerships, supporting local ownership comes with challenges of accountability. Scholars criticise that while IDA OE interventions aim “to strengthen the social contract between state and society, the strategies to achieve it often focuses on the financial contract between local and international NGOs” (van Leeuwen & Verkoren, 2012, p.86). Grassroot CBOs can struggle to meet financial and impact evaluation demands of donors (Blagescu & Young, 2005). Conversely networks, both structurally and functionally, are dominated by social contracts, informal relationships and decentralisation (Blagescu & Young, 2005). Thus, while IDA-CSO partnerships strengthen financial contracts between CSOs and IDAs, IDA-network partnerships may enable a division and separation of the two tasks, so that the network may absorb the financial contract implications and embark on social contracts with its membership. Advocates hope in partnering with networks that power can be transferred from IDAs to local actors in a chain that also provides accountability back to funders (c.f. Blagescu & Young, 2005; Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015).

Another primary factor reducing IDA-CSO partnership effectiveness that networks may overcome is longevity. The effectiveness of IDA support to local CSOs may hang on the ability to overcome the barriers of short-term, narrow partnerships (Hakkarainen et al., 2002; Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015). Networks engage in long-term relations with members and can engage in continuous, flexible partnerships (Blagescu & Young, 2006; Borgatti & Foster, 2003).

From a sectoral perspective7_{, networks are greatly supported (c.f. Provan & Kenis, 2008;}

Mohrman & Shani, 2011). Sectoral development will require new inter-organisational designs, new rules of interactions, and new learning systems that accelerate collective learning, acting, and adapting and overall progress (Mohrman & Shani, 2011). Given their position, networks are the prime candidate for empowering the systems of organisations and encouraging new rules for cooperation and learning. Indeed in an evaluation of the evolution of the NGO sector, Brown and Kalegaonkar (2002) determined networks are key actors in empowerment because:

“Support organizations are more likely to play strategic roles when their positions foster wide contacts and broad perspectives on sector problems, endow them with broadly

7_{Sectoral perspective observes how development arises collectively from systems of}

(19)

defined expertise and authority, and position them to create and maintain coalitions relevant to sector problems” (p. 252).

Networks are assumed to be in this position, leading to a plethora of benefits.

“The advantages of network coordination in both public and private sectors are considerable, including enhanced learning, more efficient use of resources, increased capacity to plan for and address complex problems, greater competitiveness, and better services for clients” (Provan & Kenis, 2008, p.229).

Subsequently, IDA attention shifted to empowering CSOs through networks and they widely believe it is their responsibility to emphasize collaboration, so they now often require networks or joint proposals for receiving funds (Britton, 2005; Byrne & Hansberry, 2007).

2.6 Summary

Over the last fifty years, international development discourse in relation to CSOs evolved through assumptions about empowering civil society, their organisations, and partnerships to the current conjecture that networks are unique and better partners for ‘achieving’ development (as summarised in table 1). International interventions and funding have been redirected towards networks (Britton, 2005).

However, research has been slow in understanding network empowerment (NE) effectiveness and the explanatory factors. Indeed, scholars explain the gap in network-unit research is due to a fallacious common assumption “that since networks are collaborative arrangements, governance, which implies hierarchy and control, is inappropriate” (Provan & Kenis, 2008, p. 231). Furthermore, these are new structures and research has struggled to adapt adequate new methods to study the complexities of networks (ibid). There is need to fill theoretical gaps regarding how networks can empower CSOs, and what factors increase network empowerment effectiveness whilst giving due consideration to the valid question of whether CSO networks are overcoming traditional IDA-CSO partnerships challenges. Beyond a lack of understanding of the impact of these local networks, the impact of international support on NE remains unclear, largely unexplored outside of business interorganisational networks, public sector in northern countries, and social networks or movements in developing countries. This research will contribute to understanding network empowerment (mechanisms and influential factors) and the impact of international support.

(20)

3. Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Scheme

3.1 Introduction

The previous chapter reviewed the historical importance of CSOs and challenges in supporting them, establishing the basis for investigating a role for networks. The theoretical framework introduces the concepts of OE and networks into network empowerment (NE). This chapter (i) introduces theories and concepts of OE into the context of youth CSOs and (ii) deconstructs literature on networks for empowering CSOs to develop a model from which to examine network CSO empowerment and compare it with OE in traditional IDA-CSO partnerships.

3.2 Organisational Empowerment for Civil Society Organisations

3.2.1 Empowering ‘Youth’ Civil Society Organisations

This research investigates NE within the context of youth CSOs for several reasons. Youth development represents a large purpose for social development as well as a strategy for addressing future social development goals (Haji & Haji, 2007; Perkins et al., 2007). Youth makeup the largest proportion of society, have vast needs and often have limited power in decision-making processes that serve these (ibid; Löwe et al., 2016). Youth-focused organisations have highly diverse visions and areas of work including youth education, employment, healthcare, social freedoms, recreation, and political inclusion. Additionally, youth are often seen as ‘the leaders of tomorrow’ so empowering them with skills and motives supporting social

development is integral in sustainable empowerment (c.f. Restless Development, 2012). Many academics, practitioners and IDAs now regard youth OE as an essential means for social development (Haji & Haji, 2007).8

8_{For instance, academics like Brewer (2013) and Lopes Cardozo et al. (2015), and}

International Development Actors (IDAs) like the ILO (O’Higgins, 2001), Restless Development (2012), the ODI (Löwe et al., 2016), Youthstart Global (2016) and The World Bank (Among & Munavu, 2019) now regard youth OE as an essential means for social “The centrality of youth employment has long been recognized by the East Africa countries as one of the major means to alleviate poverty and empower people to be part of the social, economic and political processes.” (Haji & Haji, 2007, p.2)

(21)

Empowering specifically youth-run9_{organisations has become increasingly preferred by}

donors because it is both means and ends for youth-focused development (Perkins et al., 2007). It is an ‘end’ goal of development in itself: supporting youth-run organisations creates jobs, volunteerships, and opportunities to develop skills contributing to youth economic empowerment (Blaak, Openjuru, & Zeelen, 2013; Brewer, 2013). This is an important outcome of youth-focused development given that youth suffer from high rates of unemployment in developing countries (Baah-Boateng, 2016) like Uganda (Youthstart Global, 2016). Additionally, empowering youth organisations (and the individuals within) with the desire and ability to achieve their developmental goals is a means of development referred to as second-order change, which fosters motives, ability, processes and infrastructure that enable local populations to continually address youth objectives (Perkins et al., 2007; O’Higgins, 2001). This infrastructural, organisational and process development is important as youth-run organisations often suffer from low levels of experience and expertise, which will be discussed later. Notably because of this amateurism, youth are likely to seek support through their networks (Kaplan, 1999) which further substantiates the value of investigating network empowerment in this context.

In summary, youth development is seen as critical to social development and supporting youth-run organisations is attractive for the additional layers of youth empowerment, supporting youth motivations, abilities and employment and infrastructure.

3.2.2 Defining Organisational Empowerment

OE focuses on increasing the capability of organisations to continually achieve their development goals (de Lange, 2013). The goals of OE are to support organisations to be sustainable, overcome challenges, achieve their objectives, and shape development in their respective communities, regions, or nations (ibid).

OE can be externally-focused, targeting environmental threats to local CSO survival and effectiveness. The overall social, economic, political, and cultural environment can be difficult on CSOs. High levels of unemployment, pervasive poverty, stagnant economic growth, cultural distrust of government and NGOs, resource scarcity and limited national infrastructure challenge CSO effectiveness (DENIVA, 2006). Furthermore, powerful Western actors and donors dominate the sector and entrap local CSOs as service-deliverers

9_{Also referred to as ‘youth-for-youth’ organisations. These are predominantly run by youths,}

defined as 18-35 years old.

Here, CSO Organisational Empowerment will be defined as processes and outcomes that support organisations to better achieve their objectives either through i) directly enhancing their capabilities, or ii) creating a more enabling environment.

(22)

stagnating their development (CIVICUS Sriskandarajah, 2017; van Leeuwen & Verkoren, 2012).

Alternatively, OE can be internally-focused on what the organisation can do for itself, including navigating environmental factors. Empowered organisations have five core capabilities10_{that help them succeed: abilities to act and commit, deliver on empowerment}

objectives, adapt and self-renew, relate to external stakeholders, and achieve coherence (Baser & Morgan, 2008). These capabilities are related to organizational capacities: the structures, processes, people, norms, and resources that makeup an organisation (IOB, 2011), which will be further explored with capacity building.

3.2.3 Mechanisms of Organisational Empowerment

There are many ways to empower these organisations to overcome challenges and sustainably achieve their goals, referred to here as mechanisms. For instance, OE can create a more enabling economic, social, or political environment for CSOs through various mechanisms including funding, networking, and advocacy. International funding reduces resource scarcity that poor national and local economies impose on CSOs. Networking activities generate partnerships, sectoral competition, and standardisation of practices, which are core challenges to CS in developing countries (van Leeuwen & Verkoren, 2012; Bown, Harflett, & Gitsham, 2014). Advocacy can promote legislative changes that make it easier or cheaper for CSOs to register and run, pressure for freedom of speech and information (often major barriers to CSOs), or lobby issues on behalf of CSOs (CIVICUS, 2016). Resources from research institutes can improve the knowledge economy in which CSOs work, empowering CSOs to engage in research-based programming, activism, and awareness campaigns (Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002).

There is no universal, single best mechanism for OE and support organisations should consider which approach is more appropriate. Different mechanisms of OE tackle different issues, require different inputs, and have different outcomes, but also have crossovers. For instance, organisations can be empowered to overcome resource scarcity either through an influx of capital to the sector or through skills training in resourcefulness. The desired mechanism depends on factors such as location, area of work, or capacity. Furthermore, organisations often benefit from multiple mechanisms through varied partnerships (Bown, Harflett, & Gitsham, 2014), such as receiving funding from multiple partners while undertaking CB with another, and evidence suggests integrating multiple mechanisms is more successful (Porsti, 2013).

10_{The Five Core Capability (5Cs) approach emerged from a five-year study by the European}

Centre for Development Policy Management, commissioned by the OECD and many practitioners have developed references for its use (c.f. Keijzer, Spierings, Phlix, & Fowler,

(23)

The following sections describe three of the main mechanisms of OE: CB, funding, and networking to build a framework for how OE can be defined and practiced and identify commonly found determinants from which to investigate how the participants’ grounded framework for OE in networks and if NE overcomes challenges of OE in traditional IDA-CSO partnerships.

Capacity Building

According to many scholars and practitioners globally, capacity weaknesses are arguably the most significant constraints to CSO organisations’ effectiveness and subsequently to the whole social development effort (Government of Egypt, OECD-DAC, and JICA 2011 as cited in de Lange, 2013; Kaplan, 1999; VPP, 2001; Perkins et al., 2007). The executive directors of several large development organisations testified their CB efforts “were the critical ingredients in their increased social impact” despite that in every case there were other contributing factors (VPP, 2001, p.29). Leading African scholar Allan Kaplan explained in a review of OE in Africa that while CSOs suffer from environmental challenges like resource scarcity or hostile governments, successful organisations focus on what they themselves can do (Kaplan, 1999). He explained what really drives successful organisations is their organisational attitude (belief in their societal value and ability), a clear organisational vision and strategy, clearly differentiated structures and procedures, and adequate skills, knowledge, and abilities (ibid). Many scholars question whether sustainable development can be achieved without strengthening the capacities of CSOs (Lusthaus, Adrien, & Perstinger, 1999; de Lange, 2013; Blagescu & Young, 2005; Fukuda-Parr, Lopes, & Malik, 2002).

While some scholars criticise CB as being overly Western, most scholars, IDAs, and local CSO practitioners challenge the way it is done and power dynamics involved in implementation rather than reject the usefulness of building organisational capacities altogether. For instance, some post-development critics criticise that CB often exists in international processes that are IDA-driven rather than local-demand driven (Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015).11_{These represent partnership challenges, which were introduced in chapter 2.4 and}

are expanded upon in chapter 3.2.5 ‘Partnership Factors’ so the research can investigate whether networks can be a unique actor overcoming these partnership challenges.

In this thesis, CB will refer to processes that support individuals, organisations, or institutions to enhance their abilities, better solve problems, effectively and efficiently design and implement activities, and achieve their impact (Lusthaus, Adrien, & Perstinger, 1999). Through organisational CB, organisations can improve the quality of their initiatives and expand. In theory, CB is processes, overt actions taken to strengthen capacities. In practice, this takes multiple forms depending on the approach and the actors involved

11_{For instance, while embarking on CB initiatives, IDAs often maintain restricted funding}

(24)

(Blagescu & Young, 2006). However, there is no consensus on what constitutes as ‘capacity building’ (Struyk, Damon, & Haddaway, 2011). Thus, this research will reflect on what it means in the local and specific context, which will feedback into organisational theory. To understand and examine CB, frameworks and tools operationalize organisational capacities. While many popular frameworks exist, this thesis selected the Seven Capacity Assessment framework (table 2) because it was designed specifically for non-profit managers and is substantiated in strong case research (VPP, 2001).

It is important to understand why and how organisations build their capacities. The next section outlines common capacity challenges and common challenges in CB to form the basis for comparing how the case study network addresses member capacity needs and whether their CB overcomes common challenges in IDA-led CB.

Common Capacity Challenges

CSOs face several common capacity challenges. For instance, CSO visions are often too ambitious, long and abstract, not feasible, nor stipulating key action points for achieving it (de Lange, 2013). Organisations need a vision that is clearly achievable and reflected on in all organisational activities and decision-making processes (ibid).

Organisational Capacities Adopted from the 7 Capacities Assessment Framework by Venture Philanthropy and Partners (2001)

1. ‘Aspirations’ is the amalgamation of an organisation’s mission, vision, and values, which are often used in overlapping and similar manners and serve collectively to articulate an organisation’s purpose and direction.

2. Strategy refers to a comprehensive set of actions and initiatives targeted at achieving the organisations’ objectives.

3. Organisational skills are the organisation’s capabilities, including performance measurement, planning, outreach, and resource management.

4. Human resources are the collective capabilities, experiences, potential and roles of the people within the organisation’s staff, management, board, and in some cases volunteers and partners.

5. Systems and infrastructure refer to an organisation’s administrative, knowledge-management, and decision-making systems and physical and technological assets. 6. Structure and governance refers to a combination of the organizational design,

governance, interfunctional coordination, and the individual roles and responsibilities, which make up an organisations’ management and performance structure.

7. Culture is “the connective tissue that binds together the organisations” (VPP, 2001, p.34). This includes common values, practices, norms, and performance orientation. Two popular, effective cultures are values-orientated and performance-orientated (Bown, Harflett, & Gitsham, 2014).

Table 2. Seven Capacities Assessment Framework developed for non-profit and NGO managers to assess and build their capacities (paraphrased from VPP, 2001)

(25)

Another example is HR. While a key strength of CSOs is their people, HR can be limited and insufficient. While they are usually started by a strong visionary leader and supported by staff whom are willing to work in tough conditions, long hours and low and unreliable pay, because of their passion and determination, this often causes issues (Lusthaus, Adrien, & Perstinger, 1999; VPP, 2001). For instance, this can lead to high burnout, fast staff turnover, and challenges when the leader often lacks executive management skills or willingness to relinquish power (ibid).

Furthermore, CSOs generally focus too much on social capital- recruiting and retaining talented people- while the efficacy of these human resources depends on systems and culture (Kaplan, 1999). This over-reliance on social capital and insufficient emphasis on management creates barriers to strategy formulation and efficiency (Ramia & Carney, 2003). Organisational culture, norms of ways things are done, can be a strength, but often falls under common traps such as too informal, short-sighted, or donor-orientated (VPP, 2001; AbouAssi, Makhlouf, & Whalen, 2016). A culture that is values-oriented or process-oriented can support organisational impact by facilitating collaboration, accountability, and self-reflective learning towards improvement (VPP, 2001). Low levels of trust or connectedness are major barriers (Hadjikhani & Thilenius, 2005; McEvily, Perrone, & Zaheer, 2003; Lee et al., 2012; Siemens, 2005a).

Common CB Challenges

A common issue with CB is the disconnect between programming and theory: most CB interventions are short-term and targeted; however, in academic literature there is generally consensus that CB is a slow, complicated, continuous process that takes an even longer time to generate results that can be visible and reportable (IOB, 2011; James & Hailley, 2008; de Lange, 2013). Moreover, general underinvestment in the organisation exacerbates the need for CB across the board (Lusthaus, Adrien, & Perstinger, 1999). Capacities are all intertwined, and improving one often increases the demands on another. Building one capacity is not very effective and can cause further problems by creating new demands on other capacities. To avoid this, NGOs should adopt a holistic approach to organisational CB. This must be led by management, so this need becomes intensified because generally the leader is inexperienced, overworked, lacks management skills, and solely focused on survival (Lusthaus, Adrien, & Perstinger, 1999; VPP, 2001). Due to the critical nature of experience and expertise in undertaking CB, there is a lot of opportunity to support amateur youth organisations in this process.

Furthermore, most CB programs only evaluate whether capacities were built, without investigating how building capacities influences impact (Blagescu & Young, 2006). This dangerously negates understanding CB as agents in development not just business-building tools. Programming should better engage with understanding how organizational CB influences achieving socio-development goals. This thesis will identify if the case study’s CB falls into this trap. It will also investigate how network CB influences member’s capacity for

(26)

achieving change to ensure the examination of OE processes remains reflexive on empowerment.12

Funding

Other scholars and practitioners argue capital is the greatest challenge CSOs face in developing countries (Kaplan, 1999; Forus, 2019). Resource scarcity entraps organisations in an endless struggle for survival (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). CSOs struggle to run programs, hire sufficient staff, and cover basic administration costs. How to address this challenge, however, remains considerably more complex (Guo & Acar, 2005). Funding methods vary from project-based grants, CB funds, and unrestricted funds13_.

Funding Challenges

Research criticises international funding has not led to OE, particularly sustainably (c.f. Ashman, 2001; Brehm et al., 2004; Hauck & Land, 2000). Funding without provisions and conditions can be siphoned away through corruption, pocketed, or used questionably (Blagescu & Young, 2005). However, increased funder control over development funding led to Westernisation of CS globally, reducing its local public legitimacy and role in locally-driven development (e.g. Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015). Some scholars further criticize that regardless of the methods for distributing funds, there are inherent problems because of the role and power of Western funders and position of Southern CSOs as recipients (AbousAssi, Makhlouf, & Whalen, 2016). This dynamic generates issues such as reducing local ownership in decision-making and increasing short-term programming and transient operating that is antagonistic to learning and growth (Forus, 2019; Walker & Hills, 2012; Ashman, 2001). While CSOs compete for funds from outsiders rather than become sustainable due to local demand and effectiveness, there is a disconnect between international funding and local demand, so this power dynamic supersedes evolution mechanisms that benefitted the West (Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015). International funders face a complex balancing act between empowering local ownership with accountability and responsible philanthropy (Blagescu & Young, 2005).

In summary, while funding is a critical form of empowerment, challenges remain in developing funding programs. Scholars and practitioners are continually looking for ways to

12_{This can be difficult because CB initiatives are difficult to isolate from other practices, and}

links between an organisation’s capacities and its social impact are long, complex relationships that are difficult to attribute to particular practices (Blagescu & Young, 2006). In this thesis, data on this will stem from asking participants to draw conclusions about the link between CB and impact for themselves as other researchers have done (Porsti, 2013; VPP, 2001).

(27)

adapt and improve partnerships to generate empowering funding. Alan Fowler (1997) advocated authentic partnerships should promote matching of funds, but small CSOs struggle to match funds for scaling project scope causing small CSOs to feel pressure to allocate their minimal funds towards the objectives of their Western counterparts. One solution is funding systems of organisations or larger CSO coalitions or networks, which can prove impact credibility and financial traceability whilst taking on more power in allocating funds within the local CSO ecosystem (Forus, 2019). This research will reflect on this premise.

Additionally, financial OE can also be supported indirectly through partnerships and connections (Guo & Acar, 2005; AbouAssi, Makhlouf, & Whalen, 2016). Resource dependency theory dictates CSOs establish interorganisational relations in light of resource scarcity (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). The less internal revenue CSOs have, the more partnerships they form (AbouAssi, Makhlouf, & Whalen, 2016). Partnerships for resource mobilisation are particularly important for nonprofits that cannot demand fees for their rendered services (Irvin, 2007; Jang & Feiock, 2007).

In summary, networks may better address resource scarcity with more equal partnerships and with indirect methods like facilitating connectivity to promote member-led resourcefulnes. Thus, this thesis will reflect on how network factors, like power dynamics and connectivity, influence their financial OE.

Networking

Another key mechanism of empowerment, more recently rising in popularity, is networking: bringing together like-minded organisations to generate meaningful connectivity for sharing and collaborating to achieve shared goals (Borgatti & Foster, 2003). It is important to understand why and when organisations network. In one of the first theories on why organisations network and collaborate, Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) proposed organisations collaborate because of resource scarcity.14_{Concurrently a seminal paper stipulated}

institutions (the rules and norms in society) play a key role in determining when and how organisations interact15_{(Williamson, 1975; 1991).}

14_{Resource Dependency Theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978)}

15_{Transaction Cost Theory supposes organisations try to minimize the costs of transactions}

with the environment, which determines when and how they interact with other organisations (Williamson, 1975). He purported institutions (the rules and norms in society) are fundamental in determining the costs of interacting with the environment and other organisations. This transition from commodities and individuals to transactions for understanding networking reframed networking and gained popularity. Literature shifted to understand organisations do not interact because of resource scarcity, but because of the