Book Review. Funding Civil Society: Foreign Assistance and NGO Development in Russia.

Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom.  Funding Civil Society:  Foreign Assistance and NGO Development in Russia.  Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006.  272 pages.  ISBN:  0-8047-5443-8

The primary research question guiding McIntosh’s work is: “Are foreign donors having an impact in Russia, and if it exists, does their influence lead to positive developments for democratization in Russia?” (xiv). Prior to embarking on a detailed examination of her findings, McIntosh provides working terms for “civil society” and “development.”  According to her, civil society is:

“…a realm of collective, publically oriented activity by nongovernmental actors that is often formally organized…but also includes many less formal networks of public discourse, such as non-governmental mass media and informed networks among neighbors in a community” (7).

She asserts that there exists two forms of NGO development: internal development and professionalization and external mobilization.  Internal development includes defining goals, proper management, and networking, while external mobilization demonstrates an NGO’s ability to garner support from local citizens and leaders (17).

After defining her terms, she concludes, rather quickly, that foreign donors are impacting Russian civil society, but their impact is not always positive since foreign donors focused on internal development and lost sight of external mobilization (17).  Instead of focusing on developing wide spread support for NGO activities, foreign donors stressed the creation of a Washington, D.C. led top-down bureaucracy (38) that focuses on building an NGO infrastructure in Russia through training, organization, and networking (44).  Foreign donors also directed their attention toward NGOs working on issues that local communities don’t fully support (46-47).  Foreign donors also face difficulties depending on the regions where NGOs work.  Through an examination of soldiers’ mothers’ committees and NGOs focused on women’s issues, McIntosh illustrates the degrees to which “norms” or “collective experiences” and local political infrastructure supports or inhibits foreign donors and NGO development in varied socio-economic regions of Russia. 

Her main argument is that “where foreign assistance is employed to promote norms that are universally embraced around the world, it is highly likely to lead to a successful NGO movement” (53). To prove this point, she argues that the soldiers’ mothers’ organizations were rather successful in their opposition to conscription based on physical abuse and deprivation in the Russian armed forces.  However, NGOs protesting conscription based on pacifism were far less effective (60).  The success of the soldiers’ mothers’ committees is due to the fact that most Russians accept the fact that abuse and deprivation are “violations of physical dignity,” and this is a universally accepted norm among Russians (73).  Pacifism, on the other hand, is not universally accepted since Russians do not oppose war or the military (79). 

McIntosh also supports her “norm” based theory by countering opponents who claim that the popularity of the soldiers’ mothers’ committees stems from the tangible resources they provide to soldiers and their families.  She compares these services to the services that women’s organizations provide and notes that the “service” element is certainly important to NGOs, but that it doesn’t account for their successes.  If it did, women’s organization—which provide a host of services—would be vastly popular (73).  However, women’s organizations are from popular since their efforts to address employment discrimination and sexual harassment against women have largely failed “…in large part due to Russian citizens’ general rejection of the norms of feminism and gender equality” (89).  She identifies domestic violence as the only areas where women’s organizations found success; this success stems from the fact that an individual has the right to be protected from bodily harm.  This protection is an example of a universal norm (96). 

The remainder of McIntosh’s book is devoted to her second argument that foreign donors who work with NGOs located in regions with supportive governments will be more successful.  McIntosh asserts that her research challenges existing scholars who argue that a global civil society is emerging, while local civil societies and existing political structures are becoming less influential (2).  She demonstrates this through case studies of seven cities:  Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, Izhevsk, Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, and Novgorod.  Her case studies show four emergent patterns.  First, high levels of foreign donors coupled with a supportive government yield active and independent NGOs (Moscow and Novgorod). High levels of foreign donors working in areas with an unsupportive government produce many NGOs with little ability to achieve success (Yekaterinburg and Izhevsk).  An area with supportive government that lacks many foreign donors creates a region with active, networked, and effective NGOs that address local needs (Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, and St. Petersburg)  Lastly, an area with very few foreign donors working in a politically unsupportive environment will have small, weak, NGOs—but none of the seven cities surveyed fell into this category (104). 

McIntosh concludes her book with a chapter that suggests changes foreign donors can take in order to have a more successful impact on Russian society. First, foreign donors must focus on outreach in order to address the most immediate needs of the majority of the citizenry (176).  Donors and NGOs must increase public awareness of the tangible successes (176).  This is especially important since contemporary NGOs battle a host of stereotypes stemming from the Soviet era, including suspicion of voluntary organizations and their motives (30).  McIntosh also recommends that donors focus on developing closer relations between NGOs and the government, if at all possible.