‘Listening to the rice grow’: the local–expat interface in Lao-based international NGOs

Generally speaking, NGO studies have focused their attention on the organisational unit and its role in shaping development outcomes. With few exceptions, the analysis of development partnerships, in which NGOs play a crucial role, has largely been confined to examination of ‘donors’ and ‘receivers’ and not the dynamics within organisational settings. This article is concerned with the interface between local and international staff operating within Lao-based international NGOs. The research relied on interviews with local and international staff and sought to examine how staff themselves interpreted the process of ‘localisation’ in the context of their own professional experience.     

Examining international responses to illicit arms trafficking

Concerns about illicit trafficking in small arms andlight weapons have moved rapidly up the internationalagenda since 1996. Within about three years a rangeof international responses to this problem, and to theclosely related issue of small arms proliferation,have developed at sub-regional, regional andinternational level – in Africa, Europe and theAmericas as well as globally. This article examinesthe development and design of each of the maininitiatives in this issue area. It analyses thedifferent ways in which the problems have been framedin each agreement or programme, and the significanceof linkages between them. These recent developmentsare judged to be substantial. Despite the regional andinstitutional variations, the shared normative andprogrammatic elements appear to be sufficient tosupport the development of winning global coalitions– able to establish a co-ordinated internationalaction programme even if not actually to preventillicit trafficking in the foreseeable future.     

Rethinking the partisan effects of higher turnout: So what's the question?

Controversy persists over the link between turnout and the likelihood of success of Democratic candidates (e.g., DeNardo, 1980, 1986; Zimmer, 1985; Tucker and Vedlitz, 1986; Piven and Cloward, 1988; Texeira, 1992; Radcliff, 1994, 1995; Erikson, 1995a, b). We argue that the authors in this debate have largely been talking past one another because of a failure to distinguish three quite different questions. The first question is: “Are low turnout voters more likely to vote Democratic than high turnout voters?” The second question is: “Should we expect that elections in which turnout is higher are ones in which we can expect Democrats to have done better?” The third question is the counterfactual: “If turnout were to have increased in some given election, would Democrats have done better?” We show the logical independence of the first two questions from one another and from the third, and argue that previous researchers have failed to recognize this logical independence – sometimes thinking they were answering question three when in fact they were answering either question one or question two. Reviewing previous research, we find that the answer to the first question once was YES but, for more recent elections at the presidential level, now appears to be NO, while, for congressional and legislative elections, the answer to the second question appears generally to be NO. However, the third question is essentially unanswerable absent an explicit model of why and how turnout can be expected to increase, and/or analyses of individual level panel data. Thus, the cross-sectional and pooled data analyses of previous research are of almost no value in addressing this third question.