Focusing on transparency and anti-corruption issues, this report discusses the findings from a series of participatory workshops and more than seventy interviews with social movement actors and organizations in Kenya, Nigeria, and Ukraine. It looks at the different ways social movement actors in these countries were influenced by foreign financial support and training, including in terms of the goals they set, the tactics and activities they pursue, and whether receiving foreign support compromises their legitimacy with their domestic constituents.

A majority of Nigerians believe they risk retaliation or other consequences when they report incidents of corruption. Anti-corruption activists and their organizations can help encourage safe reporting. (Akintunde Akinleye/Reuters)
A majority of Nigerians believe they risk retaliation or other consequences when they report incidents of corruption. Anti-corruption activists and their organizations can help encourage safe reporting. (Akintunde Akinleye/Reuters)

Summary

Bilateral donor agencies and private foundations are increasingly interested in extending their support to social movement actors to supplement these actors’ demonstrated ability to advance policy reform. But what is the impact of such training and funding? Do these resources improve the ability of social movement organizations to advance policy reforms and mobilize grassroots support? Or do they burden social movement actors with new bureaucratic requirements, limits on tactics and activities, or deficits of popular legitimacy and credibility?

To better assess these impacts, three participatory workshops were held and more than seventy in-depth interviews conducted with representatives of transparency, accountability, and anti-corruption social movement organizations in Nigeria, Kenya, and Ukraine in 2017 and 2018. Respondents consistently reported that foreign funding substantially influenced their activism, often in ways that impeded effectiveness.

This situation was less apparent in the analysis of survey data, however, and respondents reported that some challenges of foreign funding were manageable. Foreign funding also generated competitive dynamics. Some activists reported that they were persistently excluded from foreign grant opportunities, and this exclusion caused resentment of major recipients of foreign grants.

These findings imply an opportunity for donors to provide more direct and less conditional funding support to movement actors. More flexible support will allow individual activists and movement organizations to scale up their work, adapt to changing circumstances, and seize opportunities while freeing them from the project-based and earmarked grants that currently constrain their approach.

Likewise, more funding that targets newer and small activists will allow for more coalition building and minimize some resentments that percolate in the transparency and accountability movement. Trainings and convenings that bring together more established movement organizations with newer organizations and activists on a level playing field may also support the emergence of more organic collaboration and partnerships.

About the Report

This report presents findings from a series of participatory workshops and more than seventy in-depth interviews with social movement actors and organizations on transparency and accountability issues in Kenya, Nigeria, and Ukraine. The report was supported by USAID's Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance.

About the Author

Davin O’Regan is a former senior program officer in USIP's Program on Nonviolent Action and is currently completing his PhD at the University of Maryland. Tabatha Pilgrim Thompson and Miranda Rivers of USIP contributed extensive research and editorial support for this project. Aminu Gamawa of Nigeria, Victor Rateng of Kenya, and Artem Myroshnychenko of Ukraine undertook on-the-ground research.


Related Publications

China and Ukraine: Pulling Its Weight with Russia or Potemkin Peacemaker?

China and Ukraine: Pulling Its Weight with Russia or Potemkin Peacemaker?

Friday, November 22, 2024

On Thursday, China’s ambassador, Ma Shengkun, presented his credentials at Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry. Ma, a career diplomat with a background in arms control, replaces Fan Xianrong who had held the post for the past four and a half years. While a diplomatic reshuffle was due, the timing of the turnover and the selection of Ma, in tandem with other recent developments, suggest that China discerns a gradual gathering of momentum for a peace process or truce talks in coming months. In short, Beijing may be seeking to posture itself in anticipation of a new initiative to end — or at least pause — the war in Ukraine.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

U.S. Concerns Over ‘Axis of Authoritarianism’ Cloud Final Biden-Xi Meeting

U.S. Concerns Over ‘Axis of Authoritarianism’ Cloud Final Biden-Xi Meeting

Thursday, November 21, 2024

With President Joe Biden’s presidential term ending in a few weeks, expectations for his final meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping were modest, especially considering the broader frictions in U.S.-China relations. Biden and Xi met on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Peru on November 16. The meeting highlighted the importance of maintaining open communications channels to manage the two powers’ many differences.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

China’s Global Security Initiative Takes Shape in Southeast and Central Asia

China’s Global Security Initiative Takes Shape in Southeast and Central Asia

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Since Chinese leader Xi Jinping launched the Global Security Initiative (GSI) in April 2022, it has been used in China’s efforts to expand its international security role and reshape global order. Drawing on field research and discussions with regional policymakers and experts, this report looks at Beijing’s progress in implementing and operationalizing the GSI in the priority regions of mainland Southeast Asia and Central Asia, and it examines key policy implications, explaining why the initiative warrants greater attention on the part of the US policy community.

Type: Special Report

Global Policy

A Delicate Balance: Promoting Nuclear Energy While Preventing Proliferation

A Delicate Balance: Promoting Nuclear Energy While Preventing Proliferation

Thursday, November 21, 2024

As global energy demands intensify and the urgency of addressing climate shocks mounts, the role of nuclear energy has come to the forefront of discussions for governments, businesses and those concerned about sustainable development. Just last week, the Biden administration released a plan to triple U.S. nuclear capacity by 2050. While nuclear energy promises efficiency gains and significant emissions reductions, public opinion remains divided about the tradeoffs of increased investment, the safety risks and the implications for international security. This puts the U.S. at a crossroads as it tries to navigate its role in a world with new demands for nuclear energy and heightened risks of conflict between nuclear-armed states. Such risks were highlighted this week when Russia lowered its nuclear threshold in response to new U.S. authorizations for Ukraine to use long-range weapons.

Type: Analysis

EnvironmentGlobal Policy

View All Publications