Aid Relations and Aid Legitimacy: mutual imaging of aid workers and recipients in Nepal

Abstract

This paper considers mutual imaging of aid workers and Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. Based on a theoretical perspective of aid as a socially negotiated arena, the contextual and interactionist concept of imaging is used, rather than labelling (which is done to people), or perceptions (located in one actor's head). The paper uses a Q-methodology that symmetrically researches different groups of actors by posing the same questions. Our data confirm that the distinctions between the way aid workers and recipients view themselves, each other and the aid provided were more gradual than clear-cut between categories and that the legitimacy of aid workers is not determined by the perceived quality of aid. Problems with routinised aid were not translated into negative images, whereas problems with new and irregular types of aid were. Our research indicates the importance of the interaction between implementing staff and active beneficiaries. The roles of these active volunteers and incentive workers are important but ambiguous. They may smooth the divide between aid agencies and clients, but their proximity to the aid regime may also lead to tensions. The way these roles are played out and the effect this has on imaging and aid legitimacy is an area for further research.

Notes

We would like to thank Anne-Meike Fechter for her support and comments on our paper.

1 G Wood, Labelling in Development Policy, London: Sage, 1985.

2 I Christoplos, ‘Humanitarianism and local service institutions in Angola’, Disasters, 22(1), 1998, pp 1–20; and O Bakewell, ‘Uncovering local perspectives on humanitarian assistance and its outcomes’, Disasters, 24(2), 2000, pp 103–116.

3 R Zetter, ‘Labelling refugees: forming and transforming a bureaucratic identity’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 4(1), 1991, pp 39–62; Zetter, ‘More labels, fewer refugees: remaking the refugee label in an era of globalization’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 2007, pp 172–192; and J Hyndman, Managing Displacement: Refugees and the Politics of Humanitarianism, Mineapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2000.

4 H van Dijkhorst, Rural Realities between Crisis and Normality: Livelihood Strategies in Angola, 1975–2008, Wageningen: Wageningen University, 2011.

5 L Clark, The Refugee Dependency Syndrome: Physician, Heal Thyself, Washington, DC: Refugee Policy Group, 1985; and B Harrell-Bond, Imposing Aid: Emergency Assistance to Refugees, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. See also D Hilhorst, I Christoplos & G van der Haar ‘Reconstruction from below: magic bullet or shooting from the hip?’, Third World Quarterly, 31(7), 2011, pp 1107–1124.

6 L Malkki, Purity and Exile: Violence, Mmemory and National Cosmology among Hutu Refugees in Tanzania, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1995.

7 J Madut Jok, ‘Information exchange in the disaster zone: interaction between aid workers and recipients in South Sudan’, Disasters, 20(3), 1996, pp 206–215.

8 G Kibreab, ‘Pulling the wool over the eyes of the strangers: refugee deceit and trickery in institutionalized settings’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 17(1), 2004, pp 1–26.

9 D Dijkzeul & C Wakenge, ‘Doing good, but looking bad? Local perceptions of two humanitarian agencies in the Eastern DRC’, Disasters, 34(4), 2010, pp 1139–1170. See also M Péchayre, Humanitarian Action in Pakistan 2005–2010: Challenges, Principles, and Politics, Medford, MA: Feinstein International Center, 2011, p 13.

10 D Hilhorst, The Real World of ngos: Discourse, Diversity and Development, London: Zed Books, 2003. See also D Hilhorst & M van Leeuwen, ‘Grounding local peace organizations: a case study of southern Sudan’, Journal of Modern Africa Studies, 43(4), 2005, pp 537–563; and Hilhorst & M van Leeuwen, Imidugudu, Villagisation in Rwanda. A case of emergency development?, Disaster Sites 2, Wageningen Disaster Studies, 1999.

11 D Hilhorst & B Jansen, ‘Humanitarian space as arena: a perspective on the everyday politics of aid’, Development and Change, 41(6), 2010, pp 1117–1139; and D Hilhorst & M Serrano, ‘The humanitarian arena in Angola, 1975–2008’, Disasters, 34(S2), 2010, pp S183–S201.

12 N Long, ‘From paradigm lost to paradigm regained? The case for an actor-oriented sociology of development’, in N Long & A Long (eds), Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development, London: Routledge, 1992, pp 16–43; and Long, Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives, London: Routledge, 2001.

13 M Fordham, ‘Gendering vulnerability analysis: towards a more nuanced approach’, in G Bankoff, G Frerks & D Hilhorst, Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People, London: Earthscan, 2004, pp 147–183.

14 M Utas, ‘Victimcy, girlfriending, soldiering: tactic agency in a young women's social navigation of the Liberian war zone’, Anthropological Quarterly, 78(2), 2005, pp 403–430.

15 K Sandvik, ‘The physicality of legal consciousness: suffering and the production of credibility in refugee resettlement’, in R Brown & R Wilson, Humanitarianism and Suffering: The Mobilization of Empathy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp 223–244.

16 J Potter & M Wetherell, Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour, London: Sage, 1987.

17 Dijkzeul & Wakenge, ‘Doing good but looking bad?’.

18 D Bernstein, Psychology, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2008.

19 J Grunig, ‘Image and substance: from symbolic to behavioural relationships’, Public Relations Review, 19(2), 1993, pp 121–139.

20 S Lister, ‘ngo legitimacy: technical issue or social construct?’, Critique of Anthropology, 23(2), 2003, pp 175–192; and H Slim, ‘By what authority? The legitimacy and accountability of non-governmental organisations’, at http://www.jha.ac/articles/a082.htm, accessed 15 February 2012.

21 Lister, ‘ngo legitimacy’.

22 This idea is akin to the distinction in political science between input and output legitimacy. See F Scharpf, Governing in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

23 M Hutt, Unbecoming Citizens: Culture, Nationhood, and the Flight of Refugees from Bhutan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

24 irin Asia, ‘Nepal: Bhutanese refugees hesitant over US settlement offer’, 2006, at http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=61743, accessed March 2011.

25 Bhutanese Refugee Support Group (UK and Ireland), ‘Camp information’, 2010, at www.bhutaneserefugees.com, accessed March 2011.

26 S Brown, ‘A primer on Q methodology’, Operant Subjectivity, 16(3–4), 1993, pp 91–138.

27 S Brown, Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980.

28 J van Exel & G de Graaf, ‘Q methodology: a sneak preview’, 2005, at www.jobvanexel.nl, accessed 2 February 2011.

29 Ibid.

30 T Webler, S Danielson & C Tuler, ‘Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research’, Greenfield: Social and Environmental Research Institute, 2009, at http://www.fairnessdiscourse.com/pdf/Webler%20-%20Using%20Q%20Method%20to%20Reveal%20Social%20Perspectives.pdf, accessed 14 February 2012.

31 K de Hauwere & L van der Zouwen, Disaster Risk Reduction in Perspective(s). MSc thesis Disaster Studies, Wageningen University, 2010, p 37.

32 N Stel, D de Boer & D Hilhorst, Multi-Stakeholder Processes, Service Delivery and State Institutions: Service Provision and the Legitimacy of State Institutions in Situations of Conflict and Fragility—Experiences from Burundi, DR Congo, Nepal and the Palestinian Territories, Peace, Security and Development Network paper 00030, Maastricht School of Management/Wageningen University, 2012.

33 Dijkzeul & Wakenge, ‘Doing good but looking bad?’.

34 B Jansen, The Accidental City: Violence, Economy and Humanitarianism in Kakuma Refugee Camp Kenya, Wageningen: Wageningen University, 2011; and M Agier & F Bouchet-Saulnier, ‘Humanitarian spaces: spaces of exception’, in F Weissman (ed), In the Shadows of ‘Just Wars’: Violence, Politics and Humanitarian Action, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004, pp 297–313.