Issue

Vol. 6 No. 2 (2022): NOVEMBER

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Nongovernmental organizations as interest groups and their roles in policy processes: Insights from Indonesian forest and environmental governance

https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v6i2.19125
Dwi Laraswati
Sebijak Institute (Research Center for Forest Policy & History Studies), Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1238-9581
Max Krott
Chair of Nature & Conservation Policy, Georg August Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7315-1390
Emma Soraya
Sebijak Institute (Research Center for Forest Policy & History Studies), Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9764-3800
Sari Rahayu
Sebijak Institute (Research Center for Forest Policy & History Studies), Faculty of Forestry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0250-2413
Micah R. Fisher
East-West Center, Honolulu Hawaii, United States
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8246-2318
Lukas Giessen
Chair of International and Tropical Forestry, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4050-0205
Ahmad Maryudi
Leadership & Policy Innovation Program, The Graduate School, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5051-7217

Corresponding Author(s) : Ahmad Maryudi

ahmad_maryudi@ugm.ac.id

Forest and Society, Vol. 6 No. 2 (2022): NOVEMBER

Abstract

The traditional conceptions and claims of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have profiled NGOs as civil society representatives and as benevolent philanthropic actors of development in the Global South. However, recent phenomena indicate NGOs often acting in opposition to their benevolent claims. This study attempts to move away from the normative concepts of NGOs and develop an analytical framework fitted with the current empirics in environmental governance. Using theories of organized interest groups in a democratic political system, we analyze the extent of NGOs fulfilling their roles as organized interest groups (OIGs), where they should take roles representing the interests of particular groups within societies and exerting political influence on governments on the basis of these common interests. We use empirics from Indonesian forest and environment-related governance, and our framework is called “Representation–Influence Framework,” which assists in establishing more systematic coherent typologies of OIGs. Analyzed from the perspective that NGOs claim to serve as representatives of specific groups within societies, we establish three overarching categories of OIGs, that is, 1) en route to fulfilling the claim, 2) breaking the claim, and 3) opposing the claim. We further detail our framework into a subset of nine OIG typologies. In this way, we provide pathways to begin deconstructing the common simplifications and misunderstandings about NGOs. For empirics, we identified 38 OIGs in the cases of social forestry and timber legality policies and populated them according to the typologies. We found that most of them are en route to fulfilling the claim of representing the groups’ interests, although their political influence on the government is, in most cases, limited.

Keywords

NGOs Interest Groups Representation Influence Forest Policy Environmental Governance Indonesia
Laraswati, D., Krott, M., Soraya, E., Rahayu, S., Fisher, M. R., Giessen, L. ., & Maryudi, A. (2022). Nongovernmental organizations as interest groups and their roles in policy processes: Insights from Indonesian forest and environmental governance. Forest and Society, 6(2), 570-589. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v6i2.19125
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Afiff, S. A., & Rachman, N. F. (2019). Institutional activism: Seeking customary forest rights recognition from within the Indonesian state. The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 20(5), 453-470. https://doi.org/10.1080/14442213.2019.1670245
  2. Amagoh, F. (2015). Improving the credibility and effectiveness of non-governmental organizations. Progress in Development Studies, 15(3), 221-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464993415578979
  3. Antlöv, H., Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Rapp, E. (2010). Civil society capacity building for democratic reform: Experience and lessons from Indonesia. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(3), 417-439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-010-9140-x
  4. Ariti, A. T., van Vliet, J., & Verburg, P. H. (2018). What restrains Ethiopian NGOs to participate in the development of policies for natural resource management?. Environmental Science & Policy, 89, 292-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.08.008
  5. Arvidson, M. (2008). Contradictions and confusions in development work: exploring the realities of Bangladeshi NGOs. Journal of South Asian Development, 3(1), 109-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/097317410700300105
  6. Ayana, A. N., Arts, B., & Wiersum, K. F. (2018). How environmental NGOs have influenced decision making in a ‘semi-authoritarian’state: The case of forest policy in Ethiopia. World Development, 109, 313-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.010
  7. Banks, N., Hulme, D., & Edwards, M. (2015). NGOs, states, and donors revisited: Still too close for comfort?. World Development, 66, 707-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.09.028
  8. Baroi, H. S., & Panday, P. K. (2015). NGOs in local governance in Bangladesh: A new wave in development disclosure. South Asian Survey, 22(2), 156-170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971523117744149
  9. Berry, J. M., & Wilcox, C. (2018). The Interest Group Society. Routledge.
  10. Bevir, M., (2013). A theory of Governance. University of California Press.
  11. Beyers, J., & Braun, C. (2014). Ties that count: explaining interest group access to policymakers. Journal of Public Policy, 34(1), 93-121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X13000263
  12. Binderkrantz, A. S., & Pedersen, H. H. (2019). The lobbying success of citizen and economic groups in Denmark and the UK. Acta Politica, 54(1), 75-103. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-017-0076-7
  13. Bindman, E., Kulmala, M., & Bogdanova, E. (2019). NGOs and the policy‐making process in Russia: The case of child welfare reform. Governance, 32(2), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12366
  14. Bossuyt, F. (2021). The influence of interest groups on the EU’s foreign policy: assessing and explaining the influence of human rights NGOs on the EU’s human rights promotion in the post-Soviet space. Contemporary Politics, 27(3), 356-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2021.1907938
  15. Brass, J. N., Longhofer, W., Robinson, R. S., & Schnable, A. (2018). NGOs and international development: A review of thirty-five years of scholarship. World Development, 112, 136-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.07.016
  16. Bryant, R. L. (2002). False prophets? Mutant NGOs and Philippine environmentalism. Society & Natural Resources, 15(7), 629-639. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920290069236
  17. Budi, B., Kartodihardjo, H., Nugroho, B., & Mardiana, R. (2021). Implementation of social forestry policy: A review of community access. Forest and Society, 5(1), 60-74. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v5i1.9859
  18. Compston, H. (2009). Networks, resources, political strategy and climate policy. Environmental Politics, 18(5), 727-746. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903157032
  19. Cook, N. J., Wright, G. D., & Andersson, K. P. (2017). Local politics of forest governance: Why NGO support can reduce local government responsiveness. World Development, 92, 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.005
  20. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
  21. Dahl, R. A. (1978). Pluralism revisited. Comparative Politics, 10(2), 191-203. https://doi.org/10.2307/421645
  22. Dahl, R. A., (1982). Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy: Autonomy vs. Control. Yale University Press.
  23. Denzin, N. K., (2009). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Routledge.
  24. Dewi, M. K., Manochin, M., & Belal, A. (2021). Towards a conceptual framework of beneficiary accountability by NGOs: An Indonesian case study. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 80, 102130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2019.102130
  25. Di Gregorio, M., Nurrochmat, D. R., Paavola, J., Sari, I. M., Fatorelli, L., Pramova, E., ... & Kusumadewi, S. D. (2017). Climate policy integration in the land use sector: Mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development linkages. Environmental Science & Policy, 67, 35-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.004
  26. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1995). NGO performance and accountability in the post‐cold war world. Journal of International Development, 7(6), 849-856. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3380070604
  27. Fatem, S. M., Awang, S. A., Pudyatmoko, S., Sahide, M. A., Pratama, A. A., & Maryudi, A. (2018). Camouflaging economic development agendas with forest conservation narratives: A strategy of lower governments for gaining authority in the re-centralising Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 78, 699-710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.018
  28. Foo, K. (2018). Examining the role of NGOs in urban environmental governance. Cities, 77, 67-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.01.002
  29. Franceschet, S., & Piscopo, J. M. (2014). Sustaining gendered practices? Power, parties, and elite political networks in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies, 47(1), 85-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013489379
  30. Galudra, G. (2019). Focusing on facilitation: Issues and challenges of capacity development in Indonesia’s social forestry reforms. Forest and Society, 3(1), 133-136. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v3i1.5995
  31. Gauja, A. (2015). The construction of party membership. European Journal of Political Research, 54(2), 232-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12078
  32. Gherghina, S. (2014). Shaping parties’ legitimacy: Internal regulations and membership organisations in post-communist Europe. International Political Science Review, 35(3), 291-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512113517125
  33. Giessen, L., & Buttoud, G. (2014). Assessing forest governance-analytical concepts and their application. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 1-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.009
  34. Gulbrandsen, L. H., & Andresen, S. (2004). NGO influence in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: Compliance, flexibility mechanisms, and sinks. Global Environmental Politics, 4(4), 54-75. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2004.4.4.54
  35. Gupta, D., & Koontz, T. M. (2019). Working together? Synergies in government and NGO roles for community forestry in the Indian Himalayas. World Development, 114, 326-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.09.016
  36. Harrison, T. (2017). NGOs and personal politics: The relationship between NGOs and political leaders in West Bengal, India. World Development, 98, 485-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.008
  37. Hearn, J. (2007). African NGOs: the new ompradors?. Development and Change, 38(6), 1095-1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00447.x
  38. Heiss, A. (2019). Taking control of regulations: How international advocacy NGOs shape the regulatory environments of their target countries. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 8(3), 356-375. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-019-00061-0
  39. Hofmann, A. (2019). Left to interest groups? On the prospects for enforcing environmental law in the European Union. Environmental Politics, 28(2), 342-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1549778
  40. Hsu, J. Y., & Hasmath, R. (2014). The local corporatist state and NGO relations in China. Journal of contemporary China, 23(87), 516-534. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2013.843929
  41. Jordan, G., Maloney, W., (2007). Democracy and interest groups: Enhancing participation?. Palgrave Macmillan.
  42. Kamstra, J., & Schulpen, L. (2015). Worlds apart but much alike: Donor funding and the homogenization of NGOs in Ghana and Indonesia. Studies in Comparative International Development, 50(3), 331-357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-014-9169-8
  43. Klüver, H., (2013). Lobbying in the European Union: Interest groups, lobbying coalitions, and policy change. Oxford University Press.
  44. Knoke, D. (1986). Associations and interest groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000245
  45. Krott, M., (2005). Forest Policy Analysis. European Forest Institute.
  46. Krott, M., Bader, A., Schusser, C., Devkota, R., Maryudi, A., Giessen, L., & Aurenhammer, H. (2014). Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.012
  47. Laraswati, D., Krott, M., Sahide, M. A., Soraya, E., Pratama, A. A., Rahayu, S., ... & Maryudi, A. (2021). Representation-Influence Framework (RIF) for analyzing the roles of organized interest groups (OIGs) in environmental governance. MethodsX, 8, 101335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101335
  48. Laraswati, D., Rahayu, S., Pratama, A. A., Soraya, E., Sahide, M. A. K., Maryudi, A., (2020a). Problem-method fit in forest policy analysis: Empirical pre-orientation for selecting tested or innovative social-qualitative methods. MethodsX, 7, 100794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.100794
  49. Laraswati, D., Rahayu, S., Sahide, M. A., Soraya, E., Pratama, A. A., Fisher, M., & Maryudi, A. (2020b). The anachronistic category of non-government organisations: moving from normative to empirical-based definitions for identifying organized interest groups in forest policymaking. Forest Policy and Economics, 112, 102106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102106
  50. Larson, A. M., Mausch, K., Bourne, M., Luttrell, C., Schoneveld, G., Cronkleton, P., ... & Stoian, D. (2021). Hot topics in governance for forests and trees: Towards a (just) transformative research agenda. Forest Policy and Economics, 131, 102567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102567
  51. Lewis-Beck, M.S., Bryman, A., Liao, T.F., (2004). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589
  52. Lundberg, E. (2013). Does the government selection process promote or hinder pluralism? Exploring the characteristics of voluntary organizations invited to public consultations. Journal of Civil Society, 9(1), 58-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2013.771086
  53. Ma, Q. (2002). The governance of NGOs in China since 1978: how much autonomy?. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(3), 305-328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764002313001
  54. Martens, K. (2002). Mission impossible? Defining nongovernmental organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 13(3), 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020341526691
  55. Maryudi, A., Acheampong, E., Rutt, R. L., Myers, R., & McDermott, C. L. (2020). “A Level Playing Field”?–What an Environmental Justice Lens Can Tell us about Who Gets Leveled in the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan. Society & Natural Resources, 33(7), 859-875. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1725201
  56. Maryudi, A., & Fisher, M. R. (2020). The power in the interview: A practical guide for identifying the critical role of actor interests in environment research. Forest and Society, 4(1), 142-150. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v4i1.9132
  57. Maryudi, A., Laraswati, D., Sahide, M. A., & Giessen, L. (2021). Mandatory legality licensing for exports of Indonesian timber products: Balancing the goals of forest governance and timber industries. Forest Policy and Economics, 124, 102384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102384
  58. Maryudi, A., & Myers, R. (2018). Renting legality: How FLEGT is reinforcing power relations in Indonesian furniture production networks. Geoforum, 97, 46-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.10.008
  59. Meyer, C. A. (1995). Opportunism and NGOs: entrepreneurship and green north-south transfers. World Development, 23(8), 1277-1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(95)00049-I
  60. Michalowitz, I. (2007). What determines influence? Assessing conditions for decision-making influence of interest groups in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), 132-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760601072719
  61. Mitlin, D., Hickey, S., & Bebbington, A. (2007). Reclaiming development? NGOs and the challenge of alternatives. World Development, 35(10), 1699-1720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.11.005
  62. Moe, T. M. (1981). Toward a broader view of interest groups. The Journal of Politics, 43(2), 531-543. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130382
  63. Myers, R., & Muhajir, M. (2015). Searching for justice: rights vs ‘benefits’ in Bukit Baka Bukit Raya national park, Indonesia. Conservation and Society, 13(4), 370-381. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.179886
  64. Nanthagopan, Y., Williams, N., & Thompson, K. (2018). Levels and interconnections of project success in development projects by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 12(2), 487-511. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-04-2018-0085
  65. Nuesiri, E. O. (2018). Strengths and limitations of conservation NGOs in meeting local needs. In Larsen, P. B., & Brockington, D. (Eds.), The anthropology of conservation NGOs: Rethinking the Boundaries (pp. 203-225). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60579-1_8
  66. Nurrochmat, D. R., Dharmawan, A. H., Obidzinski, K., Dermawan, A., & Erbaugh, J. T. (2016). Contesting national and international forest regimes: Case of timber legality certification for community forests in Central Java, Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 68, 54-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.008
  67. Nurrochmat, D. R., Nugroho, I. A., Purwadianto, A., Maryudi, A., & Erbaugh, J. T. (2017). Shifting contestation into cooperation: Strategy to incorporate different interest of actors in medicinal plants in Meru Betiri National Park, Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 83, 162-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.005
  68. Olson, M., (1971). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and The Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press.
  69. Oppong, N. (2018). Negotiating transparency: NGOs and contentious politics of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative in Ghana. Contemporary Social Science, 13(1), 58-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2017.1394483
  70. Orach, K., Schlüter, M., & Österblom, H. (2017). Tracing a pathway to success: How competing interest groups influenced the 2013 EU Common Fisheries Policy reform. Environmental Science & Policy, 76, 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.06.010
  71. Palumbo, A., & Bellamy, R. (2016). From Government to Governance. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315254920
  72. Papadopoulos, Y., & Warin, P. (2007). Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective?. European journal of political research, 46(4), 445-472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00696.x
  73. Patton, M.Q., (2005). Qualitative Research. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013192.bsa514
  74. Piewitt, M., Rodekamp, M., & Steffek, J. (2010). Civil society in world politics: How accountable are transnational CSOs?. Journal of Civil Society, 6(3), 237-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2010.528946
  75. Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The Concept of Representation. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520340503
  76. Ragandhi, A., Hadna, A. H., Setiadi, S., & Maryudi, A. (2021). Why do greater forest tenure rights not enthuse local communities? An early observation on the new community forestry scheme in state forests in Indonesia. Forest and Society, 5(1), 159-166. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v5i1.11723
  77. Rahayu, S., Laraswati, D., Pratama, A. A., Permadi, D. B., Sahide, M. A., & Maryudi, A. (2019). Research trend: Hidden diamonds–The values and risks of online repository documents for forest policy and governance analysis. Forest Policy and Economics, 100, 254-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.009
  78. Rahayu, S., Laraswati, D., Pratama, A. A., Sahide, M. A., Permadi, D. B., Wibowo, W., ... & Maryudi, A. (2020). Bureaucratizing non-government organizations as governmental forest extension services in social forestry policy in Indonesia. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 29(2), 119-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2020.1753585
  79. Sahide, M. A. K., Supratman, S., Maryudi, A., Kim, Y. S., & Giessen, L. (2016). Decentralisation policy as recentralisation strategy: forest management units and community forestry in Indonesia. International Forestry Review, 18(1), 78-95. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554816818206168
  80. Salisbury, R. H. (1969). An exchange theory of interest groups. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 13(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110212
  81. Salisbury, R. H. (1984). Interest representation: The dominance of institutions. American Political Science Review, 78(1), 64-76. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961249
  82. Schoenefeld, J. J. (2021). Interest groups, NGOs or civil society organisations? The framing of non-state actors in the EU. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(3), 585-596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00283-w
  83. Schusser, C., Krott, M., Movuh, M. C. Y., Logmani, J., Devkota, R. R., Maryudi, A., ... & Bach, N. D. (2015). Powerful stakeholders as drivers of community forestry—Results of an international study. Forest Policy and Economics, 58, 92-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.05.011
  84. Slavíková, L., Syrbe, R. U., Slavík, J., & Berens, A. (2017). Local environmental NGO roles in biodiversity governance: a Czech-German comparison. GeoScape, 11(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1515/geosc-2017-0001
  85. Smith, D. J. (2012). AIDS NGOS and corruption in Nigeria. Health & place, 18(3), 475-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.11.002
  86. Steffek, J., & Hahn, K. (Eds.) (2010). Evaluating Transnational NGOs: Legitimacy, Accountability, Representation. Palgrave Macmillan.
  87. Suárez, D., & Gugerty, M. K. (2016). Funding civil society? Bilateral government support for development NGOs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(6), 2617-2640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9706-3
  88. Uddin, M. M., & Belal, A. R. (2019, January). Donors’ influence strategies and beneficiary accountability: An NGO case study. Accounting Forum, 43(1), 113-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2019.1589905
  89. Wesolowski, W., (1962). Class Domination and the Power of Interest Groups. The Polish Sociological Bulletin, (3/4), 53-64. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45275032
  90. Williamson, P. J., (1989). Corporatism in Perspective: An Introductory Guide to Corporatist Theory. SAGE Publications.
  91. Wulandari, C., & Kurniasih, H. (2019). Community preferences for social forestry facilitation programming in Lampung, Indonesia. Forestry and Society, 3(1), 114-132. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v3i1.6026
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download this PDF file
PDF