Globalisation, Imperialism, and Non-Governmental Organisations: An Illustration With the Country Programme Belarus-Ukraine-Moldova of Civic Education Project

Öz

Using ethnographic data on the country programme Belarus-Ukraine-Moldova (BUM) of Civic Education Project (CEP), an international non-governmental organisation, as an example, this paper seeks to challenge an assumption about the relationship between NGOs and the development of imperialism that their relationship is simple and direct. Contrary to this assumption, the evidence shows that the relationship between CEP and imperialism is neither simple nor direct in that CEP practices could be consistent with, contradictory to, or irrelevant to imperialism. I conclude that the development of imperialism does not necessarily follow a consistent logic that leads to some definite or irresistible outcomes but involves a measure of contingency or indeterminacy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Non-Governmental Organizations
• Globalisation
• Imperialism
• Belarus-Ukraine-Moldova (BUM) of Civic Education Project (CEP)

Kaynakça

1. Brewer, A. (1980) Marxist theories of imperialism: A critical survey, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
2. Bruff, I. (2005) ‘Making Sense of the Globalisation Debate when Engaging in Political Economy Analysis’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations 7: 261-80.
3. Civic Education Project (1997) Education for the Transition: Part I. International Co- operation in Social Science Higher Education in Central and Europe, Conference Report.
4. Civic Education Project (1997) Education for the Transition: Part II. Social Science Teaching at Central and East European Universities, A Needs Assessment.
5. Civic Education Project (1997) Education for the Transition: Part III. Higher Education Policy in Central and Eastern Europe, Country Reports.
6. Clarke, G. (1998) ‘Non-governmental organization (NGOs) and politics in the developing world’ Political Studies XLVI: 36-52.
7. Edwards, M. and Hulme, D (1996) ‘Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations’ World Development 24(6): 961-973.
8. Evans, P. (2000) ‘Fighting Marginalization with Transnational Networks: Counter Hegemonic Globalization’ Contemporary Sociology 29(1): 230-241.

9. Fisher, J. (1998) Non governments: NGOs and the political development of the Third World, West Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian Press.
10. Fulcher, J. (2000) ‘Globalisation, the nation-state and global society’ Sociological Review 48(4):522-43.
11. Gudynas, E. (1997). ‘NGOs facing democracy and globalization: The challenges of Latin America’ Transnational Associations, 49(4): 199-204.
12. Hamm, B. and Smandych, R. (eds) (2005) Cultural Imperialism: Essays on the Political Economy of Cultural Domination, Ontario: Broadview Press.
13. Hardt, M and Negri, A. (2000) Empire, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
14. Harvey, D. (2003) The New Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Hilhorst, D. (2003) The Real World of NGOs: Discourses, Diversity and Development, London: Zed Books.
16. Hobsbawm, E. (1994) Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, London: Michael Joseph.
17. Kotkin, S. (2001) Kotkin Report: Independent Evaluation of Civic Education Project, commissioned by Higher Education Support Program (confidential internal document).
18. Lenin, V. (1964) ‘Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism’ in Collected Works, 22: 304, Moscow: Progress Publishers.
19. Lindberg, S. and Sverrisson, A. (eds) (1997) Social Movements in Development: The Challenge of Globalization and Democratization, London: Macmillan.
20. Mabee, B. (2004) ‘Discourse of empire: the US “empire”, globalisation and international relations’ Third World Quarterly 25(8): 1359-78.
21. Mattausch, J. (2003) ‘Chance and societal change’ Sociological Review 51(4): 506-27.
22. Mehmet, O. (1999) Westernizing the Third World: The eurocentricity of economic development theories, London and New York: Routledge.
23. Mercer, C. (2002) ‘NGOs, civil society and democratization: a critical review of the literature’ Progress in Development Studies 2(1): 5-22.
24. Negri, A. (2005) (translated by Matteo Mandarini) Time for Revolution, Reprinted Edition, London and New York: Continuum.
25. Owen, R. and Sutcliffe, B. (eds) (1972) Studies in the theory of imperialism, London: Longman.
26. Passvant, P. and Dean, J. (eds) (2004) Empire’s New Clothes: Reading Hardt and Negri, New York and London: Routledge.
27. Pearce, J. (1997) ‘Civil society, the market and democracy in Latin America’ Democratisation 4(2): 57-83.
28. Petras, J. (1997) ‘Imperialism and NGOs in Latin America’ Monthly Review 49(7): 10
29. Pieterse, J.N. (2004) Globalization or Empire? New York and London: Routledge.
30. Prasch, R. (2005) ‘Neoliberalism and Empire: How Are They Related?’ Review of Radical Political Economics, 37 (3): 281-7.
31. Putzel, J. (2005) ‘Globalization, Liberalization, and Prospects for the State’ International Political Science Review 26(1):5-16.
32. Robertson, R. (1992) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, London: Sage.
33. Rossi, U. (2005) ‘The Counter-Empire to Come or the Discourse of the Great Rival: An Attempted Decoding of Michael Hardt’s and Toni Negri’s Empire’ Science and Society 69(2): 191-217.
34. Ruccio, D. (2003) ‘Globalization and Imperialism’ Rethinking Marxism 15(1): 75-94.
35. Stiglitz, J. (2002) Globalization and its Discontents, London: Allen Lane.
36. Szymanski, A. (1981) The Logic of Imperialism, New York: Praeger.
37. Toye, J. (1993) Dilemmas of development: reflections on the counter-revolution in development economics, Second Edition, Oxford: Blackwell.
38. Urry, J. (2000) Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the twentieth-first century, London and New York: Routledge.
39. Wallerstein, I. (1974, 1980, 1988) The Modern World-System, Three Volumes, New York and San Diego: Academic Press.