Mandate or Donors? Explaining the UNHCR’s Country-Level Expenditures from 1967 to 2016

In recent decades, many international organizations have become almost entirely funded by voluntary contributions. Much existing literature suggests that major donors use their funding to refocus international organizations’ attention away from their core mandate and toward serving donors’ geostrategic interests. We investigate this claim in the context of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), examining whether donor influence negatively impacts mandate delivery and leads the organization to direct expenditures more toward recipient countries that are politically, economically, or geographically salient to major donors. Analyzing a new dataset of UNHCR finances (1967–2016), we find that UNHCR served its global mandate with considerable consistency. Applying flexible measures of collective donor influence, so-called “influence-weighted interest scores,” our findings suggest that donor influence matters for the expenditure allocation of the agency, but that mandate-undermining effects of such influence are limited and most pronounced during salient refugee situations within Europe.

Government–donor relations in Sierra Leone: who is in the driving seat?

Since the cessation of conflict in 2002, Sierra Leone has experienced extraordinary levels of involvement from Western donors. Paradoxically, while relationships are often portrayed on the ground as strong with significant donor influence, our research shows considerable fluidity in individual and institutional relationships. The article disaggregates donor–government relations at various levels over a short but crucial period, 2010–16, asking in each case who occupies the driving seat. In so doing, the article interrogates the concept of ‘extraversion’, investigating to what extent government – and indeed donors – has space in which to manoeuvre and how and why government and donors act as they do in this space. The period 2010–16 is of particular interest due to extreme iron ore price volatility and the Ebola epidemic of 2014–15. The article adds much-needed critique and empirical evidence to the debate on donor influence and ‘extraversion’.

Accountability for Human Rights Violations in Cambodia: Mapping the Indirect Effects of Transitional Justice Mechanisms

When studying accountability for human rights violations in Cambodia, it is crucial to understand the role human rights non-governmental organisations (ngos) can play in holding duty-bearers accountable. This article consists of two parts. The first traces how some prominent Cambodian ngos use the language of human rights and which issues they prioritise. The analysis shows that issues related to civil and political rights dominate their discourse, while there is remarkably little attention to issues relating to economic, social and cultural rights. This prioritisation is not rooted in popular priorities, nor can it be adequately explained by referring to mainstream theories of donor influence or professionalised elites. To better understand where these priorities come from, the second part of the article examines the Cambodian transitional justice process. This analysis shows a significant overlap between the priorities of the selected ngos and those of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (eccc). It is therefore argued that transitional justice mechanisms, like the eccc, may have an agenda-setting power far beyond what is commonly assumed. In this specific case, this influence raises questions about accountability for past and on-going violations of economic, social and cultural rights.

North-South Knowledge Networks Towards Equitable Collaboration Between

Since the 1990s, internationalisation has become key for institutions wishing to secure funding for higher education and research. For the academic community, this strategic shift has had many consequences. Priorities have changed and been influenced by new ways of thinking about universities, and of measuring their impact in relation to each other and to their social goals. Debates are ongoing and hotly contested. In this collection, a mix of renowned academics and newer voices reflect on some of the realities of international research partnerships. They both question and highlight the agency of academics, donors and research institutions in the geopolitics of knowledge and power. The contributors offer fresh insights on institutional transformation, the setting of research agendas, and access to research funding, while highlighting the dilemmas researchers face when their institutions are vulnerable to state and donor influence. Offering a range of perspectives on why academics should collaborate and what for, this book will be useful to anyone interested in how scholars are adapting to the realities of international networking and how research institutions are finding innovative ways to make North�South partnerships and collaborations increasingly fair, sustainable and mutually beneficial.