Too Many Bad Cooks Spoiling the Broth? Effectiveness of NGOs in Addressing Child Labour in El Salvador

The reaction of the first world to the persevering plight of a large part of the third world varies. In response to the sometimes glaring disparities, many international organizations and multinational corporations have recently adopted a pro-development rhetoric with relation to the problem of global poverty. However, the rhetoric rarely translates into action. As David Bacon discusses, leaders of corporations and organizations now tend to conclude their speeches by expressing a desire to reduce the suffering of the third world. However, when it comes to agreeing on specific concessions that could indeed improve the world-wide economic situation, first world countries are reluctant to act. A good example of this type of behavior is the current negotiation of the WTO, the “development round of Doha,” in which the United States along with the European Union pressure countries of the developing South to open up their markets, while at the same time refusing to remove or even decrease their own agricultural subsidies. The first world civil society observes the behavior of international organizations and western based multinational corporations as ineffectual. Taking the matter in its own hands, especially in the past couple of decades, this civil society has created a countless number of development-oriented nongovernmental organizations. These are supposed to compensate for the lack of action by international organizations. Development NGOs are believed to be more locally responsive as well as free of business or political considerations in choosing their strategies, and thus generally more efficient than IOs. However, if they really were how they are alleged to be, the problems of the third world would already be ameliorated by a significant amount, if not completely eradicated. Do development-NGOs indeed possess the characteristics that they claim to possess? What is their real affect on human rights? And how effective are they in their work?

Soft money : private foundations of party politics

In the area of campaign financing in federal elections, one of the most controversial issues is that of soft money. Soft money refers to those funds raised by the national party organizations for use on various grassroots and party-building activities. but which are not subject to the restraints of federal campaign finance law. Critics contend that these party-building activitie, such as generic television advertising, voter registration and get-out-the vote drives, provide ancillary benefits to federal candidates and should, therefore, be subject to federal contribution and expenditure limits. Critics further argue that because these funds are not subject to federal law and do benefit federal candidates, the national parties raise monies in amounts and from sources, such as corporations and unions, that are prohibited under federal law. Efforts to gain a better understanding of soft money have been hampered by a lack of data, as the national parties were not required to disclose their soft money receipts and transactions until 1991. The purpose of this study is to analyze data recently made available in an attempt to add the import of empirical evidence to the debate over soft money. The nature, size and timing of soft money contributions are investigated and national party soft money disbursements are examined. The findings suggest that any attempts to reform the soft money system must first consider its compensatory benefits. Most prominently, this includes the extent to which soft money has promoted the resurgence of the national party organizations in the context of election politics.