The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been busy since the late 2000s studying the way aid donors manage their relations with development civil society organisations (CSOs). More than studying these relations, they have made some very detailed, managerialist suggestions about how CSOs should be organised and how donor governments should fund and otherwise relate to them. This came out of the debate about aid effectiveness, which was formally aimed at improving both donor and recipient processes. Donors have quietly dropped many of the aspects related to improving their own performance and yet a number have created new interventionist governance frameworks for CSOs. This is the case in Germany, which has a large, vibrant development CSO sector that has traditionally been quite autonomous, even where its received state funding thanks to Germany’s commitment to ‘subsidiarity.’ Yet Germany is otherwise a middle of the road donor and in many ways, these ‘reforms’ are moving its relations with civil society more towards a somewhat more managerialist approach, one that is in fact the norms amongst OECD donors.

中文翻译：

---

德国政府与公民社会发展合作战略：中间道路的危险

自2000年代后期以来，经济合作与发展组织（OECD）一直在忙于研究援助捐助者管理其与发展民间社会组织（CSO）的关系的方式。除了研究这些关系之外，他们还提出了一些非常详细的管理主义建议，涉及应如何组织公民社会组织以及捐助国政府应如何资助以及与之建立联系。这是关于援助有效性的辩论，该辩论的正式目的是改善捐助者和接受者的流程。捐助者悄悄地放弃了许多与提高自身绩效有关的方面，但是有许多人为公民社会组织创建了新的干预主义治理框架。在德国，情况就是如此，该国拥有庞大而充满活力的发展CSO部门，该部门过去一直相当自治，即使德国因其对“辅助性”的承诺而获得了国家资助。然而，德国在其他方面却是捐助者的中游者，而且在许多方面，这些“改革”正将其与民间社会的关系更多地转向一种更具管理主义的态度，这实际上是经合组织捐助者的规范。