Focusing on transparency and anti-corruption issues, this report discusses the findings from a series of participatory workshops and more than seventy interviews with social movement actors and organizations in Kenya, Nigeria, and Ukraine. It looks at the different ways social movement actors in these countries were influenced by foreign financial support and training, including in terms of the goals they set, the tactics and activities they pursue, and whether receiving foreign support compromises their legitimacy with their domestic constituents.

A majority of Nigerians believe they risk retaliation or other consequences when they report incidents of corruption. Anti-corruption activists and their organizations can help encourage safe reporting. (Akintunde Akinleye/Reuters)
A majority of Nigerians believe they risk retaliation or other consequences when they report incidents of corruption. Anti-corruption activists and their organizations can help encourage safe reporting. (Akintunde Akinleye/Reuters)

Summary

Bilateral donor agencies and private foundations are increasingly interested in extending their support to social movement actors to supplement these actors’ demonstrated ability to advance policy reform. But what is the impact of such training and funding? Do these resources improve the ability of social movement organizations to advance policy reforms and mobilize grassroots support? Or do they burden social movement actors with new bureaucratic requirements, limits on tactics and activities, or deficits of popular legitimacy and credibility?

To better assess these impacts, three participatory workshops were held and more than seventy in-depth interviews conducted with representatives of transparency, accountability, and anti-corruption social movement organizations in Nigeria, Kenya, and Ukraine in 2017 and 2018. Respondents consistently reported that foreign funding substantially influenced their activism, often in ways that impeded effectiveness.

This situation was less apparent in the analysis of survey data, however, and respondents reported that some challenges of foreign funding were manageable. Foreign funding also generated competitive dynamics. Some activists reported that they were persistently excluded from foreign grant opportunities, and this exclusion caused resentment of major recipients of foreign grants.

These findings imply an opportunity for donors to provide more direct and less conditional funding support to movement actors. More flexible support will allow individual activists and movement organizations to scale up their work, adapt to changing circumstances, and seize opportunities while freeing them from the project-based and earmarked grants that currently constrain their approach.

Likewise, more funding that targets newer and small activists will allow for more coalition building and minimize some resentments that percolate in the transparency and accountability movement. Trainings and convenings that bring together more established movement organizations with newer organizations and activists on a level playing field may also support the emergence of more organic collaboration and partnerships.

About the Report

This report presents findings from a series of participatory workshops and more than seventy in-depth interviews with social movement actors and organizations on transparency and accountability issues in Kenya, Nigeria, and Ukraine. The report was supported by USAID's Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance.

About the Author

Davin O’Regan is a former senior program officer in USIP's Program on Nonviolent Action and is currently completing his PhD at the University of Maryland. Tabatha Pilgrim Thompson and Miranda Rivers of USIP contributed extensive research and editorial support for this project. Aminu Gamawa of Nigeria, Victor Rateng of Kenya, and Artem Myroshnychenko of Ukraine undertook on-the-ground research.


Related Research & Analysis

The Perils of a Cold War Analogy for Today’s U.S.-China Rivalry

The Perils of a Cold War Analogy for Today’s U.S.-China Rivalry

Tuesday, June 10, 2025

In the new era of great power rivalry between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”), the paradigm of strategic competition has become popular. In looking to make sense of the present global geopolitical moment and paradigm, pundits search for a relevant historical analogy.

Type: Analysis

What Do Changes in China’s Nuclear Program Mean for India?

What Do Changes in China’s Nuclear Program Mean for India?

Thursday, March 13, 2025

At the end of 2024, the annual U.S. Department of Defense report on military and security developments in China reinforced evolving assessments of China’s rapid nuclear expansion with an alarming projection: The U.S. expects China to have 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030 despite having maintained a nuclear arsenal of approximately 300 warheads for decades.

Type: Analysis

How Critical Mineral Partnerships Can Serve Both African and U.S. Interests

How Critical Mineral Partnerships Can Serve Both African and U.S. Interests

Thursday, February 27, 2025

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is looking for U.S. investors in the mining sector as a way to break China’s dominance over the country’s reserves of cobalt, copper and other critical minerals. However, the DRC’s struggles with violence and weak governance make this seem like a risky proposition — but it doesn’t have to be. USIP’s Thomas Sheehy, Gécamines’ Guy-Robert Lukama and USIP Senior Study Group on Critical Minerals in Africa member Anthony Carroll explain how the United States can build mutually beneficial partnerships with countries like the DRC that address, rather than worsen, regional instability and serve U.S. economic and security interests.

Type: Blog

View All Research & Analysis