ABSTRACT

Introduction In this chapter, I discuss the respondents’ orientations toward the impact of the funding bureaucracy, examining their ideas concerning the application and bureaucracy processes with empirical evidence. In previous studies, Byrne and Ayulo (1998), Buchanan (2008), Matic et al. (2007), and Byrne et al. (2007b) have noted the complexity of the application and delivery processes and structures of the IFI and the EU Peace and Reconciliation Program. They allude to the prescriptive application process and how funding criteria alienates applicants. In particular, the EU funding process is viewed as more onerous than the IFI (Matic et al. 2007). Frustrated community groups struggle with the daunting application process, and excessive bureaucratic controls over the dispersal of funding and the reporting mechanisms of both funders (Buchanan 2008). The provision by both funders of ample development officers on the ground are needed to assist community groups in the deciphering of the application forms and the bureaucratic jargon (Racioppi and Sullivan 2007). The auditing, evaluation, and reporting requirements of both funders needs to be streamlined (Byrne et al. 2007a). A participatory funding model based on best practices will improve the effectiveness of Peace III-funded projects. The following is a discussion of what the respondents found salient in their images of how the funding bureaucracy is hindering community groups in the execution of their economic development and peacebuilding projects. It focuses on the respondents’ interpretations of the impact of the application and bureaucratic processes on grassroots community organizations. The chapter adds to our understanding of the role of the bureaucracy in the application process and the administration of community-funded projects.