BICYCLES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN UGANDA: A STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS,

ORGANIZATIONS AND GLOBALIZATION

by

MADISON ARDIZZI

[Link], University of Toronto, 2015

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES

(Kinesiology)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

(Vancouver)

December 2018

ã Madison Ardizzi, 2018

The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate
and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled:

Bicycles for development in Uganda: A study of perceptions, organizations and globalization

submitted by Madison Ardizzi in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Master of Arts

in Kinesiology

Examining Committee:

Brian Wilson, Socio-cultural Kinesiology

Supervisor

Lyndsay Hayhurst, Socio-cultural Kinesiology

Supervisory Committee Member

Dr. Moss Norman, Socio-cultural Kinesiology

Supervisory Committee Member

Dr. Patricia Vertinsky, Socio-cultural Kinesiology

University Examiner

ii
 ABSTRACT

The bicycle has been hailed by The United Nations and various non-governmental

organizations for its use in environmentally-friendly forms of social and economic development

(Yang & Wu, 2015). Despite these claims, there remains a lacuna of research exploring the value

of bicycles outside of Europe and America (Sengers, 2016). Specifically, there is a lack of

research on: the structure and goals of ‘bicycles for development’ (BFD) organizations; how

bicycles are used for development purposes; the perspectives of those involved in BFD; and the

politics and complexities of bicycle-driven development work related to globalization.

Responding to these shortcomings, the overarching goal of this study was to better

understand how bicycles are being used as an international development tool. This research was

guided by pertinent literature on ‘sport for development and peace’ (Darnell, 2012), neoliberal

approaches to development (Wilson & Hayhurst, 2009) post/colonialism (Carrington, 2015), and

globalization (Tsing, 2005). In order to bring focus to this study of the global BFD movement—

and how it is understood and experienced in relation to particular contexts where BFD is

prominent— I conducted semi-structured interviews in various regions of Uganda with 19

individuals associated with 10 BFD organizations.

Research results included that: (1) BFD organizations exist along a spectrum, with some

being ‘top down’, international, and economics-focused – and others being ‘bottom-up’,

domestic, and community-focused (and most having features of both); (2) meanings ascribed to

the bicycle are unstable and context dependent, which impacts how bicycles are used as a

development tool; and, (3) as bicycles move to and within Uganda, various forms of ‘friction’

(Tsing, 2005) are encountered, that lead to challenges for BFD providers and recipients. I

conclude by suggesting that while bicycles are considered useful for a range of development

purposes, perspectives on their usefulness varies. It is also clear that inequalities commonly

iii
associated with sport for development are evident in the BFD movement too, although there are

some unique features of BFD in this regard. I recommend further research on how local

populations understand the bicycle, with a focus on the extent to which local interests and needs

are taken up.

iv
 LAY SUMMARY

The United Nations and various non-governmental organizations have shipped bicycles

globally to reduce poverty, gender inequality and provide people with mobility, creating the

‘bicycles for development’ (BFD) movement. In order to study the global BFD movement, and

bring focus to my study, I traveled to Uganda and conducted semi-structured interviews with 19

individuals associated to 10 BFD organizations. Results of the research found that there are a

range of features across the BFD organizations and that the meaning of the bicycle is context

dependent. I also found that bicycles in the BFD movement travel around the world in complex

ways, and encounter friction that either facilitate or impede global movement. I conclude by

suggesting that while bicycles are considered useful (and for many, crucial) for a range of

development purposes, perspectives varied on just how useful they are, and on the ways that

bicycles are useful.

v
 PREFACE

This research was supported by the SSHRC-Insight grant # 435-2016-0090 with York

University, the University of British Columbia and University of Bath. Dr. Hayhurst of York

University was the principal investigator on this grant and had an established a relationship with

Janet Otte—a Ugandan local and fellow researcher— who was employed as a researcher on the

SSHRC grant and helped conduct this research. Dr. Wilson—my MA supervisor and the co-

investigator on this grant—supported my design of the research questions and the

methodological approach for this thesis.

Janet and I communicated prior to, and after, my time in Uganda. Janet made connections

with the organizations in Uganda to organize interview locations, dates, times, and

accommodations. She was present for half of the interviews, and the other half were conducted

by myself, with an encultured informant when necessary.

Ethics was approved for the SSHRC grant “Cycling against Poverty? Researching a Sport

for Development Movement and an ‘Object’ in/for Development” by York University Ethics

Review Board Number 2016-269 and Mbale Regional Referral Hospital Research Ethics

Committee Number: MRRH- REC IN- COM 0100/2017. Additionally, ethics approval was

received from UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board- H16-002757.

The content of this thesis is the unpublished work of Madison Ardizzi

Content of preface has been examined by Dr. Brian Wilson, ________________

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... ii
Lay Sumamary ............................................................................................................................. iv
Preface ............................................................................................................................................ v
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... vii
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. xii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xiii
Dedication .................................................................................................................................... xv
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Justification and Rationale ............................................................................................ 4
1.3 Theoretical Approach.................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Literature Review.......................................................................................................... 9
2. Method(ology) ......................................................................................................................... 17
2.1 History of Uganda ....................................................................................................... 20
2.2 Overview of Organizations ......................................................................................... 23
2.3 Semi-structured Interviews ......................................................................................... 25
2.4 Transcription ............................................................................................................... 27
2.5 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 28
2.6 Reflexivity................................................................................................................... 30
3. Results ...................................................................................................................................... 34
3.1 RQ (1) ......................................................................................................................... 35
3.2 RQ (2) ......................................................................................................................... 45
3.3 RQ (3) ......................................................................................................................... 54
3.4 RQ (4) ......................................................................................................................... 66
4. Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 73
4.1 Sport and Development Organizations ....................................................................... 73
4.2 Context of Development Matters ................................................................................ 78
4.3 Power Relations in Development and Sport ............................................................... 82
4.3 Localizing Global BFD ............................................................................................... 86
5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 88
References .................................................................................................................................... 94
Appendix A: Interview Guide .................................................................................................. 101
Appendix B: Informed Consent Forms .................................................................................. 103

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Participant chart…………………………………………………………………... 18

Table 2 Overview of organizations………………………………………………………... 23
Table 3 Encultured informants……………………………………………………………. 27
Table 4 Organizational goals……………………………………………………………… 45

viii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym/ abbreviation Term

BAP Bicycles Against Poverty
BFD Bicycles for Development
CHT Community health team
FABIO First African Bicycle Information Organization
HFH Hope for Humans
IDP Internally displaced persons camp
KWA Kadama Widows Association
MOTF Mityana Open Troops Foundation
MOU Memorandum of understanding
NGO Non-governmental organizations
NMT Non-motorized transport
P4P Pedals 4 Progress
SDP Sport for development and peace
SDG Sustainability Development goals
SfD Sport for Development
UOH Union of Hope
VHT Village health team
VSLA Village saving and loan association
WBR World Bicycle Relief

ix
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge those that supported me intellectually, emotionally, and in

numerous other ways throughout my Master of Arts.

Firstly, I would like to thank my MA supervisor, Dr. Brian Wilson for always leaving his

office door open to answer my many inquiries and for guiding me in the right direction. Thank

you to my committee for believing that I was the person to conduct this research. Dr. Lyndsay

Hayhurst, I am immensely grateful for the opportunity to have worked on this grant alongside

you. Dr. Moss Norman, thank you for your attention to history and your knowledge on

community-based research. Thank you also to SSHRC, who supported this research and my

travels to and from Uganda.

Thank you to those individuals who collaborated with me and encouraged me to think

beyond my analysis. To Janet, whose assistance and guidance in Uganda made my experience

enjoyable, safe, and very humbling—thank you for providing me with insight into the culture,

introducing me to many kind-hearted individuals and accompanying me on many journeys in

Uganda. Thank you to the fellow research assistants that also worked on this grant, Mitchell

McSweeney, Kelvin Leung and Emerald Bandoles, who pushed me to consider themes in my

analysis, kept me accountable to our weekly meetings and who taught/ co-learnt NVivo with me.

Thank you to my fellow Annex graduate students who provided me with academic and moral

support, keeping me grounded in the stressful times of this degree.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends. Thank you for the many visits to

Vancouver, forcing me to take a break and enjoy the beautiful place where I reside. Thank you,

dad, for encouraging me to live my life by design. Thank you, Elise, for your silly demeanor and

for embodying so much of mom’s personality. Thank you, Tammy, for the many telephone calls

and photos of Hudson and Zoey. Thank you, Leslie, for your academic input and countless

x
coffee mornings, writing in silence. Thank you, Shayla, for encouraging me to take a break and

breath, you have brought comfort and ease in stressful times. Thank you to my many other

friends and family who constantly checked-in on me to ask about my research and to chat about

life outside of academia.

Without all of the people listed above, and also those who were not named, I would not

be in the position I am today. Thank you immensely for all that you do for me; I am surrounded

by love and I am so appreciative of all of you.

xi
 DEDICATION

The last two and a half years of my life have been dedicated to you Mom and Grandma.

Thank you, Debbie Ardizzi, mom, for the lessons you taught me, and the ongoing strength that

you continue to provide—all of this would not have been possible with you. Thank you for

teaching me how to be with people in the world and to love and care for everyone; your

generosity and joy have kept my heart going. You always said that you would do whatever it

would take to let me live my best life, and I could not imagine another experience aside from this

that would have made me feel so fulfilled. Your laughter rings in my ears and I have embodied

your being to keep you alive; I know that you are so happy and proud, and all that I do is to

confirm that.

Grandma, you wore your heart of your sleeve and loved without question, you are an

inspiration to love and be loved. When you entered a room, you illuminated it and radiated

warmth that everyone around you felt. Thank you for all the love that you have given me and for

the amazing husband, that since your passing, I have since grown such a strong relationship with.

To my two matriarchs, thank you, thank you, thank you; this work is a dedication to you,

my angels.

xii
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

“[Bicycles] provide crucial mobility access to markets, healthcare, schools… [and] employment
opportunities” (Starkey & Hine, 2014, p. 3) commissioned by UN Habitat and Overseas
Development Institute.

Bicycles have been hailed by The United Nations and various non-governmental

organizations (NGOs) as an innovative and effective response to socioeconomic barriers (Yang

& Wu, 2015), with reports highlighting that bicycles can be used as a sustainable mode of

transportation (Dora, Hosking, Mudu, & Fletcher, n.d.). Bicycles have also been employed to

increase access to education1, have been given to health care workers2 and have been used as

entrepreneurial tools3 to contribute to individual and community economic growth. Additionally,

cycling has been discussed as directly linked to delivering on 11 of the Sustainable Development

Goals (SDG) (European Cyclists’ Federation, 2016).

Although the bicycle has been valorized as a transformative object, there is limited

literature that has explored the bicycle as an international development tool. In this thesis, I

describe and provide background for my study that was designed to explore how bicycles were

utilized as a tool to ‘develop’ communities socially, economically and environmentally—the

triple-bottom line of sustainability (Chernushenko, van der Kamp & Stubbs, 2001). While

remaining cognizant of the colonial history of Africa and the deployment of international aid,

through neoliberal globalization—which Hayhurst, Wilson and Frisby (2010) discussed as

“fostering an environment where various non-state actors congregate to promote market-oriented

approaches to development” (p. 319)—I examined the various ways that bicycles have been

1
Organizations such as Coop Africa, Bicycles Against Poverty, Bicycles for Humanity (B4H) and Ride 4 Women
have donated bicycles for education initiatives.
2
The UN has delivered bicycles for this reason:
[Link] along with other organizations such as
Coop Africa, FABIO, Bicycles Against Poverty, B4H, Bikes Not Bombs, Maternity World Wide and World Bicycle
Relief.
3
Bicycles have been donated for job development, microfinancing and entrepreneurialism from B4H, Bikes Not
Bombs, Coop Africa, Ride4Women and World Bicycle Relief.

1
utilized, the perceptions of people involved, and the structure of organizations and processes of

globalization within the network of Bicycles for Development (BFD).

1.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In this section, I discuss and justify the research questions that guided my research. See below.

1) What are the characteristics of the various organizations involved in BFD (e.g. how are

they structured and what are the goals and missions of these organizations)?

This question explored the relative similarities and differences between various organizations in

an attempt to illuminate and understand their origin (e.g., is the organization grassroots?), their

mission/ goals, who was involved, funding and how they were structured (i.e. top-down or

bottom-up) in order to gain a deeper understanding of what the BFD movement was, as well as

the range of features, strengths and issues of the movement, in the national context of Uganda.

2) How is the bicycle being used as an international ‘development’ tool (what assumptions

about bicycles underlie their utilization for development purposes)?

Coupled with the first question, the exploration of the bicycle as an international development

tool involved looking at the goals and mission statements of the various organizations involved,

specifically exploring assumptions about the bicycle, the intended/ unintended usages of the

bike, and who did/ did not have access. Moreover, this question probed at the various

applications of the bicycle as a tool aimed at targeting a range of social and economic

problems—with the intention of addressing the potential hegemony, defined as “power relations

and social processes that underlie inequality” (Wilson, 2012, p. 32) and how consent is generated

for unequal arrangements—within relationships in the BFD movement, by locating an

individual’s actions “within relations of dominance and subordination […] to expose the

workings of power, but also to change inequalities” (Thorpe & Olive, 2016, p. 128). The first

two research questions explored how these organizations represented themselves on their

2
websites, media and publicly available documents, as well as what those individuals interviewed

in this research, who were associated with the BFD organizations, chose to say to me about their

mission statements, goals and experiences within the movement.

3) What are the perspectives of those involved in such bicycle-driven development on their

work and industry?

By conversing with BFD representatives (founders, employees and volunteers), as well as

beneficiary organizations, this question explored the complexities and tensions embedded within

this movement. Participants, who occupied different social positions, shared their perspectives on

BFD, which unearthed some contradictions in how the bicycle was talked about. In this sense, I

explored taken-for-granted assumptions about the bicycle by discussing the ways that it was (and

was not) useful as a means to intervene and ‘solve’ social and economic problems.

4) What can be learned about globalization processes and the impacts of technologies

traveling to and within the Two-Thirds World?

Lastly, as the BFD movement involved the transfer of capital, media, bikes, ideologies and

bodies within a network of actors situated in various locales around the world, this research

contributed to the literature that explores various forms of globalization as activities at the micro-

level that influence, and are influenced by, the macro global community (Wilson, 2012). In order

to do this, I attended to the multi-layered and multi-faceted experiences of individuals involved

in BFD in Uganda. I connected my research to literature on international development and sport

for development and peace (SDP), as a way of aiding my attempts to theorize how the bicycle

(re)produced and reflected forms of globalization.

3
 1.2 JUSTIFICATION AND RATIONALE

As noted earlier, bicycles have been hailed by the UN and NGOs as a technology to

support various forms of development. Although there is a growing body of literature examining

SDP (Darnell, 2007; Forde, 2015; Hayhurst, 2014a/b, and many more), to my knowledge, there

has been no research that has explored how the bicycle might be understood in relation to this

literature. This research was designed to fill this gap.

Theoretically speaking, this research contributed to a deeper understanding of

globalization by exploring the multi-layered experiences of people in an interconnected “world

as a whole” (p. 20, Robertson, 1990) by attending to the transfer of capital, media, bodies,

bicycles (as a technology) and ideas that move to and from the One-Thirds World and the Two-

Thirds World4. The process of globalization—as it pertains in this case to NGOs, locals and

bicycles—is highly political, and known to operate along a global chain of connections,

disconnections and reconnections (Burawoy, 2001). Additionally, globalization processes occur

through different features (objects, people, ideas, etc.) interacting across distance, creating

friction and shaping global forces (Tsing, 2005). Although there has been research that has

explored the intended and unintended consequences of globalization (Giulianotti, 2004; Thibault,

2009), there has been little in-depth research on BFD as a form of globalization.

In addition to contributing to the literature, this research had practical implications. By

conversing with representatives of BFD organizations, I considered the common assumptions

made about bicycles and the experiences of those involved in the BFD movement. Throughout

this thesis, I elaborate on how inequalities were both addressed through and reflected in the BFD

4
Throughout this thesis, I will use the terminology of ‘One-Third World’ and ‘Two-Thirds World’ to refer to the
Global North and Global South, respectively. I do this in line with Hayhurst (2013), who also employed this
terminology in solidarity with Esteva and Prakash (1998), suggesting that these “terms represent the social
minorities and majorities in both the North and South while attempting to remove ideological and geographical
binaries as found in other terms (e.g. North/South)” (p. 9).

4
movement. I also highlight field notes and provide embodied reflections on being a White

Canadian female conducting research in Uganda. Lastly, I compiled some recommended ‘best-

practices’ based off what people involved in the movement told me about what does and doesn’t

work (e.g. information about the factors that facilitate and impede the movement of bicycles

across borders and information about gender and class-related barriers to participation in BFD in

local settings) that may lead to improvements in the work of these various organizations and

other stakeholders in the movement.

1.3 THEORETICAL APPRAOCH AND KEY CONCEPTS

This research was situated within a critical interpretivist paradigm – meaning that the

research was rooted in the assumption that social reality is entrenched in tensions and conflicts

that are bound by material, cultural and historical contexts – all of which influence how

individuals make and assign meaning (Neuman, 2003), and, in turn, how knowledge is

constructed and reconstructed (Burke, 2016). I note this as background for my research as I

contextually analyzed the BFD movement in Uganda and attended to the meanings that those

working in the BFD movement ascribed to their own situations and activities.

Working from this position, I will spend the rest of this section outlining a set of key

concepts and perspectives that, in a more specific way, guided and underpinned the research I

conducted, focused on BFD.

Globalization

As previously mentioned, globalization is a highly politicized, complex and contested

term. Robertson (1992) offered a working definition of globalization as a “compression of the

world and intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole” (as cited in Thibault, 2009,

p. 2). In viewing the world as an interconnected whole, Harvey, Horne and Safai (2009) further

discussed how globalization encompasses intertwining cultural, social, technological, political

5
and economic dimensions—with the last two variables arguably dominating attention and

driving changes in the other categories. In order to think through these interacting variables, I

used Appadurai’s (1996) five ‘scapes’ to conceptualize how globalization occurred within and

across the following areas: “ideoscapes (referring to the ways that ideas are transmitted across

borders); financescapes (referring to the transfer of capital across borders); mediascapes

(referring to the global reach of mass media); technoscapes (referring to the global movement of

technologies); [and] ethnoscapes (referring to the movement of people across borders)” (as cited

in Wilson, 2012, p. 64).

In recognition of the contention around globalization, Burawoy (2001) highlighted how

“globalization is produced and consumed not in thin air, not in some virtual reality but in real

organizations, institutions, communities” (p. 148) which allowed me to think through how global

forces influence culture. Burawoy (2001) further advocated for the need to look at “the

standpoint of participants located at the intersection of the most remote forces, connections and

imaginations” (p. 148), because these perspectives illuminate how the ‘global’ is taken up

‘locally’, highlighting how the two are highly interwoven processes that cannot be disconnected.

More specifically, a goal of this research was to think about how what happened locally

can be extended to enable understandings of globalization processes more broadly. In order to

theorize my research in this way, I followed the three tenets of Burawoy’s (2001) global

ethnography. First, he acknowledged the reception and contestation of the global as (re)produced

in the local, specifically encouraging the restoration of agency to the local. Second, he regarded

the “‘local’ [as] no longer oppos[ing] but constitute[ing] the global”, as the global is produced in

the local through processes of globalization, which he argued can occur through the “production

of (dis)connections” (pp. 157-158). Lastly, he highlighted how within “the process of production

there is a politics of production” (p. 158). Using this framework as a guiding theoretical

6
approach, I attended to the politics of BFD production and distribution that took place to, and

within, the Two-Thirds Worlds.

In recognizing the range of ways that different parts of the world are interconnected – and

different approaches to understanding such interconnections – there have been especially heated

debates about economic globalization and neoliberalism as the “dominant approaches to

governance and international relations in the current historical moment” (Wilson, 2012, p. 71).

For example, scholars like Cohen (2014) have argued that, over decades, globalization has

redistributed wealth between and within nations through “the uneven spread of economic

development and consumption” (as cited in Lafferty, 2016, p. 140). Thibault (2009) also

acknowledged that “the globalization of sport has been achieved at the expense of individuals,

organizations, and countries with limited resources” (p. 4) reiterating the argument made by

others that “globalization has not been favourable for all” (p. 4).

As previously alluded to, global forces impact the movement of objects around the world.

Tsing (2005) highlighted how ‘friction’ keeps global power in motion—and emphasized the

importance of interacting variables that define movement, cultural form and agency. She

elaborated that:

Friction inflects historical trajectories, enabling, excluding, and particularizing […]

Friction makes global connection powerful and effective. Meanwhile, without even
trying, friction gets in the way of the smooth operation of global power. Difference can
disrupt, causing everyday malfunctions as well as unexpected cataclysms. Friction
refuses the lie that global power operates as a well-oiled machine (p. 6)

Tsing described how the flow of global movement increased in the 1990s, with the assumption

that goods, ideas, money, people, and objects moved with ease around the world. Fatimah and

Arora (2016) built upon the concept of friction, proposing that agency is not just “the capacity of

a human being to change a state of affairs, but rather as an effect of actor’s relations with each

other” (p. 32). This relational approach accounts for the interaction between humans and non-

7
humans (such as a bicycle, as explored in this research) that work together to determine motion,

development and globalization processes. Therefore, as the environment, objects, people and

ideas coalesce in a network of friction, unexpected barriers to movement can arise and impede

travel.

Post/colonialism

When thinking about the global distribution of aid, and the Global North ‘developing’ the

Global South5, there are implicit understandings of “who is, and who is not, developed” (Darnell

& Hayhurst, 2011, p. 185). The implementation of development projects in Africa by those

outside of the continent has oftentimes been understood as a neo-colonial endeavor – which was

why a post/colonial analytic lens would benefit any study of BFD, like this one. My usage of the

term post/colonialism follows Carrington (2015), who employed this terminology—and the use

of the ‘/’ between ‘post’ and ‘colonialism’— to signal the “ambivalent tension between the

surpassing of formal colonial governance and the continuance of neocolonial relations” (p. 113).

Carrington (2015) further explained how post/colonial theory can be used to critically unpack

and rethink the “‘the West’ from the inside” (p. 107), by scrutinizing the “self-professed claims

of Western superiority and universal progress” (p. 107). Carrington (2015) described colonialism

as a series of encounters, ideologies and plural phenomena that structure multiple overlapping

and interacting histories. Therefore, the application of post/colonial theory to development work

is crucial for illuminating embedded power imbalances.

SDP scholars have examined how sport has been employed from the First-Third World to

‘improve’ the Two-Thirds-World. Forde (2015) effectively summarized the issues of concern

5
Global North and Global South will be used when referring to articles and authors, such as Darnell & Hayhurst
(2011) in this case, who have employed this terminology.

8
when he noted that SDP “projects typically position the Global North as a benevolent and

civilizing force, and the Global South as the passive, deficient, and grateful recipient of aid” (p.

960). By referring to the growing body of literature that examined SDP as a potential neocolonial

endeavor (e.g., Darnell, 2007; Forde, 2015; Hayhurst, 2014b; Giulianotti, 2004; Wilson, 2012

and many others) I concentrated on (inter)national relations and the distribution of power within

the networks of individuals involved in the BFD movement. I also remained attentive to the

post/colonial history of Uganda in an attempt to better ‘see’ and understand embedded power

imbalances—a history which I will elaborate on later in this thesis.

1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW

In this section, and building on my previous discussion of key concepts and theories, I

outline and identify gaps in the literature that were most pertinent to my research questions.

International Development and Sport

Wilson (2012), drawing on Kidd (2007) and Black (2010), offered a working definition

of international development as processes designed with the stated intention of ‘improving’ the

life chances and well-being of populations throughout the world, but particularly in countries

considered to be low-income. These interventions have been known to come in the form of large

scale and top-down development efforts and/or small scale and bottom-up ones. Black (2017)

discussed how top-down and bottom-up organizations “refer to the actors and the level of

analysis emphasized by development thought and practice” (p. 9) that have been known to be co-

dependent and integrative, within an implicit organizational hierarchy of “‘bottom-up’

development typically subordinate to the ‘top-down’ assumptions and practices” (p. 7).

Moreover, development discourses have commonly portrayed the One-Third World as superior

and dominant, and the Two-Thirds World as somehow inferior (Nicholls, Giles & Sethna, 2010,

p. 250).

9
 Lindsey (2016) acknowledged that there has been a lack of research that has sought to

understand how development projects play out and how they are perceived differently by people.

He further addressed how sport for development (SfD) has been unevenly distributed and subject

to contextual influences across different localities within countries, recognizing the need to

explore macro-level issues in conjunction with local perspectives. Furthermore, the discrepancy

in SfD distribution across localities is nested in power relations that are representative of global

inequalities (Darnell, 2012) “and international development more widely” (McEwan, 2009, as

cited in Lindsey, 2016). Relatedly, Darnell (2010) “suggest[ed] that while sport does offer a new

and unique tool that successfully aligns with a development mandate, the logic of sport is also

compatible with the hegemony of neo-liberal development philosophy” (p. 54). He discussed

how hegemony, in this sense, provided a framework to re-inscribe social relations and

experiences, that can contribute to the understanding of sport as a neo-colonial endeavour.

Neoliberalism and Non-Governmental-Organizations

Continuing with, and building upon, the discussion of un-even power relations,

neoliberalism, in this thesis, refers to policies and ideologies that were based around the use of

market rationality and private business approaches for social, cultural and political matters.

Embedded in this discourse, individuals have been viewed as, and encouraged to be, ‘rational

actors’— “the assumption here is that such responsibility will promote ‘efficiencies’ in the

system, since citizens will be motivated to be productive to maximize personal benefits”

(Wilson, 2012, p. 76).

Ong (2006) discussed how neoliberalism has impacted the relationship between the

governing and governed, which through market force friction, has changed cultures. She

described how political strategies, that regulate society to increase productivity and engagement

with market forces, has promoted self-governing to optimize choice, efficiency, competitiveness

10
and the accumulation of capital. Ong (2006) also explored how neoliberalism has been enacted

through ‘exceptions to neoliberalism’, which has been based on socio-economic status and the

ability (or lack thereof) to contribute to the economy. A result of these exceptions to

neoliberalism is that certain categories of subjects are protected, while others are not. Those left

unprotected are often, both, lacking access to social resources at the same time that they are

denied the ability to participate in the market. In such cases, Ong (2006) argues that individuals

need to look beyond the state for protection of their rights.

Relatedly, Wilson and Hayhurst (2009) discussed how NGOs have come to operate as a

trojan horse for global neoliberalism, by opening global flows of information and commodities

through new circuits of cooperation and collaboration that stretch across nations and continents.

Connecting these global flows to international development, Lindsey (2016) noted that “global

neoliberal policies have forced the rolling back of African states, [as] national governments

commonly lack the resource capacity to directly provide universal services” (pp. 9-10). Wilson

(2011) elaborated on this and discussed how this has resulted through, and in, the privatization of

aid – aid that was based on an ideology of ‘individual agency’ and the substitution of NGOs for

the state in social provision. Similarly, Coalter (2010) noted that the ‘new paradigm for

development’—carried out by organizations, such as NGOs, that pick up where the state is weak

in order to increase community participation, strengthen democracy and facilitate social

development—has occurred through the linking of sport to the politics of civil society and the

development of social capital.

By aligning with neo-liberal systems of governance, some SfD NGOs have been

criticized for applying market-solutions that do not effectively target historical and social

inequalities (Wilson & Hayhurst, 2009). Darnell (2010) noted that SDP projects are sites that

11
“take place within hegemonic relations in which privileged groups (nations, citizens,

corporations) maintain a position of benefit and accruement over others through social

negotiations, making development a key site of political practice and critical inquiry” (p. 57). For

this research, I attended to how BFD organizations applied market-solutions to their projects. My

aim was to contribute to knowledge about the relationship between neoliberalism and SfD

NGOs, and thus contribute to the literature outlined above.

Sport for Development and Bicycles

Sport has become a world language, a common denominator that breaks down all the walls, all
the barriers. It is a worldwide industry whose practices can have a widespread impact. Most of
all, it is a powerful tool for progress and development (UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon,
2011 as cited in Schinke & Cole, 2011)

Sport for development was promoted in 2003 when the General Assembly of the United

Nations placed sport on the global agenda for Development and Peace (Burnett, 2015) – and was

invigorated in 2005, when the UN’s International Year of Sport and Physical Education took

place (Giulianotti, 2012). Since this time, and especially in recent years, sociologists of sport

scholars have studied a range of issues related to SDP. This includes the research noted above

concerning neoliberal marketing approaches to SDP (Hayhurst et al., 2010; Wilson & Hayhurst,

2009), along with other work on heteronormativity in SDP (Chawansky, 2015; Carney &

Chawansky, 2016), race, post/colonialism and SDP (Darnell, 2007), gender and SDP (Hayhurst

2014a; 2014b), and SDP’s geopolitics (Darnell, 2007; Hayhurst, 2014a; 2014b).

Specifically, for my research that attended to globalization and the local experience of

BFD, I refer to Lindsey, Kay, Jeanes & Banda’s (2017) work on ‘localizing global sport for

development’ to aid my efforts to think through how the local and global are multi-layered. For

their research, Lindsey et al. (2017) took a wide lens approach and performed multiple studies on

SfD in Zambia. They found that: (a) the international features of the broader SfD movement

12
impacted the local experiences of SfD participants in Zambia, and; (b) that the UN goals were

reflected in the projects that were implemented by SfD organizations. Additionally, in order to

understand how the local is influenced by, and influences, the global – the researchers took a

methodological approach whereby they spoke to people on the ground with varied social

positions and regional locations about their participation in SfD projects in order to gain an

understanding of the local experience. These researchers highlighted how an analysis of global

influences needs to be complemented by attention to local specifics.

Specific to the Ugandan context, Hayhurst, MacNeil, Kidd and Knoppers (2014) explored

how an SDP NGO disseminated a gender-based violence program that taught young women

martial arts skills while increasing their education and health literacy. This program focused on

“improving the economic, community, cultural and political conditions – both locally, and

globally that intersect to prevent young women from having [the] ability to exercise and make

safe decisions to improve their lives” (p. 160). Although this program challenged gender roles—

i.e., one participant began to ride a bicycle (challenging the stereotype of the region that females

should not ride bikes)—and taught the participants discipline, the females were targeted in the

community and sometimes experienced verbal and physical abuse. Additionally, some family

members disapproved of martial arts because of it was thought of as masculine and culturally

inappropriate. The exclusion of boys from these programs was also thought to (re)produce

gender segregation. Therefore, it is important for SDP organizations to attend to historical and

cultural nuances when attempting to address social structuring in order to ensure that participants

of their programs do not become a target in their communities and that gender differences are not

perpetuated.

Despite these strides in SDP-related scholarship, aside from the brief mention above,

work on the bicycle within the movement has been conspicuously absent, as there is not a lot

13
about where bicycles go and come from and how power relations circulate within this global

network. Interestingly, I note that the language used to describe the ‘power of sport’ is akin to

the language commonly used to describe the bicycle – recognizing that the bicycle has been

valorized for its contributions to society and the economy, including claims about the bicycles

role in decreasing transport-related social exclusions, enhancing health and increasing an

individual’s access to employment opportunities and participation in social life (Kenyon et al.,

2002, as cited in Van der Kloof, et al., 2014).

This is not to suggest that there was not some evidence to stand behind such claims. For

example, Morrow (2015) addressed the history of the bicycle, stating that “the real impact of the

bicycle was in its widespread use for transportation and recreation across social classes and

across gender lines and social conventions” (p. 53). Additionally, bicycles have been studied as a

mode of transportation that can increase access to key services and markets, and there has been

evidence that the bicycle can be “vital for poverty reduction and rural economic and social

development” (Starkey, n.d., para. 1).

However, the relationship that individuals have with bicycles is considerably dependent

upon, and highly influenced by, cultural context. In recent years, many countries in Europe have

promoted bicycle usage through the construction of bicycle lanes, bike sharing schemes and

traffic management measures, whereas many countries in Africa have not received the same

support for non-motorized transportation (Starkey & Hine, 2014). Pojani and Stead (2015)

discussed how politicians hold stereotypes that cycling is “a sign of backwardness and not

commensurate with their goals and aspirations” (p. 7792), which has prompted them to

encourage city planning for motorized modes of transport. Oke, Bhalla, Love and Siddiqui

(2015) further discussed global bicycle ownership and explored how ownership varied across

nations and within regions and noted that societal perceptions of bicycles (attitudes, safety and

14
infrastructure) and socio-spatial factors (physical environment, etc.) impacted bicycle usage.

These authors described how there were cultural nuances to the utilization of the bicycle, and

that ownership cannot simply imply usage.

I also note that there has been a long history on bicycles and the medicalization of

women’s bodies that’s importance context for thinking about gender implications/ exclusions

(Vertinsky, 1994), such that women’s transport has been constrained by gender related roles,

gender related financial and economic situations, and gender related access to transport

technologies (Seedhouse, Johnson, & Newbery, 2016). For example, local gender-based

constraints may discourage women from personal mobility and the utilization of a bicycle as a

means of transportation (Starkey & Hine, 2014). These findings were echoed in Porter’s (2011)

transportation study of Sub-Saharan Africa, which discussed cultural discourses that constrained

the use of bicycles by women due to gendered stereotypes associated with promiscuity,

vulnerability of sexual and other attacks, and the division of labour. She noted that “ownership

and use is widely male dominated as a result of economic and/or sociocultural factors” (p. 75).

Relatedly, Howe (2003) addressed how bicycle taxis—known locally as boda bodas— “has

mainly benefited poorly educated male breadwinners who have few other employment

opportunities” (p. 175), again, highlighting the gendered use of bicycles.

I acknowledge how this was relevant to my study in order to gain a deeper understanding

of the ways that the bicycle has been talked about in the literature, and ‘on the ground’.

Specifically, it was crucial to keep these arguments in mind when thinking about how class and

gender influenced why BFD NGOs in Uganda distributed bicycles to specific populations and

how this impacted people’s opportunity to utilize the bicycles in the community. However,

instead of focusing explicitly and only on gender, I chose to focus on macro-level issues and the

socio-political environment in which BFD took place. It is also important to note here that

15
although there has been a growing body of literature on gender-related restrictions for transport

in Africa, there has been little political action (Porter, 2014). Moreover, through a critical lens,

the utilization of bicycles to employ individuals and to motivate community members to ‘cycle

out of poverty’ aligned with an individual-driven neoliberal approach to development and

therefore required an exploration of perspectives held by individuals who occupied different

social positions in order to unearth complexities and contradictions within the BFD network.

Gaps in the Literature

As I noted earlier, bicycle-related research has primarily been performed in the One-

Third World (Sengers, 2016), which is why it was important to respond to this gap and situate

this research in the context of Uganda, which is in the Two-Thirds World. This research also

responded to Kuhn and Woog’s (2011) call for SDP research to address “the complexity and

wedged reality of social issues within the locality of manifested existence” (as cited in Burnett,

2015, p. 388). Additionally, by speaking to those doing BFD-related work in Uganda, and

following the tenets of Burawoy’s (2001) global ethnography, I explored the local experience of

participants as connected to, and influenced by, global forces within the BFD movement.

Furthermore, most SDP research has focused on community or national-level projects,

with only 10% of studies analyzing global or international projects (Schulenkorf, Sherry &

Rowe, 2016). This encouraged me to converse with a variety of individuals involved with BFD

NGOs to ‘theorize the transnational’ (Henry, 2007) as NGOs tend to be “located and positioned

between the international development sector and local recipient populations” (Collison,

Giulianotti, Howe & Darnell, 2016). Building on this, Hayhurst (2016) acknowledged the need

to remain accountable to place when studying global networks—as it remains unclear how social

relations among multiple actors involved in SDP are situated in a variety of geopolitical contexts,

and how through the coupling of SDP and international development, the very essence of sport

16
has been shaped as a transnational force. In doing so, I extended my research into an analysis of

globalization, to respond to “the importance of connecting SDP to broader issues and contexts of

sport, politics and international development” (p. 15) by addressing transnational trends and

policies sustained “within the structures and discourses of the global political economy”

(Darnell, Chawansky, Marchesseault, Holmes & Hayhurst, 2016a, p.7).

Finally, and at the same time, Wilson and Hayhurst (2009) addressed how there has been

a lack of research that has explored the structuring, organization and perspectives of SDP NGOs,

and have called for further research to understand:

…the strategies and viewpoints of those NGOs based within the SFD spectrum with

particular attention to: the size, prominence, and activist tradition of NGOs; the mandate

of NGOs (i.e., are they locally/community focused or more concerned with global issues

and international development); the organizational culture of NGOs […] the

influence/perspectives of key leadership figures, and the specific contexts where activist-

oriented work is taking place (p. 176).

In order to gain an understanding of the BFD movement in Uganda, I explored these variables. In

the results section, I will discuss the organizational similarities and differences that I found, in

relation to characteristics of the broader global movement.

CHAPTER 2: METHOD(OLOGY)

This research is a small slice of a larger SSHRC-funded grant between the University of

British Columbia, York University and the University of Bath, with Dr. Lyndsay Hayhurst as the

principal investigator (P.I.), Dr. Brian Wilson as the Co-Investigator and Janet Otte as the PI on

the Uganda-focused portion of the study. As a way of bringing focus to my thesis – while

remaining attentive to the cultural and historical forces that have positioned many countries in

Africa on the periphery of the global capital system (Omobowale, 2016), and recognizing that

17
geographical, political and social contexts matter when it comes to understanding the features

and perspectives of organizations – I concentrated on BFD organizations in Uganda. Through the

BFD SSHRC grant, ethical approval was received by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board at

the University of British Columbia, York University’s Ethics Board and the Research Ethics

Committee in Mbale, Uganda, in addition to research licenses that were obtained in Uganda. In

order to conduct this research, I travelled to Uganda from the end of October to the end of

November 2017 and spoke to individuals involved in the BFD movement to gather data for the

grant. I took a ‘slice’ of this data as my thesis, which will be elaborated on throughout the

remainder of this document.

For my research, I interviewed 19 individuals associated with 10 organizations involved

in the BFD movement in Uganda (see Table 1 below). Prior to my arrival, I directed Janet to

various BFD organizations, which she contacted to confirm willingness to participate, while

concurrently establishing and confirming the dates and locations of the interviews. Additionally,

I explored the websites and documents of these and other NGOs doing work in Uganda in order

to obtain a deeper contextual understanding of the BFD movement and the national landscape.

Before elaborating on my methods, I will provide a brief history of Uganda relevant to the work I

conducted here, while recognizing the limitations of depth in this document.

Table 1: Participant chart

Name Participant’s Organization Global Organizational Encultured

Gender Affiliation positioning positioning Informant
Alum Geto Female Union of Ugandan Beneficiary of Bikes Yes
Hope (CBO) local 4 Life (Australia),
(Apach- Wheels 4 Life &
Lira) Bicycles 4 Humanity
(both Canadian).

18
Alfred Odoch Male Amuru VHT Ugandan Beneficiary of Bikes No
(CBO) local 4 Life (Australia) and
(Amuru) Bikes Not Bomb
(USA). Received
training from FABIO
and has conversed
with Bicycles 4
Humanity (Canada).
Amoli Joyce Female Union of Ugandan Beneficiary of Bikes Yes
Hope (CBO) local 4 Life (Australia),
(Apach- Wheels 4 Life &
Lira) Bicycles 4 Humanity
(both Canadian).
Anthony Ocen Male Amuru VHT Ugandan Beneficiary of Bikes Yes
(CBO) local 4 Life (Australia) and
(Amuru) Bikes Not Bomb
(Boston, USA).
Received training
from FABIO.
Brian Fassett Male BAP American, Employee- No
(International living in Operations Director
organization) Gulu,
Uganda
Cameron Male Bikes 4 Life Australian Volunteer/ Co- No
Ventura (International founder of Union of
organization) Hope
David Male P4P American Organizational No
Schweidenback (International founder
organization)
Joy Kawanguzi Female FABIO Ugandan Employee: Programs No
(CBO) local (Jinja) Manager
Kazura Odong Male Amuru VHT Ugandan Beneficiary of Bikes Yes
(CBO) local 4 Life (Australia) and
(Amuru) Bikes Not Bomb
(Boston, USA).
Bridgette* Female BAP American, Co-founder and CEO No
(International living in
organization) Gulu,
Uganda
Najjiba Katesi Female FABIO Ugandan Employee: Executive No
(CBO) local (Jinja) Director
Namugoya Female Kadama Ugandan Beneficiary of Comic Yes
Margaret Widows local Relief (World
Association (Kadama) Bicycle Relief)
(CBO)

19
 Nyole Tarisa Female Kadama Ugandan Beneficiary of Comic Yes
Widows local Relief (World
Association (Kadama) Bicycle Relief)
(CBO)
Matthew Yawe Male MOTF Ugandan Beneficiary of P4P No
(CBO) local
(Mityana)
Ocen Bernard Male Union of Ugandan Beneficiary of Union Yes
Hope (CBO) local (Lira) of Hope/ contracted
bicycle mechanic
Ogwal Moses Male Union of Ugandan Founder No
Fred Hope (CBO) local (Lira)
Ojok Walter Male Hope for Ugandan Beneficiary of Bikes Yes
Nyeko Humans local (Gulu) 4 Life (Australia).
(CBO)
Robert Omia Male Hope for Ugandan Employee- Project No
Human local (Gulu) Officer
(CBO)
Theo Vos Male Kara-Tunga Dutch/ Founding Director, No
Tours (CBO) Ugandan Marketing and Sales
family
background
*pseudonym

2.1 History of Uganda

Throughout my time in Uganda, I obtained historical accounts of the nation as people

shared about their region and tribal lineage, highlighting how pre-colonial structuring continued

to impact identities in current post/colonial times. Matthew, the founder of MOTF, explained

how tribes varied in structure and size, with Buganda as the largest tribe located in Central

Uganda (Field note, 21-11-2017). He elaborated how in present day the government has power

over tribal leaders, which stemmed from colonialism—demonstrating how colonialism has been

structured by multiple overlapping and interacting histories (Carrington, 2015). Bøas (2004)

further explained that Uganda “remains a deeply troubled and divided country in which cultural,

political and economic divisions from the pre-colonial past, exacerbated by colonial and post-

colonial projects, still have to be overcome” (p. 285).

20
 In 1894 Uganda underwent colonization by the British (Tushabe, 2008, as cited in

Hayhurst, 2014b). The Bugandan’s interacted with the colonial government and coordinated

settlement areas for the British in Entebbe, which proliferated the growth and development of

Southern and Central Uganda (Field note, 11-26-2017). Furthermore, the colonial government

strengthened the construction of difference between the regions in the nation by recruiting the

central and southern ‘elite’ from Buganda and regarding the North “as a reservoir of labour from

which the colonial administration recruited men to the army and the police force” (Bøas, 2004, p.

285). Bøas (2004) elaborated how Northern Acholiland was marginal before colonial rule, and

colonialism perpetuated these existing divisions. In this context, the regional and ethnic division

of labour deepened the construction of difference between northern and southern Ugandans and

reinforced social class divides. Additionally, the colonial government deepened the construction

and embodiment of gender roles by “promot[ing] and adopt[ing] policies and practices that

encourage[d] men to join the military, obtain an education, and locate work outside the home,

which has resulted in women and girls being solely focused on domestic responsibilities”

(Tushabe, 2008, as cited in Hayhurst, 2014b, p. 52). These social constructs created, perpetuated,

and deepened by the colonial government continue to impact people’s interactions and

understandings of various regions within the nation in present day.

Although Uganda came into independence in 1962 (Atkinson, 1994 as cited in Gauvin,

2013), political turmoil remains and persists throughout the country. In the 1960s, Uganda saw

“border closures and economic crises” (p. 4) followed by a lack of employment and economic

liberalization in the 1990s, which prompted individuals to take part in informal boda boda

transport (Chilembwe, 2017), which, as noted above, was typically taken up by poorly educated

men. Additionally, Museveni, the current president of Uganda’s leading National Resistance

Movement (NRM) party, altered the constitution and dubbed himself ‘president for life’, aligning

21
with the political party’s slogan ‘no change’ and highlighting how “the current Ugandan

government is failing to practice a democracy” (Guma, 2015, p. 22).

Guma (2015) elaborated how democracy “could potentially protect women from burdens

of family, social and economic responsibilities” (p. 22) by altering historical social constructs

that have continued to persist throughout the country. Furthermore, “Museveni [has labelled]

globalization as a form of oppression, and urged Africans to resist the process by all means

necessary” (Njoh, 2006, p. 25). Njoh (2006) noted how this resistance is embedded in the belief

that globalization has brought prosperity to the “already rich West” (p. 25) and continued

enslavement, economic and political detriment to the Third World. However, regardless of

Museveni’s resistance, multiple insurgencies throughout the country have brought a proliferation

of international aid into Uganda, which Hanebrink (2012) spoke about as connected to the lack

of government protection.

Although there is some evidence to suggest that Uganda is ‘on its way’ to halt poverty by

2040, and that the poverty and inequality ratio has decreased from 2009-10 to 2013-14

(Economic Development Policy and Research Department, 2014), this does not undermine the

point that “Africa’s position in the international economic arena was significantly diminished by

[…] European colonization and the […] neglect of transportation infrastructure by post-colonial

authorities” (Njoh, 2006, p. 28). From my experience in Uganda, the transportation infrastructure

varied drastically throughout the country—such that, the Northern and Eastern roads had large

pot holes and were deemed ‘impassable’ when it rained; the Central region had paved roads and

the construction of a new highway from Entebbe; and the Western region (Museveni’s

birthplace) had paved roads and signage stating partnerships with the UN and UNAID to develop

highways (Field notes, 11-24-2017). These variations in development demonstrated the unequal

distribution of wealth across the nation.

22
 Specific to this research, bicycles were introduced in Uganda by the colonial government

in 1903 and were originally a marker of prestige. However, with the introduction of the

automobile, the upper class rapidly abandoned the bicycle – as the bike came to be seen by some

as a “tool for the poor” (Kayemba, 2013, para. 46). Additionally, the stereotypes that some

people hold about the bicycle have impacted the lack of development for cycling infrastructure in

Kampala (Auchapt, 2013). The neglect of transportation infrastructure and the influence of

colonialism continues to perpetuate regional divides and wealth disparities. These divides also

influence the perspectives people have about the utilization of the bicycle across the nation,

which will be explored in more depth throughout the results.

2.2 Overview of Organizations

As a way of understanding the global movement of BFD, I found it crucial to explore the

relative differences between (and shared features of) the organizations involved in this

movement. Table 2 below demonstrates how some organizations were domestic whereas others

were international, and some donated bicycles while others received bicycles. It also shows how

many individuals from each organization were interviewed. In total, I spoke to 19 people who

occupied various roles in 10 BFD organizations (founders, employees, volunteers and

mechanics).

Table 2: Overview of organizations

Organizations International vs. Distribution method N of people

Domestic CBO interviewed=
19
Amuru Village Domestic CBO Freely received bicycles (Bikes Not Bombs & 3
Health Team Bikes 4 Life)
Bicycles Against International (donor) Sold bicycles (micro-financing) 2
Poverty (BAP) /Domestic (distributor)
Bikes Not Bombs International (donor) Freely distributed bicycles 0
Bicycles 4 Humanity International (donor) Freely distributed bicycles 0
Bikes 4 Life International (donor) Donated recycled bikes 1

23
 FABIO Domestic CBO and Switched to co-founding in 2010 2
local distributor
Hope for Humans Domestic CBO Freely received bicycles (Bikes Not Bombs/ 2
UOH)
Kadama Widows Domestic CBO Freely received bicycles (Comic Relief/ 2
Association (KWA) World Bicycle Relief)
Kara-Tunga Domestic CBO Purchased bicycles for rental/ tourism 1
(Bicycles 4 Humanity [B4H])
Mityana Open Domestic CBO Bicycles to be Sold (P4P) 1
Troops Foundation
(MOTF)
Pedals 4 Progress International (donor) Bicycles sold globally to ‘developing’ nations 1
(P4P)
Union of Hope Domestic CBO and Received donated bicycles and money 4
(UOH) local distributor (Wheels 4 Life, Bikes 4 Life, B4H), and
distributed bicycles to local organizations.

For clarification, the community-based-organizations (CBOs) I refer to were beneficiary

organizations. Specifically, I spoke to some employees and volunteers from these CBOs who

have received bicycles, as well as some who have not received a bicycle – but have helped to

distribute bicycles. Therefore, in this research, the term ‘beneficiaries’ can refer to employees

and volunteers from CBOs (i.e., beneficiary can refer to multiple roles). Additionally, there were

some organizations, such as FABIO and Union of Hope, that were beneficiary organizations that

donated the bikes they received to smaller local organizations, such as village saving and loan

associations (VSLAs). In sum, these organizations in Uganda (and most likely elsewhere) had a

range of features, and varied in structure—as some were grassroots-oriented, while others

operated in a more top-down fashion, which will be explored in more depth in the results—and

they promoted a range of initiatives that utilized bicycles as a development tool.

By speaking to different organizations, and individuals who occupied different positions

within the organizations, I gathered a variety of perspectives that contextualized the BFD

movement – as I obtained information about how the bicycle moved on the ground and the

24
various ways they were utilized as a development tool. Throughout the remainder of this section,

I will discuss semi-structured interviews as the method employed to gather data that helped me

answer my research questions and I will then proceed to outline my data analysis techniques.

2.3 Semi Structured Interviews

Smith and Sparkes (2016) highlighted how “interview talk can reveal the sociocultural

dynamics of human life” while illuminating “the ways in which societies and cultures shape

personal experience, meaning, decisions, values, motivations [… and] generate insights into the

context in which people live” (p. 108). They further discussed how “people draw on discourses

from society or culture to build and understand conversations […] Talk therefore needs treating

as socially created, and experience and meaning as inherently shaped by our sociocultural

landscape” (p. 108). Therefore, by interviewing individuals involved in BFD in Uganda, I

attended to how social and cultural factors shape (and are shaped by) history that influenced the

experiences with, and the meanings prescribed to, the bicycle.

I used semi-structured interviews with a flexible guide that asked participants about the

bicycle’s utilization as an international development tool, their involvement with BFD, the

structure of their associated BFD organization and the successes/ barriers they have faced in

relation to BFD (see Appendix A: Interview guide). The interviews took place in a variety of

locations that were contextually specific to the individual/ associated organization, such as in

office spaces or outside people’s homes. The two vignettes below elaborate on a couple of the

interview settings and the interview dynamics:

We sat on plastic blue chairs surrounding a short wooden table with a white crocheted
cloth. We were under the shade of a wide canopy tree that provided us with protection
from the sun. I was angled on one corner, Janet was on the next and Judith [our
encultured informant] was between us, opposite her was Alum [the interviewee] who had
all of our attention for the interview (Field notes, 10-30-2017)

During the interview I was leaning in to close the gap, I was sitting on my own individual
seat while Janet, Kazura [the interviewee] and our encultured informant were sharing a

25
 wooden bench. Our seats were placed on the dusty dirt ground in the village under a tree
outside of Kazura’s home (Field notes, 11-03-2017)

The interviews ranged from 30 minutes to 2 hours and 20 minutes in length. The duration varied

based on to the participants availability and willingness to share information.

For 8 interviews, an encultured informant was present. The interview would begin by

reading the consent forms (see Appendix B and Appendix C)—and when there were language

barriers, the encultured informant would be present and translate the consent forms—to ensure

that the interviewees (who were all over the age of 18) understood the purpose of the research,

that participation was voluntary, and what the interview would look like (i.e., what methods were

to be used). Following the consent form, the interviews would commence with me and/or Janet

(when present) asking the interview questions, the encultured informant translating them, the

participant answering, and the encultured informant translating back the answer to me and Janet.

Before proceeding to the next question, we would ask if anyone needed clarification on what was

just spoken before continuing the interview. All of the interviews were recorded, and

participants were given the option to have a pseudonym. Almost all of the participants, except

one interviewee, checked the box to have their name and their organizations name used in the

research (instead of a pseudonym).

Collison et al. (2016) distinguished between an encultured informant and translator,

explaining how “[t]ranslators may also find themselves strategically positioned to relay, edit or

manipulate questions and answers” (p. 416). However, Janet, and the ‘translators’—who spoke

the regional language—occupied the position of ‘encultured informant’ because they understood

the needs of the research, were not connected to the BFD organizations and were therefore less

likely to tamper with the questions/ answers. The encultured informant always assisted with

multiple interviews, which meant that we spent multiple days together and developed a

relationship with each other, which allowed us to approach the research more collaboratively. In

26
addition to facilitating conversations and addressing language barriers during the interviews,

Janet and the encultured informants (see Table 3 below) provided me with cultural and historical

information while traveling to the interview, on the drive back or during the interview.

Table 3: Encultured informants

Name Region Number of Interviews

assisted with
Angetta Judith Bua Lira, Northern Uganda 4
Audrey Eveline Mamajja Kadama, Eastern Uganda 2
Emejy Aron Gulu, Northern Uganda 2

In addition to interviews, the content of the various BFD organizations’ websites and

publicly available documents were reviewed. Bryman (2015) discussed that “documents cannot

be regarded as providing objective accounts of a state of affairs. They have to be interrogated

and examined in the context of other sources of data” (p. 554) as they “need to be recognized for

what they are—namely, texts written with distinctive purposes in mind, and not as simply

reflecting reality” (p. 561). Keeping this in mind, I used the organizations’ websites and publicly

available documents as a means to: a) acquire a preliminary understanding of the organizations

goals, mission, structure, etc., to act as foundation for the subsequent interviews, and; b) to act as

supplemental data to cross-reference and corroborate information provided in the interview. The

interviews, documents and field notes were then analyzed.

2.4 Transcription

Once all of the interviews were conducted, I transcribed them. The majority of the

interviews were conducted in English, however, as previously mentioned, there were 8 that

required an encultured informant who knew the local language. For the interviews with an

encultured informant, transcription was a messier process because of the various voices that were

included in the recording. In saying so, I referred to literature that had explored the complexity of

using translators in research (see: Edwards, 1998 and/or Temple, 2002). I experienced some

27
challenges when documenting the recorded interviews that involved encultured informants—

knowing that once they were written, the document would be a reference for the interview and

would need to distinguish between all of the voices of those involved—therefore, I had to come

up with a process that differentiated between when the encultured informant was translating for

the participant or when they were expanding on what was said and/or providing their own

knowledge in relation to the topic. In order to work through the multiple voices in the written

document, I would use [P] to demonstrate that the statement was a translation for the participant

and would use [T] to indicate that the translator was voicing their own knowledge. Doing so

allowed me to attend to the multiple individuals that were included in the interview—and who

were crucial for the interview to take place and for the co-construction of knowledge.

2.5 Data Analysis

All of the transcribed documents were sent out to the interviewees for member-checking,

with the intention of allowing for reflexive elaboration and enhanced understanding of co-

constructed findings. Palmer (2016) highlighted how member-checking “engages [in] a process

of iterative consent and speaks to the self-reflexive nature of culturally responsive relational

ethics” (p. 322). I sent the transcribed interviews to the interviewees, whereby they had two

weeks to review (or more if they requested) to respond with any edits or further questions.

Although I attempted to member-check the interviews, only 3 participants responded with their

reviewed transcript. This was the result of poor internet communication and/or email addresses

that failed to receive the delivered transcripts leading to a lack of responses from the participants.

To receive more input, Janet and the encultured informant (when involved in the

interview) reviewed the respective transcripts. They ensured that my transcription was correct,

that I was properly captured the translation and inputted cultural information when applicable.

There were only a few instances where I received multiple edited transcripts back for the same

28
interview. When this took place, I reviewed all of the documents, merged them together with the

new edits, and used the new transcript for the data analysis process. The process of transcription

and member-checking meant that there was a temporal break between participating in the

interviews and receiving the transcribed document. Kirby and McKenna (1989) elaborated how

“living with the data” (p. 275) throughout the member-checking process allows all those

involved—myself, Janet, the enculture informants and participants—the chance to distance and

reflect upon the interview and analytic process (as cited in Potts & Brown, 2005).

The data collected throughout this research was analyzed through thematic analysis,

which Braun, Clarke and Weate, (2016) discussed as an analysis of “people’s experiences in

relation to an issue” to “identify patterns in people’s (reported) practices or behaviors related to,

or their views on, a certain issue” (p. 193) to determine common ways an issue or topic is

represented. NVivo was used to organize and store the collected data. However, I ultimately

moved out of NVivo and conducted thematic analysis by hand. This analytic process occurred

iteratively as I familiarized myself with the data, created codes, developed themes, re-

familiarized myself with the data, refined themes, referred to the literature, created themes,

refined them again and finally named them. Kirby, Greaves and Reid (2006) explain “analysis as

an iterative or ‘back and forth’ process in which researchers make sense of new data,

information, or knowledge and, in the creation of theory, constantly refer back to the data” (p.

219). This aligns with Braun et al. (2016), who discussed thematic analysis as an active process,

involving “recursive, reflexive process of moving forwards (and sometimes backwards) through

data familiarization, coding, theme development, revision, naming and write up” (p. 196).

Thematic analysis allowed me to explore patterns that emerged in relation to: a) the relative

differences and similarities of the NGOs involved in the movement and interviewed in this

29
research; b) how the bicycle was used as a development tool; c) the perspectives of people

involved in the movement; and, d) the experiences and processes of globalization within BFD.

Throughout the research process I kept field notes—of settings, reflections on interviews

and interactions, and my own reflexive observations—to interrogate and acknowledge how my

experiences and social position influenced my analysis. This was pertinent to explore because as

a researcher, I was an integral part of the data gathering process. In saying so, my gender, age,

nationality, race and sexual orientation played a role and influenced my interactions,

relationships and observations because “subjectivities inform all stages of the research process,

including the gathering [and analysis] of ‘data’ from the field” (Thorpe & Olive, 2016, p. 133).

Before elaborating on the results of this research, I am going to address some of these reflections

and how they (may) have informed my theme development, refinement and results.

2.6 Reflexivity

Within the SDP literature, scholars have advocated for highly reflexive work that

considers transnational processes. We, as researchers, are often critical of unreflexive work – at

the same time that we commonly find ourselves struggling to be ‘reflexive enough’. Hayhurst

(2016) acknowledged how we are unable to “fully sever [our] own subjectivity and the ways that

[our] benevolence, intentions, [and] language choices” (p. 439) impact the research that we

conduct. In light of my focus on the post/colonial dynamics that influence societal inequalities of

‘development’, I performed on-the-ground situated research in an attempt to be accountable to

place, following Hayhurst (2016). I explored this through Charania’s (2011) argument that the

“global is everywhere and nowhere all at once” (p. 354) to reflect on the politics and relations of

power when “channeled into a particular set of practices in order to respond to oppression” (p.

362). I begin this process by acknowledging how through my attendance at UBC, I have accrued

material privileges from my locality and geographic position as a Canadian graduate student

30
hired on a SSHRC-funded Insight grant. Through this, I have participated in globalization

processes and reflect below on my time in Uganda.

Through a critical lens, I explored my ‘sociocultural baggage’ that I brought into the field

as a researcher (Collison, et al., 2016) by keeping field notes about my interactions in space, with

individuals and communities, while remaining aware of the colonial history of Uganda. In this

section I will demonstrate how I’ve started to6 interrogate my “personal values, beliefs and

preferences by interrogating where these have originated from and why” (Schinke & Blodgett,

2016, p. 89).

My white, cis-gendered female, able-body influenced my interactions in the field and

made me conscious of my corporeity. Prior to my arrival, I had conversations with Janet about

my tattoos, which she recommended I kept covered, especially in the North. I also often looked

for reassurance from Janet to confirm that I was dressed appropriately. The first time I saw her,

she exclaimed that ‘I looked African!’, which made me feel accepted, especially considering that

clothing was an aspect of my appearance that I could control to determine how I represented

myself. I also contemplated questioning difference and privilege aloud to those who I interacted

with. For example:

I contemplated telling Moses my inner racialized thoughts and decided to do so, ‘it’s weird to
be a scene because of my skin colour’ I said aloud. ‘It is because you are so different from
them, they grow up with one colour around and you are something new. They can either be
extremely happy or fearful because it’s so different’ he responded as we rode on his motor
bike to his village home (Field notes, 10-29-2017)

My skin colour put me on display and ‘othered’ me as I moved within various environments,

oftentimes accompanied by locals. Specifically, these field notes, and others like these, had me

6
I say ‘started to’ here in quotations as this is an ongoing process of continual interrogation because there is no
specific end point to how my interactions and interpretations influenced the research conducted here. Even during
writing, I reflexively thought about my time in the field and how my white, female, able-bodiedness influenced the
interactions I had with others and whether my positionality continued to influence the data analysis process.

31
reflect upon whether sharing my racialized thoughts brought forth or re-inscribed power

relations.

Throughout my time in Uganda, people stared and yelled ‘Mzungu!’ at me, which

disrupted the feeling of comfort that I had developed from the locals who welcomed me, and

prompted an instant corporeal awareness. ‘Mzungo’ is a word that means ‘white person’ but in

Swahili also means ‘a person who moves a lot and does not settle’ (Field notes, 11-20-2017).

The term Mzungo defined me and my privilege (of being able to travel to and from Uganda and

to have been able to move throughout the country, more than some of the locals I interacted with

had moved within their own nation). Knowing this definition of the term had me constantly

reflect upon understandings of race as compounded with the privilege to move and travel, and

global wealth disparities more broadly. The challenge that I experienced was to “interrogate

whiteness and white privilege while simultaneously working with the complexities of

racialization and social identities” (Charina, 2011, p. 367).

One of the environments that power relations were evident was during interviews. The

first interview provided me with the opportunity to appraise how a group of local females

perceived me, compared to the Ugandan locals who were just as central in conducting and

facilitating the interviews. As we were driving on the bumpy dirt road from Lira to the village of

Apach in Northern Uganda all of a sudden, I heard ‘EKK-EKK-EKK’, branches scrapping

against the car and saw that a large group of women were standing on the side of the road,

cheering and dancing as we approached.

As soon as I opened the door, I had enough space to step out of the car and stand, but
then the women came and started to hug me. They were going for my lower body and
then I realized that they were trying to pick me up, backpack and all! I didn’t really know
how to react and tried to resist it at first, as my heart was racing in my chest, but they
lifted me and before I knew it, I was being carried in a crowd of over 300 women. They
brought me towards the tree and placed me on a blue plastic chair, preventing my feet
from touching the ground until I was seated (Field notes, 10-30-2017)

32
I note this encounter specifically because it was contrasted by the greeting Janet, the encultured

informant and Moses (the founder of Union of Hope) had received—as they exited the car and

found their way to their respective seats. This differential treatment had me reflect upon how my

white body conducting BFD research may have been misunderstood as one distributing bicycles,

which prompted me to consider the praise that donors must receive when they visit and distribute

bicycles. Although I tried to mitigate power relations by constantly addressing how the work was

a collaboration, and how my being there would not be possible without local assistance, the

interaction above reflected understandings of race—as related to prosperity and opportunity that

contribute to perpetuating the discourse of the benevolent white humanitarian that has the ability

to travel and passive black bodies as grateful recipients of aid.

Lastly, gendered reflections emerged, as male beneficiaries often concluded their

interviews by asking if I could ride a bicycle, whereby I would inform them that I was able to

because I was taught how to cycle at a young age. This often opposed the experience of most

women in Uganda, as the female participants reported that they were taught how to cycle when

they received a bike from a BFD organization. I highlight this not to construct difference

between me and female Ugandans, who were BFD beneficiaries, but because these interactions

demonstrated the gendered assumption of bicycle usage—such that the understanding was

because I was a woman, I would not know how to cycle.

Additionally, throughout the writing process, I have been reflecting on offering

‘recommended best practices’ to these organizations. While these recommendations are based on

the information provided by the people directly involved in the BFD movement, ultimately, my

way of ‘seeing’ has constructed the recommended best practices that will be disseminated. I

acknowledge that I am still an outsider of the BFD movement, who has only captured a small

glimpse of this broad global movement. Charina (2011) questioned how we can stand in

33
solidarity with others, not in place of them—a question that has resonated with me throughout

my writing. Although my recommendations are based off of the words of the research

participants, I hope that my summary aptly captured their recommendations—which will be

discussed in the conclusion. It is with this that I acknowledge how it was not be possible for me

to know the “fine grained nuances of various cultures” (p. 319), but, by remaining open and

engaged, and with the assistance of Janet and the encultured informants who provided cultural

and historical information, I attempted to understand the issues I studied by keeping the

perspectives of the participants in mind (Palmer, 2016).

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS

In this section I outline key findings that emerged from my fieldwork as they pertain to

my research questions. What will become evident is that the findings were highly interrelated.

That is to say, I found that once I learned about the characteristics of the BFD organizations and

the contexts for their work, I was better positioned to understand how and why bicycles were

being used in particular ways (as a development tool), the reasons for some of the perspectives of

interviewees on the BFD industry, and the relevance of all of this for understanding globalization

processes around BFD. In general terms then, my findings shed light on how ‘context mattered’

when it came to understanding the themes that emerged across the quite diverse set of

organizations I spent time with in Uganda – and that the view of the bicycle as positive, negative,

useful, exclusive, a ‘tool of the poor’ and so on, can be at least partially explained by attending to

the features/contexts associated with these organizations and their locations.

With this in mind I begin this section by reporting on the characteristics of the BFD

organizations that were part of the study (RQ1), with particular attention to how they were

structured and their ‘goals and missions’. This is followed by an outline of ways that the bicycle

appeared to be used as an (international) development tool (RQ2), perspectives of members of

34
BFD organizations on their work and industry (RQ3) and a report of findings pertinent to a

consideration of what the BFD movement reveals about globalization processes and the impacts

of technologies traveling to and within the Two-Thirds World (RQ4).

3.1 RQ (1) What are the characteristics of the various organizations involved in BFD (e.g.,

how are they structured; what are the goals and missions of these organizations)?

The organizations had similarities and differences in the ways that they were structured

(e.g., top-down and bottom-up; domestic or international), where they were located (e.g., urban

and rural, environmental variables or their regional location—north, east, west, mountainous,

etc.), and their goals (e.g., community-focused, health-focused, equity-focused, and/or economic

focused). I also saw patterns across the categories noted above – which is to say, certain

organizations, with particular sets of goals, seemed to be more likely to have particular

structures, and exist in certain locations, and so on. Having said this, I will also show that some

organizations were complex and multi-featured – and not as easily categorized. Finally, since I

interviewed people with a wide range of perspectives, locations, organizational positions

(founders, employees and beneficiaries) and backgrounds – from organizations that don’t always

sit neatly in particular categories – some of the messiness of the movement, in relation to the

features often used to define organizations, was evident as well. Of course, the one element that

all of the organizations had in common was the vision of the bicycle as a tool or catalyst for a

development aim of some sort – whether it be gender equity, education, economic development,

transportation, sustainability, or some combination of these.

Structure

The organizations involved in this research were structured in bottom-up or top-down

fashions. As stated above, Black (2017) discussed how there is a hierarchical relationship

between top-down and bottom-up organizations. My findings were generally consistent with this,

35
as I found that it mattered whether organizations were domestically or internationally located and

that the relationship between these differently positioned organizations interacted and shaped the

BFD movement.

Domestic, Bottom-up, Community-Focused: The Community-Based BFD

Organization

All seven of the domestic organizations involved in this study were bottom-up in

orientation. In all cases these were organizations that described themselves as ‘community-

based’ – meaning that they began as a response to community-specific needs, and most

oftentimes originated in their communities. In this context I defined bottom-up as organizations

that were local, community-based, small scale and grassroots— with an approach that was

focused on working with and “privilege[ing] the perspective of the historically subaltern groups”

(Black, 2017, p.9) to address poverty, inequality and marginalization. The following

organizations existed within this category: Union of Hope (UOH), Amuru Village Health Team

(VHT), Kadama Widows Association (KWA), Mityana Open Troops Foundation (MOTF), Hope

4 Humans, First African Bicycle Information Organization (FABIO) and Kara-Tunga.

None of these organizations distributed bicycles without assistance from established

partnerships with actors in the One-Third-World (i.e., all projects had multiple stakeholders).

Therefore, these organizations – what I will refer to hereafter as community-based organizations

(or CBOs) – distributed bicycles either on behalf of international organizations (using their

connections in the community to enable distribution), or ‘in their own name’ – while still enabled

by donations from international donors. Although, as we will see later, the relationships between

donor and recipient organizations varied in quality and type, these recipient groups were always

somewhat reliant on aid in this hierarchical relationship.

36
 Some of the variations between these organizations can be described through their origin,

or the relationship that they had with their donor organizations. For example, all of the CBOs

originated domestically, except for Kara-Tunga, which was created by a native Ugandan who

resided in the Netherlands for most of his life. Yet, the organization was still bottom-up because

it started and worked with(in) the local community to change the local, national and international

perception of the Karamoja region. UOH was also connected to multiple international

organizations, while most of the other CBOs had only one international partner. Additionally,

FABIO was the only CBO that did not rely so heavily on international organizations—as it was

the oldest BFD organization in Uganda, was established across the nation and was domestically

based. FABIO was an interesting case as well because they work with policy makers, and

therefore sometimes the organizations took a top-down approach.

Between these CBOs, there was also a range of organizational sizes. For example,

FABIO and UOH worked with multiple communities and at times held more power in their

relationships with their international partners, as they had local knowledge and determined where

and how their bicycle projects played out on the ground (compared to other smaller scale CBOs

whose projects were often chosen, initiated and facilitated by international organizations). These

variations demonstrated how BFD organizations are in many ways similar to one another, but

that there are differences too. Therefore, and although I created an overarching category for a

number of organizations, these variations demonstrate the complexity of dividing these

organizations into discrete silos, as their variables place them along a spectrum.

Other Key Features of CBOs

These CBOs typically shared the objectives of making a more equitable society by

addressing poverty, gender inequality, and marginalization – as compared to the international

organizations, that often had a broader mandate, and also focused on economic development,

37
education and health. As these organizations were more community-focused, it typically resulted

in them having a smaller staff and volunteer base (especially when compared to the international

BFDs). Although the CBOs had few official staff members, the community connections these

organizations had were critical for their projects. For example, the CBOs often connected with

VSLAs—self-organized groups of individuals who acted as a community bank for their group’s

members—as project beneficiaries who became actors in their communities that challenged the

local perceptions of bicycle usage.

Importantly, as much as these organizations originated in their communities, they were

also sustained by their communities – which was a key difference between CBOs compared to

international BFD organizations. Moses, the founder of UOH, highlighted how the project “has

become something for people that is owned by people” (Moses, UOH). UOH facilitated and gave

BFD projects to the community to lead—i.e., UOH partnered with 15 VSLAs, each made up of

30 women, in the rural community of Apach. Moses believed that through participation and a

sense of ownership, community members would feel motivated to sustain the projects. In this

sense, UOH focused on the ‘depth of impact’ rather than the ‘spread of impact’. Similarly,

FABIO had a small office staff but worked with established community structures (i.e. VSLAs,

VHT groups, schools, etc.) in various regions—for community activism and engagement. A

characteristic of these organizations was that they worked with(in) local communities and

ensured the involvement of local people, with the aim of inspiring a shared sense of ownership.

In this more participatory model, the aim was to make sure that community members were in a

position to carry out the projects and have input throughout.

As these organizations were domestically based, respondents also discussed how they

worked with(in) local government structures. These CBOs discussed how they filled a gap by

addressing a social need that was thought to be the responsibility of the government, but that was

38
not being addressed by the government. This resulted in some organizations receiving

government support. For example, MOTF received funding from the government to support the

organization’s objective of helping vulnerable youth with their education— an investment that

was seen and justified as an indirect way of also supporting the economy of the country. Other

organizations in rural Lira, UOH and BAP (which will be discussed later), have signed a

memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the government that stipulates the organization’s

role (to raise money and gather bicycles for distribution) and the government’s role in the project

(to provide monitoring, supervising, reporting, and connections to communities and beneficiaries

who are active patients at the health centre).

Along with these local government relations, these organizations also, as noted earlier,

often relied on international funders too. For example, funding came through interorganizational

signed MOUs (such as UOH and Wheels 4 Life), international partnerships (FABIO and their

European connections) and successful grant applications (KWA and Comic Relief for their

bicycle project; Hope 4 Humans for organizational sustainability).

The Role of Bicycle Workshops for CBOs: Funding and Community-Building

Other financial considerations at the local level came in the form of co-funding – namely,

selling the bicycle and setting up bicycle workshops. For example, FABIO used to distribute

bicycles freely, but switched to co-funding, where the beneficiaries now pay a percentage of the

bicycle, and the organization subsidizes the rest (or they offer bicycle credit schemes where the

bicycle is paid over time). Additionally, some of the local organizations had a bicycle

maintenance workshop set up or were in the process of establishing one – to help finance their

organizations/ projects, and/or to economically support the community by providing some

employment opportunities.

39
 For example, Amuru VHT’s bicycle workshop was set up to economically support the

VHT members by selling spare parts and providing employment to the beneficiaries who were

chosen by the donor organizations to be trained as bicycle mechanics. It also provided the

members an opportunity to financially save together as a group (and create a VSLA). As

Anthony explained:

[T]hey try to give out the money that they raise as loans. To support the different families
for within the members eh? […] So, it’s not really a profit-making organization, but they
try to give out the money so that it is support them and they just ensure that the people
give back the money. They borrow, and they turn back the money to the association
(Anthony, Amuru VHT)

Additionally, the bicycle workshops were also a means for organizational independence.

According to Najjiba at FABIO:

[O]ne of the reasons we are establishing a bicycle centre, we want to find a more
sustainable way of making money, other than depending. That’s why we are going to do
it very independent from this organization, it will be purely profit making, but it will be
also supplementing the work of this organization (Najjiba, FABIO)

The organizations created bicycle workshops to financially support the community, their

organization and their ongoing projects—in order to decrease reliance on international funding,

which at times was transient, inconsistent or short-term.

Relatedly, some of the organizations discussed setting up bicycle workshops that would

also become bicycle distribution centres. These distribution centres would become ‘hubs’ for the

local organizations to distribute the bicycles that were received through their various

international partnerships.

[T]his workshop will be now a distribution centre for Bicycles 4 Humanity, for Bikes 4
Life and for Wheels 4 Life, in one centre […] Bikes 4 Life will be sending their bikes to
this centre. Bicycles 4 Humanity will also be sending bikes to this same centre. Wheels 4
Life will also be giving money (Moses, UOH)

As well, the centres would become learning centres for the community youth. UOH and MOTF

discussed how the bicycle workshop would provide an opportunity for youth to be employed as

40
bicycle mechanics. Matthew explained that “[w]e are going to get our trainees, those boys as you

have seen them. If he graduates, you employ him directly. That whatever you, you, you repair a

bicycle here you are going to get a percentage” (Matthew, MOTF). This speaks to ‘sustainable

strategies’ encouraged through interorganizational partnerships to economically support the

community and sustain the project – as well as involving community members and providing

youth with opportunities for education and employment. An important finding in this section

then is that interviewee representatives of the CBOs consistently referred to ‘sustainability’ as a

key priority.

International, Top-down and Economics-focused: The International BFD

Organization

The other overarching structural category I will discuss – that is interconnected with, but

distinct from the BFD CBO – is the ‘international BFD organization’. In this study, the

organizations that fell into this category were: Bikes 4 Life, Pedals 4 Progress (P4P), Bicycles

Against Poverty (BAP), Bikes Not Bombs, Wheels 4 Life and Bicycles 4 Humanity. The first

three organizations were interviewed, whereas the latter three organizations exist in Uganda—

and were spoken about by CBOs or other international organizations as partner organizations—

but were not interviewed during this research. Typically, these international BFD organizations

were structured in a hierarchy, beginning with the founder of the organization, a board of

directors, a few main employees and a large number of volunteers that helped with the packaging

and distribution of bicycles to ship to ‘developing nations’.

The key feature of this type of organization then was its operation in a ‘top-down’

fashion. In this case, what this meant for the BFD organizations I studied, was that wealthier

(i.e., a large donor base) and more globally powerful organizations that were based in the One-

Third-World, set up projects or established partnerships to distribute bicycles for less powerful

41
recipients in the Two-Thirds-World. To be clear, I am not suggesting that there was any – or any

uniform kinds of – exploitation that took place as a result of this top-down way of doing BFD.

Indeed, in many cases these international organizations collaborated with and were also highly

integrated with local organizations, and the support offered in local contexts would not be

possible without these international BFD organizations. Having said this, in later parts of this

results section I outline perspectives of organizations on the BFD industry and note viewpoints

on sometimes disconcerting relationships in this top-down structure.

Business and Economics-Focus

Although the CBOs were concerned with sustainability, they differed from the

international organizations referred to here in the sense that the international organizations were

guided by a business model on multiple fronts – an approach that respondents from these

organizations suggested was a requirement for them, given the nature of the work they are doing.

David from P4P highlighted how “I had a very free market approach, that I find someone

who’s gonna be in charge, this is your program, you’re gonna be responsible if you’re gonna be

successful. It’s gonna be up to you to be successful”. David elaborated how his organization

distributed bicycle containers “to people who are responsible with ‘em” (David, P4P). Similarly,

BAP also highlighted how they created their own bicycle market in Gulu by importing bicycles

and bringing them into communities to sell through micro-financing.

Just as the CBOs varied in structure, BAP was an interesting case for the international

organizations, as it was started by a Ugandan local who studied in the US. Brian, who I

interviewed from BAP, indicated that the organization switched from a CBO to a non-profit/

social enterprise because:

[R]epayment rates are impacted when it’s [a] CBO, you know sometimes people feel like
ah, I can pay back, but I don’t have to. So, we’re taken more seriously as an organization
operating as a company, like other micro finance organizations in the same market
(Brian, BAP)

42
This perspective on the importance of repayment aligned with other priorities of these

organizations, including a focus on management structures and distributing the bicycles through

sales (whether micro-financing or full purchase).

The international BFD organizations also attended more to the global economy and

seemed to embrace principles commonly associated with neoliberalism and free market

ideologies, as alluded to above. Interviewees commented about how the BFD organizations were

helping the poor by providing the beneficiaries with an opportunity to participate in the

economy. For example, David from P4P highlighted that “[w]hen you can go into a small town

and put 500 people on a bike you can fundamentally change the movement of goods and

services”. They believed that the bicycle could change society, increase individual productivity

and kick start the economy of the community, something they speculated was not taking place

otherwise. In this way, the organizations had a business-oriented approach in how they ran their

organization as well as an economic focus in their objectives on the ground. Interestingly, there

seemed to be limited or no reflection on the idea that such organizations may be (re)producing

the reduction of state responsibility by doing the work of the government.

Cross-border Connections and Structure

Within the BFD movement, there were various ways that we can see how relationships

between the domestic and international organizations, and their stakeholders, operated across

national borders. For example, BAP had an interesting organizational structure as they worked in

a couple of national contexts. The main office, workshop and distribution centre was in Gulu,

and a new office was opened in Lira—both in Northern Uganda—while the manufacturer was in

India (which will be elaborated on later), and the CEO/ Board of directors was in the United

States. Brian highlighted some of the complexities that the organization experienced because of

this:

43
 [T]here’s things that they have to deal with working in two different time zones, in two
different countries […] you have to understand the laws of two different countries and
how they interact, there’s some financial issues where we’re dealing with exchange rate
difference on a daily basis, you know tracking the financial activity of the organization in
two different countries. Right? We have a part-time bookkeeper in CPA in the US, we
have a fulltime finance manager here, so making sure that all of the finances matchup is
an important function (Brian, BAP)

It was often these larger international organizations that worked across borders, in various

contexts. Additionally, and because of this multi-faceted work environment, the international

organizations may struggle to address the social, political and environmental aspects of their

recipient nation—an issue I return to later.

Organizational Goals

Although I have just highlighted various differences between the CBOs and the

international BFD organizations, they often had similar overarching goals – at least as stated in

their formal mission and visions statements, and as discussed in interviews. Typically, these

included a focus on some combination of health, social, community and economic development.

As seen below, there were some organizations that had direct and specific organizational goals

through the projects that they created and carried out, whereas other organizations indirectly

contributed to specific goals through interorganizational partnerships (i.e., international

organizations who donated bicycles or money to domestic CBOs). The specificities of how these

goals ‘came to life’ through the actions of the organizations will be elaborated on in research

question 2, which explored how the bicycle was used as an international tool – since disparities

between stated goals and actual outcomes can exist. In this section, though, Table 4 provides a

superficial overview of the goals of these organizations connected explicitly to the UN’s 2015

SDGs—that could have influenced the projects set up by these organizations to help individuals

in Uganda.

44
Table 4: Organizational goals

Organizational goal SDG Organizations

Eliminating HIV/AIDS (3) Good health and well-being Direct: Amuru VHT, Hope 4
Humans, UOH, FABIO, KWA
and BAP
Indirect: Bikes Not Bombs,
Bikes 4 Life, Wheels 4 Life
Education (4) Quality education Direct: Amuru VHT, BAP,
FABIO, Bikes Not Bombs,
UOH
Indirect: Comic Relief
Economic participation (8) Decent work and economic All of the BFD organizations
growth included in this research
Community development (5) Gender equality & Direct: FABIO, UOH
(10) reduced inequality Indirect: Wheels 4 Life, Bikes 4
Life
Tourism (10) Reduced inequality & FABIO, Kara-Tunga, Bicycles 4
(9) industry, innovation and Humanity
infrastructure

Table 4 outlined the overarching goals of the organizations. However, this brief summary

above does not unearth the complexity of ‘what it looked like’ when projects were carried out in

order to achieve these goals, and how this process may be messier than stated and/or advertised.

The following section will begin to explore the process of how goals are enacted and how the

bicycle was actually used as an international development tool.

3.2 RQ (2) How is the bicycle being used as an international ‘development’ tool (what

assumptions about bicycles underlie their utilization for development purposes)?

This research question contributed to the overview of these organizations and the BFD

movement by further interrogating what the landscape of BFD is, and what the BFD

organizations actually do—not just what their stated goals are. In order to get at this, I had

conversations with people who were directly involved in BFD and explored what they said they

were doing.

45
 As background to this section, and the remainder of the results chapter, attention to

geographic location will be an important feature that will be considered and explored. The

organizations and projects location, as either urban or rural, seemed to be related to ways the

bicycle was (or was not) used as a development tool, the perspectives of individuals involved,

and interorganizational partnerships. When speaking about urban and rural location, I am

specifically referring to the communities the organizations sought to serve, and not necessarily

where the organizations themselves were located. It is worth noting here that there was a higher

concentration of BFD organizations in rural Northern Uganda— i.e., the organizations that

served rural communities (BAP, Bikes 4 Life, Bikes Not Bombs, Bicycles 4 Humanity, Wheels 4

Life, Comic Relief/ World Bicycle Relief [WBR]) and CBOs located in rural communities that

received bicycles (Amuru VHT, Kara-Tunga, KWA, UOH) were in Northern Uganda. Also, it is

important to highlight that FABIO worked in both urban and rural communities, with an office in

Jinja and Kampala, and that the organization served communities in various regions throughout

the country.

Bicycles Filled a Gap

As a result of the recent history of Northern Uganda—with insurgencies having ended in

2006, just over a decade ago—some individuals still reside in internally displaced persons (IDP)

camp structures, which are located far from resources, such as hospitals and schools. This socio-

political landscape has contributed to BFD organizations locating themselves in this rural region.

Therefore, it is perhaps unsurprising then that Northern Uganda has the highest concentration of

BFD organizations in the country.

The BFD organizations I studied, according to interviewees, believed that they were

filling a societal gap by providing people with mobility, and thus providing access to resources

46
by decreasing the physical distance in the rural regions and helping people move through

infrastructure related barriers. I discuss some of these gaps below.

Addressing Health Gaps

One of the main goals for the organizations was to decrease health-related transport

barriers. The bicycle was spoken about as a tool that was able to increase access to the hospital

and health centres, which was the reason that the founder of BAP created the organization in the

first place. Additionally, bicycles were often donated to increase the outreach of VHTs and

Community Health Teams (CHTs) to sensitize communities about HIV/AIDS, to decrease

stigma and marginalization, and to encourage HIV/AIDS testing and health checks. Bicycles

were also used to increase access to health care centres. Initiatives such as these included

constructing bicycle ambulances.

Fifteen of the participants discussed how the bicycle facilitated community health by

‘closing the gap’. Eight of the participants highlighted that the bicycles promoted HIV

sensitization—also known as de-stigmatization—and encouraged testing. BAP provided a

statistic stating, “bikes increase access to health clinics by 38 percent, so they were able to go to,

to clinics over a third more frequently, close to 40 percent” (Bridgette*, BAP). Additionally,

FABIO created their Bike 4 Care project to “bridge the existing gap between the local man

accessing government health services” (Joy, FABIO) by giving bicycles to VHTs to improve

health service accessibility. In this way, bikes were discussed as promoting community health,

encouraging HIV/AIDS testing and increasing health access.

Moses from UOH spoke about the high levels of HIV transmission in Northern Uganda.

These high rates were a product of the insurgencies, because girls were raped by the rebels who

left the region in “a very devastated state” (Moses, UOH). This prompted the organization to

have HIV positive females as the targeted beneficiary group of their donated bicycles. Therefore,

47
it was unsurprising when Cameron, a volunteer of Bikes 4 Life who has worked closely with

UOH, said that in Uganda, Bikes 4 Life donated bicycles to women and children affected by

HIV. This highlighted how the CBO chose the project beneficiaries and addressed the

marginalization of those with HIV/AIDS, influencing how the project supported by an

international organization played out on the ground.

It is important to highlight here that there were nine interviewed individuals who received

bicycles through BFD projects and that most of them worked in the health field (as a VHT, CHT,

or ART support agent—individuals who support people in the village who have HIV/AIDS).

These participants mentioned that with a bicycle “you can save time like, you can monitor like

10 family in a day rather than moving on foot and then you cover only 2 household” (Robert,

H4H). Additionally, Anthony of the CBO Amuru VHT, highlighted that:

[B]ecause of the bikes it is also very easy to make follow-up on patients and then even
identify new patients that really need urgent help. Then to also go in communities and
sensitize them about specific illnesses and specific problems, which he says he is so
much attributing to the development and to the improvement of health within Amuru
(translated by encultured informant for Anthony, Amuru VHT)

The bicycle increased the ease of movement for these VHTs, spreading the benefit of the bicycle

into the community.

Additionally, the bicycles were not only given to health workers but also patients—or

parents whose child was a patient at the hospital. For example, Hope for Humans gave bicycles

to the parents of children with Nodding disease who were staying at the health facility. Similarly,

Amuru VHT also:

[G]ave them [the bicycle] to the patients because we realize, we, we, we want to really
learn to encourage the HIV/ AIDS patients, so we gave them to the patients so that
someone can see and say ya we are supported at least (Alfred, Amuru)

48
Due to the fact that various organizations disseminated their goal of improving health online, it

was unsurprising when a lot of the participants spoke about, and provided examples of, the

bicycle facilitating access to health resources.

Addressing Education Gaps

The bicycle was also discussed as a catalyst for education development by reducing the

length of travel to school and thus increasing school attendance, educational accessibility and

longevity. Some of the bicycle donations were meant to provide children with transportation to

school or for parents to transport their children to school—in recognition that without bicycles

there was a lack of transportation available and that long-distance acted as a barrier to accessing

education. For example, Joy described FABIO’s Cycle to School initiative below:

[T]he stakeholders are the students themselves who are the immediate beneficiaries and
then their parents because they help them to maintain the bikes and all those things but
also this bike is used at home to do some other stuff. This is why we consider parents to
be also a beneficiary. But third also the teachers are, we are considering them as main
stakeholders. Because we are looking at reducing school drops outs and one of the issues
that come out is the long distances that the students move, the teacher is supposed to help
us in evaluation, how are the students fairing after receiving the bikes, is there any
improvement? (Joy, FABIO)

Joy highlighted how a bicycle was a tool that facilitated access to education for youth, and how

there were multiple stakeholders involved in a project, thus demonstrating one of the ways that

this CBO worked with the community.

Additionally, through bicycle centres and workshops, BFD organizations provided youth

with education about the bicycle, in conjunction with other forms of vocational skills training.

Moses highlighted that two objectives of UOH was to facilitate transporting school going

children and to “provide formal and informal education to families, to children, and to adult”

(Moses, UOH). On a personal level, Ocen acknowledged how the education he gained through

the bicycle, made him respected in the community.

49
 [P]eople used to look at him as being somebody who is not going to school, or not
educated, but from the work of this bicycle, now people have started respecting him
(translated for Ocen, UOH)

Specifically, MOTF hopes to set up a workshop to hire the youth from their vocational school,

which would most likely mirror Ocen’s experience above.

The organizations sometimes highlighted education as a goal and the beneficiaries

discussed transporting youth to school as a way that their bicycle was utilized (also evident here

is one of the communal aspects of the bicycle). An important finding from this research though is

that other forms of education, such as becoming a mechanic, were discussed quite heavily as an

opportunity provided through the bicycles arriving in and moving within communities in

Uganda.

Bicycles Create a More Equitable Society and Improve Living Standards

Bicycles, across the board, were discussed as tools employed to improve the standard of

living and create an equitable society by providing (as we’ve seen above) access to health and

education, as well as economic (agricultural) participation, and social integration through

community development. Below, the vignette illuminates how these organizations attempted to

make the bicycle more affordable and accessible by bringing them to the communities.

[A] bike, going to the garden, to such, going to the market, same bike takes the children
to school, the same bike goes to the health centre, the same bike brings to back home
after doing all those things. I mean, a bike is doing everything. But this bike is not
expensive to, to afford because if you’re doing co-funding, it’s very little money to get it.
And now that FABIO takes these bikes to the local people, they’re easily accessible. It
doesn’t require someone to go to Kampala to get a bike. Though the bike actually finds
them in their villages, so many we’ve reduced on accessibility and actually life is
changing when you look at it, it is just rotating but changing actually. Somehow reducing
the vicious circle of poverty (Najjiba, FABIO)

It is noted that not only do the bicycles themselves become more accessible, but they make

resources more accessible by providing the beneficiaries with mobility.

50
 Bicycles Decreased Barriers to Participating in the Economy

As previously highlighted, the organizations had the goal of promoting economic

development—as bicycles were donated with the intention of making individuals entrepreneurs,

so they could contribute to the national economy. This was implicit in the mission statements of

the BFD organizations that referred to “cycling out of poverty”, which insinuated that the bicycle

could help to economically develop beneficiaries to change their social and financial position—

perhaps, without considering other societal barriers that they may be experiencing. These

organizations disseminated messages about economic development as the bicycle was intended

to increase productivity for household duties, create employment opportunities, and be

distributed through microfinance efforts. All of these were thought to improve the economic

well-being and quality of life for individuals, groups, and/or communities.

The bicycle also supposedly ‘kick-started’ economic participation for the beneficiaries as it

allowed them to access markets and become players in the economy.

[W]hat we see is households who have bikes and who didn’t in the past see about a 35%
increase in their income. Areas where there weren’t bikes before but now there are, we
see about a 30% increase in market attendance and participation and our basic metric is
you know with a bicycle someone can carry 5 times as much and travel 4 times as far
(Brian, BAP)

The clients of BAP could apply for a loan and invest in a bicycle that could then contribute to

their own economic growth.

Economic development was often connected to agricultural development, as agriculture

was the main source of income for many of the beneficiaries in rural Uganda. Above, Brian

highlighted that bicycles provided mobility to transport goods to sell at the market. Cameron

from Bikes 4 Life also noted that travelling to the market allowed people to sell their crops at a

higher price, which would increase their income. Cameron described his belief that through

participation in VSLAs, people would have “some degree of financial stability”—because the

51
extra money the beneficiaries earned could provide them with the opportunity to save, and create

a group bank and an “emergency fund”. He speculated that this could positively impact the

beneficiary’s long-term health and wealth. However, these conversations highlight how the onus

remained on the individuals to take responsibility for their financial position.

Alternatively, a more national approach was found in the projects of the CBOs FABIO

and Kara-Tunga, who have been using the bicycle to promote tourism. The organizations

focused on social interactions between tourists, as well as among and between communities. The

bicycle in this context was discussed as an equalizer—as a mode of transportation that everyone

could afford and use—for people of various classes to ride together in an activity that would

financially support the organizations, and contribute to the national economy and the

community’s economic growth.

These results highlighted how bicycles were donated to prompt economic development

on the individual and community level, and that beneficiaries were encouraged to cycle out of

poverty, work hard and alter their impoverished state. Additionally, by creating an opportunity

for social interaction surrounding the bicycle, the perspectives that people hold about the bicycle

could be challenged, and perhaps changed.

Bicycles for Community Development

The majority of the participants believed that the bicycle was not just for the chosen

beneficiary, but that a bicycle was for a group. Brian aptly described the community aspect of the

bicycle through his observation:

Last week I went for repayment in one of the local villages […] so a young boy who I
think was the child of one of our loan clients came riding up on a bike and he went with
somebody on a motorcycle, left the bike there and then someone who was there where I
was sitting, got on the bike and went somewhere else and came back with it so there’s
kind of a communal element to whose using them (Brian, BAP)

52
Bridgette* from BAP quantified how bikes are shared with at least 5 people on a weekly basis.

The beneficiaries also spoke about sharing their bicycle with family members and trusted friends

to help them develop their own business. For example, Tarisa, a beneficiary from the CBO

KWA, shared her bicycle twice a week with a lady to help her sell her crops at the market.

Therefore, although there was a sense of ownership around the bicycle, this did not prevent

others, such as family or friends, from using the bicycle to benefit socially and economically.

Additionally, bicycles were talked about as objects that permitted and facilitated social

interactions among and across community members. Moses (UOH) discussed how a bicycle

allowed him “to access my relatives, I will be able to access sporting events, I will be able to be

in position to do a lot of recreational activities”. Moreover, it was often acknowledged how

people in rural areas walked if they didn’t have a bicycle, and that the bicycle provided mobility

and allowed the beneficiaries to become integrated in their community.

Pertinent to note here, is that the rural areas of Uganda were rooted in traditional values

and structured patriarchally—especially in the rural North (Branch, 2013). The result of this was

that the BFD organizations were motivated to provide bicycles to women for social integration

and participation; specifically, with the objective of creating a more gender equitable society.

Both CBOs, FABIO and UOH, discussed community cycling events that they have hosted and/or

were planning to host in the near future. The goals of these events were to promote cycling,

create a space for community interactions, and encourage positive perceptions about the bicycle.

Najjiba, from FABIO, spoke about their bicycle rallies as spaces to show women that cycling is a

sport “everyone should enjoy it and it has nothing to do with men or women, it is everything that

someone is supposed to enjoy”. Moses explained how events were part of the CBOs “social

programming so that even their trauma, as much as they are HIV positive but when we do

sporting, in HIV they forget about their status and they will live so freely and be able to speak”

53
(Moses, UOH). These organizations hoped that by creating the opportunity for people to interact,

they would reduce inequality and alter the perceptions of the community (i.e., change the

mindset that women should be relegated to domestic chores and/or should not ride bicycles).

However, the new presence of bicycles in the communities did not come without

problems. Some of the beneficiaries highlighted that being chosen to receive a bicycle became a

signifier of illness (which will be discussed in more depth later) or caused tension in the

community between those who were beneficiaries and those who were not included in the BFD

projects. Walter, a volunteer of Hope for Humans who received a bicycle through the

organization’s BFD project, discussed how people in his community did not understand why he

was chosen to receive the bicycle— and they were angry with him for the opportunity he

received, that they did not. Similarly, Amoli below highlighted how

These days now for her when she is going to church, they are scared because in church
there are wrong people who target them when they go to church saying, ‘these bicycles
they get it for free’ (Amoli, UOH)

Although bicycle access was associated with people becoming active members in their

communities, there were certain contexts that people would and would not use their bicycles –

and there were community members who were disappointed and irritated at their exclusion from

BFD projects.

3.3 RQ (3) What are the perspectives of those involved in such bicycle-driven development

on their work and industry?

[T]he image of the bicycle really changes when you go from the rural areas into town
where people really aren’t farmers and A might look down on farmers but also B the
bikes that we provide it’s really kind of like, oh that’s a village bike, and it really is I
mean that is really instrumental for being able to carry your crops and so well people in
town will either want a sports bike, it’s like once you move to town you either get a
sports bike or you look down upon bikes in general (Brigette*, BAP)

54
 The Meaning of the Bicycle: Unstable and Contextual

One of my key findings was that people’s perspectives on BFD were situated in, and

shaped by, their social and geographic positioning. Put another way, I discovered that the

meaning of the bicycle was unstable, as different people had different views on the bicycle’s

utility as a BFD tool – and on the status of the bicycle more generally – in different places and

different contexts (as the opening quotation from Brigette* suggests), and that these meanings/

perspectives also changed overtime.

In the following section I consider the range of perspectives on BFD with particular

attention to how ‘context mattered’ when assessing how BFD was understood– especially the

urban and rural context, as well as differences between the various regions of Uganda.

Views on the Origin, Brand and Type of Bicycle

The historical context of Uganda and its regions needed to be considered when thinking

through the meaning(s) of the bicycle. I found it intriguing that the ‘local’ bicycle in Uganda

actually referred to bicycles imported from India. This was especially interesting because of the

large Indian population in the nation, and how in the 1970s during Idi Amin’s presidency, he

ordered that the Indian population was expulsed from Uganda under his order.

Presently, many of the bicycle shops are owned by Indian men, and these ‘local’ bicycles

were discussed as readily available in central Uganda. However, as I moved out of the central

region, the bicycle shops sold fewer bicycles (because of the difficultly transporting the bicycles

to rural areas, a point which will be visited later), and instead were more focused on repairs

and/or spare parts. Therefore, there were fewer bicycles available for purchase in the Northern or

Eastern regions.

The lack of opportunity to purchase a bicycle in the Northern region was one of the

reasons why these organizations situated themselves in this region of the country, and another

55
way that these organizations responded to a local need. However, due to the high concentration

of BFD organizations in one region of the country, the organizations thought it was important to

brand their bicycles, so that people would recognize the organization once the bikes entered and

moved within the communities. BAP discussed an example:

[F]ocusing specifically on Northern Uganda, this new bike that we’re bringing in called
Oteka Yoo is something that is very regional right. Uganda has about 31 or 32 different
languages spoken in the country and so that name would not resonate with anybody
outside of Acholiland. So, if they are not speaking Luo, or Langi, then they wouldn’t be
meaningful (Brian, BAP)

Bicycle branding was discussed as a marketing opportunity for potential clients to recognize the

organization, which could increase the number of individuals applying for loans. However,

through branding, additional meanings were attached to the bicycle. For example, the Oteka Yoo

bicycle is known in Northern Gulu and Lira communities as a village bike for farmers.

It is also relevant here that interviewees suggested that people had preferences for what

type of bicycle would be most useful in their local environment. In Kadama, a district in Eastern

Uganda, the participants talked about how “sports bicycle, it can’t work in, with our community

since our community the roads you can see, they are rough” (Margaret, KWA). Instead, they

spoke highly about the Buffalo bikes (which were donated and constructed specifically by

WBR), because they could transport people or heavy weights for agriculture and permit

movement through the poor infrastructure of their environment. Additionally, according to Ocen

of UOH, in Northern Lira, the Avon brand (imported from India) or Chinese imported bicycles

were the most attractive:

[B]ecause they feel that type of bicycle is very strong because for people who does
businesses and more especially the women that you can find them carrying a whole sack
of cassava. […] Those are the types, it’s there but that one is for leisure [referring to the
mountain bike] people fear that one because getting their spares is not easy (Ocen, UOH)

In contrast to Ocen, Theo acknowledged how mountain bikes would facilitate tourism in Eastern

Karamoja, however, “at the moment, the mountain bikes are very scarce” (Theo, Kara-Tunga).

56
Similarly, due to the lack of mountain bikes in central Mityana, Matthew from MOTF said that

mountain bikes are known as luxurious and that they would “uplift…the status of living”. With

these different perspectives in mind, it was unsurprising that interviewees of CBOs discussed

specific variables of various bicycles that did or did not align with their community’s

environmental and social needs, which contributed to how they spoke about the donated bicycles

as a success, or not.

The Social and Symbolic Meaning of the Bicycle

One of the most striking findings of this research had to do with the social meanings

associated with the bicycle. Below, I report findings on this topic – referring specifically to the

range of meanings associated with bicycles across different contexts. Specifically, I will talk to

the bicycle as a sign of wealth; the challenges associated to people’s perspectives; how there

were conflicting meanings of the bicycle in the context of health development; how the bicycle

could be a tool for empowerment (and not) – and how there was a gendered component to this.

The Bicycle as a ‘Sign of Wealth’ and ‘Tool for the Poor’: Regional Differences

The bicycle was a signifier of having wealth and prestige – and, in other contexts, was

known as ‘a tool for the poor’. In rural areas, it was generally accepted that the bicycle provided

access to resources, was a sign of wealth/ prestige, and was a tool that built respect from

community members. For example, the VHTs (which in this research were all male) discussed

how the bicycle built their status, made them “a person of class” (Anthony, Amuru) and a

community leader. The males in these cases (but not the females, interestingly) discussed how

the bicycle was associated to ‘strength’ in the home and in the community. This was perhaps

connected to conceptualizations of ‘masculinity’ related to the perception that the male should be

the breadwinner, which the bicycle facilitated by providing mobility and increasing productivity.

57
 In contrast, it was noted that in urban areas the bicycle often had a negative association as

it was known as a ‘tool for the poor’ (Kayemba, 2013). Najjiba from FABIO noted this when she

explained that she “grew up in the central part of Uganda, which is looking at cycling, especially

for women differently [i.e., not as positively] as compared to this [Jinja/ Eastern] part of Uganda

[which is more rural, and lower income]” (Najjiba, FABIO). This understanding spoke to the

distribution of wealth throughout the country as people in the central region had cars, whereas in

the rural areas the bicycle was one of the only modes of transportation (as it was not as common

for people to own vehicles).

Other Contextual Factors Impacting Views on the Utility of The Bicycle: Road

Infrastructure and Bike Facilities in Urban and Rural Areas

There were also differences in road infrastructure that impacted how the bicycle was

understood in different regions. The more urban areas in Central and Western Uganda had better

infrastructure— i.e., constructed roads, with fewer pot holes—so it was easier for a car to move.

In the rural regions, though, many roads were decrepit because of a lack of funds towards their

infrastructure and the rural villages mainly consisted of dirt roads that were known to become

impassable with rain. In these rural environments, bicycles were more common and especially

useful, as they may have been able to move with more ease than a car.

However, throughout the country, there was a lack of bicycle parking or distinguished

bicycle lanes – which could make cycling dangerous, especially in areas that are busy with cars:

[W]e worked with UNEP on this process we had realized we’ve given out so many
bicycles, we’ve given out but we’ve not appreciated the safety of the people we are
giving bicycles to and we realized the people that are appreciating the bicycles are only
the people this side [Eastern Uganda]. So why aren’t people in central Uganda for
example appreciating the bicycle? And some of the challenges were there are no
facilities. So, someone is not comfortable to ride a bicycle because there are no facilities.
Some of them feel like the technology itself is a problem, how can I ride that Indian bike?
(Najjiba, FABIO)

58
Therefore, it was not only the perception of the bicycle as a tool for the poor, but also the lack of

bicycle facilities. This, along with the congestion of Kampala, contributed to the perspective of

cycling as unsafe. It also highlights the issue that people in the central region have power to

influence perspectives and determine the infrastructure of more rural regions. It is notable here

also that FABIO as a CBO altered their goals based on the needs of communities across the

nation, and also approached their projects from a macro-level perspective at the same time.

Varying Perspectives on the Bicycle’s Role in Health Development

Similar to bicycles as a signifier of wealth/status (or lack of wealth/status), there were

unstable perspectives associated with the utilization of bicycles for health development. As

we’ve already seen, the bicycle was most commonly talked about as positively impacting the

health of people within communities—i.e., it made health-related work easier, increased

community outreach, eased transportation for health care workers to follow-up on patients and/or

sensitize the community to various health issues and was shared amongst community members

to access health facilities. Bicycles also began to change people’s negative perspectives of HIV/

AIDS because the opportunity to potentially receive a bicycle motivated them to get checked for

the virus (because when bicycles were donated to that specific population, hospital records were

checked to verify that the beneficiaries had HIV/AIDS), and if they were positive, to take their

medication. Margaret from KWA explained that the bicycle really helped men to get tested for

HIV/AIDS because they too wanted a bicycle—and men had more stigma towards the virus than

woman. Therefore, these initiatives could work to decrease stigma in the community, encourage

individuals to get checked and normalize the experiences of those with HIV/AIDS.

However, at the same time that the bicycle was described as positive for individuals and

the community, the bicycle was also discussed as a signifier of HIV/AIDS for individuals,

59
children and families – i.e., that owning bicycles known to be donated to those with HIV/AIDS

could be stigmatizing. Consider the following comment from Amoli of UOH:

The challenge they have is the community member now knows that those that have the
bicycles, are these ones affected by HIV? Eh? Those are the ones within the community
who have the disease. Now one day there’s a child who was born HIV positive. […] she
was playing with the rest of the children, her friends within the community, when those
children started telling, ‘eh you’re HIV positive, now your home is people who have
bicycles. Those bicycles are for the sick people, eh?’ (Amoli, UOH)

This issue of stigma was especially evident when the bicycles were branded, and the community

knew that those bicycles were donated to that specific population. A specific example is from the

beneficiaries of KWA who received the Buffalo Bicycles from WBR, “they talk bad words on

us, whom got the bicycles. Sometimes they say eh, at first, they were saying those people who

got those bicycles, they’re the ones having AIDS” (Tarisa, KWA). Therefore, although the

bicycle was donated with good intentions, the beneficiaries illuminated the challenges they faced

once the bicycles were donated. Without gathering the experiences of people who received

bicycles, these organizations may have not been aware, or able, to consider these challenges.

This highlights the importance of following-up and keeping in communication with beneficiaries

to determine how BFD projects play out in the local context.

Various Discourses on how Bicycles can be a Tool for Empowerment

Although interviewees generally shared the belief that bicycles could ‘empower people’ –

empowerment was understood in a variety of ways. While there was general agreement that

empowerment was facilitated by access to mobility and the freedom to be mobile – there was

also a gendered aspect to empowerment. Organizations that donated bicycles to groups of

females discussed how the bicycles gave them ‘freedom’ to move and access transportation,

which allowed them to participate in society, move to their gardens and the market, and attend

social events—a perspective that was also shared by female beneficiaries. Another empowerment

discourse was associated to neoliberalism, in the sense that the individuals were empowered to

60
become autonomous actors in their own lives to ‘cycle out of poverty’ by becoming

entrepreneurs and participating in the economy. Each of these empowerment modes will be

discussed in more depth throughout this section.

Female Empowerment and the Bicycle

Some organizations specifically chose females as their target beneficiaries and created

projects with implicit goals of empowering females. The programs focused on issues of women’s

(im)mobility with(in) the gendered structures of society that these BFD organizations sought to

respond to or change.

Most of the organizations were aware of females’ positions (i.e. domestic roles) in the

contexts where the bikes were being distributed – which was why they donated bicycles to

females in the first place. Najjiba of the CBO FABIO explained the underlying assumption that

bicycles would ease work for females:

[B]ecause the women are responsible for most of the work, especially in communities in
these rural communities. Women are supposed to take children to school, women are
supposed to fetch water, women are the ones that go to the garden. Although it is the men
to sell the output from the garden, but it is the women to go to the garden and grow this
plant and whatever crops! (Najjiba, FABIO)

The multiple domestic roles that are relegated to the women, in the context that Najjiba refers to

above, is part of the patriarchal structuring. So, by donating bicycles, these organizations were

orienting their work around the belief that bikes may make work easier and more equitable for

women in rural Uganda, and that the bicycles may alter this societal structuring.

As previously outlined, bicycles were donated to groups of women because of their

‘vulnerable’ position in society. Below, Moses highlighted why he chose to work with women:

I had to choose to work with women because I feel like a women has many major
primary role in a home. Where you find a home is empowered that means the women is
the one who is strong and taking lead, in businesses, in organizations (Moses, UOH)

61
Moses noted that the bicycle allowed women to access core facilities faster and easier – and

through these opportunities, women were to be empowered, active members of society.

The female beneficiaries that I interviewed also highlighted how the bicycle

‘empowered’ them. For example:

Another development I can see in those bicycles, the way these, these ladies are using
them in their businesses, now some are, they carry their basket, tomato baskets take to the
markets, they carry their sweet potatoes, their food to the markets. That is development
(Margaret, KWA)

Additionally, Amoli, a beneficiary of UOH, acknowledged how the bicycle allowed her to

mobilize groups of women (including older women) to meet for their VSLA meetings, which

highlighted individual and community empowerment for these women.

As alluded to, the female participants spoke about empowerment transcending to others

in their communities – because they shared their bicycles with other females and because women

who used the bicycles challenged and changed the perception of women in their communities.

Alum, a beneficiary at UOH, elaborated on this idea – noting that within the group of women

that she is involved with, collective female empowerment contributed to changing the

perceptions of females in her community to be perceived as resourceful.

Additionally, FABIO discussed a documentary that they were planning to create based

off of their cycling events, in order to demonstrate the difference a bicycle can make for women.

Najjiba explained: “[it’s] about how the bicycles are helping women in communities, what

women go through in communities [and…] how bicycles are helping to empower women, how at

the end of the day, a women is happy to have 2000 shillings” (Najjiba, FABIO). Najjiba went on

to suggest that the empowerment these women feel, positively impacted their happiness,

financial position and also changed the perceptions of women in their community.

Although these responses represent how the female beneficiaries embodied the intended

empowerment of the bicycle projects, the organizations still faced challenges when distributing

62
bicycles to this population because the females had to overcome how people in their community

perceived them and had to demonstrate to others their ability to be resourceful.

Empowerment as Individualism and Personal Responsibility

The second empowerment discourse followed the ideology of neoliberalism, which was

driven by these organizations encouraging the beneficiaries to use their bicycle to facilitate

financial empowerment, increase their participation in the economy and drive themselves out of

poverty. Bridgette* from BAP highlighted how the bicycle “is an income generating tool and it’s

an opportunity for people in the most deep rural areas to get access to different places [...and]

there’s a lot of autonomy” (Bridgette*, BAP). Other organizations had similar visions of the

bicycle being used for work. According to David at P4P, the bicycles made the beneficiaries

more productive as “the average recipient that gets one of my bikes has like a fifteen percent rise

in income the first week they have the bike, just ‘cause they can get to where they need to go”

(David, P4P). Other interviewees made similar comments, saying things like the “bicycle is like

a kind of revenue” (Alfred, Amuru VHT).

FABIO highlighted the model they constructed to ensure that their beneficiaries would

maximize the bicycle and become ‘self-sustaining’, independent individuals in the community:

[W]e work in stages before a person actually receives bicycles, they have to go in steps.
They have to concept, conceptualization step where we are just talking about
development, where we are talking about things. Then we have another stage where we
are talking about income generation, how a bicycle can be used for income generation.
Then we have another stage of how do you prepare yourself to handle this bicycle, in
terms of maintenance, in terms of what. So, by the time the person actually receives the
bicycle, also knows how best to maximize its potential (Najjiba, FABIO)

This quote highlighted how the individuals receiving the bicycles were, according to

interviewees, taught to become responsible – which meant using the bike to its fullest potential

(to reap the most benefits) and to understand how the bicycle could help them develop and

generate their income.

63
 Dependent upon how the bicycle was donated, the representatives of the BFD

organizations believed that there were different understandings about the impact and sense of

ownership the beneficiaries would feel. Some founders and employees of BFD organizations

(both CBO and international) believed that when the bicycles were sold instead of given freely, a

sense of ownership would be felt by the beneficiaries, which they emphasized by speaking about

the notion of personal responsibility. Additionally, these participants believed that when the

beneficiaries contributed to the bicycle (i.e., offered some form of payment for the bicycle), it

was more likely that they would take better care of it, which would contribute to long term use

and sustainability.

Interestingly, BAP questioned whether micro-financing potentially excluded some

beneficiaries that could benefit from a bicycle. I found this particularly interesting because out of

the three organizations that sold bicycles (FABIO, BAP and P4P through co-funding/ credit

scheme, loans, or full purchase, respectively), only BAP questioned whether they were being

exclusionary through their method of distribution. Bridgette* from BAP stated how “it’s hard

just in general to think about is financing a bicycle the best way to leverage change” because

“it’s pretty costly but then I think that there’s a lot of financial empowerment” (Brigette*, BAP).

Similarly, Brian highlighted some tension between the clients and the organization:

You know when you think about being an NGO, serving a client base to improve their
lives, our goal would not be to have 100% repayment. I mean that would tell me that
we’re not meeting, we’re not reaching the clients who need us the most. Right? So, we
wouldn’t, we don’t expect perfect repayment because [those are] the clients who are
struggling and who stand to benefit the most from the bike loans (Brian, BAP)

Therefore, distribution methods can produce financial tension since micro-financing may, on one

hand, provide individualized economic empowerment – and, on the other hand, may exclude and

marginalize community members by not giving them the opportunity to participate in BFD in the

first place.

64
 The conversation here demonstrated that although the beneficiaries seemed to embody

the empowerment intended through the distribution of bicycles from these BFD organizations,

there may be a lack of critical analysis by these organizations—as some of them sought to alter

individuals’ lives without addressing the larger social structuring of gender roles and why people

were impoverished in the first place.

Barriers to Changing Perspectives on the Bicycle

FABIO highlighted the challenges of trying to change perspectives on the bicycle.

Interviewees in this organization noted that politicians and major stakeholders held the belief that

bicycles were ‘for the poor’, and that there was no (political) reason to incorporate bicycles into

policy planning— as such planning would apparently represent ‘backward thinking’ (Pojani &

Stead, 2015). Najjiba explained:

[W]e still have challenges of attitude towards the bicycle usage in Uganda. People still
believe a bicycle is for a poor person and that is it. So, we still have that challenge. Even
the policy makers themselves, although they are slowly accepting, majority of them
think, how can we talk about a bicycle at this area? We should be talking about cars,
different models, so we have attitude and we have also culture barriers, especially for
women (Najjiba, FABIO)

Although FABIO succeeded in implementing a non-motorized transport (NMT) policy, Najjiba

highlighted the perceptions of the bicycle held by people in power, which made it difficult to

incorporate NMT into the national policy. She explained that ‘developing countries’ are “moving

from cars to bicycles” and that FABIO has been trying to make politicians and people in Uganda

“see a bicycle as a trend”. By borrowing ideas from other countries (and through the

organization’s European partnerships), FABIO intended to alter the mindset of politicians—and

hoped that this altered perception would transcend into civil society—so that the bicycle would

not just be seen as a tool for the poor.

FABIO was the only BFD organization that worked in the urban context and had political

connections. This domestic CBO looked to challenge and change macro-level issues of road

65
safety and bicycle perceptions. This was in contrast to overarching claims from some

international BFD organizations, that were not as context-focused and seemed to be more

oriented around promoting their BFD organization – as would be expected in the business model

adopted by these BFDs. Additionally, as we have seen throughout this section, speaking to

people on the ground provided insight into the BFD movement, contextualized how BFD

projects played out, and drew attention to the challenges that occurred when bicycles arrived, and

moved within, communities. These points begin to address issues that will be the focus of the

next research question, on globalization and BFD-driven international development.

3.4 RQ (4) What can be learned from the BFD movement about globalization processes and

the impacts of technologies traveling to and within the Two-Thirds World?

As previously stated, I spoke to people on the ground and attended to their experiences,

with a focus on how their experiences—as either founders, employees or beneficiaries of CBOs

or international BFD organizations—offered insight into features of globalization, and the global

BFD movement. As will be especially evident, the global and local were not dichotomous but

interacted and worked together to create the BFD movement.

International Movement of Bicycles: Friction

By talking to individuals directly involved with the shipment, local distribution and

utilization of bicycles in Uganda, I discovered that bikes did not necessarily move in direct

and/or smooth ways. Following Tsing’s (2005) concept of friction, bicycles moved in “awkward,

unequal, unstable and creative” ways through “interconnections across difference” (p.4). Within

the context of this research, I found that friction was created through the movement of bicycles

to and within the Two-Thirds World—through cross-border movements and the power of the

national government—and that there were power inequalities between the First-Third World and

the Two-Thirds World.

66
 Global/local Movement of Bicycles: Complexities and inequalities

Although this research focused on the national context of Uganda, I was especially

interested in the movement of these bicycles, and how friction was encountered as bicycles

moved to, and within, Uganda. I will begin with a comment made by David, from P4P, an

American based not-for-profit that ships bicycles globally. He highlighted that:

[I]t [i.e., the movement of bicycles] really just doesn’t work in landlocked countries,
Uganda, Malawi, Mali, South Sudan, Kyrgyzstanin, Afghanistan. Landlocked countries,
it’s just, the cost is so prohibitive. As long as you’re on the water, you’re doing fine,
water’s cheap, as soon as you get to moving on wheels and to an eighteen-wheeler […]
Shipping costs change so much, like domestic costs have gone up. To ship a container to
Uganda, first it’s thirteen hundred dollars domestic trucking, that’s every container […]
Then to ship it from - on a boat - from Newark to Mombasa, is thirty-five hundred
dollars. Which isn’t bad. But to bring it from Mombasa into Kampala, is forty-two
hundred dollars. And then they charge about fifteen percent import tax and a BAT tax
[…] it’s just the sheer costs of the reality of logistics and shipping. You know people ask
me, why do you ship where you ship to and my answer always is, I ship where the world
will allow me to do it (David, P4P)

David discussed how different forms of transportation decreased or increased friction, such as

water being cheap and easy, but land transportation was expensive and was known to produce

various forms of friction—ultimately, these frictions influenced whether or not P4P delivered

their bicycles to certain countries. Other interviewees also discussed how once the bicycles

landed in Uganda, it was still very expensive to ship them throughout the country, especially for

the organizations in the rural north—which, as we’ve seen, is where the majority of the BFD

organizations were located.

The founders and employees of BFD organizations in Uganda provided insight into the

local specificities of the movement of the bicycle and people who directly dealt with the

importation of bicycles. They specifically discussed the trajectory the bicycle took and the

associated costs and challenges within Uganda (i.e. restrictions and regulation put in place by the

government). Moses highlighted that the cost of receiving a bicycle container from an

international organization was about $12,000 to $13,000 US because it costs around $6,000 US

67
to ship the container of bicycles from America and another $6,000 US to clear the container in

Uganda. He also elaborated on the additional costs for inland transportation to ship the container

from Kampala to the communities for distribution. Domestic organizations, such as FABIO,

Kara-Tunga and UOH, sometimes purchased bicycles in Uganda to distribute within the nation

to avoid the costs associated with the bicycles entering the country (i.e., UOH’s MOU with

Wheels 4 Life, which stipulates an annual monetary donation to purchase bicycles locally). In

this way, the financial cost of transportation may also exclude organizations and individuals from

participating in the BFD movement, as the friction caused by (lack of) financial capital impeded

the movement of bicycles.

Another example was provided by Brian from BAP who described how the organization

decided to become a supplier of their own brand by partnering with a manufacturer in India:

[B]ecause of availability, because of price fluctuation, because of supply and demand issues,
we decided that we wanted to try directly importing bikes instead of going through existing
channels and in Uganda, for the bikes that are currently here in the market place there are a
limited number of supplies and so we decided to look at essentially becoming a supplier of
our own brand (Brian, BAP)

In reflection then, and acknowledging the challenges associated with bicycles moving within

Uganda, a larger challenge was associated to the bicycles entering Uganda. Brian specifically

indicated that the trajectory of bicycles traveling through Kenya impacted the shipment of

bicycles to Uganda. In this way, friction was also created by the political environments of the

surrounding countries— as Uganda is geographically a landlocked country, which, as

highlighted above, is associated to transport-related frictions as well.

National Frictions

The government of Uganda was discussed as one of the main actors that facilitated or

impeded BFD projects. For the Northern CBOs, such as UOH, the government connected the

organization with female VSLA groups who sought to have a group project. Amoli, a leader of a

68
VSLA group and a UOH beneficiary, highlighted this process by explaining that “[t]he parish

chief was working with Moses […] Mr. Cameroon [from Bikes 4 Life] came, gave us bicycles”.

Therefore, the VSLA was connected to the CBO through the government and this connection

facilitated the community’s connection to the international organization Bikes 4 Life, through

UOH.

Although the government provided connections for some organizations, the government

also created challenges. An example of this was the taxes put in place by the government. Moses

(UOH) highlighted how “it [i.e., importing bikes] has become a real source of income and

revenue for the government” and because of the high tax, organizations have stopped or are

discouraged from shipping bikes to Uganda since they could distribute bicycles to countries

where it costs less, they are not taxed, and it’s easier to do so (i.e., less inland transportation).

To combat the challenges associated with bicycle taxation, FABIO discussed how they

“tried to pursue tax exemption for bicycles especially for those that going to communities. But

somehow with the government procedures and how they work, it was a little big lagging”

(Najjiba, FABIO). The CBOs addressed how they were disappointed that they were unable to

receive tax exemptions, unlike hospitals or large organizations such as World Vision, even

though they believed that they were “doing the work for the government” (Moses, UOH).

Additionally, the international organizations believed that they were helping the local

people, because the communities were not receiving social provisions from the government. For

example, David from P4P highlighted that his organization had good intentions of helping civil

society because he believed that the government wasn’t doing so. However, he noted that

tensions and barriers arose:

[Y]ou say, ‘I'm coming here to help poor people you know, we're bringing in these goods
and tryna help the poor people’ and the government quite boldly says, "look, you don't
know nothing - we live here, we know what needs to be done and you pay the tax and

69
 we're gonna help the poor people". If you're importing goods, unless you know someone
in the government, they slam you with tax (David, P4P).

It is important to acknowledge the perception that David had of the government, from his

perspective as an outsider trying to ‘do good’ for the nation. However, it is just as important, and

very interesting, to hear about the government’s perspective of international organizations ‘trying

to help’, especially because Museveni has qualified “globalization as a form of oppression”

(Njoh, 2006, p. 25). David also alluded to ‘exceptions to neoliberalism’ (Ong, 2006), that if the

international organization had a connection to someone in the government, transport-related

frictions could be reduced, which could make the importation of bicycles easier.

Inequalities Between the First and Two-Thirds World: ‘Beholden to the Global

North7’

The international relations—between individuals who occupied different positions in the

BFD movement globally—were entrenched with power imbalances. The common themes that

arose when speaking to beneficiaries was that the bicycles they received ‘made them hard

working’ – but, as a beneficiary, they had no choice in the type of bicycle they were receiving.

Additionally, there were also people in communities where there was a high-demand for

bicycles, and where BFD organizations operated, who were excluded from receiving a bicycle

during the distribution. Although the beneficiary CBOs—that had bicycle projects initiated by

international organizations, such as Amuru VHTs, KWA and Hope 4 Humans—could not

themselves facilitate the distribution of bicycles into the communities in which they lived, these

international organizations relied heavily on the domestic CBOs for their projects to succeed.

7 The term Global North is used here intentionally because the phrase is entrenched with power relations (i.e.,
generalized understandings of Northern and Southern hemispheres, whereby the former is perceived to have wealth,
power, and resources, and the latter is perceived to have less of each variable). Moreover, Robertson (1990)
discusses the ‘mapping of the world’ as a vital ingredient of global-political culture, whereby discourses of mapping
fuse geography “with political, economic, cultural and other forms of placement of nations on the global-
international map” (p. 25).

70
 Margaret from the CBO KWA explained the history of their bicycle project. She

elaborated how individuals from their donor organization, Comic Relief in the One-Third-World,

visited them to perform an ‘on-the-ground’ study in 2015, where they discovered that there was a

need for transportation. As excited as the beneficiaries were to receive the bicycles, the shipment

of bicycles into the community was not without problems because “a challenge, some got

annoyed, some were got discouraged […] that is our community, we have nothing to do because

there were only 100 bicycles and we have so many people, we cannot give everybody”. This

experience highlighted one instance of how the international organizations held the power to

determine when, why and how the bicycle moved to, and within, Ugandan communities.

International organizations also made the domestic CBOs take ownership of the BFD

projects (i.e., it was up to the domestic CBOs to facilitate the importation of bicycles, and

oftentimes they had to pay for the shipment, and coordinate in-land transportation, etc.). David

used to ship to Uganda and has been in the process of establishing a new local partnership with

Matthew, the founder of MOTF. David elaborated how “it’s up to our partners to live up to the

agreement that they signed and distribute those bikes equitably and fair” (David, P4P). Through

a free-market approach he stated that the success of the project was up to the local organization

in charge of the project. However, Matthew addressed how his “organization lacks donor

funding” (Matthew, MOTF) and that generating money locally was difficult. This led to delays

around the bicycle project in his community—even though a high demand for bicycles existed.

The domestic CBOs often discussed funding challenges (or lack of funding) that

impacted the sustainability of their projects. Margaret from KWA highlighted “when we do some

proposals, we don’t go through and time comes when there is no funding. There is no funding,

like now there is nothing”. Funding was the biggest challenge faced by organizations “[b]ecause

most of our NGOs in Uganda, including us, we depend on so much on external sources of

71
funding. So that sustainability is a challenge” (Najjiba, FABIO). Najjiba noted the difficulty of

sustaining a project after the donor pulls out. This was an experience shared by Amuru VHT in

their relationship with the international organization Bikes Not Bombs. Bikes Not Bombs had the

bicycles to distribute but could not cover the cost of the shipment. Although Amuru VHT tried to

gather the money to pay for shipping by selling some of the bicycles that they had previously

received, not enough people in the community made a purchase – which forced their BFD

project to end and for no new bicycles to arrive. Anthony, a voluntary VHT from Amuru VHT,

described how as an organization, they were financially weak and although there was a high

demand for the bicycles that they received from international organizations, as beneficiaries from

a small rural CBO in Uganda, they were passive players on the periphery of the global system –

where they relied on larger international organizations to initiate their participation and

contribute to project longevity.

Throughout this research, the positioning of the Two-Thirds World as ‘passive and

grateful recipients of aid’ has been evident. Alum, a beneficiary of UOH, highlighted how they

accept what was brought to them, as they are not able to make choices regarding the bicycles.

Similarly, Anthony from Amuru VHT discussed how:

[A] beggar has no choice. Most times when organizations come, they already have a
drawn plan, a drawn budget on whatever work they are coming to do. So, even when they
start, discrepancy in their thoughts, in the need, the people in the community have a
different interest, the organization come with a different interest. That has to be
organized. The people in the villages have no choice. You have to go with whatever plan
the organization comes with, you have to embrace it and support it and see that the work
goes on well (Anthony, Amuru VHT)

There were clear power differentials of who got to choose when and how these

beneficiaries participated in this global BFD movement, which illuminated the localized and

embodied friction embedded within BFD. The results here have highlighted that the beneficiaries

were aware of the unequal power relations (and they highlighted the inability to change this), and

72
that free markets and open borders did not necessarily facilitate the direct movement of bicycles

globally—and in fact there were many unexpected barriers that arose, which the organizations

had to work through and overcome.

CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION

In the following discussion, I provide a brief overview of my main findings and connect

them to pertinent literatures. The discussion will be structured by the following headings: sport

and development organizations, context of development matters, power relations in development

and sport, and localizing global BFD. As I attend to the nuanced ways that BFD in Uganda has

taken place, each of these sections will highlight how my findings complement, inform and in

some cases contradict what other authors have said in related literatures on these topic areas.

4.1 Sport and Development Organizations

There were a variety of BFD organizations that were included in this research, and

although I tried to discretely categorize them as a way of helping me explain the relevance of key

features and differences, one of the main findings about the structure of these organizations was

that they existed along a spectrum. The above results also highlighted how the BFD

organizations had similar mandates and organizational goals, however, they approached their

projects differently, varied in size, interorganizational networks and global prominence. The

results of this research also demonstrated that domestic CBOs were more focused on local/

community needs, whereas the international organizations were concerned with global issues and

economic growth (a point which will be returned to below).

This research was a response to Wilson and Hayhurst’s (2009) call to explore the

structuring, organization and perspectives of SDP NGOs. More than this though, Wilson and

Hayhurst (2009) were interested in how the introduction of a ‘new’ technology (in that case,

Internet communication) to the SDP sector was reflected in the day to day operations of some of

73
those in the sector. Although my study was about a very different kind of technology, I also

found a range of reasons that it mattered that the bicycle itself – as a form of technology that was

obviously central to BFD – was necessary for this form of development work, and that it

mattered differently for different organizations. In this way, by understanding the features of

these organizations, I also came to better understand the key role of a technology (and

development tool) across contexts, like Wilson and Hayhurst did – although their technology was

a communication technology, and the one I focus on was a form of transportation.

As I continued to explore the structure of these organizations, I found that all of the

domestic organizations were CBOs that took a bottom-up approach and all of the international

organizations took a top-down approach. This finding builds upon and aligns with those outlined

by Black (2017) because the bottom-up actors addressed inequitable social structures, in

culturally respective ways, and were concerned with sustainability and project longevity –

whereas international organizations, on the other hand, attended more to the global economy and

seemed to embrace principles associated with neoliberalism and free market ideologies. This

research was different than Black (2017) though because it highlighted how an organization’s

location (as domestic or international) influenced the structuring of the organization.

Black (2017) also discussed how SfD actors perceived that they needed each other in

more systematic and sustained ways than other actors in global development and addressed how

the relationship between top down and bottom up is “symbiotic; but it is also, very obviously, an

unequal symbiosis, with top down actors and interests routinely predominating” (p. 14). The

findings of this research demonstrated that unequal power relations were never completely

eliminated – although the balance of power in different phases varied. The research here

demonstrated that top down actors had the power to initiate a BFD project and were necessary to

facilitate success, but that some of the CBOs determined how the projects would play out on the

74
ground; therefore, both types of organizations relied on each other to carry out the BFD projects

and each type of organization held power at different points in their relationship. Therefore,

although Black (2017) stated that these organizational relationships were an ‘unequal symbiosis’

he did not necessarily explore how power was transferrable and moved between organizations

throughout their partnerships.

The different organizations also had different perspectives about the bicycle and their

utilization as an international development tool— with CBOs focusing on community

development efforts (i.e. decreasing HIV/AIDS, providing health access, female empowerment),

and the international organizations being more concerned with adopting strategies to ‘make a

more equitable society’ or ‘increase standard of living’ (with the underlying objective of

economic growth). It was mostly through partnerships with CBOs that international

organizations indirectly addressed local initiatives. Black (2017) highlighted that SfD activities

are focused on immediate, practical and individualized development objectives, that are less

attuned to transforming social structures. Like Black (2017), I found that BFD projects captured

these three development objectives, as overarching claims of ‘cycling out of poverty’ insinuated

that a bicycle could help the beneficiaries change their social and financial position. Also, like

Black (2017), I found that BFD practitioners were not always well positioned to address (or even

consider) the social barriers that may contribute to social exclusion in the first place, which left a

gap in transforming the current social order. However, different from Black (2017), the global

location of the organizations determined the approach that they took to their projects—such that

local BFD CBOs demonstrated a deeper understanding of community needs and were better

situated to address social barriers than larger, more powerful, international BFD organizations.

Additionally, the context of this research, exploring BFD, was programmatically different

than SfD initiatives that typically involved ongoing participation (such as, but not limited to the

75
SfD projects referred to by Hayhurst, et al., 2014; Forde, 2015; Carney & Chawansky, 2016, and

many more). BFD projects provided beneficiaries with a bicycle to become actors unto

themselves and alter their own lives—i.e., the delivery of bicycles, with no long-term program

initiatives. Therefore, BFD’s attempt to alter the current social order took an extremely

individualized approach to development, which could make it more difficult to facilitate

‘transformative development’, to use Black’s (2017) term.

Additionally, the BFD organizations included in this research took different approaches

to distribute their bicycles into the communities – three out of ten organizations sold their

bicycles through different methods (instead of freely giving them away, as the other BFD

organizations did). Howe (2003) mentioned that “mainly aid organizations, have partial

credit/hire-purchase schemes that increase the nominal cost of a bicycle by about 25%” (p. 173)

to make the bicycles more affordable to a wider population. These BFD organizations reiterated

this point, that co-funding and subsidization made bicycles more affordable. However, what we

are seeing here is evidence of differences across organizations—i.e., some took a more private

business model that aligned with neoliberal principles, a point I return to below. Additionally,

contradicting Howe (2003) who stated that aid organizations made bicycles more affordable,

BAP addressed how their distribution method (through micro-financing) may actually exclude

beneficiaries who could benefit from a bicycle, but do not have the initial financial capital to

apply for a loan. Therefore, distributing bicycles through sales methods can still exclude certain

individuals from participating in BFD development initiatives.

These larger international BFD organizations also shared similarities with international

aid organizations, as both dealt with concerns about interorganizational competition in the global

environment that they worked in (Chouliaraki, 2010). Some organizations have begun to, or are

considering, branding their bicycles, to increase their organization’s recognition and to market

76
themselves as their bikes move through communities across the nation. It is also noted that

bicycle ownership varied across the country, with approximately 1.7 million bicycles in

Uganda—with the majority imported from China and India (Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2001,

as cited in Howe, 2003). The focus and desire to brand the bicycles speaks to the competitive

neoliberal milieu in which these organizations co-exist, and how, through branding, international

donor organizations (re)produce the global in the local. This demonstrates how these BFD

organizations are tied to neoliberal globalization, because they foster “an environment where

various non-state actors congregate to promote market-oriented approaches to development”

(Hayhurst, et al., 2010, p. 319). BFD organizations did this by encouraging individuals to

become actors upon themselves to increase their productivity and participation in the market—

without addressing the social factors that may contribute to why the participants of BFD

initiatives are impoverished in the first place. Additionally, these BFD organizations were also

concerned about marketing their product to obtain funding, and clients, in a competitive

environment where they are eager to ensure that their organization endures.

This critique is similar to other scholars that have criticized SfD NGOs for the application

of market-solutions that do not effectively target historical and social inequalities, within a

neoliberal environment (Wilson & Hayhurst, 2009). Coalter (2010) addressed this ‘new

paradigm for development’, marked by NGOs linking sport to the politics of civil society and

development to fill the lacuna created by a neoliberal state – where NGOs are then needed to

encourage community participation, facilitate social development and strengthen democracy. My

findings aligned especially well with Coalter (2010) in this case, as I found that those that I

interviewed from large-scale BFD international organizations, in most cases, offered some

critique of national governments for leaving gaps in social provision – but seemed to have

limited or no reflection on the fact that by filling these gaps they may be (re)producing the

77
reduction of state responsibility. This might well be considered a form of ‘ironic activism’, to use

Wilson and Hayhurst’s (2009) terminology – as existing inequalities seemed to be in some ways

perpetuated. Consider also here that, although the donations of bicycles to and within

communities have increased community and economic participation, there are still privileged

groups that maintain a position of power “over others through social negotiations, making

development a key site of political practice and critical inquiry” (Darnell, 2010, p. 57).

4.2 Context of Development Matters (location, class and gender)

As I spoke to people who worked in different parts of Uganda, it became extremely

evident just how much context mattered. I found that the meaning of the bicycle was unstable, as

people’s perspectives tended to vary depending on their location—i.e., differences between rural

or urban settings were especially stark, for reasons outlined in my results (e.g., related to income

levels, access to other forms of transportation, and the need to travel longer distances).

Recognizing that the needs around bicycles differ, Ugandan BFD CBOs determined the location

of their bicycle distributions based off of the social characteristics of the communities—with the

class and gender of the beneficiary populations often determining how the bicycles were actually

used. My research, in turn, highlighted that these BFD organizations were responding to

discrepancies in levels of ownership that varied across the country, as bicycles were donated to

people in the rural north where there was less availability of, and opportunity to, purchase a

bicycle compared to central Uganda.

Building upon Porter (2014), who addressed the need to explore issues of affordability,

accessibility and the socio-political environment—of where and how bicycles were being used –

I focused on how bicycles entered and moved within communities through donations made by

BFD organizations. In the Ugandan context, I found that different variables, such as urban and

rural positionality, mattered. Most of the organizations donated bicycles to people in the rural

78
regions of the country— which was not surprising, as bicycles have previously been studied as a

mode of transportation to increase access to key services and markets, with evidence supporting

that they have been “vital for poverty reduction and rural economic and social development”

(Starkey, n.d., para. 1).

Starkey (n.d.) and Porter (2014) also acknowledged the poor cycling infrastructure and

the need for transport in rural areas. However, these authors did not look in much depth at the

impact that bicycles could have on health, community development and education. Additionally,

this research explored how the goals of the BFD organizations uncovered in this study could be a

product of the BFD organizations responding to, and being influenced by, global discourses,

such as the UN’s SDG. This association could only be explored when the context of

development initiatives was explicitly considered—as this study did by exploring the global

network of BFD and the local context of Ugandan BFD. This research also contradicted previous

work and demonstrated that the meanings associated with bicycles changed in different contexts

at different times, such that the bicycle could have negative connotations too – and be known as

a village bicycle, a tool for the poor, a signifier of illness (HIV/AIDS) and more. In this way, my

study offered some nuance to the generally accurate claims about how bicycles were understood

and taken up in rural settings, since the political climate and attitude of transportation in urban

settings – and of course class dynamics too – are relevant factors. Since these will not be uniform

across urban or rural settings, it would make sense that understandings and usage of bicycles

would not be uniform either.

Additionally, both rural and urban areas had context-dependent bicycle related

challenges. For example, urban areas lacked cycling infrastructure and were congested, which

has led to safety concerns, whereas rural regions had impassable roads and large distances

79
between resources. Therefore, the relationship that individuals had with their bicycle was

considerably dependent upon, and highly influenced by, cultural context, such that societal

perceptions (attitudes, safety and infrastructure) of the bicycle and socio-spatial factors (physical

environment, etc.) of the region impacted usage (Oke et al., 2015). Put simply then, and as stated

above, context mattered.

My research built upon Oke et al. (2015)—who explored global bicycle household

ownership by comparing and analyzing national and international surveys. However, by utilizing

semi-structured interviews in this thesis, I explored societal perceptions and socio-spatial factors

in the context of Uganda, whereby the participants contextualized the variables that impacted

their bicycle usage (i.e. infrastructure, environmental conditions, bicycle availability and

affordability, perceptions on gendered usage, etc.) and spoke to how economic prosperity across

the nation produced discrepancies in bicycle ownership. This was different from Oke et al.

(2015) who did not comprehensively explore the social variables that could influence ownership,

which, as we’ve seen, were important to consider when attempting to understand the importance

of this technology—how and why bicycles were used, and factors that could constrain individual

ownership (i.e. gender, class, etc.).

Other key findings from my study that inform literature on the context of development

pertained to the fact that many of the organizations donated bicycles to women – with the

specific goal of giving women the opportunity to participate more fully in society, and thus

reducing gender inequality related to transport exclusion, and economic participation. These

findings are related to Porter’s (2011) transportation study in Sub-Saharan Africa, which

discussed how cultural discourses constrained women’s use of bicycles, due to gendered

stereotypes and that “ownership and use is widely male dominated as a result of economic and/or

80
sociocultural factors” (p. 75). The findings of this research aligned with Porter (2011) and

acknowledged the importance of considering how the issue was not only female’s access to

bicycles, but also the barriers that impact how bicycles are used. However, Porter (2011)

explored accessibility and the utilization of bicycles by females, whereas my study differed

because it explored development initiatives that were created to make bicycles more available

and accessible for females, which oftentimes also had the goal of challenging the gendered usage

of bicycle.

This research contradicted previous work that has stated that local gender-based

constraints may discourage women from personal mobility and the utilization of a bicycle as a

means of transportation (Starkey & Hine, 2014; Porter, 2011) because the findings presented

above demonstrated that (according to interviewees) if women were given a bicycle, not only did

they use the bicycle in a variety of different ways, but they shared their bicycle with other

females and together challenged the perceptions of women in their communities. Although BFD

organizations may be reducing gender barriers to accessing bicycles, I advocate for them to

consider how they may by contributing to the reproduction of gendered roles (i.e. males using

their bicycles for work and agriculture and females using their bicycles for domestic and family

duties). A main contribution of my research here then is that I showed how even attempts to

respond to bicycle-related inequalities (that reflect broader inequalities and cultural norms that

restrict girls and women in social and economic realms) may have, again, ironically and

unintentionally perpetuated some of these same inequalities. This is not to suggest that many

BFD organizations were not also, clearly, operating in ways that would begin to undermine the

conventional power structures – but, I would certainly assert based on my findings that this is

complex and context dependent. By speaking directly to beneficiaries and individuals working

in the local Ugandan BFD context, this research has highlighted the importance of the

81
experiences of those ‘on the ground’ in order to explore how the global BFD movement has been

(re)produced in the local and how local experiences shape, and are shaped by, global forces

(Lindsey, et al., 2017).

4.3 Power Relations in Development and Sport

This research demonstrated the importance of gathering the experiences and perspectives

of those in the communities who are beneficiaries of SDP driven humanitarian work – as it was

through this sort of ‘on-the-ground’ research that nuances around power differentials entrenched

within SDP (and in the case BFD) were illuminated and could be understood – and the particular

relevance of local contextual factors (like those uncovered in my study in places where bicycles

were being distributed). With my own experiences and findings in mind then, I echo Lindsey et

al.’s (2017) argument for the value of attending to how SfD projects are not only influenced by

global discourses, such as SDG, but that there is the need to attend to how projects are taken up

in local contexts—and that international organizations disseminating BFD projects in numerous

countries in the Two-Thirds-World can results in the bicycle being taken up and used in different

ways in different communities.

Of course, alongside such research ‘on the ground’, I have attempted also to show,

through my results, the benefits of more macro-level thinking (connecting local experiences to

global systems). For example, it was evident from my findings that there were networks within

BFD between people that occupied various positions in the global movement (i.e. stakeholders,

inter-organizational, and intra-organizational relationships between beneficiaries, employees and

founders). These relationships were globally and locally connected, as bicycle projects were

often initiated by foreigners who had spent time as volunteers/ tourists in Uganda and realized

the need for transportation, which prompted them to establish connections with local CBOs. For

82
example, Dr. Mike traveled to Uganda, helped in the IDP camps and initiated the BFD project

for Amuru VHT through Bikes Not Bombs; and Ebony, the founder of Bikes 4 Life, decided to

start shipping bicycles to UOH after she spent time in the Northern regions of Uganda producing

a film about the insurgencies.

However, the reliance that the beneficiary CBOs had on the international organizations

was not simply one-sided, as the international organizations relied on the communities and their

domestic CBO partners for their projects to succeed but friction “makes global connection

powerful and effective” (Tsing, 2005, p. 6). It is important here to consider historical trajectories

and post/colonial legacies that exclude and particularize, and which make global power

something that individuals in the One-Third-World control (through the ability to create the

projects) and for people in the Two-Thirds-World to contribute to once the project is in their

community.

Aligning here then with Darnell and Hayhurst (2011), who argued for the need to balance

on-the ground research with theoretically informed understandings of macro (and micro) level

power dynamics, I suggest that my findings and approach demonstrated how more nuanced

understandings of power relations can be discerned when considering macro/global level issues

and cultural flows in relation to and in conversation with in-depth and ethnographic findings.

For example, I would argue that my findings left me well-positioned to comment on aspects of

the geo-politics of BFD – and especially on how some BFD organizations worked with

assumptions about who was and who was not developed. The organizations portrayed and

discussed donors in the Global North as the “benevolent and civilizing force” and the

beneficiaries in the Global South spoke about their understanding and experiences within BFD as

“passive, deficient, and grateful recipient[s] of aid” (Forde, 2015, p. 960). This aligned with

broader concerns about SDP as outlined by Hayhurst & Darnell (2011) – who looked at sport as

83
a neo-colonial endeavour and a force perpetuating global inequalities in other SDP industries.

Darnell (2010) “suggest[ed] that while sport does offer a new and unique tool that successfully

aligns with a development mandate, the logic of sport is also compatible with the hegemony of

neo-liberal development philosophy” (p. 54). This hegemony re-inscribed social relations and

experiences, which in the context of my work in Uganda, was a hierarchy from donors to

recipients, whereby the beneficiary domestic CBOs were ‘beholden to the Global North’ and

excluded from neoliberal policies that served those who had the connections, access and

resources to participate in the global market.

For example, the domestic CBOs struggled to finance their organizations and BFD

projects, as they discussed the difficultly of generating money locally. Although there was a high

demand for the bicycles CBOs received from international organizations, beneficiaries from

small rural CBOs in Uganda spoke of themselves as passive players on the periphery of the

global system (Omobowale, 2016). These domestic CBOs demonstrated how the flow of

commodities was determined externally to their organization, as they often relied on larger

international organizations to initiate their participation.

In this way, my research was also similar to work by Hayhurst et al. (2014) – who

conducted research exploring SfD and gender violence in Uganda. Like Hayhurst et al. (2014), I

highlighted the importance of looking at the socio-political contexts that projects are carried out

in. Providing females with skills (such as martial arts in the case of Hayhurst et al., 2014) or a

technology (such as the bicycle in this research) highlighted how there are unintended

consequences to global-local projects that need to be considered—i.e., the bicycle became a

signifier of HIV/AIDS and there were concerns that the bicycle would get stolen when parked in

certain areas. In both research contexts, it remained important to look at the long-standing impact

of these projects to ensure that the participants would not be targeted in their communities for

84
their links to SfD work. With this in mind, a recommendation of my research is for BFD

organizations to be sure to think through and respond to consequences, such as these, in order to

ensure that their beneficiaries are safe, and not singled out through their participation in a

development initiative.

Relatedly, my findings showed that free markets and open borders did not necessarily

facilitate the smooth movement of bicycles globally. Five of the ten organizations interviewed

discussed the Ugandan bicycle taxation regime as something that challenged their projects

continuity and sustainability. Wilson and Hayhurst (2009) similarly discussed how some SDP

NGOs have in some ways come to operate as a trojan horse for global neoliberalism – by

opening global flows of information and commodities through new circuits of cooperation and

collaboration that stretch across nations and continents. Similar to, but in some ways different

from (and more nuanced than) Wilson and Hayhurst (2009), I found that neoliberal principles

seemed to be applied selectively (see Ong, 2006), as there were only sometimes circuits of

cooperation and collaboration that opened these global flows to facilitate the movement of

bicycles.

Along with the global movement of bicycles, I also found that conflicts arose as the

government increased bicycle taxes and made border control difficult. Therefore, within the BFD

movement there remained an internal/national contradiction, because people were in need of the

bicycles in their localities but the barriers to accessing them were high—due to the Ugandan

government’s decisions to resist globalization processes, such as BFD—which some have

speculated could be the result of Uganda’s Museveni government qualifying “globalization as a

form of oppression” (Njoh, 2006, p. 25). However, the results of this study have demonstrated

that through globalization processes—i.e. global media of publicized political and cultural unrest

and turmoil—humanitarian aid arrives and SfD, and BFD, organizations can oppose the

85
government (i.e. international organizations that provide aid can encourage domestic CBOs to

participate in globalization through the formation of international partnerships).

4.4 Localizing Global BFD

Building on this last point, I have shown throughout my results and discussion how the

global and local were intertwined in the (re)production of SDP and the BFD movement – and

that frictions emerged when global ideologies and initiatives were taken up in local contexts. Put

simply, the global movement of bicycles was messy – and although Appadurai (1996) provided

me with the insight to conceptualize the 5 ‘scapes’ in which the bicycles moved, it was less clear

in Appadurai’s account how activities at the micro-level influence, and were influenced by, the

structural conditions of the global community (Wilson, 2012). Additionally, Appadurai (1996)

did not address how friction occurred within and between these scapes, which Tsing (2005) so

nicely articulated and accounted for, and which provided insight for how objects moved in the

BFD movement.

For example, FABIO struggled to implement a national NMT policy because there was

resistance from people with political power. This has been noted as part of a wider trend, as

Pojani and Stead (2015) have aptly stated that politicians and major stakeholders consider

“cycling a sign of backwardness” (p. 7792). Although many countries in Europe have promoted

bicycle usage through the construction of bicycle lanes, bike sharing schemes and traffic

management measures, many countries in Africa have not received the same support for NMT

(Starkey & Hine, 2014). The lack of transportation infrastructure has been noted as a legacy of

colonial rule, as “Africa’s position in the international economic arena” (p. 28) was diminished

through European colonization, which has been coupled with the continued lack of support for

infrastructure development from post/colonial authorities (Njoh, 2006). FABIO addressed this

global trend and explored how these discourses influenced local authorities and persons of power

86
in constructing the socio-political environment that impacted individuals on the ground,

beneficiaries of BFD projects and NMT mobility. This research demonstrated that local NGOs

can advocate for local people and communities—especially domestic CBOs that understand local

context and transform their projects based on the community’s needs—and can simultaneously

work towards changing more macro level issues, such as the socio-political environment by

altering the perceptions of policy makers to prioritize sustainable transportation and NMT policy.

Following the three tenets of Burawoy’s (2001) global ethnography, I explored how the

global was (re)produced in the local and that the “‘local no longer oppose[d] but constitute[d] the

global” (p. 158). I found that most of the BFD projects would not have been possible if it was not

for foreigners visiting Uganda and initiating projects, and that the global was produced in the

local through the branding of bicycles. Burawoy (2001) also stated that globalization is the

“production of (dis)connections” (pp. 157-158), which was evident in the domestic CBOs lack of

funding capacity and ability to initiate BFD projects—and the politics and friction that occurred

when bicycles moved to and within Uganda (i.e., shipping, travel, distribution, choosing locales/

beneficiaries, and partnerships, etc.). Additionally, although there was a communal element to

the bicycles, exclusion still occurred when they were given freely or through micro-financing

programs, which caused tensions to arise between people in the community. Clearly then, BFD

projects can benefit some individuals but not all.

This research responded to Kuhn and Woog’s (2011) call for SDP research by addressing

“the complexity and wedged reality of social issues within the locality of manifested existence”

(as cited in Burnett, 2015, p. 388). By speaking to those on the ground doing BFD-related work

in one context in the Two-Thirds World and following the tenets of Burawoy’s (2001) global

ethnography, I explored the local experience of individuals in the BFD movement as multi-

layered and multi-faceted and found that the bicycle and its associated development projects

87
were perceived differently by differently positioned people. The uneven spread of BFD projects

across Uganda was illuminated when exploring the prominence of rural projects over urban

projects/ initiatives—this research also found that it may be easier to just distribute bicycles to

individuals rather than to challenge the social structures and conduct transformative

development. I also considered how I, as a researcher, was implicated in globalization processes

through my participation in research that explored global-local (dis)connections.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

In many respects, this research began as a response to the UN Habitat’s commissioned

report that claimed “[bicycles] provide crucial mobility access to markets, healthcare, schools…

[and] employment opportunities” (Starkey & Hine, 2014, p. 3). This research offered important

context and complexity to this rather sweeping statement, as I found that the meanings assigned

to the bicycle shifted and were sometimes contradictory, depending on the context that the

bicycle moved within and were understood in. In fact, by speaking to people who occupied

different social positions, and who were directly involved in BFD in Uganda (as organizational

founders, employees, volunteers, or beneficiaries), I found that the way the bicycle was talked

about was oftentimes aligned with the common way that the value of sport has been over-stated.

It’s not that I found that bicycles were not useful. But a key finding here was that the concept of

friction highlighted how the BFD movement is messy and complex. This is an important

counterpoint, in light of the sweeping claims made by the UN and many BFD organizations, that

a bike can be used to solve a whole range of development issues—when it was clear from my

study that the ‘bikes solves problems’ narrative was one-sided and that the BFD organizations

donated bicycles in a neoliberal milieu that encouraged individual productivity, empowerment

and economic participation, which I argue does not target the root cause of the problems that

these NGOs and activists were trying to respond to. Relatedly, in this thesis I discussed how

88
inequalities were both addressed through and reflected in the BFD movement. By speaking to

people directly involved in BFD, I gathered their experiences and recommendations.

In this conclusion, I will now offer some practical reflections that may lead to

improvements in the work of these various organizations and other stakeholders in the

movement. Firstly, I found it important to talk to people in the local communities that received

aid about what bicycles would work best for them in their environment. There were practical

matters too. For example, it was also important to ensure that the local communities had access

to a knowledgeable mechanic (and that individuals in the community were trained) and that the

donation of spare parts could contribute to the longevity of previously donated bicycles. Various

organizations also spoke about establishing a revolving fund, which could contribute to the

sustainability of domestic CBOs and their BFD projects. BFD organizations should think

through considerations, such as these, that could contribute to project longevity and bicycle

sustainability. As highlighted above, all of the organizations should communicate with their

beneficiaries to understand their communities’ social and environmental needs, and international

organizations should monitor their projects and facilitate an ongoing conversation with their

CBO partners about BFD projects and what could be done better next time. Additionally, with

this in mind, the BFD organizations should attend to, think through and respond to complexities

related to the socio-spatial environment in order to ensure that their beneficiaries are safe, and

not singled out through their participation in a development initiative.

Secondly, due to the fact that the importation of bicycles could be very costly, some

organizations donated money to purchase bicycles locally. The friction created during the

importation of bicycles was discussed as a variable that prohibited the recycling of previously

used bicycles and therefore decreased the potential environmental impact that the global BFD

could have—i.e., recycling bicycles that were no longer being use that are contributing to waste.

89
Interestingly, it was not common that BFD organizations spoke about the environment, even

though the bicycle has been touted as an environmentally-friendly mode of transportation.

Instead, the bicycle was often talked about in relation to social and economic variables.

Additionally, from a post/colonial lens, it is important to consider the implications of donating

previously used bicycles from the One-Third-World to communities in the Two-Thirds-World,

as these second-hand bicycles may be more likely to break-down and deteriorate quicker than

newly purchased bicycles due to previous wear-and-tear.

In addition to these recommended practices gathered from the BFD organizations, I

wanted to include advice from Chilembwe (2017) regarding the sustainability of bicycle

transport developments. The opportunity to utilize a bicycle as a form of transportation should

not discriminate against those in lower SES brackets, and sustainable initiatives should be

concerned about health and equity within and between generations. As highlighted in the results

of this research, bicycles can be affordable through subsided projects and co-funded initiatives,

or can be distributed freely through donations, which decrease barriers to financial and social

resources. Additionally, it is important for BFD organizations to think through how their

distribution method may be exclusionary, which can cause tension between community

members.

Although this research has acknowledged opportunities that can enable BFD

organizations, I have also highlighted challenges associated with working in a number of

environments with different beneficiaries – challenges which may constrain smaller CBOs with

fewer resources and may be associated with the perpetuation of power differences between

organizations (i.e., who gets to determine when, why and how BFD projects get initiated). By

speaking directly to beneficiaries and individuals working in the local Ugandan BFD context,

this research has highlighted the importance of the experiences of those ‘on the ground’ in order

90
to explore how the global BFD movement has been (re)produced in the local and how local

experiences shape, and are shaped by, global forces (Lindsey, et al., 2017).

By having the opportunity to travel to Uganda and interview people, I was able to

contextualize aspects of the BFD movement in Uganda – by learning about what was actually

going on from those living with and working with the bicycles. The method of interviewing

allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of BFD in Uganda to explore the various perspectives

of the BFD industry and work of these organizations. By interviewing individuals that occupied

various positions within the BFD movement (i.e., organizational founders, employees,

volunteers, beneficiaries, etc.) I gathered a variety of perspectives. The wide range of

participants was a strength of this research because these differently positioned individuals

discussed what the BFD movement was, how their associated organization was structured, how

the bicycle moved on the ground, the various ways that bikes were utilized as a development tool

and their experiences with the BFD movement.

The data collected here was combined and connected through the process of

crystallization, which recognized “that there are far more than ‘three sides’ from which to

approach the world […] provid[ing] us with a deepened, complex, thoroughly partial,

understanding of the topic” (Richardson, 1998, p. 358). By interviewing various individuals

involved in the movement, and including an analysis of websites and online documents, I

explored how BFD organizations portrayed themselves, how BFD was interpreted and perceived

by those involved in the movement, and the myriad of ways that bicycles were utilized as an

international development tool—recognizing that there are multiple ‘truths’, and that I was only

able to gain the insight from a few organizations involved in the movement in the national

context of Uganda. Additionally, I had the support of Janet Otte and encultured informants who

helped to contextualize the culture of the regions within the nation.

91
 I also recognize that traditional understandings of generalizability were not particularly

useful for my project. As such, I was sensitive to intersectional generalizability—meaning

respectfully working with communities to track “patterns across nations, communities, homes,

and bodies to theorize the arteries of oppression and colonialism” (Fine, Tuck & Zeller-

Berkman, 2008, p. 440). In light of my goals and sensibilities, this way of seeing my data helped

me recognize how nuances that existed at the global and local were simultaneous and

interconnected and reflective of global patterns that exist in other localities (Fine et al., 2008). I

also recognize that my research may not be representative of other countries involved in the BFD

movement – however, by exploring multiple regions (and contradictions) in one nation, and

connecting my findings to patterns of SDP, globalization, post/colonialism and the neoliberal

deployment of aid, I hope that I have related my findings to broader issues and patterns that

extend well beyond Uganda, while having remained highly cognizant of, and accountable to,

place.

Following Porter (2014), I call for more research that focuses on bicycles and looks at the

socio-political landscape of transportation—as it was not only having access to a bicycle that

impacted transportation but also the infrastructure in place, the (dis)connectivity between

villages/ towns and how these variables were related to power. Specifically, I call for research to

continue to contextualize BFD, and other forms of SfD that use technologies to encourage

individualized/ community development—as opposed to larger scale initiatives with regular

programming. Lastly, I call for public sociology of SDP, to consider the politics of academia and

development following Donnelly, Atkinson, Boyle and Szto (2011) to further examine why the

proliferation of mobility research, in relation to the bicycle in Africa, has not been incorporated

into local policy—i.e., why this disconnection exists and persists, and to explore ways that

92
research can positively impact NMT by perhaps working with domestic CBOs who understand

the local context.

The next steps for the BFD SSHRC grant are as follows. Firstly, the relationship between

humans and non-human actors within the BFD movement will be explored by the application of

actor-network-theory. Secondly, Janet Otte will continue to examine the BFD projects that are

focused on HIV/AIDS and micro-financing in Uganda. Thirdly, an international comparative

piece across multiple sites (between India, Nicaragua, South Africa, Uganda and Canada, etc.)

will conceptualize BFD linkages across contexts, using a relational comparison of the Global

South and Global North as de-colonizing methodology. Lastly, I will reflect deeply about the

methodology that I employed throughout my thesis and continue to interrogate my positionality

as a White Canadian female graduate student ‘dropping in’ for a month and partnering with Janet

Otte on a Canadian funded grant.

93
 REFERENCES

Auchapt, D. (2013). Amanda Ngabirano— “Kampala’s cyclists are my heroes”. Retrieved from:
[Link]
%E2%80%9Ckampala%E2%80%99s-cyclists-are-my-heroes%E2%80%9D

Black, D.R. (2010). The ambiguities of development: Implications for ‘development through
sport’. Sport in Society, 13(1), 121-129.

Black, D.R. (2017). The challenges of articulating ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ development
through sport. Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 2(1), 7-22.

Bøas, M. (2004). Uganda in the regional war zone: Meta-narratives, pasts and presents. Journal
of Contemporary African Studies 23(3), 283-303.

Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Weate, P. (2016). Thematic analysis. In B. Smith & A. Sparkes (Eds.),
Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 191-205). New
York: Routledge.

Branch, A. (2013). Gulu in war…and peace? The town as camp in Northern Uganda. Urban
Studies, 50(15), 3152-3167.

Bryman, A. (2015). Social Research Methods. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Burawoy, M. (2001). Manufacturing the global. Ethnography, 2(2), 147-159.

Burnett, C. (2015). Assessing the sociology of sport: On sport for development and peace.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(4-5), 385-390.

Burke, S. (2016). Rethinking ‘validity’ and ‘trustworthiness’ in qualitative inquiry: How might
we judge the quality of qualitative research in sport and exercise sciences. In B. Smith &
A. Sparkes (Eds.). Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp.
330-339). New York: Routledge.

Carrington, B. (2015). Post/colonial theory and sport. In R. Giulianotti (Eds.), Routledge

Handbook of the Sociology of Sport (pp. 105-115). New York, NY: Routledge.

Carney, A. & Chawansky, M. (2016). Taking sex off the sidelines: Challenging
heteronormativity within ‘Sport in Development’ research. International Reviews for the
Sociology of Sport, 51(3), 284-298.

Charania, G.R. (2011). Grounding the global: A call for more situated practices of pedagogical
and political engagement. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies,
10(3), 351.371.

94
Chawansky, M. (2015). You’re juicy: Autoethnography as evidence in sport for development
and peace (SDP) research. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 7(1), 1-
12.

Chernushenko, D., van der Kamp, A., & Stubbs, D. (2001). Sustainable sport management:
Running an environmentally, socially and economically responsible organization.
Ottawa, QC: Green & Gold Inc.

Chilembwe, J.M. (2017). Bicycles transport sustainability opportunities or tourism development:

Case study of Mzuzu city, Malawi. International Journal of Tourism & Hospitality
Review, 4(1), 1-9.

Chouliaraki, L. (2010). Post-humanitarianism: Humanitarian communication beyond politics of

pity. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(2), 107-126.

Coalter, F. (2010). The politics of sport-for-development: Limited focus programmes and broad
gauge problems? International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 45(3), 295-314.

Collison, H., Guilianotti, R., Howe, P.D. & Darnell, S. (2016). The methodological dance:
Critical reflections on conduction a cross-cultural comparative research project on ‘Sport
for Development and Peace’. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 8(5),
413-423.

Darnell, S.C. (2007). Playing with Race: Right to Play and the development of Whiteness in
‘development through sport’. Sport in Society, 10(4), 560-579.

Darnell, S.C. (2010). Power, politics and “sport for development and peace”: Investigating the
utility of sport for international development. Sociology of Sport Journal, 27, 54-75.

Darnell, S.C., Chawansky, M., Holmes, M., Marchesseault, D., & Hayhurst, L. (2016a). The
state of play: Critical sociological insight into recent ‘Sport for Development and Peace’
research. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 1-19; DOI:
10.1177/1012690216646762.

Darnell, S.C. & Hayhurst, L.M.C. (2011). Sport for decolonization: Exploring a new praxis of
sport for development. Progress in Development Studies, 11(3), 183-196.

Donnelly, P., Atkinson, M., Boyle, S. & Szto, C. (2011) Sport for development and peace: A
public sociology perspective. Third World Quarterly, 32(3), 589-601.

Dora, C., Hosking, J., Mudu, P., & Fletcher, E.R. (n.d.). Urban Transport and Health: Module
5g. Sustainable transport: A sourcebook for policy-makers in Developing Cities.
Retrieved from: [Link]

95
Economic Development Policy and Research Department: Ministry of Finance, Planning and
Economic Development (2014). Poverty Status Report: Structural Change and Poverty
Reduction in Uganda. Retrieved from
[Link]
%20POVERTY%20STATUS%20REPORT%[Link]

Edwards, R. (1998). A critical examination of the use of interpreters in the qualitative research
process. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 24(1), 197-208.

European Cyclists’ Federation (2016). Cycling delivers on the global goals: Shifting towards a
better economy, society, and planet for all. Retrieved from
[Link]

Fatimah, Y.A. & Arora, S. (2016). Nonhumans in the practice of development: Material agency
and friction in a small-scale energy program in Indonesia. Geoforum, 70, 25-34.

Fine, M., Tuck, E. & Zeller-Berkman, S. (2008). Do you believe in Geneva? Methods and and
ethics at the global-local nexus. In N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln & L.T. Smith (Eds.)
Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies (pp. 157-180). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.

Forde, S.D. (2015). Fear and loathing in Lesotho: An autoethnographic analysis of sport for
development and peace. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(8), 958-973.

Gauvin, L.R. (2013). In and out of culture: Okot p’Bitek’s work and social repair in post-conflict
Acoliland. Oral Tradition, 28(1), 35-54.

Giulianotti, R. (2004). Human rights, globalization and sentimental education: The case of sport.
Sport in Society, 7(3), 355-369.

Giulianotti, R. (2012). The sport for development and peace sector: An analysis of its emergence,
key institutions, and social possibilities. The Brown Journal of World Affiars, 18(2), 279-
293.

Guma, P.K., (2015). Feminist solidarity: How women are shaping the way we think about sex
and politics in Uganda. Africa Review, 7(1), 15-27.

Hanebrink, J.R. (2012). Living with bad surroundings: War, history, and everyday moments in
Northern Uganda (Review of the book Living with Bad Surroundings: War, history and
everyday moments in Northern Uganda, by S. Finnstrom). African Conflict &
Peacebuilding Review, 2(1), 164-178.

Harvey, J., Horne, J. & Safai, P. (2009). Alterglobalization, global social movements, and the
possibility of political transformation through sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26(1),
383-403.

96
Hayhurst, L.M.C. (2013). Girls as the ‘new’ agents of social change? Exploring the ‘girl effect’
through sport, gender and development programs in Uganda. Sociological Research
Online, 18(2), 1-12.

Hayhurst, L.M.C. (2014a). The Girl Effect and martial arts: Exploring social entrepreneurship
and Sport, Gender and Development in Uganda. Gender, Place & Culture, 21(3), 297-
315.

Hayhurst, L.M.C. (2014b). Using postcolonial feminism to investigate cultural difference and
neoliberalism in sport, gender and development programming in Uganda. Sociology of
Sport, 8(1), 45-65.

Hayhurst, LM.C., MacNeil, M., Kidd, B. & Knoppers, A. (2014). Gender relations, gender-based
violence and sport for development and peace: Questions, concerns and cautions
emerging from Uganda, Women’s Studies International Forum, 47, 157-167.

Hayhurst, L.M.C. (2016). Sport for development and peace: A call for transnational, multi-sited,
postcolonial feminist research. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 8(5),
424-443.

Hayhurst, L.M.C., Wilson, B. & Frisby, W. (2010). Navigating neoliberal networks:

Transnational Internet platforms in sport for development and peace. International review
for the sociology of sport, 46(3), 315-329.

Henry, I. (2007). Transnational and comparative research in sport: Globalisation, governance

and sport policy. London: Routledge.

Howe, J. (2003). ‘Filling the middle’: Uganda’s appropriate transport services. Transport
Reviews, 23(2), 161-176.

Kayemba, P. (June 18-21,2013). FABIO: Bicycle Transport Playing Catch-up in Kampala

(context, initiatives, challenges and the future). Retrieved from:
[Link]

Kidd, B. (2007). Peace, sport and development. In Sport for Development and Peace
International Working Group (SDP IWG) Secretarist (Commissioned) Literature reviews
on sport for development and peace (pp. 158-94). University of Toronto, Faculty of
Physical Education and Health.

Kirby, S. L., Greaves, L., & Reid, C. (2006). Analyzing data and reporting. In Experience
research and social change: Methods beyond the mainstream (2nd Ed), (pp. 219-254).
Toronto, ON: Broadview Press.

Lafferty, G. (2016). Possibilities beyond crisis: Neoliberal globalization and the reconstruction of
mortality. International Sociology Reviews, 31(2), 138-148.

97
Lindsey, I. (2016). Governance in sport-for-development: Problems and possibilities of (not)
learning from international development. International Review for the Sociology of
Sport, 1-19: DOI: 10.1177/1012690215623460

Lindsey, I., Kay, T., Jeanes, R. & Banda, D. (2017). Localizing global sport for development.
Published by Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK: Manchester University
Press.

Morrow, D. (2015). Canadian Sport in Historical Perspective. In J. Crossman & J. Scherer (Eds.)
Social Dimensions of Canadian Sport and Physical Activity (pp. 43-62). Toronto, ON:
Pearson.

Neuman, L. (2003). The meaning of methodology. In L. Neuman, Social research methods:

Qualitative and quantitative approaches (pp. 68- 94). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Nicholls, S., Giles, A.R., & Sethna, C. (2010). Perpetuating the ‘lack of evidence’ discourse in
sport for development: Privileged voices, unheard stories and subjugated knowledge.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 46(3), 249-264.

Njoh, A.J. (2006). African cities and regional trade in historical perspective: Implications for
contemporary globalization trends. Cities, 23(1), 18-29.

Oke, O., Bhalla, K., Love, D.C. & Siddiqui, S. (2015). Tracking global bicycle ownership
patterns. Journal of Transport & Health, 2(4), 490-501.

Omobowale, A.O. (2015). Stories of the ‘dark’ continent: Crude constructions, diasporic
identity, and international aid to Africa. International Sociology Reviews, 30(2), 108-118.

Ong, A. (2006). Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and Sovereignty. Durham,

NC: Duke University Press.

Palmer, C. (2016). Ethics in sport and exercise research: From ethics committees to ethics in the
field. In B. Smith & A. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research ins
port and exercise (pp. 355-366). New York, NY: Routledge.

Pojani, D., & Stead, D. (2015). Sustainable urban transport in the developing world: Beyond
megacities. Sustainability, 7, 7784-77805.

Potts, K. & Brown, L., (2005). Becoming an anti-oppressive research. In L. Brown & S. Strega
(Eds.), Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous, & anti-oppressive approaches (pp.
255-286). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press/Women’s Press.

Porter, G. (2011). ‘I think a woman who travels a lot is befriending other men and that’s why she
travels’: mobility constraints and their implications for rural women and girls in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Gender, Place & Culture, 18(1), 65-81.

98
Porter, G. (2014). Transport services and their impact on poverty and growth in rural sub-
Saharan Africa: A review of recent research and future research needs. Transport
Reviews, 34(1), 25-45.

Richardson, L. (1998). Writing: A method of inquiry: In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),

Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 345-371) Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Robertson, R. (1990). Mapping the global condition: Globalization as the central concept. In M.
Featherstone (Eds.), Global Culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity (pp.15-
30). London: SAGE.

Schinke, R. & Blodgett, S. (2016). Embarking on community-based participatory action

research: A methodology that emerges from (and in) communities. In B. Smith & A.
Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise (pp. 88-
89). New York: Routledge.

Schinke, R.J. & Cole, C.L. (2011). Sport, development, and poetic knowledge. Journal of Sport
and Society, 35(3), 227-228.

Schulenkorf, N., Sherry, E. & Rowe, K. (2016). Sport for development: An integrated literature
review. Human Kinetics, 30(1), 22-39.

Seedhouse, A., Johnson, R., & Newbery, R. (2016). Potholes and pitfalls: The impact of rural
transport on female entrepreneurs in Nigeria. Journal of Transport Geography, 54(1),
140-147.

Sengers, F. (2016). Cycling the city, re-imagining the city: Envisioning urban sustainability
transitions in Thailand. Urban Studies 1-17. DOI: 10.1177/0042098016652565.

Smith, B. & Sparkes, A.C., (2016). Interviews: Qualitative interviewing in the sport and exercise
sciences. In B. Smith & A. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in
sport and exercise (pp. 103-123). New York: Routledge.

Starkey, P. (n.d.). Provision of rural transport services: User needs, practical constraints and
policy issues. Retrieved from:
[Link]
20services%20user%20needs,%20practical%20constraints%20and%20policy%20issues.
pdf

Starkey, P. & Hine, J., (2014). Poverty and sustainable transport: How transport affects poor
people with policy implications for poverty reduction: A literature review. Overseas
Development Institute; UN-HABITAT; Department for International Development; UK
aid. Retrieved from: [Link]
[Link]

99
Temple, B. (2002) Cross wires: Interpreters, translators, and bilingual workers in cross-language
research. Qualitative Health Research, 12(6), 844-854.

Thibault, L. (2009). Globalization of sport: An inconvenient truth. Journal of Sport

Management, 23(1), 1-20.

Thorpe, H., & Olive, R., (2016) Conducting observations in sport and exercise settings. In B.
Smith & A. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and
exercise (pp. 124- 138).

Tsing, A. (2005). Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Van der Kloof, A., Bastiaanssen, J., & Martens, K. (2014). Bicycles lessons, activity
participation and empowerment. Case studies on Transport Policy, 2(1), 89-95.

Vertinsky, P.A. (1994). The Eternally Wounded Woman: Women, doctors and exercise in the
late Nineteenth century. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Wilson, K. (2011). ‘Race’, gender and neoliberalism: Changing visual representations in

development. Third World Quarterly, 32(2), 315-331.

Wilson, B. (2012). Sport & Peace: A Sociological Perspective. Don Mills, ON: Oxford
University Press.

Wilson, B., & Hayhurst, L.M.C. (2009). Digital activism: Neoliberalism, the Internet, and Sport for
Youth Development. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26(1), 155-181.

Yang, Y., & Wu, S. (2015). An exploratory study to understand the internationalization strategies of
social enterprises. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 31-41.

100
APPENDIX A: Interview Guide

Hi ____,

Before we get started, I wanted to thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to meet with
me to chat about (NGO) and BFD. As the consent form states, my research is interested in
exploring how bicycles are used as a development tool, perceptions people involved in the
movement, such as yourself, and how organizations involved in BFD are structured, in addition
to the successes/ challenges they have experienced.

Specifically, this interview will consist of 4 subsections (1) your involvement in BFD (2) the
structure of the NGO (3) how bicycles are used for development and (4) the
successes/challenges/ barriers that you/ the NGO have experienced.

I also just want to let you know that if I look down during the interview, it is just because I am
referring to the interview guide to ensure that I ask all that I need to. Additionally, if I am
writing anything down, it is because you have answered a related question or you have reminded
me to address something later on in the interview.

Before we get started, do you have any questions for me?

Rapport
1. Can you tell me a little bit about yourself?
a. What is your position in this NGO?
b. How long have you been in this position?
c. What does ‘development’ mean to you?
d. How did you (personally) get involved in bicycles-for-development work?

NGO
2. Can you tell me about (NGO) that you are involved in?
a. How many people are part of this organization?
i. What are their roles?
ii. Are these paid positions or volunteer? If paid, how are they paid?
b. Can you describe the structure (hierarchy) of the organization? Has this structure
changed over time?
c. Does the organization collaborate or work with any other NGOs/ Ugandan
organizations/ foundations (partnerships)?
i. How are these relationships formed?
d. How does the NGO obtain funding?
3. What are the key goals of the organization?
a. What initiatives has the organization implemented? What new initiatives, if any,
are they planning on implementing?

Bicycle
4. I was wondering if you could share a little bit about the ‘life of the bicycle’?

101
 a. Where do the bicycles come from? Are they shipped? Are they given out freely or
sold for purchase?
b. Who gets to use the bicycles?
c. What are the bicycles used for?
d. How, if at all, does the bicycle contribute to development?
e. What are some of the roles that the bicycle plays in the communities where you
work?
i. Challenges? Benefits? Examples?

Successes/ Challenges/ Barriers

5. How do you define success with regard to your work? Can you provide some examples?
6. Can you describe some of the barriers your organization has faced in attempting to reach
its goals?
7. What challenges have your organization faced? What challenges are typical with this type
of work?
8. If you were to give advice to another BFD NGO just starting out, what would you tell
them? Why?
9. For those who study sport and development, it is well known that many organizations are
doing important work that is clearly helpful for local populations. It is also known that
positive impacts are not guaranteed—as some groups don’t have great relationships with
those in local communities, and that programs don’t always have their desired impacts, or
even that some organization’s goals aren’t always aligned with the goals of locals. As
someone who works in this industry, do you have any thoughts that might help us work
through these tensions?

We have covered all the content that I wanted to talk about; the goal of the interview was to
discuss how bicycles have been used as a development tool, your perceptions of the movement,
the organizational structure of the NGO and barriers/ challenges experienced. In saying so, is
there anything that you feel is important that we have not yet discussed? Is there anything else
that you would like to add?

How was this interview process for you? Do you have any questions for me?

I want to sincerely thank you for participating in this study, your contribution has made a
difference.

102
APPENDIX B: Informed Consent Forms

Study Name: Bicycles for Development: Perception and Intentions of NGOs

Mbale Regional Referral Hospital Research Ethics Committee Number: MRRH – REC IN –
COM 0100/2017

York University Ethics Review Board Number: 2016 - 269

Madison Ardizzi, MA Candidate Brian Wilson, PhD

University of British Columbia University of British Columbia
School of Kinesiology School of Kinesiology

Rob VanWynsberghe, PhD

University of British Columbia
Faculty of Education

Lyndsay Hayhurst, PhD

School of Kinesiology and Health Science
York University

Brad Millington, PhD

Department for Health
University of Bath

Purpose of the Research: The purpose of this research is to learn more about how the bicycle is used for
development purposes, the characteristics of the various organizations involved in bicycles for development work
(e.g., the activities, structure, and goals of these organizations), the perspectives of those involved in bicycle-driven
development on their work and industry, and about how technologies (like a bicycle) move around the world to
support international development work.

What You Will Be Asked to Do in the Research: You are invited to participate in this study because you are a
staff member of an organization that works in bicycle-focused development (BFD) programming. Your participation
will consist of one semi-structured interview (via Skype, telephone call, or in person) that will last approximately 1
to 2 hours. The interview questions will mainly concern your organization’s experience with BFD programs, your
knowledge of the funding of BFD programs, and your opinions regarding the utility, successes and broad operations
of BFD programs. The time commitment related to the interview will vary depending on how much time you can
give to this project, but will likely not exceed 3 hours in total. After the interview, we will transcribe the interview
and then email it or mail it to you for you to review and to edit as you deem necessary. The review can take about
30-60 minutes. Transcripts that are not reviewed within two weeks, will be deemed as acceptable and will be used in
the study.

Risks and Discomforts: We do not foresee any risks or discomfort from your participation in the research.

103
Benefits of the Research and Benefits to You: Your participation in this study will include contributing your
knowledge about the role that the bicycle for development movement plays in Uganda, which could help foster
stronger relationships with the non-governmental organizations involved in bicycle for development programming.
Voluntary Participation: Your participation in the study is completely voluntary and you may choose to stop
participating at any time. Your decision not to volunteer will not influence the nature of your relationship with York
University or The University of British Columbia either now, or in the future.
Withdrawal from the Study: You can stop participating in the study at any time, for any reason, if you so decide.
Your decision to stop participating, or to refuse to answer particular questions, will not affect your relationship with
the researchers, York University, or The University of British Columbia, or any other group associated with this
project. In the event you withdraw from the study, all associated data collected will be immediately destroyed
wherever possible. Should you wish to withdraw after the study, you will have the option to also withdraw your data
up until the analysis is complete.

Confidentiality: You will be assigned a pseudonym (a made-up name). Furthermore, all identifying characteristics
will be altered to promote anonymity. The research findings will be disseminated primarily through the bicycle for
development organizations involved in this study (and other interested stakeholders that are mutually agreed upon),
and through academic conferences, and publications, but your anonymity and confidentiality will be provided to the
fullest extent possible by law. We do, however, recognize the importance of crediting sources of expert knowledge;
as such, if you would like to be credited by name and position for your contributions, we will be glad to do that.

All data, including final transcripts and audio-recordings, will be retained in a locked cabinet in Dr. Hayhurst’s office
and Dr. Wilson’s office. A copy of all data will be kept with Dr. Hayhurst at York University and with Dr. Wilson at
or The University of British Columbia. Furthermore, all electronic data will be stored in encrypted files whose access
keys will be known only to the researcher, the co-investigators, and the research assistants. The data, including final
transcripts and audio-recordings, will be stored on Dr. Hayhurst’s computer and locked filing cabinet for 25 years
(which will begin at the commencement of the research), as well as on Dr. Wilson’s computer and locked filing cabinet
for 20 years. This material will not be made available to anyone other than the researcher, the co-investigators, and
the research assistants. No other persons will have access to the data without ethics approval. After 25 years, Dr.
Hayhurst will shred hard copies and securely delete digital copies.

Questions About the Research? If you have questions about the research in general or about your role in the study,
please feel free to contact Madison Ardizzi at The University of British Columbia, or contact Dr. Brian Wilson at The
University of British Columbia or Dr. Lyndsay Hayhurst at York University. Also, Janet Otte, the Co-Principal
Investigator in Uganda.

This research received ethics review and approval by the Human Participants Review Sub-Committee, York
University’s Ethics Review Board and the Mbale Hospital Research Ethics Committee Guidelines on Research in
Uganda. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant in this study, please contact the Mbale
Hospital Research Ethics Committee Chair – Mr. JSO Obbo. You can also contact the Sr. Manager & Policy Advisor
for the Office of Research Ethics, 5th Floor, Kaneff Tower, York University.

This research has also received ethics review and approval by the Research Ethics Board at The University of British
Columbia, The Research Ethics Committee at Mbale, Uganda and conforms to the standards of the Canadian Tri-
Council Research Ethics guidelines. If you have any questions about this process, about your rights as a participant in
the study or have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while
participating in this study, please contact Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research Ethics.

104
Legal Rights and Signatures:

I( ), consent to participate in Bicycles for Development: Globalization and Perceptions of NGOs

conducted by Madison Ardizzi, University of British Columbia; Lyndsay Hayhurst, York University; Robert
VanWynsberghe, University of British Columbia; Brian Wilson, University of British Columbia; and Bradley
Millington, University of Bath. I have understood the nature of this project and wish to participate. I am not waiving
any of my legal rights by signing this form. My signature below indicates my consent.

Signature Date
Participant

Signature Date
Principal Investigator

I waive my anonymity and would like my name included in any final reports/publications involved in this
research.

105
 Mbale Informed Consent Form Template

Study Name: Cycling Against Poverty? Researching a Sport for Development Movement and an ‘Object’
in/for Development

Version Date: Version 1 - August 8th 2017

Mbale Regional Referral Hospital Research Ethics Committee Number: MRRH – REC IN – COM
0100/2017

York University Ethics Review Board Number: 2016 - 269

Principal Co – Principal Co-Investigator Co-Investigator Collaborator

Investigator Investigator -
Uganda Dr. Robert Dr. Brian Wilson Dr. Brad Millington
Dr. Lyndsay VanWynsberghe Professor Lecturer
Hayhurst Ms. Janet Otte Associate Professor School of Kinesiology Department for Health
Assistant Professor Mavuno Ministries Department of University of British University of Bath
School of Educational Studies Columbia
Kinesiology and University of British
Health Science Columbia
York University

Purpose of the Research: We are doing a research project about the ‘bicycles for development’ (BFD)
‘movement’ – a movement of organizations, governments, and communities where bicycles are thought to
play a key development role. The reasons we are doing this project are to try to better understand how
individuals experience bicycles for development programs and how the ways that this program works
impacts social change through sport and bicycles in your community. Overall, the information for this study
(funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada) will be used to better
understand the BFD movement and the day-to-day experiences and lives of those involved in it (such as
yourself). We can also learn about how BFD initiatives might be improved and help foster stronger
relationships between partners and communities. The information gathered will be used in various
publications and to improve BFD programming.

What You Will Be Asked to Do in the Research: We are asking for residents of participating communities
in the BFD movement who use the bicycle in their day-to-day lives to take part in this study. We would like
to invite you to participate in a focus group, a photovoice activity where you will be asked to take
photographs (for example, photographs of the barriers and benefits of participating in bicycle for
development programs) and follow-up interview, personal journaling of your experience in the BFD
program, and digital storytelling where you will use photos from the photovoice to co-create a digital
compilation such as an online video. We are asking you to take part in this research because you are a
person who has had experience in the bicycle for development program. If you accept this invitation, we
will find a time when you are available. Time commitment of photovoice, journaling, and digital storytelling
activities will vary depending on how much time you would like to give to the project. The interview will be
audio recorded and will last approximately 1 hour. The focus group will be audio recorded and will last
approximately 1 to 1.5 hours. If, however, you do not want the focus group or interview to be recorded,
there will be no audio recording and we will take notes instead. You can withdraw from the focus group at
any time. You may be quoted or you can choose to remain anonymous, which means that your name will
never be used in the research.

Your participation will be a big help. You will be reimbursed 20,000Shs for your time, as well as receive
refreshments such as a drink and a snack for an interview. In addition, for participating in photovoice
activities, the camera used in such activities will be yours to own after the completion of the research. The
information you share with us will help to understand your experience with the BFD program. The program

106
will then be able to offer better programs and overall experiences to help in the development of your
community and of future individuals who will participate in the program. We do not foresee any risks or
discomfort from your participation in the research.

Benefits of the Research and Benefits to You: Benefits may include contributing your knowledge and
having the opportunity to tell your story in your own words, and having your story documents and integrated
into the broader discussions on the bicycles for development movement and community development
initiatives. Benefits to broader society include having a better understanding of what people using bicycles
and community development initiatives mean to those involved.

Voluntary Participation and Withdrawal: Your participation in the study is completely voluntary and you
may choose to stop participating at any time. Your decision not to volunteer, to stop participating, or to
refuse to answer particular questions will not influence the nature of the ongoing relationship you may have
with the researchers or program staff, or the nature of your relationship with York University either now, or
in the future. In the event you withdraw from the study, all associated data collected will be immediately
destroyed wherever possible.

Confidentiality: Unless you choose otherwise, all information you supply during the research will be held
in confidence and unless you specifically indicate your consent, your name will not appear in any report or
publication of the research. All data, including handwritten notes, video and audio tapes, and photographs,
is strictly confidential. No records which identify you by name or initials will be allowed to leave the
Investigators’ offices. A code number will be used to identify you. The information will be stored in a locked
file cabinet and computer files will be password protected, and only research staff/research team members
will have access to this information. The data will be stored for 25 years after the completion of the study,
and then destroyed by deleting all computer files and shredding all paper data. Confidentiality will be
provided to the fullest extent possible by law.

Translator
Please note that, with your consent, a translator will be present during your interviews. Before the
interview, the translator will sign an ‘Oath of Confidentiality’. This oath means that they agree to keep all
information collected during this study confidential and will not reveal by speaking, communicating or
transmitting this information in written, electronic (disks, tapes, transcripts, email) or in any other way to
anyone outside the research team. You may ask the translator to leave at any time if you wish.

Questions About the Research? If you have questions about the research in general or about your role
in the study, please feel free to contact Dr. Lyndsay Hayhurst in Canada or Janet Otte in Uganda.

This research has received ethics review and approval by the Human Participants Review Sub-Committee,
York University’s Ethics Review Board and the Mbale Hospital Research Ethics Committee Guidelines on
Research in Uganda. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant in this study,
please contact the Mbale Hospital Research Ethics Committee Chair – Mr. JSO Obbo.

In Canada, you may also contact the Sr. Manager & Policy Advisor for the Office of Research Ethics, 5th
Floor, Kaneff Tower, York University.

Legal Rights and Signatures:

• I have read and understood the consent form.

• I have been given a copy of this consent form.
• I have had sufficient time to consider the information provided and to ask questions, and have
received satisfactory responses to my questions.
• I understand that all of the information will be kept confidential and will only be used for scientific
purposes.
• I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am completely free to refuse to
participate or to withdraw from this study at any time, without the quality of care that I receive
being affected in any way.

107
 • I understand that this study will not provide any direct benefits to me.
• I understand that I am not waiving any of my legal rights as a result of signing this consent form.
• I have read this form and freely consent to participate in this study.

I (fill in your name here), consent to participate in the study, Cycling Against Poverty? Researching a Sport
for Development Movement and an Object in/for Development, conducted by Dr. Lyndsay Hayhurst. I have
understood the nature of this project and wish to participate. I am not waiving any of my legal rights by
signing this form. My signature below indicates my consent.

Name of Participant (printed)

Signature or Fingerprint* of Participant _________________________________ Date

Name of Study Staff Administering Consent (printed)

Position/Title

Signature of Study Staff Administering Consent ____Date

Name of Translator (if necessary)

Signature of Translator Date

*If the participant is unable to read and/or write, an impartial witness must be present during the consent
discussion. After the written informed consent form is read and explained to the participant, and after he or
she has orally consented participate in this study, and has either signed the consent form or provided his
or her fingerprint, the witness must sign and personally date the consent form. By signing the consent form,
the witness attests that the information in the consent form and any other written information was accurately
explained to, and apparently understood by, the participant, and that consent was freely given.

Name of Person Witnessing Consent (printed)

Signature of Person Witnessing Consent Date

I, (fill in your name here), agree to allow video and/or digital images or photographs in which I appear to be
used in teaching, scientific presentations and/or publications with the understanding that I will not be
identified by name. I am aware that I may withdraw this consent at any time without penalty.

Signature Date
Participant

108
¨ Check this box if you would like to receive a summary of the study findings (and please print your contact
information in the space below).

If you do not check any of these boxes, you can still participate in the current study. You can also check
these boxes off but decide in the future that you do not want to participate.

E-mail Address (please print): _____________________________________

Mailing Address: ____________________________________________

____________________________________________

Telephone # (or where we can leave a message): ________________________

Copies to: Investigator’s files, study participant

109