0
There is much debate these days as to the changing nature of development practices of non-governmental organizations [NGOs]. This is attributed to even faster changing donors' criteria for the purpose of funds distribution.
The donors are said to be using their financial clout over the NGOs dependent on their funding to alter and shape the ways NGOs work and introduce new management principles in order to bring about efficiency in the so called 'service delivery'.
While the intent is seemingly sound, the strict [funding etc.] criteria set by most of the donors create obsession among NGOs with meeting them so as to secure funds for their projects. This trend in fact subordinates the welfare of the people [or intended beneficiaries] to the technical requirements to be fulfilled by NGOs in order to follow donors' agenda.
This piece will attempt to elaborate on the afore-mentioned argument and explain, with some examples, implications it might have for the effectiveness of NGOs in helping to alleviate poverty particularly in the developing countries. But first of all, let's briefly see what NGOs are and why they are considered important:
NGOs: It is indeed a difficult and complex task to define what exactly we mean by 'NGO'. Different writers have defined the concept differently and this is primarily on account of a huge number of NGOs that have sprung up over the years and carrying out activities in almost every field of life.
We may consider NGO as a term that offers a broad umbrella for a kaleidoscopic collection of organizations differing in size, form, orientation, ideological affinity, resources and target groups. NGOs have become an integral and institutional part of the civil society, which have their distinct values differentiating them clearly from the state and business.
Why are NGOs important?: The nature and working of NGOs give them a considerable edge over the state and business. This is usually referred to as "comparative advantage". NGOs are 'successful' since they encourage participation of the people in whatever project they undertake.
Since NGOs are not bound by fixed bureaucratic rules they can always come up with flexible and innovative interventions. NGOs have a unique ability to organize themselves keeping in view the tasks they wish to undertake.
Their ability to provide low-cost solutions and access to sometimes inaccessible domains are what separates them as different from the state. Since NGOs are not profit-oriented organizations, their working is more of voluntary nature than anything else.
It is one of the reasons why NGOs have been successful in gaining adequate participation of the people. Not only that their beneficiaries cooperate but also NGOs are able to attract highly expert staff with skills and motivation based on shared values and belief in social service.
Although the NGOs have a uniqueness that is not enjoyed by their state and business counterparts, yet this does not go to show that all the NGOs are sticking to the ideal characteristics that they are supposed to exhibit in their activities. In this context we bring up, in the following, the role the donors play in shaping the practices and focus of non-governmental organizations.
Institutional donors: "If you have your hand in someone's pocket, when he moves you must equally move in the same direction"-[African proverb].
The role of donors has become increasingly important particularly in the context of NGOs. Since NGOs rely on donors' money it is very likely that they will follow donors' direction.
Bilateral donors such as DFID, USAID, etc., and multi-lateral donors like the World Bank, EU, etc., provide not only the money but export their ideas and development thinking as well. NGOs sometimes have no other option but to execute or implement whatever the donors wish them to do. This undermines the flexibility and innovativeness of the NGOs and affects their development efforts.
The working/management of the NGOs and its characteristics has undergone quite a lot of change due to increasing amount of donors' pressure. NGOs are now expected to show accountability, professional efficiency and results in terms of poverty reduction.
Strategic planning, logical framework [log-frame] analysis and project cycle management are some of the approaches that NGOs are asked to follow no matter how little they agree with this style of working. Many NGOs work under trustee boards which are infiltrated by people from the private sector, usually because the donors wish to see NGOs permeated by new perspectives and new skills.
These boards require NGOs to work the way the private sector does, show what impacts they have made and why they think they are eligible for funding. Thus the use of private sector concepts in executing NGOs work has altered the NGO sector to a considerable extent.
The NGO sector has become a flourishing and expanding third sector and the number of private staff rose considerably. Thus many private sector management consultants have gravitated towards this sector. The work of the NGOs thus draws on the principles of modern management practices and theory.
These NGOs are assessed by a small number of experts from the non-profit sector. This infiltration of private sector principles has a lot to do with the pressure for funding. The presence of huge number of NGOs implies more competition between NGOs for limited funding available from the donors.
The question that arises now is whether it is appropriate to follow business practices and principles in the execution of NGOs' activities. The answer lies in the fact that businesses have as their primary purpose, the maximization of profits and market share to dominate their competitors.
Many NGOs would not like the idea of being accountable to a small number of people or groups when they want to expand their activities to a large number of groups or shareholders.
But it is also a fact that the NGOs activities and practices are such that they do not permit vertical accountability-both upward and downward. In the absence of this, NGOs cannot claim to represent their being grassroots responsible entities.
Nonetheless there may be some drawbacks to following such business-style management. For instance, NGOs, instead of forming partnerships with funders and communities, end up becoming contractors implementing the funder's agenda in the community.
It is then difficult to tell them from private sector entities. For instance, they become firms such as 'Beltway Bandits' in Washington DC which acted as contractors for government agencies at the time when the government had placed a ban on internal hirings.
A South African example is another appropriate reference to elaborate on how NGOs shift their focus as donors change their priorities. Prior to 1994, donor funding to NGOs, in South Africa, was designed to support various community-based struggles and broader social movements against the state that was following apartheid policies.
Funds went for political, research and developmental work undertaken by the NGOs. But funding practices or patterns underwent substantial change after the collapse of the apartheid era. The donors are now looking for more long-term interventions into the areas of their choice.
Their objectives are designed and refined (if the need be) in line with the donors' priorities set by their headquarters in the North, as well as by locally-sensitive development priorities spotted locally.
One example of how this approach has affected development practice of NGOs is that the priorities set by the donors has caused a shift in funding to NGOs away from certain regions in South Africa towards their identified ones. This has caused considerable problems for those who were relying on donors funding for the continuation of their development work in now the 'excluded' areas.
The changes in the funding criteria and other priorities also put many small NGOs at a disadvantage. Now donors often provide funding to those organizations that are larger in size and can act as channels of funding to the smaller NGOs and grass roots organizations (GROs).
Primarily, the motive is to save administrative expenses but the use of such channels has resulted in favour to the larger less innovative organizations whereas the smaller, flexible and innovative ones have to suffer. This implies that development at the micro-level will also suffer simultaneously.
This is a real problem as many NGOs have not been able to continue delivering services to poor communities on account of funding shortages [due to conditionalities etc.]. The problem becomes acute where there is no other agency or the government to fill in the gap left by the NGOs. Thus the poor are directly or indirectly affected in negative terms.
Can something be done?: It is quite obvious from the afore-mentioned that given the amount of pressures the NGOs face, in relation to donor-conditionalities, any progressive and significant development intervention may become increasingly difficult.
But still NGOs may try to make the best out of the bad situation. NGOs might stick to their own agenda by resorting to a variety of strategies: not taking funds from those agencies whose agenda is at variance with the NGO's agenda; not relying too much on any particular funding agency; not playing agencies off against each other.
It is essential that NGOs remain careful about the level of funding they receive. Too much dependence, of course, implies they can be steered away from their initial activities aimed at removing social and political structures which hold the poor in disadvantaged position. This dependence means NGOs will have to promote specific projects at the behest of the donors while having to neglect others, which do not conform to the donors' wishes.
It is important that NGOs also make efforts to generate funds locally while keep looking for funds from diversified sources. For example BRAC in Bangladesh raises about one-third of its total budget from domestic resources. Bina Swadaya raises over 50 per cent locally.
NGOs also need to invest in their organizational development so that they can recognise the negative impact of changes in their sources of funding or role, and then act accordingly. This calls for more attention to research, monitoring and evaluation, so that the link between performance measurement and accountability can be strengthened.
These alterations/changes NGOs may be able to exploit opportunities and particularly avoid the negative outcomes that come from official funding, organizational growth, and a focus on service delivery.
All this will ultimately give some space and leverage to NGOs to devote their efforts to development works without de-linking from their communities and at the same time aid and funds flowing in.
Whereas these may be quite simplistic ways-out especially for those NGOs that have little leverage and funding levels, but unfortunately, there is no particular roadmap to challenge, undermine and alter with success the current hegemonic world system marked by neo-liberal ideals.
Nonetheless, on the whole, NGOs form an increasing challenge to the current strategies of development. Their leverage is still on the rise as they form alliances with other segments of civil society and develop progressive social movements. Their commitment to social justice and grassroots activism still make them an important force in the struggle for a just and sustainable development.
e-mail: barkaatali@yahoo.com.
