- Email: [email protected]
NGOs: In one year, out the other?
World L~rr~c4opmet~r. Vol. Printed in Great Britain.
IS, Supplement,
NGOs:
pp. l-h.
030.5-750x/87 $3.(K)+ 0.00 0 1987 Pergamon Journals Ltd.
1987.
In One Year, Out the Other? TIM BRODHEAD
North-South
Institute,
Ottawa, Canada
- Over the last decade NGOs have become prominent actors in the development This greater role and support for NGOs has necessarily meant increased scrutiny of their programs and an increased risk that their own institutional goals will be overwhelmed by those of the donor agencies. This article traces the shift among NGOs in their delivery of services, development education, and advocacy work from welfare to development activities. defined as increasing the local capacity to meet basic needs and control the resources necessary for sustainable development. The next likely shift is toward creating a policy environment favorable and providing support for conacientization activities and to participatory development, empowerment. Both moves must include a fundamental reassessment of northern and southern NGO roles. changes in development education and advocacy strategies. a strengthening of NC0 institutional support. increased cooperation with other social movements. and continuous adaptation to the changing international and national socioeconomic environments. Summary.
field.
I. INTRODUCTION From relative obscurity a decade ago. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have suddenly found themselves catapulted into international respectability. Donor governments and multilateral
institutions
now routinely
pay tribute
the poor, and to the qualities of innovation and flexibility which are supposed to characterize NC0 work. There is a dawning realization, too, that a greater share of North-South resource transfers pass through NGOa than is commonly realized. The most recent report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) for example calls NGOs “the growth sector.” noting that they now receive as much as US $3.3 billion from private sources, and another US $ I .S billion from official aid agencies (OECD. 1986. p. 21). In Canada, which admittedly cannot be regarded as typical of OECD countries in this regard. the traditional “matching grant” program of support for NGOs stands at about 8% of the Canadian International Development Agency’s (CIDA) overall budget. New channels of CIDA funding over the past five years have boosted the share of official development assistance (ODA) going through NGOs to about 12%. And if privatelyraised funds are added. NGOs account for some 22% of total aid funds. both public and private. Increased prominence inevitably brings with it grcatcr scrutiny, a more critical assessment of to their
presumed
capacity
to reach
results, and a need for NGOs themselves not to hide behind “small is beautiful” evasions but to take strategic decisions about the optimum use and leverage of their limited resources and influence. To grasp the implications of present interest in the “NGO option” it is important to recognize what motivates it. Official support for NGOs has less to do with what NGOs themselves may consider to be their unique contributions to development thinking and action than with factors such as public disillusionment with the results of 20 years of official development assistance; the institutional and resource constraints imposed by declining aid flows, in many countries; and tight ceilings on administrative expenditure. As the World Bank’s Vittorio Masoni notes, official donors have turned to NGOs out of “pragmatic considerations.” seeing them as “more efficient conduits for development inputs than the often-discredited official agencies” (Masoni, 1985, p. 38). It is hardly surprising that NGOs, with their “human face” and public support, their history of targeting the poorest in their programs, and their relatively low-cost management style seem an attractive alternative. There is no doubt that access to expanded government funding has allowed many agencies to expand the scope of their work, to implement much larger projects or to fund more southern organizations; arguably. they have been able thereby to promote a less technocratic vision of
WORLD
2
DEVELOPMENT
development and (even less certainly) to exercise greater influence on dohor aid policies and procedures. However, co-option of NGO methods and goals has always been a danger, as NGOs are tempted to neglect their traditional constituencies and value bases and to rely increasingly on government. Approving reference to an NGO’s greater “professionalization” is often the reverse side of the organization’s loss of contact with its own base. This drifting apart may be indicated by a shift in the relative power of staff versus volunteers, a decline in fundraising or the absence of any overall organizational ethos, and a growing concern with administrative procedures rather than program results. If NGO performance is to be evaluated in terms of others’ expectations of their role. particularly within an aid model to which they do not necessarily subscribe, the long-term results can only be disillusionment. NGOs may be judged failures, not because they have failed to achieve their own goals, but because they will not have articulated sufficiently clearly how they view their role in the development process, and how their agenda differs from the official one. This is not to suggest that it is not essential for NGOs to prove or improve their effectiveness. but according to whose criteria? Is their accountability to be solely to the sources of their funding. as is presently the case, or is it also (for northern NGOs) to their partners and (for southern NGOs) to their base? And how can such accountability be exercised effectively’?
7. FROM
WELFARE -AND
TO DEVELOPMENT BEYOND
What has attracted interest in and support for NGOs is their presumed effectiveness in program delivery - meeting the needs of the poor. But this is only one of the functions which NGOs fill; most northern NGOs would claim that an important part of their mission is also to help create an aware public opinion in their own countries. and (for a smaller number) to undertake advocacy for official policies which are supportive of the efforts of Third World countries. Not all agencies give equal priority to each of these tasks. indeed there is a degree of specialization among agencies. but all are viewed as necessary and legitimate parts of the NGO “mission.” Their uneasy co-existence indeed often produces tensions both within and between NGOs. as has been amply documented (see, among others, Lissner, 1977; Smith, lY83; Elliott, 1987, etc). One consequence of increased government funding may well be the greater clout thereby conferred on the
part of an organization concerned with project funding or implementation; the voice of financial managers and project administrators is strengthened in an agency’s strategic thinking, and the cost of “risk-taking” in activities which are closer to home and potentially more controversial. goes up. A number of observers have pointed to a gradual shift in the activities of development NGOs. from a welfare orientation to a more developmental approach (see Table I); Korten (1987) refers to generations of strategic orientations in the development community. which helps to emphasize that these may co-exist within a single organization as it confronts different kinds of problems. Various factors have been cited as contributing to this shift. At bottom it springs from a recognition of the inadequacies of trying to deal with symptoms (particularly in light of the limited resources available) while the underlying problems remain untouched. It reflects the constant challenge to voluntary organizations to re-examine their strategies in ;I rapidly changing environment. Recognizing that any effort at rigid categorization of NGOs risks oversimplification, we may nevertheless describe mainstream northern NGOs as what Korten (1987) calls Second Generation organizations. Their projects aim to increase local capacity to meet needs and to control the resources necessary for sustainable development. Their development education programs in industrialized countries focus not simply on the provision of information about the Third World. but on a critical analysis of structural causes of underdevelopment and the interrelationships between North and South. Policy advocacv, where it is carried out. consists no longer simply in lobbying for additional aid (or even just more money for the voluntary sector). but for the removal of barriers to Third World development at national and international levels. A further shift, analogous to the earlier move from a welfare orientation to a more developmental focus, can now be discerned. though its direction and implications are still unclear. Korten (1987) refers to an NGO role in developing sustainable systems. a policy environment favorable to participatory development, while Elliott (1987) speaks of a more directly political involvement in the form of support for conscientization activities, and beyond that, for empowerment. Korten identifies two causes of this: NGO recognition that they can never hope to benefit more than a few favored localities. and the vulnerability of any self-reliant development process unless there is an appropriate institutional and policy framework which encourages
NGOs:
IN
ONE
YEAR.
Table
OUT
THE
OTHER?
1.
Stage Function
I
II
III
Service delivery
Provide relief and welfare
Fund or implement self-help projects
Facilitator or catalyst
Education
Info “about” third world
Critical analysis of North-South links
“Survival skill”
Public policy
Lobbying on ODA and NGO funding
Appropriate trade and other policies (removing barriers)
Supportive policies and institutions
and supports local initiative. Elliott would add the contradictions which grip an NGO when the essentially political nature of development is grasped, and when it must confront the issue of support for groups struggling to acquire control over productive resources (such as land or irrigation pumps) or for human rights (the cost of legal actions, for example). What is involved here is a fundamental reassessment of the role of northern NGOs, caught between the perceptions of their constituencies and the expectations of their governmental donors, and the changing reality of development needs in the South. Increasingly it is southern NGOs which are taking over the direct operational role in the delivery of field programs, and their dependence upon northern counterparts is diminishing as bilateral and multilateral funding sources deal with them directly. Modernization projects, the delivery of health services, clean water, agricultural training and so on, continue, as they must, but now frequently with an additional component of organizational strengthening or “institution-building.” While the above factors are contributing to a change in NGOs’ role as deliverers of development in the field, there are others which affect their development education and advocacy work. NGOs differ, of course, in both the objectives and methodologies they use for the former, reflecting the divergences in their conceptions both of development and pedagogy, and the conflicting emphases they place on creating an informed public opinion in the North versus direct alleviation of poverty in the South. Although some government support is available in many countries for development education. it is considerably less than that for overseas project funding and often subject to more constraints. Both within agencies and within the NGO
those primarily involved in development education may find their analysis increasingly divergent from the views of those responsible for managing the assistance programs. Although effective development education often has an action component, and the purpose of building an informed public is to ensure that appropriate and progressive policies receive the political support they need, development education can be distinguished conceptually from advocacy or direct political lobbying. Many of the large northern NGOs, reflecting their origins as charities, have been notably reluctant to engage in lobbying for any but the most basic and uncontroversial issues (such as aid levels). while a whole range of more specialized “solidarity” organizations have come into existence with the specific goal of promoting policy change around a particular country, region, or sector (viz.. South Africa, Central America, world food, or the new international economic order). These have developed a repertoire of skills quite different from those of the donor NGOs research. communication, policy formulation, lobbying, etc. Links between the two kinds of NGO have been relatively weak. with the exception of a limited number which consciously strive to transcend the gap between development “here” and “there.” This reluctance is beginning to be questioned as we become aware of the vulnerability of much NGO work without appropriate institutional and policy support. It is not simply that small and often isolated projects may prove to be unsustainable once external support is withdrawn, but that in the 1980s the global economy is characterized by a much greater degree of interdependence. As Marcel Massee. Canadian executive director at the International Monetary community,
WORLD
‘l
Fund (IMF) said NGOs in October
to a gathering
DEVELOPMEN’I-
of Canadian
1986:
the role of NGOs has got to be seen in terms of a much wider picture, a much greater number of influences that create or prevent development the more we learn about the way the economy of the world works, the clearer it becomes that what Secretary Baker does about the budget deficit in the US and what the Group of Five does about exchange rates and interest rates are more important determinants of what is going to happen to the production of sorghum and millet in a small village
in Senegal than almost any other policy. This is not to denigrate the positive impact which traditional NGO activities like agricultural training or creation of cooperatives can have, but simply to put it in context, in a world where national pricing policies for agricultural products or the subsidization of grain sales by the United States or European Economic Community (EEC) can have a more determinant effect on local production than individual training or more efficient technologies. Seen in this light, NGO advocacy work is neither an adjunct to nor substitute for project support, but rather integral to it. Given the preponderant control exercised by industrialized countries in the multilateral system and in the management of the global economy. it is incumbent upon northern NGOs to take on a constructive advocacy role. The common feature of what we have called a Third Generation approach to development work is a less isolated stance for the voluntary sector. Achieving localized results is counterbalanced by a strategic use of leverage on more significant social actors, especially governments and multilateral institutions but also through development education in the school system and media. The development education agenda also moves beyond an awareness of the implications of interdependence in the spheres of trade, finance, and resources to a broader concern with the imperatives of global survival: environmental protection, demilitarization, greater justice and equity in the use of the world’s resources, as the building blocks of a sustainable future for humanity. In this way. development NGOs find common cause not just North/South but also with popular movements and social forces within our own societies. Both Korten and Elliott (and earlier observers like Kramer) raise the difficult issues which this evolution in NGO analysis and behavior pose for the agencies concerned, in their relations to their funding sources, national governments and their publics. Commonly it produces a kind of organizational schizophrenia, as an agency tries to reconcile its own learning about changing devel-
opment needs (most strongly experienced at the level of field staff) with fundraising imperatives. the attractions of continuing to operate within an and widely-held views accepted framework, about “appropriate” forms of voluntary agency conduct (backed up in some countries, like Canada and the United Kingdom, by constraining charity laws). Just as the earlier shift in NGO attitudes and behavior created tension and conflict. so too will the present one. Although NGOs have in the past proven to be adaptable, this is at times less the response of an individual agency confronted by the imperatives of change, than the result of new organizations being created which embody a new perception or identify a gap which existing bodies are not filling. Increased government funding was one factor encouraging the earlier move away from welfare activities, requiring as it did that agencies adopt the more close-ended. explicit and manageable project format. However, one may question whether the pressures in recent years toward greater “professionalization” of aid agencies, the impact of access to greater resources for certain types of activities, and the competition among donor organizations to maintain market share, have not now inhibited many NGOs’ adaptive capacities. Furthermore, public expectations of NGOs in the North are largely unchanged: they are still seen as efficient by their presence on the “doers,” guaranteeing spot that needs will be met and standards upheld. A resurgent role in emergencies has emphasized this aspect of NGO work. In the rush for donor dollars during the African crisis, the important role played by local organizations in delivering relief was seldom highlighted by the northern they promoted their own NGOs. Instead. indispensability and in doing so contributed to a public perception of Africans as helpless and incapable. Replacing this image with a view of NGOs as facilitators and catalysts will require a much more complex message about the nature of development needs and the relevant role of people in the industrialized countries than is presently being provided.
3. NEW ROLES.
NEW SKILLS
Examples of “Third Generation” NGO activity in the field might include the use of NGOs as levers, or bridges to other types of institutional support: access for landless farmers, for example, to bank credit or government subsidies, training for government extension agents or public health workers, legal aid to overcome exploitation by local elite groups, and so on. In development
NGOa:
IN
ONE
YEAR.
education. increasingly links are being drawn not just between the problems confronting farmers. industrial workers and other groups in both North and Souih. but broader issues concerning development options and the values on which people base their hopes for the future. The accelerating disaster of North American agriculture. the de-skilling effects of technology. the harmful consequences of an exclusively economic rationality on the lives of individuals and communities. even the alienating effects of a homogenous “global” culture these are basic issues confronting people everywhere and which, consequently, NGOs doing development education are called upon to address. In their approach to advocacy, too, some NGOs are beginning to go beyond specific issues, like the pharmaceuticals. seeds, or pesticides campaigns. to demand public accountability. effective popular participation in the process of decisionmaking at all levels, and a recognition of the legitimacy of dissent. What is common to the above examples is that they transcend the traditional North/South relationship characterized (for all of the rhetoric about partnership and dialogue) by unequal access to resources. and therefore power. While there is of course a continuing need for money, it is no longer the only resource. nor the basis for collaboration. Indeed, we may be moving away from “funding-led” development work. or what Eernard Kouchner has called “money in search of its Third World” (Kouchner, 1986). lnformation. mobilizing ability, leadership, local knowledge are just as important as money, and sometimes more so; the skills of communication, networking. research and analysis are as indispensable as fundraising and project management expertise. A new international division of labor emerges. in which northern and southern NGOs both have an essential part to play if common goals are to be attained. in which neither has sole power. and, one might add,
OUT
‘IHE
OTtlER?
5
where the risks involved in working for change are more equally shared. What is the likelihood that such a fundamental re-definition of roles will occur? Why should northern NGOs. in particular. give up an arrangement which is relatively sccurc. pcrsonally rewarding. and publicly accepted’! Northern NGOs have a substantial investment in their present roles. and existing institutional arl-angemen&. such as high levels of government funding. further reinforce that. IIowevcr. as we have seen. organizations do not shift entirely from the attitudes and behaviors which characterize earlier generations of strategic orientation (emergency situations will always elicit an NM) response. tor example). cvcn as changes in their operating environment rcquirc adjustment. The grcatcr strength and self-contidcnce of southe~-ii NGOs. the willingnczs of northern governments to fund them directly. and the narrowing freedom of action for donor agencies to intcrvcne with scant rcfcrence to local structure5 or priorities, are all part of this changing context. Apart from the changed division of Iabol between northern and southern NGOs. the shift to a Third Generation orientation may lead to a loss of some of the voluntary sector’s current popularity, and consequently to an erosion of their financial support. at least in the short term. A catalytic role need not be antagonistic to government (quite the reverse) but it is less easily packaged in a project format. Further, the broader agenda of social and economic change in industrialized countries, as well as in the South, is more likely to be controversial. Yet embracing this new role may be the key to sustaining and magnifying the impact of NGOs, regardless of its effect on NGO popularity. As in the past, the future effectiveness of the NGO community lies not in changing fashions, but rather in fashioning change.
REFERENCES Elliott.
Ch~lrleh, “Some ;ihp~cIs ol rclutions between the North ;md South in the NGO sector,” World &wdo~pwwr/. Vol. 1.5. Supplement (Fall IYX7). Kortcn. David C.. “Third gcncration NGO btratcgies: A key to people-centered development.” World I)e~,clol,,nrrr~. Vol. IS. Supplement (Fall lYX7). Kouchner, Bernard. C%crr;r~ H~lsiness (Paris: Lc Pr6 aux Clercs. 1986).
Kramer. Ralph M.,
Vohcr~/ury Agerzcie.s I,I I/U, We&m Srutr (Berkeley: University of Cnlifomia Press. 19X1). Lissner. Jorgen. The fditirs of AI/rur.sm (
6
WORLD
DEVELOPMENT
OECD. Development Assistance Committee, Development Cooperation: 1986 Report (Paris: OECD, 1986). Smith, Brian, U.S. und Cunadian Non-profir Organiza-
rions (PV0.r) as Trunsnational Development Institutions, Program on Non-profit Organizations. Working Paper No. 70 (New Haven: ISPS, Yale University, August 1983).
IS, Supplement,
NGOs:
pp. l-h.
030.5-750x/87 $3.(K)+ 0.00 0 1987 Pergamon Journals Ltd.
1987.
In One Year, Out the Other? TIM BRODHEAD
North-South
Institute,
Ottawa, Canada
- Over the last decade NGOs have become prominent actors in the development This greater role and support for NGOs has necessarily meant increased scrutiny of their programs and an increased risk that their own institutional goals will be overwhelmed by those of the donor agencies. This article traces the shift among NGOs in their delivery of services, development education, and advocacy work from welfare to development activities. defined as increasing the local capacity to meet basic needs and control the resources necessary for sustainable development. The next likely shift is toward creating a policy environment favorable and providing support for conacientization activities and to participatory development, empowerment. Both moves must include a fundamental reassessment of northern and southern NGO roles. changes in development education and advocacy strategies. a strengthening of NC0 institutional support. increased cooperation with other social movements. and continuous adaptation to the changing international and national socioeconomic environments. Summary.
field.
I. INTRODUCTION From relative obscurity a decade ago. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have suddenly found themselves catapulted into international respectability. Donor governments and multilateral
institutions
now routinely
pay tribute
the poor, and to the qualities of innovation and flexibility which are supposed to characterize NC0 work. There is a dawning realization, too, that a greater share of North-South resource transfers pass through NGOa than is commonly realized. The most recent report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) for example calls NGOs “the growth sector.” noting that they now receive as much as US $3.3 billion from private sources, and another US $ I .S billion from official aid agencies (OECD. 1986. p. 21). In Canada, which admittedly cannot be regarded as typical of OECD countries in this regard. the traditional “matching grant” program of support for NGOs stands at about 8% of the Canadian International Development Agency’s (CIDA) overall budget. New channels of CIDA funding over the past five years have boosted the share of official development assistance (ODA) going through NGOs to about 12%. And if privatelyraised funds are added. NGOs account for some 22% of total aid funds. both public and private. Increased prominence inevitably brings with it grcatcr scrutiny, a more critical assessment of to their
presumed
capacity
to reach
results, and a need for NGOs themselves not to hide behind “small is beautiful” evasions but to take strategic decisions about the optimum use and leverage of their limited resources and influence. To grasp the implications of present interest in the “NGO option” it is important to recognize what motivates it. Official support for NGOs has less to do with what NGOs themselves may consider to be their unique contributions to development thinking and action than with factors such as public disillusionment with the results of 20 years of official development assistance; the institutional and resource constraints imposed by declining aid flows, in many countries; and tight ceilings on administrative expenditure. As the World Bank’s Vittorio Masoni notes, official donors have turned to NGOs out of “pragmatic considerations.” seeing them as “more efficient conduits for development inputs than the often-discredited official agencies” (Masoni, 1985, p. 38). It is hardly surprising that NGOs, with their “human face” and public support, their history of targeting the poorest in their programs, and their relatively low-cost management style seem an attractive alternative. There is no doubt that access to expanded government funding has allowed many agencies to expand the scope of their work, to implement much larger projects or to fund more southern organizations; arguably. they have been able thereby to promote a less technocratic vision of
WORLD
2
DEVELOPMENT
development and (even less certainly) to exercise greater influence on dohor aid policies and procedures. However, co-option of NGO methods and goals has always been a danger, as NGOs are tempted to neglect their traditional constituencies and value bases and to rely increasingly on government. Approving reference to an NGO’s greater “professionalization” is often the reverse side of the organization’s loss of contact with its own base. This drifting apart may be indicated by a shift in the relative power of staff versus volunteers, a decline in fundraising or the absence of any overall organizational ethos, and a growing concern with administrative procedures rather than program results. If NGO performance is to be evaluated in terms of others’ expectations of their role. particularly within an aid model to which they do not necessarily subscribe, the long-term results can only be disillusionment. NGOs may be judged failures, not because they have failed to achieve their own goals, but because they will not have articulated sufficiently clearly how they view their role in the development process, and how their agenda differs from the official one. This is not to suggest that it is not essential for NGOs to prove or improve their effectiveness. but according to whose criteria? Is their accountability to be solely to the sources of their funding. as is presently the case, or is it also (for northern NGOs) to their partners and (for southern NGOs) to their base? And how can such accountability be exercised effectively’?
7. FROM
WELFARE -AND
TO DEVELOPMENT BEYOND
What has attracted interest in and support for NGOs is their presumed effectiveness in program delivery - meeting the needs of the poor. But this is only one of the functions which NGOs fill; most northern NGOs would claim that an important part of their mission is also to help create an aware public opinion in their own countries. and (for a smaller number) to undertake advocacy for official policies which are supportive of the efforts of Third World countries. Not all agencies give equal priority to each of these tasks. indeed there is a degree of specialization among agencies. but all are viewed as necessary and legitimate parts of the NGO “mission.” Their uneasy co-existence indeed often produces tensions both within and between NGOs. as has been amply documented (see, among others, Lissner, 1977; Smith, lY83; Elliott, 1987, etc). One consequence of increased government funding may well be the greater clout thereby conferred on the
part of an organization concerned with project funding or implementation; the voice of financial managers and project administrators is strengthened in an agency’s strategic thinking, and the cost of “risk-taking” in activities which are closer to home and potentially more controversial. goes up. A number of observers have pointed to a gradual shift in the activities of development NGOs. from a welfare orientation to a more developmental approach (see Table I); Korten (1987) refers to generations of strategic orientations in the development community. which helps to emphasize that these may co-exist within a single organization as it confronts different kinds of problems. Various factors have been cited as contributing to this shift. At bottom it springs from a recognition of the inadequacies of trying to deal with symptoms (particularly in light of the limited resources available) while the underlying problems remain untouched. It reflects the constant challenge to voluntary organizations to re-examine their strategies in ;I rapidly changing environment. Recognizing that any effort at rigid categorization of NGOs risks oversimplification, we may nevertheless describe mainstream northern NGOs as what Korten (1987) calls Second Generation organizations. Their projects aim to increase local capacity to meet needs and to control the resources necessary for sustainable development. Their development education programs in industrialized countries focus not simply on the provision of information about the Third World. but on a critical analysis of structural causes of underdevelopment and the interrelationships between North and South. Policy advocacv, where it is carried out. consists no longer simply in lobbying for additional aid (or even just more money for the voluntary sector). but for the removal of barriers to Third World development at national and international levels. A further shift, analogous to the earlier move from a welfare orientation to a more developmental focus, can now be discerned. though its direction and implications are still unclear. Korten (1987) refers to an NGO role in developing sustainable systems. a policy environment favorable to participatory development, while Elliott (1987) speaks of a more directly political involvement in the form of support for conscientization activities, and beyond that, for empowerment. Korten identifies two causes of this: NGO recognition that they can never hope to benefit more than a few favored localities. and the vulnerability of any self-reliant development process unless there is an appropriate institutional and policy framework which encourages
NGOs:
IN
ONE
YEAR.
Table
OUT
THE
OTHER?
1.
Stage Function
I
II
III
Service delivery
Provide relief and welfare
Fund or implement self-help projects
Facilitator or catalyst
Education
Info “about” third world
Critical analysis of North-South links
“Survival skill”
Public policy
Lobbying on ODA and NGO funding
Appropriate trade and other policies (removing barriers)
Supportive policies and institutions
and supports local initiative. Elliott would add the contradictions which grip an NGO when the essentially political nature of development is grasped, and when it must confront the issue of support for groups struggling to acquire control over productive resources (such as land or irrigation pumps) or for human rights (the cost of legal actions, for example). What is involved here is a fundamental reassessment of the role of northern NGOs, caught between the perceptions of their constituencies and the expectations of their governmental donors, and the changing reality of development needs in the South. Increasingly it is southern NGOs which are taking over the direct operational role in the delivery of field programs, and their dependence upon northern counterparts is diminishing as bilateral and multilateral funding sources deal with them directly. Modernization projects, the delivery of health services, clean water, agricultural training and so on, continue, as they must, but now frequently with an additional component of organizational strengthening or “institution-building.” While the above factors are contributing to a change in NGOs’ role as deliverers of development in the field, there are others which affect their development education and advocacy work. NGOs differ, of course, in both the objectives and methodologies they use for the former, reflecting the divergences in their conceptions both of development and pedagogy, and the conflicting emphases they place on creating an informed public opinion in the North versus direct alleviation of poverty in the South. Although some government support is available in many countries for development education. it is considerably less than that for overseas project funding and often subject to more constraints. Both within agencies and within the NGO
those primarily involved in development education may find their analysis increasingly divergent from the views of those responsible for managing the assistance programs. Although effective development education often has an action component, and the purpose of building an informed public is to ensure that appropriate and progressive policies receive the political support they need, development education can be distinguished conceptually from advocacy or direct political lobbying. Many of the large northern NGOs, reflecting their origins as charities, have been notably reluctant to engage in lobbying for any but the most basic and uncontroversial issues (such as aid levels). while a whole range of more specialized “solidarity” organizations have come into existence with the specific goal of promoting policy change around a particular country, region, or sector (viz.. South Africa, Central America, world food, or the new international economic order). These have developed a repertoire of skills quite different from those of the donor NGOs research. communication, policy formulation, lobbying, etc. Links between the two kinds of NGO have been relatively weak. with the exception of a limited number which consciously strive to transcend the gap between development “here” and “there.” This reluctance is beginning to be questioned as we become aware of the vulnerability of much NGO work without appropriate institutional and policy support. It is not simply that small and often isolated projects may prove to be unsustainable once external support is withdrawn, but that in the 1980s the global economy is characterized by a much greater degree of interdependence. As Marcel Massee. Canadian executive director at the International Monetary community,
WORLD
‘l
Fund (IMF) said NGOs in October
to a gathering
DEVELOPMEN’I-
of Canadian
1986:
the role of NGOs has got to be seen in terms of a much wider picture, a much greater number of influences that create or prevent development the more we learn about the way the economy of the world works, the clearer it becomes that what Secretary Baker does about the budget deficit in the US and what the Group of Five does about exchange rates and interest rates are more important determinants of what is going to happen to the production of sorghum and millet in a small village
in Senegal than almost any other policy. This is not to denigrate the positive impact which traditional NGO activities like agricultural training or creation of cooperatives can have, but simply to put it in context, in a world where national pricing policies for agricultural products or the subsidization of grain sales by the United States or European Economic Community (EEC) can have a more determinant effect on local production than individual training or more efficient technologies. Seen in this light, NGO advocacy work is neither an adjunct to nor substitute for project support, but rather integral to it. Given the preponderant control exercised by industrialized countries in the multilateral system and in the management of the global economy. it is incumbent upon northern NGOs to take on a constructive advocacy role. The common feature of what we have called a Third Generation approach to development work is a less isolated stance for the voluntary sector. Achieving localized results is counterbalanced by a strategic use of leverage on more significant social actors, especially governments and multilateral institutions but also through development education in the school system and media. The development education agenda also moves beyond an awareness of the implications of interdependence in the spheres of trade, finance, and resources to a broader concern with the imperatives of global survival: environmental protection, demilitarization, greater justice and equity in the use of the world’s resources, as the building blocks of a sustainable future for humanity. In this way. development NGOs find common cause not just North/South but also with popular movements and social forces within our own societies. Both Korten and Elliott (and earlier observers like Kramer) raise the difficult issues which this evolution in NGO analysis and behavior pose for the agencies concerned, in their relations to their funding sources, national governments and their publics. Commonly it produces a kind of organizational schizophrenia, as an agency tries to reconcile its own learning about changing devel-
opment needs (most strongly experienced at the level of field staff) with fundraising imperatives. the attractions of continuing to operate within an and widely-held views accepted framework, about “appropriate” forms of voluntary agency conduct (backed up in some countries, like Canada and the United Kingdom, by constraining charity laws). Just as the earlier shift in NGO attitudes and behavior created tension and conflict. so too will the present one. Although NGOs have in the past proven to be adaptable, this is at times less the response of an individual agency confronted by the imperatives of change, than the result of new organizations being created which embody a new perception or identify a gap which existing bodies are not filling. Increased government funding was one factor encouraging the earlier move away from welfare activities, requiring as it did that agencies adopt the more close-ended. explicit and manageable project format. However, one may question whether the pressures in recent years toward greater “professionalization” of aid agencies, the impact of access to greater resources for certain types of activities, and the competition among donor organizations to maintain market share, have not now inhibited many NGOs’ adaptive capacities. Furthermore, public expectations of NGOs in the North are largely unchanged: they are still seen as efficient by their presence on the “doers,” guaranteeing spot that needs will be met and standards upheld. A resurgent role in emergencies has emphasized this aspect of NGO work. In the rush for donor dollars during the African crisis, the important role played by local organizations in delivering relief was seldom highlighted by the northern they promoted their own NGOs. Instead. indispensability and in doing so contributed to a public perception of Africans as helpless and incapable. Replacing this image with a view of NGOs as facilitators and catalysts will require a much more complex message about the nature of development needs and the relevant role of people in the industrialized countries than is presently being provided.
3. NEW ROLES.
NEW SKILLS
Examples of “Third Generation” NGO activity in the field might include the use of NGOs as levers, or bridges to other types of institutional support: access for landless farmers, for example, to bank credit or government subsidies, training for government extension agents or public health workers, legal aid to overcome exploitation by local elite groups, and so on. In development
NGOa:
IN
ONE
YEAR.
education. increasingly links are being drawn not just between the problems confronting farmers. industrial workers and other groups in both North and Souih. but broader issues concerning development options and the values on which people base their hopes for the future. The accelerating disaster of North American agriculture. the de-skilling effects of technology. the harmful consequences of an exclusively economic rationality on the lives of individuals and communities. even the alienating effects of a homogenous “global” culture these are basic issues confronting people everywhere and which, consequently, NGOs doing development education are called upon to address. In their approach to advocacy, too, some NGOs are beginning to go beyond specific issues, like the pharmaceuticals. seeds, or pesticides campaigns. to demand public accountability. effective popular participation in the process of decisionmaking at all levels, and a recognition of the legitimacy of dissent. What is common to the above examples is that they transcend the traditional North/South relationship characterized (for all of the rhetoric about partnership and dialogue) by unequal access to resources. and therefore power. While there is of course a continuing need for money, it is no longer the only resource. nor the basis for collaboration. Indeed, we may be moving away from “funding-led” development work. or what Eernard Kouchner has called “money in search of its Third World” (Kouchner, 1986). lnformation. mobilizing ability, leadership, local knowledge are just as important as money, and sometimes more so; the skills of communication, networking. research and analysis are as indispensable as fundraising and project management expertise. A new international division of labor emerges. in which northern and southern NGOs both have an essential part to play if common goals are to be attained. in which neither has sole power. and, one might add,
OUT
‘IHE
OTtlER?
5
where the risks involved in working for change are more equally shared. What is the likelihood that such a fundamental re-definition of roles will occur? Why should northern NGOs. in particular. give up an arrangement which is relatively sccurc. pcrsonally rewarding. and publicly accepted’! Northern NGOs have a substantial investment in their present roles. and existing institutional arl-angemen&. such as high levels of government funding. further reinforce that. IIowevcr. as we have seen. organizations do not shift entirely from the attitudes and behaviors which characterize earlier generations of strategic orientation (emergency situations will always elicit an NM) response. tor example). cvcn as changes in their operating environment rcquirc adjustment. The grcatcr strength and self-contidcnce of southe~-ii NGOs. the willingnczs of northern governments to fund them directly. and the narrowing freedom of action for donor agencies to intcrvcne with scant rcfcrence to local structure5 or priorities, are all part of this changing context. Apart from the changed division of Iabol between northern and southern NGOs. the shift to a Third Generation orientation may lead to a loss of some of the voluntary sector’s current popularity, and consequently to an erosion of their financial support. at least in the short term. A catalytic role need not be antagonistic to government (quite the reverse) but it is less easily packaged in a project format. Further, the broader agenda of social and economic change in industrialized countries, as well as in the South, is more likely to be controversial. Yet embracing this new role may be the key to sustaining and magnifying the impact of NGOs, regardless of its effect on NGO popularity. As in the past, the future effectiveness of the NGO community lies not in changing fashions, but rather in fashioning change.
REFERENCES Elliott.
Ch~lrleh, “Some ;ihp~cIs ol rclutions between the North ;md South in the NGO sector,” World &wdo~pwwr/. Vol. 1.5. Supplement (Fall IYX7). Kortcn. David C.. “Third gcncration NGO btratcgies: A key to people-centered development.” World I)e~,clol,,nrrr~. Vol. IS. Supplement (Fall lYX7). Kouchner, Bernard. C%crr;r~ H~lsiness (Paris: Lc Pr6 aux Clercs. 1986).
Kramer. Ralph M.,
Vohcr~/ury Agerzcie.s I,I I/U, We&m Srutr (Berkeley: University of Cnlifomia Press. 19X1). Lissner. Jorgen. The fditirs of AI/rur.sm (
6
WORLD
DEVELOPMENT
OECD. Development Assistance Committee, Development Cooperation: 1986 Report (Paris: OECD, 1986). Smith, Brian, U.S. und Cunadian Non-profir Organiza-
rions (PV0.r) as Trunsnational Development Institutions, Program on Non-profit Organizations. Working Paper No. 70 (New Haven: ISPS, Yale University, August 1983).