A nongovernmental organization (NGO) is a specific type of voluntary organization characterized by its involvement in international relief and development activities. As part of the voluntary sector, NGOs are distinct from government and commercial organizations and are characterized by being formal, private, non-profit-distributing, self-governing, and possessing a degree of voluntarism.
It is possible to distinguish between NGOs based in developed countries (Northern NGOs) and those based in developing countries (Southern NGOs). Northern NGOs can be further divided according to their principal method of operation: operational NGOs, which pursue international development by working directly with beneficiaries; advocacy NGOs, which seek to facilitate change through lobbying and awareness-raising activity; and fund-raising NGOs, which gather resources that are subsequently delivered to beneficiaries through partner organizations.
These methods of operation are not mutually exclusive. Some NGOs have very broad mission statements; others restrict themselves to specific geographic areas or types of activity. In a broader sense, NGOs make a distinctive contribution to international development as a result of their independence. In particular, they are credited with an ability to reach the poorest and most marginalized groups while retaining the flexibility to respond quickly to changing environments. Conversely, they are criticized for their lack of global impact, as they often focus on community-level projects, although working alongside other types of organizations in the international development community serves to enable impact at multiple levels.
The Voluntary Sector
In simple terms, it is possible to divide organizations into three categories, or sectors: private (commercial), governmental (public), and voluntary (third). The scale and importance of the voluntary sector is vast. In the United Kingdom (UK), 2008 data on civil society showed that the sector had a workforce of 1.3 million people (around 4.5 percent of the country’s working population), comprised 865,000 organizations, and had a combined income of £109 billion.
The boundaries among these sectors are becoming progressively blurred, however, with governments funding the voluntary sector to deliver public services and to pursue government objectives, and businesses entering relationships with voluntary organizations to demonstrate their social responsibility. Volvic, for example, is currently working with World Vision to develop water and sanitation resources in Africa. In its “1L for 10L” campaign, Volvic, through World Vision, will provide 10 liters of drinkable water for every one liter it sells. The project will take place in Zambia, Ghana, Malawi, and Mali through the building of wells and associated infrastructure. The UK government provides competitive grants to fund the delivery of a wide range of services, including schemes for urban regeneration; youth projects; and the refurbishment of community facilities through the Big Lottery, the Voluntary Sector Support Unit, and other funding schemes.
Voluntary Organizations
An NGO is a specific type of voluntary organization, so before focusing on NGOs, it is useful to define voluntary organizations in general. The voluntary sector is sometimes defined as comprising organizations that are neither commercial nor governmental—a so-called residual approach. By contrast, structural-operational definitions identify voluntary organizations according to key characteristics of voluntariness.
One such definition identifies five key features of voluntary organizations. They must be formal (with some degree of institutionalization), private (institutionally separate from government), non-profit-distributing (not returning profits to owners or directors), self-governing (equipped to control their own activities), and voluntary (involving some meaningful degree of voluntary participation). Although few people would disagree with the principles behind these criteria, in practice they do have limitations.
The suggestion that a voluntary organization must exhibit a degree of formality or institutionalization is useful in distinguishing between ad hoc and organized action. In making this distinction, however, informal associations are effectively excluded from the voluntary sector. This exclusion may not be desirable, as the vast majority of voluntary action takes place through small, informal, and ad hoc associations.
A further concern is that research suggests that as an organization becomes more formal, the level of voluntary participation falls. Consequently, two of the defining features of voluntary organizations inherently conflict.
Although the requirement to be institutionally separate from government is sound, it can be difficult to achieve in practice. Since the late 1980s, a gradual shift toward a contract culture has occurred, with voluntary organizations entering into contracts with governments to undertake specific projects or to provide particular services. Governments often attach strict planning and reporting requirements to their funding, with the result that some voluntary organizations end up operating in a manner similar to public-sector bodies. Overreliance on funding of this kind can have an adverse effect on the image of the voluntary organization, as well as on its freedom and operational efficiency. Data from the United Kingdom indicate that the proportion of voluntary-sector income being received from the public sector continues to increase.
Several definitions include the requirement that voluntary organizations should not distribute profits, but different perspectives exist on what this requirement means in practice. One view is that an organization should not distribute net earnings to anyone who exercises control of it. The reference to net profits suggests that it is acceptable to pay staff. Some observers question this practice on the basis that it can be difficult to determine the point at which fair compensation becomes profit distribution.
The issue of self-governance is inextricably linked to the concept of an organization. For an organization to be recognized as an entity, it must be in a position to influence its own actions. It is widely acknowledged, however, that voluntary organizations have complex stakeholder groups. The emphasis placed on accountability to stakeholders suggests that it may be difficult for voluntary organizations to truly determine their own actions.
The issue of voluntary participation is also problematic in the sense that no reference is made to the level at which the volunteers should work. In some larger voluntary organizations, volunteers are active in fund-raising, whereas decision making is undertaken by paid professionals. This arrangement raises the question of whether such volunteers have a suitably significant role to justify calling the organization a voluntary one.
Despite the problems with structural-operational definitions, they are nevertheless more positive than the residual approach outlined earlier, in that they provide criteria for inclusion in the voluntary sector. NGOs are a specific type of voluntary organization that meet this structural-operational definition.
Terms
Any consideration of the voluntary sector and the organizations that reside within it invariably becomes engaged in a debate about terminology. There appears to be a lack of consensus on the use of specific terms and the meanings associated with them. The result is that it can be difficult to interpret research studies, as it is not always clear what type of organization is being examined. Therefore, no treatment of this subject area would be complete without considering some of the terms that are in use and the ways in which they may be interpreted.
In addition to nonprofit, terms that are in widespread use include charity, nongovernmental organization (NGO), private voluntary organization (PVO), not-for-profit, nonprofit, and third-sector organizations. Similarly, these organizations are collectively labeled as the third sector; the nonprofit sector; the voluntary sector; and, more recently, civil society. What might these terms mean, and are they really just different labels for the same type of organization?
Charity is the easiest term to define as a result of its legal standing. In the United Kingdom, a charity is a legally recognized entity. To become a registered charity, an organization must have aims consistent with the current interpretation of the principle of charitable purposes, which sets out acceptable types of activity. After being awarded charitable status, an organization must fulfill strict criteria that dictate how and for what purpose it operates.
Registered charities are strictly regulated by Charity Law, and the Charity Commission has a range of powers to intervene if this law is contravened. One of the challenges with this approach, however, is that the definition of acceptable activity changes over time. Consequently, some registered charities would not be given charitable status under the current interpretation of the criteria.
At first sight, the terms nonprofit and not-for-profit (NFP) appear to be very similar, implying that they may be interchangeable. Indeed, there is no discernible difference in the way these terms are used by the literature. It is possible, however, to make a subtle but important distinction between nonprofit and not-for-profit organizations. It can be argued that although not-for-profit organizations do not have the generation and distribution of profits as a primary goal, they may still make profits without jeopardizing their status. By contrast, it may be argued that nonprofit organizations must not make a profit, whether or not it is their intention to do so.
The term third-sector organization differs from the others in that it doesn’t describe organizations themselves. Instead, it is a generic term used to refer to the set of organizations that have been placed within the third sector. Therefore, the definition of this term relies on the definition of the third sector and perhaps on the structural-operational definition outlined earlier. It seems that these two terms are simply alternative inert labels adopted by some to avoid using terms that have the potential to carry deeper meanings.
The term nongovernmental organization is meaningless if taken literally; after all, businesses are also nongovernmental. The term is in widespread use, however, and was officially recognized in 1950 through a United Nations resolution. It has gained a meaningful definition through historical association, being traditionally used to describe voluntary organizations that are specifically involved in international relief and development activities. Thus, general support exists for the suggestion that NGOs represent a specific type of voluntary organization defined by principal purpose.
Some literature uses the term private voluntary organization to refer to organizations engaged in this kind of activity. There is some debate as to whether the terms NGO and PVO are interchangeable, although recent use exhibits convergence of the terms. The only apparent difference seems to be that these organizations tend to be called NGOs in Europe and PVOs in North America—a distinction echoed by some intergovernmental bodies.
Methods Of Operation
One problem that does arise is the current trend toward using the term NGO to refer to organizations that carry out development work in their own countries (so-called grassroots or indigenous NGOs). This use is inconsistent with the idea that NGOs carry out international development work, and it would be logical to argue that organizations operating solely in their own countries are really examples of voluntary organizations. The term is used this way, however, which leads to an initial categorization of NGOs that distinguishes between those based in developed countries and those based in developing countries. These are often referred to as Northern NGOs and Southern NGOs, respectively. The use of the terms Northern and Southern reflects prevailing terminology, which refers to the developed world as the global North and the developing world as the global South.
Northern NGOs can be divided according to their principal method of operation, distinguishing among operational, advocacy, and fund-raising. Operational NGOs make a distinctive contribution to international development, providing practical help, support, and expertise to host communities. They are credited with an ability to work at the level of individual communities and to reach the poorest, most marginalized groups. These NGOs may be involved in campaigning and fund-raising too, but their focus is on delivering resources directly, taking a practical and hands-on approach to international development.
Debate exists about the continued role of operational NGOs as Southern NGOs grow in number and power. The role of operational NGOs perhaps grew out of the traditional view of international development as being based on technology transfer from developed to developing countries. Over time, however, this view has changed, and an argument has been made that Northern NGOs should focus on advocacy and fund-raising, leaving operational work to their Southern counterparts.
Advocacy NGOs make their contribution to international development by raising awareness of specific issues at individual and governmental levels. It has been argued that advocacy in developed countries is an alternative approach to NGO operation, which reflects a focus on the root causes of poverty and inequity. Indeed, some NGOs focus entirely on this approach and consequently have no overseas activity. In this way, international development is pursued by raising awareness of issues to mobilize public support and to lobby governments to take action to address development and humanitarian issues.
Advocacy as an approach is argued to be beneficial, as many of the causes of poverty can be linked to inequities in political and economic structures, and as such, these issues cannot be addressed effectively by simply providing resources to local communities. Instead, it is argued that it is necessary to pursue changes at political and economic levels to enable developing countries to help themselves out of poverty. Such approaches are consistent with the criticism of NGO activity for being too small-scale and failing to recognize the wider structures within which their work takes place. Advocacy can be achieved through direct lobbying of key individuals, collaborative work, research and publication, attendance at conferences, and participation of NGOs in working groups.
Although all NGOs arguably engage in fund-raising to finance their activity, for some, fund-raising is their principal purpose. Fund-raising NGOs focus on raising money and other material resources for distribution to organizations in developing countries. Many smaller NGOs operate in this way and may combine fund-raising with advocacy work. NGOs of this type tend to work in partnership with one or more Southern NGOs to distribute the resources to beneficiaries, viewing this practice as a more sustainable method of development, as it enables developing countries to build their own support mechanisms and make use of local resources and expertise.
Activities
In addition to the method of operation, it is possible to identify NGOs according to their type and location of activity. International development can be pursued through various types of activity, including projects relating to children and education, HIV/AIDS and other health issues, water and sanitation, community and personal development, advocacy and human rights, natural resources and agriculture, business and economic development, and emergency relief.
Large international NGOs such as Oxfam, Save the Children, and Christian Aid have broad mission statements. Consequently, they operate in several countries and are involved in a wide range of project types. Some large NGOs, such as WaterAid and FARM-Africa, focus on specific types of activity; many smaller NGOs, such as Pumpaid, Book Aid International, and Children in Crisis, have a similar focus. Also, numerous small NGOs focus on specific countries or regions, including the Bihar Foundation, India Development Group, and Friends of Northern Uganda.
Contributions to International Development NGOs make a distinctive contribution to international development. Governments are often criticized for focusing on economic development, commercial benefit, and the creation of export opportunities for their own firms yet being ineffective at the grassroots level. Intergovernmental bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank are similarly criticized for emphasizing economic development.
Although economic inequity is undoubtedly a root cause of poverty, some argue that changes at this level alone are ineffective in improving people’s lives at a grassroots level. By contrast, it is argued that NGOs should pay more attention to the lives of individuals, families, and communities by focusing on social, economic, and environmental welfare. This argument is consistent with the view that NGOs are proponents of community-based (participative) approaches to international development. As such, NGOs are considered to be particularly effective in reaching the poorest and most marginalized communities. Their size and agility enable them to act quickly, and their closeness to communities allows them to readily identify and respond to local needs. NGOs attempt to use local skills, expertise, and resources as much as possible, which serves to empower communities and is consistent with the goal of achieving sustainable development.
It has been argued that NGOs are more efficient and effective than governmental organizations in tackling poverty as they are less bureaucratic. Further, it is frequently suggested that beneficiaries trust NGOs as a result of their perceived impartiality. This trust is especially important, as an increasing number of humanitarian crises are linked to conflict, which makes it difficult for governmental organizations to become involved. These qualities characterize the distinctive contribution of NGOs to international development.
Criticisms
Concurrently, however, NGOs are criticized for the lack of global impact that their small-scale projects are able to achieve. Thus, NGOs and governmental organizations appear to have complementary strengths, suggesting that a development community in which these types of organizations work together would be effective at both micro and macro levels. Indeed, this appears to be happening, with increased cooperation among NGOs, intergovernmental bodies, and governmental agencies. Cooperation has been noted by several UN agencies, including the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Children’s Fund, as well as the UK government’s Department for International Development.
Such cooperation has resource benefits for NGOs, enabling them to reach more beneficiaries than they otherwise would. It also presents potential problems, as official donors have specific reporting requirements. Additionally, acting as a subcontractor can have an impact on the very modus operandi that makes NGOs so important to international development. The relationship with official donors, therefore, is an important one that can affect the way in which NGOs work.
The International Development Community
The international development community is large and complex. The guiding principle of international development—working toward global equity in areas such as health, education, and opportunity—naturally attracts a range of organizations. Large humanitarian operations such as those in the Great Lakes region of Africa in the mid-1990s and the Balkans in the late 1990s, for example, are reported to have involved up to 300 organizations of various types.
Different models of the flow of aid exist, illustrating the movement of resources and the range of organizations that are involved in this process. The basic model consists of three major components: the constituency from which resources enter the system, intermediaries through which resources are channeled, and beneficiaries that receive the resources. NGOs are one type of intermediary facilitating the movement of aid resources from developed to developing countries.
Movement Of Resources
Resources enter the system principally, although not exclusively, from developed countries. These resources ultimately derive from a combination of private donations and taxation. Private donations are made to Northern NGOs, whether advocacy, fund-raising, or operational. Advocacy NGOs use these donations to finance their lobbying work. Fund-raising NGOs act as a conduit through which the donations will be channeled. They may direct the donations through Northern operational NGOs, through Southern NGOs, or through community based organizations in developing countries.
Operational NGOs by definition use donations to directly finance their work with beneficiaries in developing countries. Simultaneously, governments in developed countries receive income through taxation, which enables governments to finance their contribution to the international community. This contribution is made in several ways. Many governments operate their own development programs through dedicated departments that enable them to give direct support to beneficiaries. Such activities are invariably connected with the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals, which were initiated through the United Nations in 2000 to guide development action. The UK government’s Department for International Development (DfID), for example, is active in pursuing these goals, which include eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, and developing a global partnership for development.
Resources can also be directed to beneficiaries through the governments of developing countries in what is referred to as bilateral aid. Another approach is for resources to be directed through intergovernmental bodies such as the UN or World Bank in what can be labeled multilateral aid. In addition, Northern governments channel development resources through Northern operational NGOs to benefit from the distinctive characteristics that NGOs can offer.
Oxfam
Oxfam is a well-known example of an international NGO. Oxfam receives its income from several sources, including private donations, trading through its retail operations, and government and other public authorities. Oxfam has a broad mission statement that commits to tackling poverty and suffering. Such a broad purpose requires a range of approaches. Consequently, Oxfam seeks to tackle poverty and suffering through initiatives relating to education, health, debt and aid, climate change, HIV/AIDS, gender equality, and trade and livelihoods.
As well as performing operational work, Oxfam carries out research to support its lobbying and advocacy. It operates in more than 70 countries and engages in both emergency relief and long-term development activities.
Bibliography:
- Henry Chesbrough, Shane Ahern, Megan Finn, and Stephanie Guerraz, “Business Models for Technology in the Developing World: The Role of NonGovernmental Organizations,” California Management Review (v.48/3, 2006);
- Luis de Sousa, Peter Larmour, and Barry Hindess, Governments, NGOs and Anti-Corruption: The New Integrity Warriors (Routledge, 2008);
- Michael Edwards and David Hulme, eds., Making a Difference: NGOs and Development in a Changing World (Earthscan, 1997);
- Michael Edwards and David Hulme, eds., Non-Governmental Organisations: Performance and Accountability (Earthscan, 1998);
- Alan Fowler, Striking a Balance: A Guide to Enhancing the Effectiveness of Non-Governmental Organisations in International Development (Earthscan, 1997);
- Volker Heins, Nongovernmental Organizations in International Society: Struggles Over Recognition (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008);
- Dirk-Jan Koch, Aid From International NGOS: Blind Spots on the Aid Allocation Map (Routledge, 2009);
- Natalia Negrea and Balogh Marton, “The Involvement of the Business Sector in Corporate Social Responsibility (SCR) Projects,” Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences (22E, February 2008);
- Debora L. Spar and Lane T. LaMure, “The Power of Activism: Assessing the Impact of NGOs on Global Business,” California Management Review (v.45/3, 2003);
- Anna Vakil, “Confronting the Classification Problem: Toward a Taxonomy of NGOs,” World Development (v.25/12, 1997);
- Yongian Zheng and Joseph Fewsmith, China’s Opening Society: The Non-State Sector and Governance (Routledge, 2008).
This example Nongovernmental Organizations Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.
See also:
ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER
Always on-time
Plagiarism-Free
100% Confidentiality
Special offer!
