The Rise of International NGOs

Reflections on Organization, Management, Policy

Helmut K. Anheier Helmut K. Anheier UCLA / LSEUCLA / LSE

Presentation at Yale UniversityPresentation at Yale University

October 14, 2003October 14, 2003

KEY ISSUE 1

EXPANSION!EXPANSION!

Growth of International NGOs

Figure 8.1: Growth in international organisations: 1900-2000(all active organisations)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Source: Union of International Associations

Num

ber

of o

rgan

isat

ions

1975

Putnam would love this map…

The network of global links

Global city Networks (based Global city Networks (based on transnational business on transnational business service corporations) – service corporations) – mapping the mapping the center/periphery structure of center/periphery structure of globalizationglobalization The compression of The compression of

time-space: NY is time-space: NY is closer to London than closer to London than MadridMadrid

No representation of No representation of “Southern” cities“Southern” cities

The Rise of International NGOs

1. What are the ‘drivers’ behind expansion?

2. What are the implications for management and policy?

More specifically…

What does the significant expansion of INGOs signify, mean?

1. ‘Filling a void’ (demand) or ‘pushing open space’ (supply)

2. Greater numbers = greater complexity?3. Quantitative expansion and qualitative change?4. Beginning of more fundamental shift in organizational

form? Something new?5. Emergence of new power relations, policy regimes at

global level? Something different?

The Answers (in staccato)So …?

1. ‘Filling a void’ or ‘pushing open space’ Both, but increasingly more filling than pushing.

2. Greater numbers implies greater complexity – quantitative expansion, qualitative change? Both, but the latter is really what’s important now.

3. Beginning of more fundamental shift in organizational form? Yes, indeed.

4. Emergence of new power relations, policy regimes at global level? Complicated…but rather likely, and full of uncertainty…

Great Diversity of OrganisationsLarge scale charities: Oxfam, CARE, Save the Children, World VisionReligious organisations: Catholic Church, IslamNGOs as advocacy groups: GreenPeace, HRWNetworks: Jubilee 2000, Campaign Against Landmines Movements: Environmental, peace, anti-globalisationFoundations: Ford, Soros, Aga KhanFriends of…/support groups, transnational fundraisingDiaspora groups etc

…numerous ways of classifying NGOs…

Form matters:The case of Jubilee 2000•Initially adopted social movement form, little central coordination, dispersed resources, decentral information management

•This was good for growth period, but with 24 million members, organizational problems set in: over-reach, mission dilution, scape-goating, failure to detect problems early, dissent etc

•Lack of control, reduced legitimacy and effectiveness

‘Launched in 1961, Amnesty International has today more than 1,000,000 members, subscribers and regular donors in more than 140 countries and territories. The organisation’s nerve centre is the International Secretariat in London, with more than 320 members of staff and over 100 volunteers from more than 50 countries around the world. The movement consists of more than 7,500 local, youth & student, and professional Amnesty International groups registered at the International Secretariat plus several thousand other youth & student groups, specialist groups, networks and co-ordinators in nearly 100 countries and territories throughout the world. There are nationally organised sections in 56 countries, and pre-section co-ordinating structures in another 23 countries and territories worldwide. (from AI website)

Friends of the Earth International (FoE) is a federation of 61 groups, with an international secretariat and an executive committee to oversee the operations between bi-annual General Assembly meetings. It is a federation of membership organisations, i.e., its membership base is primarily organisational; individual members join at the national level. Together the FoE federation of member organisations combines about 5,000 local groups and 1 million members.

FoE is highly decentralised network of autonomous organisations.

About half of the member organisations use the name FoE,

others prefer names in local languages.

Entry into the federation is a very strict process based on wide criteria with internal democracy at its centre. Applicant organisations must be membership-based, have clear internal democratic procedures, including a representative board. They must also be independent from religious and political affiliations, dedicated to national and international issues and work on more than one environmental area. After a first administrative screening, applications are subsequently submitted to the International Executive Committee that meets three times per year. If considered suitable, the IEC will then submit the application to the Annual General Meeting for final approval. Normally some 50 organisations will apply and only one or two be approved.

The Coalition against Child Soldiers “was founded by six international NGOs – Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Save the Children Alliance, Jesuit Refugee Service, the Quaker United Nations Office - Geneva, and International Federation Terre des Hommes – and later joined by Defence for Children International, World Vision International, and regional NGOs from Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Pacific. The Coalition has also established partners and national coalitions which are engaged in advocacy, campaigns and public education in nearly 40 countries ... The Coalition has established and maintained active links with UNICEF, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNHCHR and the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict.”

What we see is

Significant growth in numbersSignificant growth in numbers

Expansion of scale, scopeExpansion of scale, scope

Complex organizationsComplex organizations

Increasingly global networksIncreasingly global networks

KEY ISSUE 2

Problems Problems

……old and new…old and new…

Basic IssuesMembership, clientsMembership, clientsGovernance, AccountabilityGovernance, AccountabilityInformation and decision-makingInformation and decision-makingLegitimacyLegitimacyCosts and revenue issuesCosts and revenue issues

NGOs found different answers…NGOs found different answers…

Membership, Ownership

Member vs. client, customer, usersMember vs. client, customer, usersMembership-ownedMembership-owned (AI, FoE), members as (AI, FoE), members as demos, community, voters demos, community, voters internal internal democracy, participation okay, but external democracy, participation okay, but external accountability as issueaccountability as issueMembership-supportedMembership-supported (GP, HRW), (GP, HRW), members as resource, clients, little influence on members as resource, clients, little influence on governance governance internal and external internal and external accountability / transparency as issueaccountability / transparency as issue

Membership vs. Clients

Membership-ownedMembership-owned: higher costs and : higher costs and benefits associated with membership; benefits associated with membership; higher management costs, but higher management costs, but democracy as valuedemocracy as valueMember-supportedMember-supported: greater : greater accountability & transparency costs, but accountability & transparency costs, but cause-related value base helps (sorting)cause-related value base helps (sorting)

Governance

Need for step-wise gradual Need for step-wise gradual representation from national to representation from national to internationalinternationalDilemmas: organizational (national) Dilemmas: organizational (national) vs individual membership or:vs individual membership or:

One person – one vote vs one One person – one vote vs one organization one vote?organization one vote?Are all members alike?Are all members alike?

Participation

Free-riding, noncommitted vs. devotees Free-riding, noncommitted vs. devotees (Olson vs. Michels) (Olson vs. Michels) control by elite control by elite activistsactivists

.2% of members attend FoE general .2% of members attend FoE general assemblyassemblyIFRC, Strategy 2010 (middle class bias, IFRC, Strategy 2010 (middle class bias, shrinking membership pool)shrinking membership pool)

Democracy and legitimacy

Two solutions:Two solutions:Increase active membership, democratic Increase active membership, democratic participation to strengthen legitimacy, participation to strengthen legitimacy, accepting negative effects on revenue base accepting negative effects on revenue base allegiance to organization (AI, FoE) allegiance to organization (AI, FoE)Emphasize transparency of decision-Emphasize transparency of decision-making, accepting greater information to making, accepting greater information to reach passive members reach passive members no-vote, no-vote, identity politics (GP, WWF, HRW)identity politics (GP, WWF, HRW)

Centralization vs. Decentralization

Persistent Issue in Organizational DesignPersistent Issue in Organizational DesignAt local level, where information is greatest, At local level, where information is greatest, but collective action capacity weakest?but collective action capacity weakest?At international level, where information is At international level, where information is weakest but collective action capacity greatest? weakest but collective action capacity greatest?

Federation as model, experimentationFederation as model, experimentation

Many NGOs in constant search mode, Many NGOs in constant search mode, reorganization, seeking balance in structure and reorganization, seeking balance in structure and cost implications (coordination, communication, cost implications (coordination, communication, information, decision-making etc)information, decision-making etc)

Costs and Revenue

Reduction in cost of organizing, Reduction in cost of organizing, mobilizing, communicatingmobilizing, communicatingICT also implies less central controlICT also implies less central controlLeveling effect – cost reduction Leveling effect – cost reduction benefit all potentiallybenefit all potentiallyRevenue problems persist (NGOs as Revenue problems persist (NGOs as multi-product, multi-revenue firms, multi-product, multi-revenue firms, cross-subsidization)cross-subsidization)

KEY ISSUE 3

DIFFERENTIATIONDIFFERENTIATION

General Thesis I

The tensions between needs and opportunities, and the constraints of existing organizational forms create a push towards differentiation and innovation, leading to ‘hybrids’ and, ultimately, to the emergence of new organizational forms

General Thesis II

To a significant extent, NGO form developments follow that of corporations: from unitary to multi-divisional forms at the national and international levels (scale and scope expansion), to network forms at increasingly transnational, global levels (differentiated expansion).

Traditional NGOs•Headquartered in North (London, New York, Paris, Geneva, Brussels, Amsterdam)•Affiliates in several countries (mostly OECD)•Operations in South (Africa, LA, Asia)•Resource dependencies (North – South flows)•Legitimacy, accountability (Northern-based and interpreted)•Hierarchies (modeled after bureaucracy)•Information flows (chronic problem, cost)•Stakeholders (politically effective ones located in North, e.g., International Campaign Against Landmines, US-EU problems)

New Emerging NGOs•Multiple headquarter structures•Federation, experimentation with decentralised forms•Operations in North and South•Devolved organizations•Stakeholders in North and South

But, at the same time:

•Persistent resource dependencies, revenue dilemmas•Information flow problems despite cost reductions•Accountability and transparency problems•Complex legitimacy issues due to transnationalism

The Challenge: Organisational Constraints Facing NGOs

•Multiple constituencies/stakeholder•Multiple jurisdictions•Multiple cultures•Different governance and accountability requirements•Mismatch between needs and resource base (North/South)

how to manage tension between organizational task environment and organizational form

Form and Form Characteristics

Unitary Form

Multi-Divisional Form

Network Organization

Flexibility, autonomy, multi-unit

Hierarchy, centralization, predictability, stability

NGO Diversity

U-Form:U-Form: large charities, tradit. unions, large charities, tradit. unions, Catholic Church, non-profit hospitalsCatholic Church, non-profit hospitals

M-Form:M-Form: decentralized NGOs eg CARE, decentralized NGOs eg CARE, GreenPeace, HRW, nonprofit universitiesGreenPeace, HRW, nonprofit universities

N/M-Form: N/M-Form: Oxfam Int’l, FOE, AIOxfam Int’l, FOE, AI N-Form:N-Form: ICBL, Jubilee 2000, soc. ICBL, Jubilee 2000, soc.

movementsmovements

Network OrganizationAdvantages include:

Knowledge edge Knowledge edge Lower transaction costs, faster decisions Lower transaction costs, faster decisions Tap into more, diverse revenue sourcesTap into more, diverse revenue sources Networks of specialistsNetworks of specialists

so better problem solving & innovation so better problem solving & innovation Greater autonomy, subsidiarityGreater autonomy, subsidiarity Ease of stakeholder consultationEase of stakeholder consultation

Single issue NGOs; Northern-centered; Simple radial structure, single headquarter, centralised

More complex goal structure; relative simple structure, plus associates, single headquarter, North centered

More complex, single headquarter, transnational steering groups, working group design built in; broader consultative structure

Regional headquarters, national committees, federate structure

Maps from Hagai

Multiple headquarters, highly complex design, federation,Decentralised, potentially network organisation

New Organizational Forms

A)A) Federation Federation – bumble-bee structure– bumble-bee structure B)B) Forums as new form Forums as new form C)C) Internet-based “dot-causes” – a differentiation Internet-based “dot-causes” – a differentiation

in global organizing based on innovations in IT in global organizing based on innovations in IT (and associated cost reductions!)(and associated cost reductions!)

Federations: service providersFederations: service providers Forums, net: advocacyForums, net: advocacy

The Bumble Bee Federation has this particular name after the complex and has this particular name after the complex and

evolving interactions between HQ and affiliatesevolving interactions between HQ and affiliates In this structure affiliates are given increased power In this structure affiliates are given increased power

as they prove their reliabilityas they prove their reliability As an affiliate joins the federation it will be under As an affiliate joins the federation it will be under

close supervision by the international coreclose supervision by the international core As it demonstrates commitment, reliability it As it demonstrates commitment, reliability it

acquires more autonomy and a greater voice in the acquires more autonomy and a greater voice in the federationfederation

Trust building, incentives linked to voiceTrust building, incentives linked to voice, , autonomyautonomy

Enter the Dot-Causes…

‘‘Space’ for NGOs also available for non-Space’ for NGOs also available for non-NGOs such as dot.causes, web-based NGOs such as dot.causes, web-based forums of activists of all kinds and many forums of activists of all kinds and many purposes.purposes.

Web for communication, mobilization and Web for communication, mobilization and organizationorganization

Rise of social forumsRise of social forums

Examples of Dot-Causes…

Free Burma Campaign 1995/6Free Burma Campaign 1995/6 Shell / Ogoniland campaign 1996Shell / Ogoniland campaign 1996 MAI, ’97/8; Zapatistas, ICBLMAI, ’97/8; Zapatistas, ICBL From From Bricks & MortarBricks & Mortar orgs, e.g. ICBL orgs, e.g. ICBL To To Clicks without MortarClicks without Mortar e.g. ATTAC, e.g. ATTAC,

Wombles, Globalize ResistanceWombles, Globalize Resistance

Protest.Net is a collective of activists who are working together to create our own media. By publishing a public record of our political activities on the web we are taking a stand against the established media. We are standing up and showing that serious activism is alive and well at the dawn of the 21st century. Everyday from Kansas to India activists are meeting, organizing, and protesting to demand a better world for all. When the corporate media takes note of our activities it is only to spit upon our struggle. We are accused of being misinformed bleading heart hooligans with nothing better to do than march up and down blocking traffic. Yet the rich get richer, and we are told to be complacent, to wait for our due. They say the environment isn't being destroyed, it's ok to kill millions of Iraqi's with vindictive sanctions, that the billions living in slums just need to work harder, that global domination by a corporate elite is the only way. Activists around the world are fighting for a better world. We can't rely on the media establishment to cover our movements. We will rise up and seize the means of communication!

Attac International

…the creation of the "international movement for democratic control of financial markets and their institutions" wants to respond to that dynamic. Referring to the platform, it forms a network, with neither "hierarchical" structures nor a geographical "center". Pluralist, it is enriched by the variety of its components and makes the common action easier without limiting it in any way, nor dictating their freedom of contribution. It aims to reinforce, to link and to coordinate, at an international level, the contribution of all of its partners who see themselves as fitting within the structure of its platform. In the same way, it wishes to reinforce its cooperation with all the other networks whose objectives converge with its own.

‘‘Who is in charge of Who is in charge of Subversive Enterprises, Int'lSubversive Enterprises, Int'l.? .? No one. … Each member is responsible for their own No one. … Each member is responsible for their own actions, and their own leadership. …No one is higher actions, and their own leadership. …No one is higher than anyone else. No one is lower than anyone else. We than anyone else. No one is lower than anyone else. We are a network, not a bureaucracy. Feel free to consider are a network, not a bureaucracy. Feel free to consider yourself a member right now. …. The only reason this yourself a member right now. …. The only reason this "organization" was formed, was that we hoped that "organization" was formed, was that we hoped that individuals like yourself (-selves) might be more individuals like yourself (-selves) might be more encouraged to take action if you knew that there were encouraged to take action if you knew that there were others out there like you, with similar interests and goals. others out there like you, with similar interests and goals. You want to start you own chapter/branch/franchise of You want to start you own chapter/branch/franchise of Subversive Enterprises, Int'l.? Go right ahead. We Subversive Enterprises, Int'l.? Go right ahead. We would prefer that your agendas be somewhat compatible would prefer that your agendas be somewhat compatible with ours, but anything goes.’ (Subversive Enterprises with ours, but anything goes.’ (Subversive Enterprises International URL)International URL)

Dot-causes and the Anti-Globalization Movement Not dependent on leaders, ‘anarchic but Not dependent on leaders, ‘anarchic but

professional’professional’ ‘‘Don’t Don’t needneed them’; them’; resistresist them them

VirtualVirtual orgs; shared language / culture; but orgs; shared language / culture; but little face timelittle face time Little continuity or trust-buildingLittle continuity or trust-building

Planning by web or haphazard meetingsPlanning by web or haphazard meetings Little common strategy development Little common strategy development

Which means …

Interpreters, forumInterpreters, forum of Movement, not of Movement, not leadersleaders

““Protest Mall” – or carnival – effectProtest Mall” – or carnival – effect No common platform or shared visionNo common platform or shared vision

Movement of one big NO, many YESSESMovement of one big NO, many YESSES Dilemma for traditional NGOsDilemma for traditional NGOs

To engage or keep their distance?To engage or keep their distance? Tactical free-for-all (issue of violence)Tactical free-for-all (issue of violence)

The Global Governance Problem

How will NGOs and Dot.Causes relate?How will NGOs and Dot.Causes relate? How will UN-system and NGOs relate?How will UN-system and NGOs relate? How will conventional politics and How will conventional politics and

Dot.Causes relate?Dot.Causes relate? The role of TNCsThe role of TNCs New social movements, backlash against New social movements, backlash against

NGOs, regressive globalizationNGOs, regressive globalization

So NGOS are changing, but are they here to stay? YesYes, but…, but… Policy scenarios in a weakly-coupled, Policy scenarios in a weakly-coupled,

weakly-centered international political weakly-centered international political arena in era of economic globalizationarena in era of economic globalization

US – EU - ChinaUS – EU - China Future of international welfare regimeFuture of international welfare regime Value – structure gap in global civil societyValue – structure gap in global civil society

KEY ISSUE 4

Complex FutureComplex Future

Four main arguments in International Relations

Revival of ‘nation state thinking’ in neo Revival of ‘nation state thinking’ in neo conservative US world of post 9/11conservative US world of post 9/11

Widespread failure of many states in Widespread failure of many states in Africa, Central Asia (but: CEE success)Africa, Central Asia (but: CEE success)

Rise of EU as ‘Kantian power’Rise of EU as ‘Kantian power’ Rise of China as ‘etatist’ economic powerRise of China as ‘etatist’ economic power

Two main arguments / policy approaches (domestic, international)

New Public ManagementNew Public Management

Neo Tocqevillian ideas / Neo Tocqevillian ideas / initiativesinitiatives

The rise of nonprofit organisations as service-providers as part of public-private partnerships and under the rubric of new public management and the rise of markets and quasi-markets in areas that have hitherto been part of the welfare state (plus new needs).

A simple equation:

less government = less bureaucracy = more flexibility = greater efficiency

(and perhaps greater effectiveness as well).

Whatever happened to equity?

The (re)discovery of civil society, and the growing awareness among policymakers that the very social fabric of society is changing. Call for civic renewal at national level / UN/WB/EU stress civil society / citizenship

A simple equation:

more engagement = more trust =

good citizens = good economy

and more social cohesionWhatever happened to the state?

Five Scenarios

National levelNational level International levelInternational level- Unilateralist context (US dominant)Unilateralist context (US dominant)- Bipolar context (US, EU)Bipolar context (US, EU)- Tripolar context (US, EU, China)Tripolar context (US, EU, China)- Number of failed statesNumber of failed states- Economic conditions of organizingEconomic conditions of organizing

NPM-Scenario:

NGOs as the set of well-organised, corporate entities that take on tasks and functions previously part of the state administration and international

organizations, but now delivered through competitive bidding processes and contractual

arrangements that try to maximise the competitive advantages of nonprofit providers in complex

regional, national and international social markets under state / IO tutelage.

The NPM guru’s delight == China?

Social Capital Scenario:

NGOs as the self-organising ‘quasi-state’ apparatus of the 21st century, as part of a benign civil society, with high levels of individualism, participation and ‘connectivity’, that prevents

social ills, detects and corrects them before they become ‘social problems’ well-coordinated, at

arm’s length, with and by a minimalist, technocratic state, both nationally and

internationally

The Dahrendorf warning as nightmare == US?.

Liberal Scenario

NGOs as a source of dissent, challenge and innovation, as a counter-veiling force to

government and the corporate business firms (TNCs)—a sector that serves as a social, cultural and political watchdog keeping both market and state in check, a sector that creates and reflects diversity and pluralism and dynamism of the

modern world.

Gellner’s promise == EU?

The Corporate Scenario

The ‘corporatisation’ of NGOs and the expansion of business into local and global civil

society; corporation use extended social responsibility programmes to provide, jointly

with nonprofits, services previously in the realm of government (e.g., health care, child care, and pensions etc but also community services more

widely), and the international community.

Perrow’s frightful insight == failed states?

The Mellow Weakness Scenario:

NGOs are encouraged to operate in areas or problem fields that politicians find either too costly relative to payoffs (actual, opportunity

costs) or inopportune to tackle themselves, which allows them to pretend that ‘something is being

done.’ NGOs are the fig leave for a political world unwilling to solve social problems in a serious

way. NGOs under mild state / IO tutelage.

The Cynics of the World United.

What shall it be?