THE PROCESS-BASED ASSESSMENT AND NGDOS
3.3 Why Look at NGDOs
Debates about NGDOs have long been marked with paradoxical arguments and discussions. On the one hand research studies have commended NGDOs for their values of participatory approaches in reaching the poor, accountability to stakeholders, empowerment of local communities, policy advocacy in the interests of the poor and powerless and their role as catalysts of development (Brown 1992; Fowler 1997; Staudt 1991). On the other (sometimes by the same researchers) they come under heavy criticism for the lack of these same values (Adair 1999; Fowler 2000; Holloway 1998; Stirrat & Henkel 1997; Streeten 1997).
The arguments and subsequent conclusions that these and other observers have drawn about what NGDOs do and are able to achieve, are often an assessment of both the outcomes of NGDO field projects, and their organisational policies, strategies and managerial capabilities (or lack thereof). In other words, the field projects in addition to providing the intended assistance to target groups, act as a mirror through which the actions of NGDOs are assessed by stakeholders and observers, and comparisons drawn between actual outcomes (both the tangible and intangible), and intentions and values. In
some cases, mismatches have been noted between intentions and outcomes, resulting in criticisms against the claims made by NGDOs about their achievements.
Some of the NGDO values that have been put to the test are illustrated in the examples below.
Streeten (1997:559) in discussing the role of NGDOs in economic development looks at some of their project work in developing countries and comments:
Among the drawbacks of (donor) NGOs are objectives that are sometimes vague, management problems, lack of accountability, low replicability, their small size which means they reach few people (fewer than claimed), and the poorest are not among them.
Holloway (1998) and Adair (1999) question the acclaimed credibility of NGDOs. Holloway (1998:93) questions the moral high ground that NGOs have enjoyed for a long time and discusses the pressures they face, particularly in fundraising. He identifies some of the corruption issues that NGOs have been involved in, such as designing fraudulent proposals for funding, being formed for the sole purpose of capturing funding available from government, or being a “gun for hire” – contracting on any job for which funding is available. Holloway observes that NGDOs need to fight these forms of corruption if they are to stay afloat and regain public trust – a prerequisite for effectiveness.
Adair (1999:26) in arguing for NGO codes of conduct notes that:
When the integrity and credibility of an organisation are under challenge, the organisation has to demonstrate by its actions that it continues to be worthy of public support. It is not enough to proclaim innocence and virtue…Legitimate concerns have been raised about the secrecy, sources and application of funds, management procedures and practices, corporate governance and lack of democratic processes within some prominent NGOs.
Stirrat and Henkel (1997) and Fowler (1998) raise the issue of partnerships between the donor and recipient NGDOs. Donor NGDOs like to represent their activities in terms of partnerships. ‘Partnership is intended to be an equality in ways of working and mutuality in respect for identity, position and role’ (Fowler 1998:141). For donors, the great advantage of the model of partnership is legitimation in that it allows them to claim a certain authenticity: “We are of and for the people”. Moreover, as partners whose identities are subsumed with each other, the lines of accountability are blurred: who is accountable to whom (Stirrat & Henkel 1997:559).
However, a closer observation shows that this intended partnership has not worked as planned. No matter the degree to which common identity is asserted, there is still an asymmetry between givers and receivers, and the one who pays the piper not only calls the tune, but also attempts to make sure that it is performed. Old identities re-emerge, old lines of differentiation reassert themselves (Stirrat & Henkel 1997:559). Rather than both parties gaining in terms of credibility, legitimacy, autonomy, economic viability, effectiveness, influence and leverage within their respective societies, one — usually the donor NGDO — gains more than the other (Fowler 1998:141).
These criticisms are valid because they point to the fact that there is an apparent variance between NGDO values and practice, and also demonstrate that part of that variance may be attributed to organisational functions such as the management of development programs, fundraising, accountability, and the legitimacy of donor NGDOs.
These examples support the issue raised in the introductory chapter that managerial and organisational aspects of donor NGDOs are important to acknowledge and examine because they allow the donor NGDOs to be critically scrutinised, and their contribution to the overall development processes critically assessed (Wallace 2000).
To enable a comprehensive assessment of NGDO organisational factors, a framework is required, that facilitates an in-depth analysis to examine how, why and where variances between intentions and outcomes occur, and respond to them. The model for a process-based assessment discussed in Chapter Two provides a framework for conducting such an analysis. With its emphasis on both the transactional component that defines the relationship between an organisation and its external environment, and the transformational component that defines the processes involved within an organisation, the model facilitates an examination of NGDO activities to identify where inadequacies may lie. The outcome of such an examination would be the development of a framework to guide the implementation of improved management practices for NGDOs.
3.4 Defining Development
One of the aims of the current study is to develop a conceptual framework for a critical analysis of processes in NGDOs to guide in the implementation of good
development practices. In the context of NGDOs, however, what does the term ‘development’ mean?
Multiple interpretations of the term ‘development’ and approaches to ‘delivering development’ exist making definition difficult. On the one hand it is synonymous with ‘progress’ and on the other with the intentional efforts to ‘ameliorate the disordered faults of progress’ (Cowen & Shenton 1996:7).
Hettne (1995:15) argues that to a large extent, development ought to be contextually defined, and should be an open-ended concept, to be constantly redefined as an understanding of the process deepens. This view of development as contextually defined is supported by Preston (1996) who perceives development as an ethico-political notion, and that what is going to count as development will inevitably depend upon circumstance-sensitive and problem-specific analyses. What is going to count as development will have to be locally determined. Thus, ‘there can be no fixed and final definition of development, only suggestions of what development should imply in particular contexts’ (Hettne 1995:15).
The ambiguity and relativity of the development concept is further deepened by the fact that according to Toye (1987:10), the definition of development depends on the values of the person doing the defining, as well as on facts that are in principle falsifiable. Cowen and Shenton (1996:4), also note that, ‘development comes to be defined in a multiplicity of ways because there is a multiplicity of “developers” who are entrusted with the task of development.’ However, only some of these ‘developers’ have sufficient power for their interpretation of ‘development’ to be effectively imposed on others (Thomas 2000b:774). In spite of the ambiguity, Edwards (1999), Escobar (1995), Esteva (1992) and Ferguson (1994) note that development aims to achieve an improvement in people’s lives, and appreciate its significance.
Other scholars and practitioners have tried to package the development concept in ways that provide for development programs and activities to be defined. The Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) (2000a:251), for example, defines development as:
A comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process which
aims at the constant improvement of the wellbeing of the entire
population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of the benefits resulting therefrom. [Emphasis added].
In their definition, Turner and Hulme (1997:11) provide a six-point definition of what they envisage should constitute development. Development encompasses:
• An economic component dealing with the creation of wealth and
improved conditions of material life, equitably distributed;
• A social ingredient measured as well-being in health, education, housing
and employment;
• A political dimension including such values as human rights, political
• A cultural dimension in recognition of the fact that cultures confer identity and self-worth to people;
• A full-life paradigm, which refers to meaningful systems, symbols, and
beliefs concerning the ultimate meaning of life and history; and
• A commitment to ecologically sound and sustainable development so
that the present generation does not undermine the position of future generations.
In synthesising varying definitions of development, Thomas (2000b:777) suggests that there are three main senses of the term ‘development’. These are:
(i) As a vision, description or measure of the state of being in a desirable
society;
(ii) As an historical process of social change in which societies are
transformed over long periods;
(iii) As consisting of deliberate efforts aimed at improvement on the part of various agencies, including governments, all kinds of organisations and social movements [Emphasis in original].
In defining development, Thomas (2000b:776) also distinguishes between ‘immanent’ development which is inherent development and ‘intentional’ development which forms the deliberate policy and actions of states and development agencies.
The definition of development as ‘intentional’ development has brought about with it the concept of ‘trusteeship’. Trusteeship means one agency is ‘entrusted’ to act on behalf of another, in this case to try and ensure the ‘development’ of the other. Trusteeship may be taken on by one agency on behalf of another without ‘the other’ asking ‘to be developed’ or even being aware that the intention to ‘develop’ them exists (Thomas 2000b:784). A number of agencies have taken on this trusteeship role including NGDOs at the local, national and international levels, as well as other international organisations such as the
World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and various United Nations (UN) agencies.
Questions have been asked as to whose interests these development agencies represent. Theoretically, the interests of those being developed should be represented through the actions of the agency entrusted with acting on their behalf. But whether it does that, and does it in ways that demonstrate accountability remains a general problem. Zadek (1996:30) indicates that:
The trustee model was legitimate only until it was really tested. It could not withstand the pressures of a complex matrix of activities involving large volumes of resources, and major conflicts of interest regarding the use of those resources. Most of all, it became the subject of challenge the moment the overall legitimacy of the agencies claiming trusteeship became open to doubt.
While these definitions are by no means exhaustive, they draw on some general themes of development as a long-term process aimed at changing or improving the lives of all those living under unsatisfactory conditions, and with a set of actors guiding the process. The definition by Thomas (2000b) of development as intentional and the trusteeship model discussed by Thomas (2000b) and Zadek (1996) brings out the questions raised at the beginning of this chapter on the legitimacy, accountability and management of NGDOs in delivering development assistance, and the need to examine NGDO activities.
More specifically, these definitions bring together six aspects about development that are relevant to the present study. These are the development goal, duration, scope, outreach, environment and the facilitators of the development process. These are summarised and discussed in the next section.