Interesting discussion! it's newest turn speaks to an old debate… whether professionalization tames social movements. But I think that already this debate neglected the fact that the power of social movements in general stems from the interplay of various players (NGOs, grassroot organizations, also parties, state actors, mobilized individuals, etc.) in the context of larger movement campaigns. If highly professionalized NGOs as well as grassroot-groups get involved in common issue campaigns, they may strengthen each other mutually (one side by bringing in resources - financial, human as well as knowledge - and the other side by raising the attention to the issue through unconventional actions). If you want to find out, how strong the progressive capacity of those NGOs on the drip of northern governments is, you should watch out for the processes that lay the base for such larger movement campaigns – e.g. their involvement in the development of themes, frames and claims that (may) contribute to develop common agendas for change.

There are NGOs in virtually every sector of human-centric discourse. In as much as it deals with human- welfare, development, politics, standard of living, growth etc.

The only constant in life is change, however, change is championed by innovative thinking.

The future of NGOs is progressive is they start becoming innovative in thought pattern and output. Development, being key to world politics in present times have seen Development NGOs rise up to the task.

Innovation will however see this new NGOs through to achieve great feats.

An NGO that I follow up on recently is SMWI (Success Motivational World Initiative) on Facebook and _successworld_ on Instagram and at www.successmotivationalworld.org, the kind of energy they possess as an NGO with unearthed innovation in the realm is next to none.

The changes are inevitable as the new generation of youth are vexed with their older generation and feel they can do better. This revolutional fuel will aid the growth of Development NGO.

Did I answer the question, please?

in essence, NGOs are social organizations scattered in all fields. the movement of NGOs should help an organization especially the government in overcoming all the problems that arise. many NGOs are only able to criticize and blame a policy but are unable to provide the right solution. Yes, true ... many members of NGOs do not have competent human resources in their field. discussing the future of NGOs, then improving the quality of Human Resources NGOs that must be done properly

That's the reason I'm interested in the innovations of the NGOs. "You can't give what you do not have", in essence, the NGOs should be faced with the responsibility of building a viable team within. Leadership and mentoring will not be a bad idea for NGOs afterall. They must become innovative to create contents within that will affect their workings without.

Thanks.

That is a very interesting debate you are opening up there. Thanks both of you.

Ibukuntomiwa I think you are advocating a professionalisation of NGOs so that they can be more innovative yes? Mahameru you also refer to HR deficiencies.

Is this the only or even the main problem with development NGOs? What about their close relation to Northern governments and financial institutions like the World Bank?

Hmmn... That's something noteworthy.

I believe that the involvement of this organization in NGOs is a way they feel they can give back to their host countries. Tentatively, I believe this organization have at some point posed as Sharks some of this NGO host countries. I stand to be corrected however. History had shown the excesses and involvements of the IBRD (World Bank) and IMF in third world government, influencing policies and dynamics which is responsible to an extent, for where these countries are today.

I believe it's sort of a give back mechanism to allow for development in these countries by visionary groups (NGOs) rather than the same government that they have helped to grow corrupt. So instead of giving to the government which will be shared amongst the ruling class as they must have observed, they choose to give to individuals and groups with the desire and vision to help the populace growth thereby yielding development

I get that OK but how can an outside agency decide who are the 'good guys' and who not? They might be visionary but they are also a business in a sense aren't they?

Some useful points above! The original question was on NGOS playing a progressive role into the future. The answer surely is context specific.

The question treats NGOs as a globally unified whole, when in reality, they have multiple diverse and even contradictory characteristics. The best way to view this is in the essence of the Latin American 'theology of liberation', whereby the Roman Catholic church allies with Marxist urban guerillas, well illustrated in Greene's 'Honorary Consul'.

So it is necessary to 'unpackage' NGOs at local, national, regional and global levels, as well as by sectors and socio-economic and political contexts.

Further, the ideological commitment of the NGO-ists might be an even more important concern that the HR capacity. I live in context where the victorious activists of the 2nd liberation became the new, virile oppressors!

Yes very much what I was trying to get at

We do indeed need to unpack NGOs which are very different

In my area Latin America there have been both transformative bottom up ones and others financed from abroad that have not had a good effect.

I suspect similar in East Africa where I know only Mozambique?

Indeed NGOs are a strong force for social change particularly in developing countries. NGOs intervene in a number of laggard areas such as gender empowerment, poverty alleviation, empowerment generation,polical empowerment and even issues of human rights protection to mention but this few. They act as social movements and a few are engaged in skill training for their recipients. In situation where most developing countries are experiencing or constraints with lack of financial and economic resources, to undertake development programs,NGOs have fill in the gap and intervene in executing a number of plan socioeconomic activities. This is particularly the case of Nigeria where NGOs have become a source of livelihood and sustenance for the people.

Definitely, NGOs a force for social change or part of the problem. For example environmental pollution plays an important role in these problems.

Güney, T. (2015). Environmental sustainability and pressure groups. Quality

Quantitiy.

Drews, Stefan, Miklós Antal, and Jeroen CJM van den Bergh. Challenges in

Assessing Public Opinion on Economic Growth Versus

Environment: Considering European and US Data. Ecological

Economics 146.

You should not analyse every aspect of government and development as unprogressive. even when NGOs play a crucial part in these projects, they can make a lot of (good) difference. Neve the less, if NGOs wish to make a deep diffeence they need power and resources, what means creating relations with political actors with political interests. that makes the NGO concept inherently vaulnerable - only those with "comfortable" agendas are sponsored, grow and gain influence and publicity.

If NGOs wish to confront hegemonic structures they have to interact with wider movements and institutions that support such resistance. they can defenitively become a radical power - but then again, the further they reach, they will again have to align with other powerfull interests for aid.

As pointed out by Ibukuntomiwa Folorunso there are NGOs across all sectors. If you are referring to NGOs normally associated with social change movements then I think first you need to classify the NGOs so that the ones that are the focus of the question can be more precisely identified. Not all NGOs are part of social movements (in fact, the vast majority are not). The ones that have been associated with social movements, such as environmental movements, have become institutionalised to a lesser or greater extent over the decades in all countries. Even Green politics has become institutionalised and oligarchical - an issue that I am very much concerned about in the context of Australia. Conversely, some NGOs and movements are very informal and spasmodic in their activities (eg, peace and anti-nuclear movements).

Yes right

from Latin America the ngos on the whole are part of an international power politics

we would call the more grass roots organizations social movement organisations Social Movement Organisations or SMOs

so we seem to agree that NGOs are not a homogeneous set of entities. We might say that they are torn between the state/international order and the social movements which are not homogeneous either but that’s another story

For further on SMOs see my thesis - Thesis Access to Power: The Organisational Structure of the Wildern...

Excellent!

Interesting discussion! it's newest turn speaks to an old debate… whether professionalization tames social movements. But I think that already this debate neglected the fact that the power of social movements in general stems from the interplay of various players (NGOs, grassroot organizations, also parties, state actors, mobilized individuals, etc.) in the context of larger movement campaigns. If highly professionalized NGOs as well as grassroot-groups get involved in common issue campaigns, they may strengthen each other mutually (one side by bringing in resources - financial, human as well as knowledge - and the other side by raising the attention to the issue through unconventional actions). If you want to find out, how strong the progressive capacity of those NGOs on the drip of northern governments is, you should watch out for the processes that lay the base for such larger movement campaigns – e.g. their involvement in the development of themes, frames and claims that (may) contribute to develop common agendas for change.

Michelle yes absolutely. Some very interesting tracks to investigate there for sure. I do wonder if professionalisati for ngos means the same as it did for classic social movements like the labor movement? Also is the main problem with even progressive ngos that they are not democratic internally as for example labour is even if that democracy is quite corrupted?

anyway lots of food for thought. Thanks Ronaldo

PS

old book my own in this broad area

Book Globalization and Contestation: The new Great Counter-Movement

I agree with this insightful discussion. I also agree that NGOs are viewed as effective elements in supporting civil society, encouraging citizen participation, and enhancing democracy. And NGOs might aid economically poor governments by providing social, medical, economic among other services to the needy.

But there are problems facing NGOs. For example, in several Muslim countries such as Egypt, Sudan and Turkey, many Islamic NGOs have helped to recruit their recipients or beneficiaries to Islamist ideologies and extreme politics. In addition, some MENA governments manipulate NGOs or restrict their activities to comply with the ideology of statesmen and ruling class.

Ronaldo, your question requires careful thoughts and examination of what is happening with NGOs on the ground in order to provide a substantive answer. There are different types of NGOs, but what quickly comes to our minds when we talk of an NGO is that organization doing some humanitarian work with support from well-wishers usually from outside its country of operation in form of ODA. But there is another kind of NGO which operates with funding from within its country of operation. For example, there are NGOs that operate within the USA whose funding does not come from outside USA. If what you had in mind when you asked your question was the former, here is my opinion.

NGOs that are driven by ODA have not been effective for the most part. While they have made several positive impacts in the global south in terms of literacy boosting, improved health services and human rights promotion among other things, one of the major challenges which eclipses these achievements is dependency. It is important to remember that the idea of NGO was initially designed as a temporary structure to address some problems and create fertile ground for economic growth. Critics of economics argued that GDP growth rate does not imply improvement of living standards, and therefore, proposed human centered approaches to development. Scholars like Sen and Goulet are major contributors to these arguments. Later, we saw a shift of emphasis from economic growth to education, human rights, health and other aspects of development with the assumption that improving education and health as well as human rights would create a more productive social capital which is key to economic growth.

However, governments of the poor countries had no funds for public investment in education, health, etc. This meant that support had to come from outside. ODA became easily accessible, thereby spawning myriad NGOs. For me, all this sounds like a chicken-egg paradox. One might argue that maintaining development emphasis on economic growth would have empowered governments of the poor to fund their own public investment programs without relying on ODA. But Sen and company would challenge that thinking, arguing that economy of a country cannot be sustained without social capital base. Thus, people need freedom to go to school, to access better health services and make choices they want to improve their livelihoods. The only problem with human centered approaches, however, is dependency on ODA. Ideas of Sen and colleagues have been tried, but poverty still remains unabated in most countries like in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Back to your question, it seems the NGO is a problem because it has become an end, not a means anymore. NGOs come to stay rather than address a particular problem. When one project is on the verge of phasing out, they identify another one to attract more grants with the aim of maintaining their existence. That is why we have NGOs which have completely derailed from what they started with. Most NGOs go with what donors are interested in. Employees of NGOs are motivated by earnings rather than altruism. Employment in an NGO is considered a more rewarding career among people who are educated in the global south. If you ask college students today, they will tell you that their future plan is to work in an NGO, and some will actually tell you that they want to start their own NGO. After all, who can ignore easy money which only requires some form of mission statement to access?

That said, the few that are educated in the global south have managed to improve their living standards because of employment in NGOs. But in terms of impact on the ground, there is little to be proud of. In Sub-Saharan Africa, over 70 percent of educated people who are in formal employment are in ODA funded programs. The imminent danger is that with signs of donor fatigue today, the future of ODA is uncertain. What will happen if ODA ceased abruptly?

I am not sure if I answered your question, but these are issues I am pondering upon at them moment. It looks like you are interested in social change

Thanks, Ronaldo, for the link. My thoughts on the issue actually result from a larger project on exactly this movement …

Your latest questions raise the issue of professionalization and internal democracy of groups/organizations. I think Fritz Scharpfs typology of collective and complex actors (in Games Real Actors Play) is quite helpful and simple guide to capture these issues. Internal democracy is possible if an organization is based on a membership-structure and/or some decision-making procedures exist allowing the members to shape the decisions taken in the organization (e.g. consensual agreements, voting or the like). This is probably why we consider labor unions (which are member organizations) to be democratic. But, many NGOs – also in the northern hemisphere – are not membership organizations. They have corporate structures (as Fritz Scharpf would call it), meaning that they are manly run by professional staff and organized in a hierarchical manner.

Nevertheless, these organizations might still be accountable – e.g. to donors, who will stop the funding once the organization does not deliver what is expected – and they may still be progressive and transformative because the staff working there is passionate about a mission.

NGOs might therefore be quite often part of the problem (especially if corruption is a perquisite for the organizations viability) but they might also quite often be part of the solution… It is an empirical issue! And, it should be possible to identify the conditions (e.g. internal structure, way of funding, type of staff, etc.) under which NGOs become more of the solution-type of actors (as well as agents for chance) in development aid and under what conditions this is not the case.

Chrispin I am struck by your sentence

It is important to remember that the idea of NGO was initially designed as a temporary structure to address some problems and create fertile ground for economic growth.

So yes they are a means to an end. Why has economic growth in the Third World generally, bar some exceptions, not taken off?

We might think that International NGOs (INGOs) especially are part of the global power structures that reproduce poverty and inequality no?

Michelle you say

NGOs might therefore be quite often part of the problem (especially if corruption is a perquisite for the organizations viability) but they might also quite often be part of the solution… It is an empirical issue!

Yes I agree its an empirical question. But we are saying now, I think, that NGOs might be both part of the solution while also part of the problem?

No one thinks INGOs are homogeneous, good or bad. But we are advancing towards a more holistic and critical analysis.

Thanks, Ronaldo

Street democracy or manipulated chaos ?!

Dear Cornel Ionescu,

I agree completely with your phrase "Street democracy or manipulated chaos ?!" as "Street democracy will eventually lead to a manipulated chaos".

In my understanding, if to call things by their own names, any NGO that is funded from outside is the so-called Fifth Column, which at the right time and in the right place will be actively used by its sponsors when changing political regimes in countries. This kind of activity we saw very well in the so-called Сolor Revolutions in such countries as:

Yugoslavia (Bulldozer revolution 2000 http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/timeline-the-bulldozer-revolution )

Egypt (Arab Spring 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_2011)

Georgia (Rose Revolution 2003 http://geworld.ge/en/2845/ )

Kyrgyzstan (Tulip Revolution 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_Revolution)

Ukraine (Orange Revolution 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution )

There were also attempts to conduct Color Revolutions in Armenia (2008), Belarus (2010), Russia (2011-2013), but these attempts was failed.

I would agree that so called civil society is very often manipulated from the outside the colour revolutions being a prime example

but is there maybe a ‘real’ civil society in these countries I ask?

Very interesting discussions and mind blowing ideas from commentators up there. As a young scholar and with my interest in the role of NGOs in Humanitarianism and Social Change discussions are insightful.

Pausing to give my comment! It is appreciable the extent of work that NGOs have done especially in the East African region and especially Kenya where I come from. At the mention of Humanitarianism the first thing that comes to mind is the work of that or this NGO in whatever sector (e.g peace, health or education). NGOs in the humanitarian principles I think have assumed the role of spoon-feeding and not the intent of developing capacities. Most NGOs today work to remain in the field than to effect necessary social change for improving local potentialities, and this is where the problem lies.

Whether externally or internally sponsored the role of the NGOs should strictly be to stimulate communities into action, not to help them remain languid expecting help all the time. The problem comes when NGOs are viewed as ultimate answers rather than empower communities to find answers to the problems intrinsically. In my view, the main role for any NGO should be empowerment! In other words, how can societies and states learn to find solutions to their problems internally with little/minimal help from NGOs. Can NGOs play only a peripheral role in such situations instead of taking the lead always. In this way NGOs will become relevant to their purpose!

It would be great to be like that. Unfortunately, we know that things have a different substrate in general. We live in a world of interest, and those who do charity without interest are few. Sure no change comes from here. A happy new year for all of the good faith.

I agree with cornel lonescu. Its easy to say NGOs "should" empower communities etc. We can say the state should do so if we're thinking marxist or that the individual should empower himself if we're in the liberal side...

Never the less the question remains, why would they do so in practice? ideology can only get you so far, especially when you need resources.

the answer, when implied, is congruence of interests..

I agree with both Tomer and Cornel

NGOs are not outside the world of real politik

But could we not also think as Joel does on what NGOs or social movements should do?

That would be a normative, not scientific, question.

Well well is that distinction so clear cut really?

I insist on asking why is such a question even important?

NGOs are just one certain organizational framework. It has some advantages and some disadvantages, practically speaking.

The "should do" question can be targeted to any other organizational framwork just as well. Why should the state not empower communities, for example? or networks? or international organizations? ... It's a noble goal for every framework... maybe the question is which of them will do better and under what conditions?

NGOs being a democratic arena is just a myth (a neo-liberal one, by the way). For every so called democratic NGO you can find two others, pushing towards regresive goals. We can think about NGO "shoulds" all we want, but we can't stop all other agents and agendas of thinkg the same and acting on their own terms using the vehicle of NGOs.

I myself am researching NGOs networks in Israel. I found an oceans of networked activism, promoting every agenda you can think of. While liberal NGOs partner with Palestinian GROs (budgeted by the EU) to promote a so called democratic agenda, they repeatedly overlap with Islamist and nationalist activism. At the same time the Jewish settlers had created an elaborated NGO network to promote their project, which is considered by many as undemocratic. When networked, they have tremendous influence.

To sum up, NGOs are a just a vehicle - anyone can drive it in any direction it pleases.

NGOs being a democratic arena is just a myth you say Tomer. I agree entirely. See my critique of global civil society myth Chapter Global Civil Society

in Israel /Palestibe you have a true laboratory of ngos of all sorts interacting with social movements so your conclusions will be important

And yes why should the state not empower communities? That would indeed be a neo liberal myth to say that it is impossible

Here's the next Color Revolution in Iran, literally right now, not without the active participation of NGOs from http://inosmi.ru/social/20171231/241131311.html (in Russian).

I extracted only one phrase:

"The not entirely natural and spontaneous nature of the protests is also indicated by the fact that their organizers include all the "same familiar faces" - Non-Governmental Organizations and leaders who have long and tightly cooperated with Washington and not only during the presidential campaign, when the West tried "to sink" Ruhani with all his might, but now, including: Miriam Rajavi, leader of the National Resistance Committee of Iran, the people's organization of the Mujahideen of Iran, Messrs. Hussein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and others".

I agree with Gennady for his insightful feedback particularly the case of recent protests in Iran. So, not all the GNOs and those dealing with them are innocent!!

Dear Munck

Which Palestine that has a true laboratory of ngos of all sorts. Please, clarify this important statement.

Not wanting to obscure the debate but the use of the term NGO covers a wide range of social/community/political organisations - and obviously they differ enormously across countries and cultures. As Ronaldo Munck started this investigation I think that he should sharpen the focus. Otherwise this whole exercise looks like a 'fishing expedition'.

What’s wrong with fishing expeditions?

ok we have seen how diverse NGOs are eg

GONGOs government organised ngos

and that civil society is not some pure essence standing against an evil state

for me I have learnt from different regions of the world eg color revolutions, where the issues are not at all like is presented in western discourse

thanks all!

When I first went to Kenya, I thought NGOs had played the key role in pushing back against authoritarian rule. But I learned on the ground that NGOs were only part, and probably not the major part. I discovered that a wide range of actors were key: opposition political parties, churches, journalists, mothers, and - a contribution to the literature - individuals. My books on this are available on these links. I recommed Ripples of Hope because is is available on open access.

Full, free text of my latest book (2015): Ripples of Hope: How Ordinary People Resist Repression without Violence, 2015, Amsterdam University Press/University of Chicago Press, available to read, download, or purchase at: http://oapen.org/search?identifier=611225 Also available on Amazon.

My book with Routledge (Peaceful Resistance): https://www.routledge.com/Peaceful-Resistance-Advancing-Human-Rights-and-Democratic-Freedoms/Press/p/book/9781138262539

http://tinyurl.com/lwy5fxm (bio)

http://tinyurl.com/myy3yoc (publications list)

www.loc.gov/rr/amed/pdf/Kenyan Human Rights Interviews/ (My Kenya human rights interviews, Library of Congress

See article on this topic after oxfam and Goal scandals

comments welcome

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ronaldo_Munck/publication/326734564/inline/jsViewer/5b62bf2daca272a2d67b2b80

this article tackles this question after the Oxfam and Goal scandals

comments welcome

Hi Ronaldo

I have long been a critic of the Kantian assumptions surrounding treatments of NGOs by liberal (British, not US definition) and constructivist literatures -- assumptions and actions that then rebound terribly in policies and actions on the ground. In my Mobilization article I actually do archive based process tracing for the case of a labour INGO that throws up the connection with a US-led hegemonic order.

You might also be interested in reading books by Clifford Bob, which investigate these NGO issues in depth. Also of interest for a critique from a postcolonial theory perspective, see Siba Grovogui's books. One of them includes an excellent critique of the 1990s transnational movements literature, incl. Keck and Sikkink.

Best

Antonina

"Formalizing infrastructures, civic networks and production of space: Bedouin informal settlements in Be'er-Sheva metropolis "

My new article in Land Use Policy (together with Avinoam Meir and Nurit Alfasi) on the subject of NGOs and social change. It describes how complex trans-national networks of NGOs were formed to struggle for formalization of informal Bedouin settlements in Be'er-Sheva, Israel. A very interesting and intense conflict unfolded between state agencies and the networks in multiple arenas, and some important achievements were gained . I believe this provides a good answer to the question of whether NGOs can promote social change..

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1X~SE_61Oxp-4F

In a fair governance NGOs are beneficial for a consultative role. If it exceeds this role, it results in anarchy.