YOU ARE HERE:
14. Risks Entailed in Scaling Up NGO Efforts
   Last updated: 16.08.02
 
Over the last several decades, as the role of NGOs in social development has expanded considerably, there have been a number of criticisms of NGOs emerging. Among these are arguments that their impact would be greater if they looked self-critically at both their internal structures and processes as well as their comparative advantage relative to government in particular. These criticisms are instructive in thinking about a process of scaling up which would expand the role of NGOs even further. Some have criticised NGOs for increasingly taking on tasks more appropriate to the state, although they have recognised that this has often been prompted by the prevailing context of structural adjustment and indebtedness in many countries. Ironically, NGOs themselves are often critical of these macro-economic policies yet find themselves increasingly pushed into the role of large-scale service-providers, effectively substituting for the public sector (Edwards and Hulme 1992). Part of this may be attributed to the preference of donors to fund service provision that has concrete and visible outcomes, as opposed to the more political advocacy efforts whose impact is difficult to measure. Yet not only does this shift have a major impact on the institutional culture of the NGO, but it can put them in a very different political role nationally as well as divert the original aims of the organisation.

Perhaps more serious concern has been expressed about what many have observed to be a prevailing tendency for NGOs to become more accountable to their external funders than to their declared constituency. In their book entitled NGOs, States and Donors: Too Close for Comfort? Edwards and Hulme (1997) point to evidence that NGOs are “losing their roots” as they increasingly serve the interests of donors, and to a lesser degree governments, rather than the poor and disempowered whom they set out to help. And this tendency might only be exacerbated by scaling up. Pearce voices a widely held view that: “Without meaningful accountability to their “beneficiaries,” scaling them up could seriously distance them from the poor and their own social structures.” (Pearce 1993). Indeed, despite the rhetoric of NGOs that they represent the interests of their beneficiaries and respond to their needs, there are often few mechanisms to ensure that this is the case. For the most participatory oriented organisations, such needs make themselves felt precisely because the NGO faces the community daily, but as the scale at which NGOs operate increases, such close interaction, and consequently the scope for participation, may be reduced.

Several authors have pointed to the fact that this increasingly influential relationship between donors and NGOs often creates processes whereby the structures and values of the NGO come to mirror those of the funding organisation (Charlton 1995; Fowler 1991; Edwards and Hulme 1997). For example, complicated reporting procedures may stimulate the expansion of departments within the NGO to respond to such demands, thus increasing the bureaucratisation of the organisation. Moreover, a premium may be placed on the employment of English-speaking graduates who are able to prepare polished proposals for donor consumption and this may distort the interaction with local communities, as well as the salary structure of the organisation. White 33 observes that increased size of NGOs serving the poor in Bangladesh has “inevitably meant increased distance from the grassroots and the early pioneering vision has been replaced by an ethic of efficiency and professionalism.”

Source: A Question of Scale
This is an extract from A Question of Scale: The challenge of expanding the impact of non-governmental organisations’ HIV/AIDS efforts in developing countries,
by Jocelyn DeJong, published by the Horizons Project of the Population Council with the International HIV/AIDS Alliance in 2001. To view the whole report follow this link.

To download, complete with graphics, in pdf format (which requires Adobe Acrobat software to read it) follow this link (file size 1.43 Mbytes).