Humanitarian and International Development NGOs

Today the Hauser Center hosted Duncan Green, head of research at Oxfam GB, to discuss his new book, From Poverty to Power.  Lant Pritchett, professor of the practice of international development, offered a response.

Some quick reflections:

Duncan’s thesis is that development is best achieved through (1) active citizenship and (2) effective states.  While instinctively we might place these two in opposition to each other, they can be compatible and complementary.  To be successful in alleviating poverty, the two must combine to redistribute power within markets so that poor people benefit:

The impact of markets on poverty and inequality depends on whether poor people can exert influence over the way they operate.

Working from his thesis, Duncan offered the following pressing issues for NGOs (this is my interpretation):

• Inequality vs. poverty.  NGOs should focus on inequality, which puts their focus on the imbalance of power that leads to poverty, and forces them out of the mindset that poverty is just about lack of income or assets.
• Religious blind spot.  Whereas most NGOs focus on secular policy, much development takes place through faith communities and the influence they hold on people’s lives.
• Focus on urban areas.  NGOs suffer from “peasant romanticism,” focusing efforts on rural villages and communities, when most poor people are now found in urban areas.
• Making states effective.  NGOs may be too small to have much influence on states and make them effective (which begs the question - then who?).
• Migration.  The NGO community is mostly missing on the question of making migration a humane, dignified experience.  They have yet to take a stand in the hot political environment.
• Accountability.  NGOs are often less accountable then the actors and institutions that they accuse of suffering from a lack of accountability.
• Emergencies vs. long-term development.  Emergencies - whether complex political emergencies or natural disasters - are “shocks” that offer significant opportunity for systemic change.  Yet during the brief opening in the aftermath of crisis, NGOs focus on providing and restoring services - putting on the ground experts in providing relief - rather than bringing in the expertise - the economists, the policy analysts and developers - to effect structural changes that lead to successful long-term development.  Time to turn that on its head.
• New global institutions.  This moment of global financial crisis may be one of the few real opportunities to create new global institutions capable of regulating and redistributing power.  Otherwise such processes typically experience enormous resistance and are agonizingly slow.
• Overselling globalization.  Most development remains at the national level.  NGOs may be focusing too much energy and advocacy on international campaigns.
• Understanding change.  NGOs need better models for understanding how change occurs and being able to track progress.

Much food for thought.  I was especially struck by the point that the aftermath of emergencies is an  opportunity to advance social change.  It rang true - the social and government structures are so often unsettled, and those in charge more willing to incorporate new ideas and policies, especially if such policies reduce the vulnerability that the crisis has brought into such relief.   NGOs might make relatively easy changes to their approach and have great impact doing so.

I’m sorry we didn’t get to explore the question of accountability more deeply.  How are NGOs less accountable than they purport?

What jumps out at you?

Recently the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, in partnership with the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, hosted a seminar exploring the extent to which international NGOs are influencing world politics.  

As part of the panel, Robert Paarlberg, professor of political science at Wellesley College and an associate at Weatherhead, posed two questions:

Have NGOs been able to make the weak more powerful?

Have they been able to make the poor more wealthy?

These are provocative questions, and ones that those in the NGO community must view somewhat ruefully. The ultimate answer is “no” - or, at least, “only in the most limited way.”  

His point, one well taken, was that world politics is still state-centric, and any state wishing to remain outside the reach of global civil society is able to do so. Witness the Balkans in the 1990s, Rwanda in 1994, and now Darfur, Zimbabwe, even the recent barriers to disaster relief imposed by the regime in Myanmar. NGOs have been mostly powerless to put a stop to situations when governments choose to be oppressive or intransigent; only other states have the power to intervene effectively.  

While this might be true, I wonder whether these are the right questions. NGOs don’t necessarily aspire to the level of influence and power that states wield, nor need to in order to be influential within the international political system.

It’s true that NGOs have been unable to stop what’s happening in Darfur, for example, but would the public and even other governments know as much about it and view it as a crisis without NGOs having worked to bring it to the world’s attention?  And would the affected people be surviving as well without NGO assistance? The counterfactual seems just as easy to answer as Prof. Paarlberg’s questions: those in Darfur are better off due to the humanitarian action of NGOs that are active there.

Interesting questions seem to fall somewhere in between.  What do NGOs bring that states do not?  Do their actions sometimes relieve state responsibility, and inhibit the strengthening of local governance?  And as NGOs partner more often with states, and are increasingly asked to be part of influential fora where international policy is developed - indeed, as their private resources begin to rival that of the official development assistance provided by governments, as discussed earlier - how do they retain their independence, and their credibility with and accountability to the poor?