<incom> Agg, Is The "Golden Age" of the NGO Behind Us

[Soenke Zehle]

"Trends in Government Support for Non-Governmental Organizations: Is The 
"Golden Age" of the NGO Behind Us?"

Author(s): Catherine Agg
Programme Area: Civil Society and Social Movements (2000 - 2005)
Paper No.: 23
Code: PP-CSSM-23
No. of Pages: 37
<http://snipurl.com/vndw>

This paper looks at trends in government support for non-governmental 
organizations (NGOs), asking whether the “golden age” of the large 
international NGO (INGO) is behind us. Since the 1980s, INGOs have been 
seen as increasingly important actors in development policy. The first 
part of the paper outlines the role of INGOs in development policy from 
1980 to the present, arguing that, although the sector was promoted 
strongly during the heyday of neoliberalism, donor governments have 
always used INGOs as a tool to carry out aid policies in the South. 
Current donor rhetoric, however, stresses the need to work with 
recipient governments to reduce poverty; new aid instruments including 
budget support and sector-wide approaches (SWAps) aim to channel aid 
directly to recipient governments.

Does this mean that the NGO sector is losing government support? Part 2 
addresses this by studying the extent to which recent policy 
developments have affected the standing of large INGOs, looking at the 
funding trends for four organizations: Care, Oxfam, ActionAid and BRAC. 
It also examines the proportion of overseas development assistance (ODA) 
channelled to the NGO sector since 1980 by the main bilateral donors, 
asking whether government rhetoric on aid instruments is matched by 
disbursements of funds. This paper demonstrates that ODA going to NGOs 
rose steeply during this period.

It is important to note, however, that the vast majority of ODA is still 
in the form bilateral aid; the amount reported going to NGOs remains a 
small percentage of the total. One issue this paper discusses is the 
dichotomy between the perceived importance of “civil society” in aid 
policy and the official financial support it actually receives. Why did 
governments decide to support so pointedly a sector that defined itself 
as non-governmental? What will be the position of large INGOs, currently 
funded to provide basic services, in the future? The last section looks 
at the implications of partnerships between Northern and Southern NGOs, 
asking whether recent policy initiatives have benefited civil society in 
the South.

In conclusion, the paper finds a mixed picture in terms of funding 
trends, and argues that this points to a change in the role of INGOs in 
the current development paradigm, rather than their demise. However, 
donor stipulations for “partnerships” between Northern and Southern NGOs 
in which INGOs, due to control over funds, exercise a significant amount 
of power over their Southern partners, are building lasting hierarchies 
that seem unquestioned by both donors and INGOs. Despite often genuine 
aims to transfer skills to the South, resulting in endless well-meant 
“capacity building” programmes, lack of transparency and trust between 
partners are undermining attempts to build constructive partnerships. 
This discrepancy between donor rhetoric and practice is causing 
resentment in the South, and it is something that must be addressed in 
order to avoid perpetuating global power structures.