The Rise of International NGOs Reflections on Organization, Management, Policy

1. The Rise of International NGOsReflections on Organization, Management, Policy Helmut K. Anheier UCLA / LSE Presentation at Yale University October 14, 2003

2. KEY ISSUE 1 EXPANSION!

3. Growth of International NGOs 1975

5. Putnam would love this map…

7. The network of global links • Global city Networks (based on transnational business service corporations) – mapping the center/periphery structure of globalization • The compression of time-space: NY is closer to London than Madrid • No representation of “Southern” cities

10. The Rise of International NGOs • What are the ‘drivers’ behind expansion? • What are the implications for management and policy?

11. More specifically… • What does the significant expansion of INGOs signify, mean? • ‘Filling a void’ (demand) or ‘pushing open space’ (supply) • Greater numbers= greater complexity? • Quantitative expansion and qualitative change? • Beginning of more fundamental shift in organizational form? Something new? • Emergence of new power relations, policy regimes at global level? Something different?

12. The Answers (in staccato) • So …? • ‘Filling a void’ or ‘pushing open space’ Both, but increasingly more filling than pushing. • Greater numbers implies greater complexity – quantitative expansion, qualitative change? Both, but the latter is really what’s important now. • Beginning of more fundamental shift in organizational form? Yes, indeed. • 4. Emergence of new power relations, policy regimes at global level? Complicated…but rather likely, and full of uncertainty…

13. Great Diversity of Organisations • Large scale charities: Oxfam, CARE, Save the Children, World Vision • Religious organisations: Catholic Church, Islam • NGOs as advocacy groups: GreenPeace, HRW • Networks: Jubilee 2000, Campaign Against Landmines • Movements: Environmental, peace, anti- globalisation • Foundations: Ford, Soros, Aga Khan • Friends of…/support groups, transnational fundraising • Diaspora groups etc …numerous ways of classifying NGOs…

14. Form matters:The case of Jubilee 2000 • Initially adopted social movement form, little central • coordination, dispersed resources, decentral information • management • This was good for growth period, but with 24 million • members, organizational problems set in: over-reach, • mission dilution, scape-goating, failure to detect problems • early, dissent etc • Lack of control, reduced legitimacy and effectiveness

15. ‘Launched in 1961, Amnesty International has today more than 1,000,000 members, subscribers and regular donors in more than 140 countries and territories. The organisation’s nerve centre is the International Secretariat in London, with more than 320 members of staff and over 100 volunteers from more than 50 countries around the world.The movement consists of more than 7,500 local, youth & student, and professional Amnesty International groups registered at the International Secretariat plus several thousand other youth & student groups, specialist groups, networks and co-ordinators in nearly 100 countries and territories throughout the world. There are nationally organised sections in 56 countries, and pre-section co-ordinating structures in another 23 countries and territories worldwide. (from AI website)

16. Friends of the Earth International (FoE) is a federation of 61 groups, with an international secretariat and an executive committee to oversee the operations between bi-annual General Assembly meetings. It is a federation of membership organisations, i.e., its membership base is primarily organisational; individual members join at the national level. Together the FoE federation of member organisations combines about 5,000 local groups and 1 million members. FoE is highly decentralised network of autonomous organisations. About half of the member organisations use the name FoE, others prefer names in local languages.

17. Entry into the federation is a very strict process based on wide criteria with internal democracy at its centre. Applicant organisations must be membership-based, have clear internal democratic procedures, including a representative board. They must also be independent from religious and political affiliations, dedicated to national and international issues and work on more than one environmental area. After a first administrative screening, applications are subsequently submitted to the International Executive Committee that meets three times per year. If considered suitable, the IEC will then submit the application to the Annual General Meeting for final approval. Normally some 50 organisations will apply and only one or two be approved.

19. The Coalition against Child Soldiers “was founded by six international NGOs – Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Save the Children Alliance, Jesuit Refugee Service, the Quaker United Nations Office - Geneva, and International Federation Terre des Hommes – and later joined by Defence for Children International, World Vision International, and regional NGOs from Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Pacific. The Coalition has also established partners and national coalitions which are engaged in advocacy, campaigns and public education in nearly 40 countries ... The Coalition has established and maintained active links with UNICEF, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNHCHR and the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict.”

20. What we see is Significant growth in numbers Expansion of scale, scope Complex organizations Increasingly global networks

21. KEY ISSUE 2 Problems …old and new…

22. Basic Issues Membership, clients Governance, Accountability Information and decision-making Legitimacy Costs and revenue issues NGOs found different answers…

23. Membership, Ownership Member vs. client, customer, users Membership-owned (AI, FoE), members as demos, community, voters  internal democracy, participation okay, but external accountability as issue Membership-supported (GP, HRW), members as resource, clients, little influence on governance  internal and external accountability / transparency as issue

24. Membership vs. Clients Membership-owned: higher costs and benefits associated with membership; higher management costs, but democracy as value Member-supported: greater accountability & transparency costs, but cause-related value base helps (sorting)

25. Governance Need for step-wise gradual representation from national to international Dilemmas: organizational (national) vs individual membership or: One person – one vote vs one organization one vote? Are all members alike?

26. Participation Free-riding, noncommitted vs. devotees (Olson vs. Michels)  control by elite activists .2% of members attend FoE general assembly IFRC, Strategy 2010 (middle class bias, shrinking membership pool)

27. Democracy and legitimacy Two solutions: Increase active membership, democratic participation to strengthen legitimacy, accepting negative effects on revenue base  allegiance to organization (AI, FoE) Emphasize transparency of decision-making, accepting greater information to reach passive members  no-vote, identity politics (GP, WWF, HRW)

28. Centralization vs. Decentralization Persistent Issue in Organizational Design At local level, where information is greatest, but collective action capacity weakest? At international level, where information is weakest but collective action capacity greatest?  Federation as model, experimentation  Many NGOs in constant search mode, reorganization, seeking balance in structure and cost implications (coordination, communication, information, decision-making etc)

29. Costs and Revenue Reduction in cost of organizing, mobilizing, communicating ICT also implies less central control Leveling effect – cost reduction benefit all potentially Revenue problems persist (NGOs as multi-product, multi-revenue firms, cross-subsidization)

30. KEY ISSUE 3 DIFFERENTIATION

31. General Thesis I The tensions between needs and opportunities, and the constraints of existing organizational forms create a push towards differentiation and innovation, leading to ‘hybrids’ and, ultimately, to the emergence of new organizational forms

32. General Thesis II To a significant extent, NGO form developments follow that of corporations: from unitary to multi-divisional forms at the national and international levels (scale and scope expansion), to network forms at increasingly transnational, global levels (differentiated expansion).

33. Traditional NGOs • Headquartered in North (London, New York, Paris, Geneva, Brussels, Amsterdam) • Affiliates in several countries (mostly OECD) • Operations in South (Africa, LA, Asia) • Resource dependencies (North – South flows) • Legitimacy, accountability (Northern-based and interpreted) • Hierarchies (modeled after bureaucracy) • Information flows (chronic problem, cost) • Stakeholders (politically effective ones located in North, e.g., International Campaign Against Landmines, US-EU problems)

34. New Emerging NGOs • Multiple headquarter structures • Federation, experimentation with decentralised forms • Operations in North and South • Devolved organizations • Stakeholders in North and South • But, at the same time: • Persistent resource dependencies, revenue dilemmas • Information flow problems despite cost reductions • Accountability and transparency problems • Complex legitimacy issues due to transnationalism

35. The Challenge: Organisational Constraints Facing NGOs • Multiple constituencies/stakeholder • Multiple jurisdictions • Multiple cultures • Different governance and accountability requirements • Mismatch between needs and resource base (North/South) •  how to manage tension between organizational • task environment and organizational form

36. Form and Form Characteristics Hierarchy, centralization, predictability, stability Unitary Form Multi-Divisional Form Network Organization Flexibility, autonomy, multi-unit

37. NGO Diversity • U-Form: large charities, tradit. unions, Catholic Church, non-profit hospitals • M-Form:decentralized NGOs eg CARE, GreenPeace, HRW, nonprofit universities • N/M-Form: Oxfam Int’l, FOE, AI • N-Form: ICBL, Jubilee 2000, soc. movements

38. Network OrganizationAdvantages include: • Knowledge edge • Lower transaction costs, faster decisions • Tap into more, diverse revenue sources • Networks of specialists • so better problem solving & innovation • Greater autonomy, subsidiarity • Ease of stakeholder consultation

39. Single issue NGOs; Northern-centered; Simple radial structure, single headquarter, centralised

40. More complex goal structure; relative simple structure, plus associates, single headquarter, North centered

41. More complex, single headquarter, transnational steering groups, working group design built in; broader consultative structure

42. Regional headquarters, national committees, federate structure

43. Maps from Hagai Multiple headquarters, highly complex design, federation, Decentralised, potentially network organisation

44. New Organizational Forms • A)Federation – bumble-bee structure • B) Forums as new form • C) Internet-based “dot-causes” – a differentiation in global organizing based on innovations in IT (and associated cost reductions!) • Federations: service providers • Forums, net: advocacy

45. The Bumble Bee Federation • has this particular name after the complex and evolving interactions between HQ and affiliates • In this structure affiliates are given increased power as they prove their reliability • As an affiliate joins the federation it will be under close supervision by the international core • As it demonstrates commitment, reliability it acquires more autonomy and a greater voice in the federation  Trust building, incentives linked to voice, autonomy

46. Enter the Dot-Causes… • ‘Space’ for NGOs also available for non-NGOs such as dot.causes, web-based forums of activists of all kinds and many purposes. • Web for communication, mobilization and organization • Rise of social forums

47. Examples of Dot-Causes… • Free Burma Campaign 1995/6 • Shell / Ogoniland campaign 1996 • MAI, ’97/8; Zapatistas, ICBL • From Bricks & Mortar orgs, e.g. ICBL • To Clicks without Mortar e.g. ATTAC, Wombles, Globalize Resistance

48. Protest.Net is a collective of activists who are working together to create our own media. By publishing a public record of our political activities on the web we are taking a stand against the established media. We are standing up and showing that serious activism is alive and well at the dawn of the 21st century. Everyday from Kansas to India activists are meeting, organizing, and protesting to demand a better world for all. When the corporate media takes note of our activities it is only to spit upon our struggle. We are accused of being misinformed bleading heart hooligans with nothing better to do than march up and down blocking traffic. Yet the rich get richer, and we are told to be complacent, to wait for our due. They say the environment isn't being destroyed, it's ok to kill millions of Iraqi's with vindictive sanctions, that the billions living in slums just need to work harder, that global domination by a corporate elite is the only way. Activists around the world are fighting for a better world. We can't rely on the media establishment to cover our movements. We will rise up and seize the means of communication!

49. Attac International …the creation of the "international movement for democratic control of financial markets and their institutions" wants to respond to that dynamic. Referring to the platform, it forms a network, with neither "hierarchical" structures nor a geographical "center". Pluralist, it is enriched by the variety of its components and makes the common action easier without limiting it in any way, nor dictating their freedom of contribution. It aims to reinforce, to link and to coordinate, at an international level, the contribution of all of its partners who see themselves as fitting within the structure of its platform. In the same way, it wishes to reinforce its cooperation with all the other networks whose objectives converge with its own.

50. ‘Who is in charge of Subversive Enterprises, Int'l.? No one. … Each member is responsible for their own actions, and their own leadership. …No one is higher than anyone else. No one is lower than anyone else. We are a network, not a bureaucracy. Feel free to consider yourself a member right now. …. The only reason this "organization" was formed, was that we hoped that individuals like yourself (-selves) might be more encouraged to take action if you knew that there were others out there like you, with similar interests and goals. You want to start you own chapter/branch/franchise of Subversive Enterprises, Int'l.? Go right ahead. We would prefer that your agendas be somewhat compatible with ours, but anything goes.’ (Subversive Enterprises International URL)