Is the new professionalism sapping grassroots vigour?

'Logframes' (logical frameworks) and 'strategic planning' are now as much a part of the terminology of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved in development, as 'participation', 'bottom-up' and 'gender-sensitivity'. Increasing levels of donor funding mean that NGOs are using more management 'buzz-words' and observing more 'professional' work standards. But do more formalised management systems and rigid assessment techniques spell less flexibility and innovation? The signs are that donor demands may be changing the very qualities that made NGOs sought-after in the first place.

Large donors have been funding more and more NGO activities over the last decade, in recognition of the advantages they offer as go-betweens in participatory grassroots development. But this funding usually has strings attached, requiring more formal management systems for planning and assessing donor-funded work. Standardised methods learned from private enterprise and progressive business schools (such as strategic planning, and formal monitoring, evaluation and information systems), put pressure on NGOs to produce concrete results quickly and routinely. But will the special advantages NGOs have in reaching the poor be lost in the process?

Researchers from Birmingham University have been looking at the impact of these new influences on NGOs. Their first set of studies suggested that British-based groups are expanding, raising their profile and becoming ever more responsive to the demands of donors, less so to the people whose interests they seek to serve. With more time and effort being spent on producing the right kinds of reports, activists are doing less to ensure that their efforts are participative and gender-sensitive.

This disturbing trend towards more bureaucracy and accountability upwards was not universal. Larger organisations that were less dependent on institutional funding were more likely to tread an independent path than smaller groups. Crucially, gender sensitive approaches were being paid little more than lip service, although Southern partners tended to have more say on this score than on organisational procedures, most of which are simply imposed from above. The second phase of research will look in more detail at the impact of formalisation on developing-country partners of UK NGOs. Policymakers need to be concerned with impacts donors are having on NGOs, such as:

• forcing standardised procedures on them, dulling their distinctive and positive characteristics
• attracting them with the lure of becoming bigger and better known thanks to donor funding, at the risk that they might lose the culture and credibility needed for grassroots development.

Some of the new formal management tools being used may work against goals such as building, institutional capacity and self-determination, promoting gender-equity, and focusing efforts on better lives for the poorest and most vulnerable. Gender may be more and more frequently heard as a buzz-word but true gender sensitivity is actually informing less and less work on the ground.

Source(s):
Research Highlights, Economic & Social Committee for Overseas Research (DFID, London)

Funded by: ESCOR/DFID (Department for International Development), UK

id21 Research Highlight: 1998-May-13

Further Information:
T. Wallace, S. Crowther & A. Shepherd
International Development Department (IDD)
University of Birmingham
Birmingham
B15 2TT
UK

Tel: +44 (0)121 414 4987
Fax: +44 (0) 121 414 5032
Contact the contributor: dag@bham.ac.uk

International Development Department (IDD), UK