LSE - Small Logo
LSE - Small Logo

Deborah Doane

August 27th, 2024

The INGO Problem

2 comments | 13 shares

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

Deborah Doane

August 27th, 2024

The INGO Problem

2 comments | 13 shares

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

MSc Development Studies alum, Deborah Doane, shares her research for her new book ‘The INGO Problem: Power, privilege and renewal’. Including the critiques INGOs have faced and how they can overcome them to suit the multiple and diffuse poly-crises of the 21st century. 

“I have left international aid…..I found it increasingly hard to reconcile my beliefs working in an INGO. I’m proud of what I led [trying to decolonise the sector], but quite cynical about my 30-year involvement in INGOs.”  – former CEO, INGO.

Peter is a former CEO of two well-known INGOs, someone I occasionally reached out to for feedback in my current work focussing on locally-led development. He messaged me recently to share where he was at and why he had moved on. This is just a summary, but critically, his words are a damning indictment and reflect much of what I heard in researching my recently published book, ‘the INGO Problem’.

INGOs were once the standard-bearer for what was good in civil society and international development. Their importance grew after WWII, with further growth in the sector throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s, following the period of decolonisation. Where governments weren’t always able to meet people’s needs, INGOs stepped in as service deliverer and advocate in the years to come. Many grew exponentially in size with incomes of the largest INGOs now exceeding $1 billion/year, alongside the influence and standing to match.

But all is not rosy. For some years now, INGOs have come under the spotlight, and not for good reasons. The sexual exploitation scandals that hit the headlines in 2018 were quickly followed by criticism of fundraising practices, and later an upswell of accusations of racism and neo-colonialism when Black Lives Matter came to the fore shortly thereafter.

These critiques were not new. My own personal first encounter with the sector was working with a project trying to establish an International Ombudsman for Humanitarian Aid in the late 1990’s. This was my first role after graduation from what was then called ‘DESTIN’ – the Development Studies Institute at the LSE. It was a proposed accountability solution to the critiques of the sector that emerged following the patchy Rwandan genocide response. The recommendation for an independent Ombudsman was never fully implemented and most of the challenges that the project was intending to address at the time, remained unmet.

Over 20 years later, the COVID pandemic exposed the futility of ‘experts’ flying around the world to ‘save’ poor people. In fact, it showed that local actors were already doing the work.  The crisis itself helped to strengthen the voice of what is known as the #ShiftthePower movement which represents local civil society actors who have come together to demand a more equitable civil society, where national and local CSOs have more power and resource in the overall system. They note that the vast majority of resources go to International civil society actors like INGOs (roughly 90 – 93%) whilst most of the work is done on the ground by local groups.

Governments had long ago committed to giving a higher portion of their funding to local actors, following from the Grand Bargain Commitments of 2016.  USAID, for one, has pledged that 25% of their funding should reach local CSOs by 2030. And OECD governments have widely committed to increasing local funding for development, too. Nonetheless, such commitments remain an aim rather than a reality. USAID has seen less than 7% reaching local CSOs. And only 10% of funding from OECD DAC donors is given directly to local organisations.

INGOs, meanwhile, have attempted to respond to some of the concerns through ‘localisation’ attempts by improving partnerships or creating national chapters of their offices. But there has been a backlash to this move too, as many have seen these as a more cynical attempt to grow a new fundraising base. National chapters of INGOs are eligible, for example, for USAID localised funding. Some argued that these moves were not actually getting closer to local communities, but instead were further marginalising them, poaching their own limited sources of local funding. A now infamous open letter to INGOs cynically stated [with regard to localisation], that “all of this serves to weaken us locally. It keeps us in a master/servant relationship continuously begging for grants from your institutions, while we remain bereft of core funding ourselves.”

So, what next for INGOs? Perhaps surprisingly, in spite of the many critiques that have arisen, most people I work with, including local CSOs, see an ongoing need for INGOs. This is reflected in a 2021 study by the West Africa Civil Society Institute, done for the RINGO Project, a systems change project to ‘re-imagine INGOs’. The majority of over 600 respondents indicated that they wanted and needed INGOs but found the relationships to be highly unequal. Eighty-four percent of respondents noted that they collaborated with INGOs yet 85% of these reported that they were not mutually beneficial.

The potential roles for INGOs has been articulated through the RINGO project and other recent initiatives, such as the Pledge for Change. The roles identified include investors, facilitators and advocates. The INGO role, nonetheless, will undoubtedly be a smaller and more focused one, where more is done through networks and less through big competing brands. Moreover, on-the-ground work should all but disappear. Their way of organising should include new inclusive governance structures with solidarity with local actors at the heart. Most INGOs started from a point of solidarity: can we return to that?

Interestingly, both IRC and Save the Children have recently announced mass redundancies, following a stark projected drop in their income, which had increased significantly during the start of the war in Ukraine. Had they instead sought to invest in local actors at the time, and indeed for years before, rather than increasing their own staff and expenditure, this could have been avoided.

We continue to need a globally connected civil society, like INGOs. They are an important counterweight to states and the corporate sector. But the writing is on the wall that their current incarnation is no longer suited to the multiple and diffuse poly-crises of the 21st century. In spite of the fact that progress is slow, locally-led development or shifting power, isn’t just a passing fad, it’s here to stay. We need stronger local civil societies everywhere and this mean right-sizing and adapting INGOs to meet these needs. This transformation requires a concerted effort on the part of the wider system to change the incentive systems that keep them on their throne: donors, leaders and demand from local actors can all contribute to this much-needed transformation.

 


The views expressed in this post are those of the author and in no way reflect those of the International Development LSE blog or the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Featured image credit: Practical Action Publishing

About the author

Deborah Doane

Deborah Doane

Deborah Doane is a Partner of Rights CoLab and a co-convenor of the RINGO Project. Her new book, ‘the INGO Problem: Power, privilege and renewal’ is available from Practical Action Publishing. She was a student of Development Studies at the LSE in 1996-1997.

Posted In: Department Alumni | Topical and Comment

2 Comments

RSS Justice and Security Research Programme

RSS LSE’s engagement with South Asia

  • The Linguistic Cosmopolitanism of the Constitution of India
    In this, the second in our series of special posts to mark the 75th anniversary of the Constitution of India, Javed Majeed unpacks the text through a nuanced analysis of its language and conscious choice of terms & phrases, to reveal a fundamentally cosmopolitan imagination of the nation. * As Robert Ferguson noted, a Constitution […]
  • South Asia and the Wellbeing Economy
    As countries continue to use Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the principal marker of economic growth and prosperity, M. Munib Zia Khan argues that countries in South Asia might consider adopting the model of a ‘wellbeing economy’ as a better measure of real prosperity for its people, amidst initial signs of limited success. * Asia […]