Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T18:22:17.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Towards a reflective accountability in NGOs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Alnoor Ebrahim
Affiliation:
Associate professor Harvard University
Alnoor Ebrahim
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Edward Weisband
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Get access

Summary

The preceding chapters in this volume have laid out two general challenges to our current understandings of accountability in NGOs. First, many of the authors have questioned traditional framings of the concept, especially principal–agent views in which NGOs are primarily seen as the passive subjects of external oversight and punishment. The second challenge posed by the contributors is thus a practical one – to find new forms of accountability which enable, rather than constrain, innovation, creativity, and agency for long-term social change. The purpose of my present chapter is thereby also twofold: 1) to provide a conceptual synthesis and discussion of the key problematics of accountability facing development NGOs; and 2) to offer a practical review of how an accountability system might be shaped to take on a more enabling role, particularly with respect to promoting critical reflection and learning within NGOs.

With respect to the first aim, several contributions in Parts I and II have pointed to two key deficiencies in problematizing the concept of accountability. First, the authors feel stifled by myopic conceptualizations of the term and thus argue for more nuanced and visionary framings of accountability. For example, Goetz and Jenkins are dissatisfied with standard mechanisms of “vertical” accountability for holding public agencies and officials to account (e.g., electoral systems and lobbying) and “horizontal” accountability (e.g., public agencies holding one another to account through legislative oversight, auditing, or judicial action).

Type
Chapter
Information
Global Accountabilities
Participation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics
, pp. 193 - 224
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AccountAbility (1999) Accountability 1000 (AA 1000) Framework: Standard, Guidelines and Professional Qualification. London: Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability.Google Scholar
ActionAid (2000) ALPS: Accountability, Learning and Planning System. London: ActionAid.Google Scholar
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar
Beer, M. and Eisenstat, R. A. (2000) “The Silent Killers of Strategy Implementation and Learning,” Sloan Management Review 41(4), 29–40.Google Scholar
Behn, R. D. (2001) Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Bovens, M. (1998) The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buckmaster, N. (1999) “Associations Between Outcome Measurement, Accountability and Learning for Non-Profit Organisations,” The International Journal of Public Sector Management 12(2), 186–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, R. (1994) “All Power Deceives,” IDS Bulletin 25(2), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds.) (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny?London and New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
D'Aunno, T. (1992) “The Effectiveness of Human Service Organizations: A Comparison of Models,” in Hasenfeld, Y. (ed.) Human Services as Complex Organizations. Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 341–61.Google Scholar
Denton, J. (1998) Organizational Learning and Effectiveness. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ebrahim, A. (2005) “Accountability Myopia: Losing Sight of Organizational Learning,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 34(1), 56–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrahim, A. (2003a) “Accountability in Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs,” World Development 31(5), 813–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrahim, A. (2003b) “Making Sense of Accountability: Conceptual Perspectives for Northern and Southern Nonprofits,” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 14(2), 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrahim, A. (2002) “Information Struggles: The Role of Information in the Reproduction of NGO-Funder Relations,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 31(1), 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, M. (2002) “Organizational Learning in Non-Governmental Organizations: What Have We Learned?” in Edwards, M. and Fowler, A. (eds.) The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan, pp. 331–46.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. (1994) “NGOs in the Age of Information,” IDS Bulletin 25(2), 117–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, M. and Hulme, D. (1996) “Too Close for Comfort? The Impact of Official Aid on Nongovernmental Organizations,” World Development 24(6), 961–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiol, C. M. and Lyles, M. A. (1985) “Organizational Learning,” Academy of Management Review 10(4), 803–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, A. (2002) “An NGDO Strategy: Learning for Leverage,” in Edwards, M. and Fowler, A. (eds.) The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan, pp. 353–60.Google Scholar
Fox, J. A. and Brown, L. D. (eds.) (1998) The Struggle for Accountability: The World Bank, NGOs, and Grassroots Movements. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Garvin, D. A. (1993) “Building a Learning Organization,” Harvard Business Review 71(4 (July–August)), 78–91.Google ScholarPubMed
Glasrud, B. (2001) “The Muddle of Outcome Measurement: Be Careful How You Measure Programs,” Nonprofit World 19(6), 35–7.Google Scholar
Hernández, G. and Visher, M. G. (2001) Creating a Culture of Inquiry: Changing Methods – and Minds – on the Use of Evaluation in Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: The James Irvine Foundation.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hoefer, R. (2000) “Accountability in Action? Program Evaluation in Nonprofit Human Service Agencies,” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 11(2), 167–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudock, A. (1999) NGOs and Civil Society: Democracy by Proxy?Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kearns, K. P. (1996) Managing for Accountability: Preserving the Public Trust in Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Khagram, S. (2000) “Toward Democratic Governance for Sustainable Development: Transnational Civil Society Organizing Around Big Dams,” in Florini, A. M. (ed.) The Third Force: The Rise of Transnational Civil Society. Tokyo and Washington, DC: Japan Center for International Exchange and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, pp. 83–114.Google Scholar
Khagram, S., Riker, J. V. and Sikkink, K. (eds.) (2002) Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kovach, H., Neligan, C. and Burall, S. (2003) The Global Accountability Report 1: Power without Accountability?London: Global Accountability Project, The One World Trust.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. S. and Tetlock, P. E. (1999) “Accounting for the Effects of Accountability,” Psychological Bulletin 125(2), 255–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G. (1993) “The Myopia of Learning,” Strategic Management Journal 14, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, B. and March, J. G. (1988) “Organizational Learning,” Annual Review of Sociology 14, 319–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. (1991) “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning,” Organization Science 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1988) “The Uncertainty of the Past: Organizational Learning under Ambiguity,” in March, J. G. (ed.) Decisions and Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, pp. 335–58.Google Scholar
Morley, E., Vinson, E. and Hatry, H. P. (2001) Outcome Measurement in Nonprofit Organizations: Current Practices and Recommendations. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.Google Scholar
Najam, A. (1996) “NGO Accountability: A Conceptual Framework,” Development Policy Review 14, 339–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, O. (2002) A Question of Trust: The BBC Reith Lectures 2002. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. (1987) “A Resource Dependence Perspective on Intercorporate Relations,” in Mizruchi, M. S. and Schwartz, Michael (eds.) Intercorporate Relations: The Structural Analysis of Business. Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–55.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Riddell, R. C. (1999) “Evaluating NGO Development Interventions,” in Lewis, D. (ed.) International Perspectives on Voluntary Action: Reshaping the Third Sector. London: Earthscan, pp. 222–41.Google Scholar
Roche, C. (1999) Impact Assessment for Development Agencies: Learning to Value Change. Oxford: Oxfam GB.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saegert, S., Benitez, L., Eizenberg, E., Hsieh, T. and Lamb, M. (2004) “Participatory Evaluation: How It Can Enhance Effectiveness and Credibility of Nonprofit Work,” The Nonprofit Quarterly 11(1), 54–60.Google Scholar
Schultz, M. (2001) “The Uncertain Relevance of Newness: Organizational Learning and Knowledge Flows,” Academy of Management Journal 44(4), 661–81.Google Scholar
Schweitz, M. L. (2001) “NGO Network Codes of Conduct: Accountability, Principles, and Voice,” Paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Convention, Chicago, II, February.
Sen, S. (1999) “Some Aspects of State–NGO Relationships in India in the Post-Independence Era,” Development and Change 30, 327–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
Smillie, I. (1996) “Painting Canadian Roses Red,” in Edwards, M. and Hulme, D. (eds.) Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountability in the Post-Cold War World. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian, pp. 187–97.Google Scholar
Smillie, I. and Hailey, J. (2001) Managing for Change: Leadership, Strategy and Management in Asian NGOs. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Torjman, S. (1999) Are Outcomes the Best Outcome?Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy.Google Scholar
United Way of America (2002) “Outcome Measurement Resource Network,” website at http://national.unitedway.org/outcomes/resources/mpo/why.cfm. 21 October 2002.
United Way of America (2000) Agency Experiences with Outcome Measurement: Survey Findings (Report 0196). Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.Google Scholar
Uphoff, N. (1996) “Why NGOs are Not a Third Sector: A Sectoral Analysis with Some Thoughts on Accountability, Sustainability, and Evaluation,” in Edwards, M. and Hulme, D. (eds.) Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountability in the Post-Cold War. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian, pp. 23–39.Google Scholar
Vakil, A. C. (1997) “Confronting the Classification Problem: Toward a Taxonomy of NGOs,” World Development 25(12), 2057–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank (2000) Participation Process Review. Washington, DC: Operations Evaluation Department (OED), The World Bank.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×