North and South nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have been “partners” in international development for more than a decade. Studies have documented their approaches and strategies, yet little is still known about how they organize and how their projects help them to achieve their mission. The authors propose a contextualized and historical perspective to better understand how and why NGOs organize by projects, and how this strengthens their strategy and commitment to local development.
AudetF. (2008). L'aide canadienne du développement [Canadian development aid]. Montréal: Presses de l'Université de Montréal.
2.
BourguignonF., & SundbergM. (2007). Aid effectiveness: Opening the black box. American Economic Review, 97(2), 316–321.
3.
CarrollT. (1992). Intermediary NGOs: The supporting link in grassroots development.West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
4.
CollingwoodV., & LogisterL. (2005). State of the art: Addressing the INGO “legitimacy deficit.”Political Studies Review, 3, 175–192.
5.
CorniaG. A., JollyR., & StewartF. (1987). Adjustment with a human face.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
CorsinoD. (1998). La part des ONG dans la coopération internationale. In Centre Tricontinental [NGOs and their share in international cooperation] (Ed.), Les ONG: Instruments du néolibéralisme ou alternatives populaires? [NGOs: Neoliberal instruments or popular alternatives?] (pp. 35–59). Paris: L'Harmattan.
FallA. S., & DioufM. (2000). La société civile en Afrique de l'Ouest: Configurations et défis: Économie sociale, coopération Nord-Sud et développement (The civil society in Western Africa: configurations and challenges). Économies et Solidarités [Economy and Solidarity], 31(2), 82–109.
9.
FowlerA. (2000). NGO futures: Beyond aid: NGOD values and the fourth position. Third World Quarterly, 21(4), 589–603.
10.
FowlerA. (2002). Beyond partnership: Getting real about NGO relationships in the aid system. In EdwardsM., & FlowerA. (Eds.), The Earthscan reader on NGO management (pp. 241–255). London: Earthscan.
11.
GlaserB., & StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.Chicago: Aldine.
12.
JudgeA. (1995). NGOs and civil society: Some realities and distortions. Transnational Associations, 47(3), 156–180.
13.
KortenD. (1990). Getting to the 21st century: Voluntary action and the global agenda.West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
14.
LavilleJ.-L. (1994). Économie et solidarité: Esquisse d'une problématique [Economy and solidarity: Sketching the issues]. In LavilleJ.-L. (Ed.), Économie solidaire: Une perspective internationale [Social economy: An interna-tonal perspective] (pp. 9–89). Paris: Desclée de Brower.
15.
LévesqueB., & MendellM. (1999). Léconomie sociale au Québec: Éléments théoriques et empiriques pour le débat et la recherché [Social economy in Quebec: Theoretical elements for a debate and for research]. Cahiers du CRISES, coll. Working papers, No. 9908 (Mars).
16.
ListerS. (2003). NGO legitimacy: Technical issue or social construct?Critique of Anthropology, 23(2), 175–192.
17.
MariaC. (2006). NGO advocacy: Why the shift, and how it affects NGO programming. In ZepedaC., & AlluriR. (Eds.), An exercise in worldmaking (pp. 158–165). The Hague, the Netherlands: Institute of Social Studies.
18.
MilesM., & HubermanA. (1994). Qualitative data analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Navarro-FloresO. (2006). Les Relations de Partenariat Nord-Sud: Une Approche Institutionnaliste des Relations entre ONG dans le Secteur de la Coopération Internationale [North-south partnerships: An institutionalist approach to NGO relationships in the international cooperation sector] (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Canada.
20.
Navarro-FloresO. (2009). Le Partenariat en Coopération Internationale. Paradoxe ou Compromis? [Partnership in international cooperation. Paradox or compromise?] Québec: Presses de l'Université du Québec.
21.
OssewaardeR., NijhofA., & HeyseL. (2008). Dynamics of NGO legitimacy: How organising betrays core missions of INGOs. Public Administration and Development, 24, 42–53.
22.
RyfmanP. (2004). Les ONG [The NGOs]. Paris: La Découverte.
23.
SalamonL., & AnheierH. K. (1992). In search of the non-profit sector: The problem of classification. Voluntas, 3(3), 267–309.
24.
SalamonL., & AnheierH. K. (1997). Defining the non profit sector: A cross-national analysis.Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
25.
SmillieI. (1991). Le temps est venu de promouvoir de nouvelles formes de coopération entre les ONG et l'ACDI [Time has come to promote new forms of cooperation between NGOs and CIDA]. Ottawa: Conseil Canadien pour la Coopération Internationale.
26.
SmillieI. (1995). The Alms Bazaar: Altruism under fire—Non profit organizations and international development.Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
27.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
United Nations Development Programme. (1990). Human development report 1990.New York/Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
VakilA. (1997). Confronting the classification problem: Toward a taxonomy of NGOs. World Development, 25(12), 2057–2070.
31.
ZepedaC. (2006). The language of hegemony, discourse, power and freedom in El Salvador's neoliberal development agenda: The CAFTA case (Unpublished master's thesis). Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, the Netherlands.
