This article examines struggles over information between two nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in India and their key international funders. The author outlines both the strategies used by international funders to increase their control over information generation within NGOs and the strategies used by the case NGOs to resist these interventions. Three main arguments are advanced: (a) The information requirements of funders affect NGOs not only by placing demands on their attention but also by promoting positivist and easily quantifiable valuations of success and failure; this is not an intended effect but a systemic one; (b) NGOs resist funder attempts to structure their behavior through a series of strategies that include the symbolic generation of information, selective sharing of information, and the strategic use of professionals to enhance legitimacy; and, (c) this combination of funder demands for information and NGO resistance to external interference serves to entrench existing information systems, thereby reproducing tensions between NGOs and funders.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bebbington, A.
, & Riddell, R. (1997). Heavy hands, hidden hands, holding hands? Donors, intermediary NGOs and civil society organisations. In D. Hulme & M. Edwards (Eds.), NGOs, states and donors: Too close for comfort? (pp. 107-127). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
2.
Bourdieu, P.
(1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Clark, J.
(1995). The state, popular participation, and the voluntary sector. World Development, 23, 593-601.
4.
Clayton, A.
(Ed.). (1994). Governance, democracy and conditionality: What role for NGOs?Oxford, UK: International NGO Training and Research Centre.
5.
Commission of the European Communities
. (1993). Project cycle management: Integrated approach and logical framework. Brussels: Author.
6.
Dichter, T. W.
(1999). Globalization and its effects on NGOs: Efflorescence or a blurring of roles and relevance?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(Suppl. 4), 38-58.
7.
Drabek, A. G.
(1987). Development alternatives: The challenge for NGOs—An overview of the issues. World Development, 15(Suppl.), ix-xv.
8.
Ebrahim, A.
(2001). NGO behavior and development discourse. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 12, 79-101.
9.
Edwards,M.
,&Hulme,D.(1996).Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24, 961-973.
10.
Feldman, M. S.
, & March, J. G. (1988). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. In J. G. March (Ed.), Decisions and organizations (pp. 410-428). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
11.
Fowler, A.
(1997). Striking a balance: A guide to enhancing the effectiveness of non-governmental organizations in international development. London: Earthscan.
12.
Hampshire, J.
(1991a). Aga Khan Rural Support Programme India: Review of programme planning, budgeting and monitoring systems. West Sussex, UK: Information Technology & Agricultural Development Ltd.
13.
Hampshire, J.
(1991b). Sadguru Water and Development Foundation: Programme planning, budgeting and monitoring assessment. West Sussex, UK: Information Technology & Agricultural Development Ltd.
14.
Haribhakti Consulting
. (1995). Budgeting process and delegation of financial powers in Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (India): Draft report. Bombay: Haribhakti Consulting Pvt. Ltd.
15.
Harker, R.
, Mahar, C., & Wilkes, C. (Eds.). (1990). An introduction to the work of Pierre Bourdieu: The practice of theory. New York: St. Martin’s.
16.
Hudock, A.
(1999). NGOs and civil society: Democracy by proxy?Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
17.
Mackintosh, M.
(1992). Questioning the state. In M. Wuyts, M. Mackintosh, & T. Hewitt (Eds.), Development policy and public action (pp. 61-89). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
Mazmanian, D. A.
, & Nienaber, J. (1979). Can organizations change? Environmental protection, citizen participation, and the Corps of Engineers. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
19.
Meyer, J. W.
, & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
20.
Najam, A.
(1996). Understanding the third sector: Revisiting the prince, the merchant, and the citizen. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7, 203-221.
21.
Perera, J.
(1997). In unequal dialogue with donors: The experience of the Sarvodaya Shramadana movement. In D. Hulme & M. Edwards (Eds.), NGOs, states and donors: Too close for comfort?New York: St. Martin’s.
22.
Pfeffer, J.
, & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: Aresource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
23.
Poate, D.
(1989a). AKRSP(I): Monitoring, reporting and impact assessment. West Sussex, UK: Information Technology & Agricultural Development Ltd.
24.
Poate, D.
(1989b). Sadguru: Monitoring, reporting and impact assessment. West Sussex, UK: Information Technology & Agricultural Development Ltd.
25.
Scott, W. R.
(1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Sen, S.
(1999). Some aspects of state-NGO relationships in India in the post-independence era. Development and Change, 30, 327-355.
27.
Smith, S. R.
, & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
Society for Participatory Research in Asia
. (1991). Voluntary development organisations in India: A study of history, roles and future challenges. New Delhi, India: Society for Participatory Research in Asia.
29.
Tendler, J.
(1989). Whatever happened to poverty alleviation?World Development, 17, 1033-1044.
30.
Thompson, J. D.
(1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
31.
Vakil, A. C.
(1997). Confronting the classification problem: Toward a taxonomy of NGOs. World Development, 25, 2057-2070.
32.
Weir, A.
, & Shah, P. (1994). Report of the Baseline Monitoring Mission: Community management of natural resources (ALA/93/33). New Delhi, India: Commission of the European Communities, Aga Khan Foundation.
33.
Wolch, J. R.
(1990). The shadow state: Government and voluntary sector in transition. New York: Foundation Center.
34.
Young, D. R.
(1999). Complementary, supplementary, or adversarial? A theoretical and historical examination of nonprofit-government relations in the United States. In E. T. Boris & C. E. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (pp. 31-67). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
