The NGO–donor relationship is especially volatile. NGOs in developing countries heavily rely on foreign donor funding and donor dominance is evident. This article explores the relationship at times when donors revise funding priorities and partner NGOs try to adapt. The article draws on qualitative research of multiple observations to study the decisions of four NGOs in response to several shifts in donor funding. The analysis reveals variation in NGO responses to such shifts: suspend the relationship, reach common ground, automatically execute the donor’s interests, and voluntarily and deliberately adapt to the situation. Building on Hirschman’s typology, four modes of NGOs’ response are identified: exit, voice, loyalty, and, a newly proposed mode, adjustment. Additional interpretation of NGOs’ responses and possible implications for NGO management are discussed.
AbouAssiK. (2006). Lebanese civil society: A long history of achievements, facing decisive challenges ahead of an uncertain future. Johannesburg, South Africa: CIVICUS.
2.
BarmanE. (2002). Asserting difference: The strategic response of nonprofit organizations to competition. Social Forces, 80, 1191-1222.
3.
BebbingtonA. (2004). NGOs and uneven development: Geographies of development intervention. Progress in Human Development, 28, 725-745.
4.
BenjaminL. (2008). Account space: How accountability requirements shape nonprofit practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 201-223.
5.
BieberF. (2002, January-June). Aid dependency in Bosnian politics and civil society: Failures and successes of post-war peace building in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Croatian International Relations Review, 25-30.
6.
BleeK.TaylorV. (2002). Semi-structured interviewing in social movement research. In KlandermansB.StaggenborgS. (Eds.), Methods of social movement research (pp. 92-117). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
7.
BrinkerhoffD. W. (1999). Exploring state—Civil society collaboration: Policy partnerships in developing countries. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(Suppl. 1), 59-86.
8.
BrouwerI. (2000). Weak democracy and civil society promotion: The cases of Egypt and Palestine. In CarothersT.OttawayM. (Eds.), Funding virtue: Civil society aid and democracy promotion (pp. 21-48). Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment For International Peace.
9.
CapocciaG.KelemenD. (2007). The study of critical junctures: Theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism. World Politics, 59, 341-369.
10.
CarothersT.OttawayM. (2000). Introduction. In CarothersT.OttawayM. (Eds.), Funding virtue: Civil society aid and democracy promotion (pp. 3-20). Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment For International Peace.
11.
ChallandB. (2005). Looking beyond the pale: International donors and civil society promotion in Palestine. Palestine–Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture, 12(1), 56-63.
12.
CheckelJ. (2008). Process tracing. In KlotzA.PrakashD. (Eds.), Qualitative methods in international relations (pp. 114-130). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
13.
Degnbol-MartinussenJ.Engberg-PedersenP. (2003). Aid: Understanding international development cooperation. New York, NY: Zed Books.
14.
DoornbosM. (2003). Good governance: The metamorphosis of a policy metaphor. Journal of International Affairs, 57(1), 3-17.
15.
DowdingK.JohnP.MergoupisT.Van VugtM. (2000). Exit, voice and loyalty: Analytic and empirical developments. European Journal of Political Research, 37, 469-495.
16.
DunnP. (2010). Strategic responses by a nonprofit when a donor becomes tainted. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(1), 102-123.
17.
EadeD. (1993). Policy impacts on the NGO Sector. Washington, DC: World Bank.
18.
EbrahimA. (2003). Making sense of accountability: Conceptual perspectives for northern and southern nonprofits. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14, 191-212.
19.
EbrahimA. (2005). NGOs and organizational change: Discourse, reporting, and learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
EdwardsM. (1996). International development NGOs: Agents of foreign aid or vehicles for international cooperation?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(Suppl. 1), 25-37.
21.
EdwardsM. (2008). Have NGOs made a difference? From Manchester to Birmingham with an elephant in the room. In BebbingtonA.HickeyS.MitlinD. C. (Eds.), Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives (pp. 38-52). London, UK: Zed Books.
22.
EdwardsM.HulmeD. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24, 961-973.
23.
EdwardsM.HulmeD.WallaceT. (1999). NGOs in a global future: Marrying local delivery to worldwide leverage. Public Administration and Development, 19(2), 117-136.
24.
FarrellD. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 596-606.
25.
FarrellD.RusbultC. (1981). Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover: The impact of rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 78-95.
26.
GehlbachS. (2006). A formal model of exit and voice. Rationality and Society, 18, 395-418.
27.
GronbjergK. (1993). Understanding nonprofit funding: Managing revenues in social services and community development organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
28.
HanafiS.TabarL. (2003). The intifada and the aid industry: The impact of the new liberal agenda on the Palestinian NGOs. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 23, 205-214.
29.
HirschmanA. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
JohnstonH. (2002). Verification and proof in frame and discourse analysis. In KlandermansB.StaggenborgS. (Eds.), Methods of social movement research (pp. 62-91). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
31.
KharasH. (2007). Aid and aid agency effectiveness: An issues note. Washington DC: Wolfensohn Center for Development- Brookings Institution.
32.
LeckJ. D.SaundersD. M. (1992). Hirschman’s loyalty: Attitude or behavior?Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 219-230.
33.
LightD. W.CastellblanchR.ArredondoP.SocolarD. (2003). No exit and the organization of voice in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 28, 473-508.
34.
LoungP. J.WeinthalE. (1999). The NGO paradox: Democratic goals and non-democratic outcomes in Kazakhstan. Europe-Asia Studies, 51, 1267-1284.
35.
MartensB. (2008). Why do aid agencies exist? In EasterlyW. (Ed.), Reinventing foreign aid (pp. 285-310). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
MitlinD.HickeyS.BebbingtonA. (2007). Reclaiming development? NGOs and the challenge of alternatives. World Development, 35, 1699-1720.
37.
NeumannI. (2008). Discourse analysis. In KlotzA.PrakashD. (Eds.), Qualitative methods in international relations (pp. 61-77). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
38.
OliverC. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145-179.
39.
RahmanS. (2006). Development, democracy and the NGO sector theory and evidence from Bangladesh. Journal of Developing Societies, 22, 451-473.
40.
RusbultC.FarrellD.RogersG.MainousA. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599-627.
41.
SanyalB. (1997). NGOs’ self-defeating quest for autonomy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 554, 21-32.
42.
SanyalP. (2006). Capacity building through partnership: Intermediary nongovernmental organizations as local and global actors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 66-82.
43.
SmithS.LipskyM. (1993). Nonprofit organizations and community. In OttJ. S. (Ed.), The nature of the nonprofit sector (pp. 251-257). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
44.
StilesK. W. (2002). Civil society by design: Donors, NGOs, and the intermestic development circle In Bangladesh. Santa Barbara, CA: Greewood.
45.
TschirhartM. (1996). Artful leadership: Managing stakeholder problems in nonprofit arts organizations. Bloomington: Indiana University
46.
VakilA. (1997). Confronting the classification problem: Toward a taxonomy of NGOs. World Development, 25, 2057-2070.
47.
Van RooyA. (1998). The art of strengthening civil society. In Van RooyA. (Ed.), Civil society and the aid industry: The politics and promise (pp. 197-220). London, UK: Earthscan.
48.
VerweijM.GyawaliD. (2006). Against more aid. Why development assistance should not be tripled. Harvard International Review, 27(4), 26-30.
49.
WallaceT.BornsteinL.ChapmanJ. (2006). The aid chain: Coercion and commitment in development NGOs. Warwickshire, UK: ITDG.
50.
WitheyM. J.CooperW. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 521-553.
51.
YinR (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousands Oak, CA: SAGE.
