Local nongovernmental organizations (local NGOs) based in less economically advanced countries suffer from a “liability of foreignness” in attracting international funding: They are geographically, linguistically, and culturally distant from funders in more economically advanced countries. As a result, although U.S. foundations gave 27,572 grants to support programming occurring within less economically advanced countries between 2000 and 2012, only 10.4% went to local NGOs within those areas. We argue that while favoring NGOs in more economically advanced countries minimizes funder-NGO foreignness, or the distance between the foundation and the grantee NGO, it increases NGO-programming foreignness, or the distance between the grantee NGO and the site of their programming, creating crucial trade-offs. We draw upon organizational theory to predict under what conditions U.S. foundations would fund local NGOs, finding that local NGOs receive more support from older foundations and those with greater geographic and program area experience. Furthermore, local NGOs receive larger, longer grants but with lower probabilities of being renewed. These results identify the conditions under which foundations “go the extra mile” and fund local NGOs.
AksartovaS. (2003). In search of legitimacy: Peace grant making of US philanthropic foundations, 1988-1996. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(1), 25–46.
2.
AldashevG.NavarraC. (2018). Development NGOs: Basic facts. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 89(1), 125–155.
3.
Amankwah-AmoahJ.DebrahY. A. (2017). Toward a construct of liability of origin. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26(2), 211–231.
4.
AzamJ. P.LaffontJ. J. (2003). Contracting for aid. Journal of Development Economics, 70(1), 25–58.
5.
BalboaC. M. (2014). How successful transnational non-governmental organizations set themselves up for failure on the ground. World Development, 54, 273–287.
6.
BanksN.HulmeD.EdwardsM. (2015). NGOs, states, and donors revisited: Still too close for comfort?World Development, 66, 707–718.
7.
BanoM. (2008). Dangerous correlations: Aid’s impact on NGOs’ performance and ability to mobilize members in Pakistan. World Development, 36(11), 2297–2313.
8.
BaumJ. A.LiS. X.UsherJ. M. (2000). Making the next move: How experiential and vicarious learning shape the locations of chains’ acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 766–801.
9.
BebbingtonA. (1997). Reinventing NGOs and rethinking alternatives in the Andes. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 554(1), 117–135.
10.
BebbingtonA.PerreaultT. (1999). Social capital, development, and access to resources in highland Ecuador. Economic Geography, 75(4), 395–418.
11.
BeckfieldJ. (2008). The dual world polity: Fragmentation and integration in the network of intergovernmental organizations. Social Problems, 55(3), 419–442.
12.
BeckfieldJ. (2010). The social structure of the world polity. American Journal of Sociology, 115(4), 1018–1068.
13.
BenjaminL. M.QuigleyK. F. F. (2010). For the world’s sake: U.S. foundations and international grantmaking, 1990-2002. In AnheierH. K.HammackD. C. (Eds.), American foundations: Roles and contributions (pp. 237–261). Brookings Institution.
14.
BoliJ.ThomasG. M. (1999). Constructing world culture: International nongovernmental organizations since 1875. Stanford University Press.
15.
BorgattiS. P.CrossR. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.
16.
BrassJ. N. (2012). Why do NGOs go where they go? Evidence from Kenya. World Development, 40(2), 387–401.
17.
BrassJ. N.LonghoferW.RobinsonR. S.SchnableA. (2018). NGOs and international development: A review of thirty-five years of scholarship. World Development, 112, 136–149.
18.
BehetsC.BreithofA.BrubakerR.CarfraeN.DahleR.de MéviusJ.FaveereC.López C.F.FolkemaA.FischerJ.HosseletS.HouyouxC.MaginF.NebelJ.SelvaisL.ToussaintR.Hulle L.V.VlaminckY.WickensJ.WilliamsC.… (2019). Yearbook of international organizations: Organization descriptions and cross-references. 55th print edition 2018—2019. Union of International Associations.
19.
BrutonG. D.OviattB. M.WhiteM. A. (1994). Performance of acquisitions of distressed firms. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 972–989.
20.
BryantE. (2019). “Impact is our True North”: A relational approach to the global distribution of U.S. foundations’ philanthropic gifts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation.). Boston University.
21.
ClarkW. A.SmithT. R. (1979). Modeling information use in a spatial context. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 69(4), 575–588.
22.
ColletF.PhilippeD. (2014). From hot cakes to cold feet: A contingent perspective on the relationship between market uncertainty and status homophily in the formation of alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 51(3), 406–432.
23.
CooleyA.RonJ. (2002). The NGO scramble: Organizational insecurity and the political economy of transnational action. International Security, 27(1), 5–39.
24.
DeliosA.HeniszW. J. (2003). Political hazards, experience, and sequential entry strategies: The international expansion of Japanese firms, 1980–1998. Strategic Management Journal, 24(11), 1153–1164.
25.
DupuyK.RonJ.PrakashA. (2016). Hands off my regime! Governments’ restrictions on foreign aid to non-governmental organizations in poor and middle-income countries. World Development, 84, 299–311.
26.
EbrahimA. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829.
27.
EbrahimA. (2019). Measuring social change performance and accountability in a complex world. Stanford University Press.
28.
EdwardsM.HulmeD. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961–973.
29.
EvansA. B.HenryL. A.SundstromL. M. (2006). Russian civil society: A critical assessment. Routledge.
30.
FafchampsM.OwensT. (2009). The determinants of funding to Ugandan nongovernmental organizations. The World Bank Economic Review, 23(2), 295–321.
31.
FaulkL.McGinnis JohnsonJ.LecyJ. D. (2017). Competitive advantage in nonprofit grant markets: Implications of network embeddedness and status. International Public Management Journal, 20(2), 261–293.
32.
FowlerA. (1991). Building partnerships between Northern and Southern development NGOs: Issues for the 1990s. Development in Practice, 1(1), 5–18.
33.
GalaskiewiczJ.WassermanS. (1989). Mimetic processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 454–479.
34.
GolledgeR. G.StimsonR. J. (1997). Spatial cognition, cognitive mapping, and cognitive maps. In GolledgeG. (Ed.), Spatial behavior: A geographic perspective (pp. 224–257). The Guilford Press.
35.
GreenM. B.CromleyR. G. (1984). Merger and acquisition fields for large United States cities 1955–1970. Regional Studies, 18(4), 291–301.
36.
GrønbjergK. A.MartellL.PaarlbergL. (2000). Philanthropic funding of human services: Solving ambiguity through the two-stage competitive process. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 9–40.
GugertyM. K.KarlanD. (2018). The Goldilocks problem: Right-fit evidence for the social sector. Oxford University Press.
39.
GugertyM. K.KremerM. (2008). Outside funding and the dynamics of participation in community associations. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 585–602.
40.
HammackD. C.HeydemannS. (2009). Globalization, philanthropy, and civil society: Projecting institutional logics abroad. Indiana University Press.
41.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. SAGE.
42.
HulmeD. (2009). The story of the Grameen Bank: From subsidized microcredit to market based microfinance. In HulmeD.ArunT. (Eds.), Microfinance: A reader (pp. 183–190). Routledge.
43.
HwangH.PowellW. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 268–298.
44.
JaffeA. B.TrajtenbergM.HendersonR. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.
45.
JalaliR. (2008). International funding of NGOs in India: Bringing the state back in. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(2), 161–188.
46.
JenkinsJ. C. (1998). Channeling social protest: Foundation patronage of contemporary social movements. In PowellW. W.ClemensE. S. (Eds.), Private action and the public good (pp. 206–216). Yale University Press.
47.
KallmanM. E. (2017). Allocative failures: Networks and institutions in international grantmaking relationships. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(2), 745–772.
48.
KrauseM. (2014). The good project: Humanitarian relief NGOs and the fragmentation of reason. University of Chicago Press.
49.
LaurentA. (1983). The cultural diversity of western conceptions of management. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1–2), 75–96.
50.
LeatD. (2006). Information for a messy world: Making sense of pre-grant inquiry. Third Sector Review, 13(1).
51.
LibertiJ. M.PetersenM. A. (2018). Information: Hard and soft. Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 8(1).
52.
LonghoferW.SchoferE. (2010). National and global origins of environmental association. American Sociological Review, 75(4), 505–533.
53.
LonghoferW.SchoferE.MiricN.FrankD. J. (2016). NGOs, INGOs, and environmental policy reform, 1970–2010. Social Forces, 94(4), 1743–1768.
MarchJ. G.SimonH. A. (1958). Organizations. John Wiley.
56.
McGinnis JohnsonJ. (2016). Necessary but not sufficient: The impact of community input on grantee selection. Administration & Society, 48(1), 73–103.
57.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Reviews in Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.
58.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
59.
MurdieA. (2009). The impact of human rights NGO activity on human right practices. International NGO Journal, 4(10), 421–440.
60.
NeedlesC.WolcheckD.SatoG.IngulfsenI.McGillL.BradfordL.RossN. (2018). The state of global giving by U.S. foundations, 2011-2015. Foundation Center and the Council on Foundations.
61.
OttawayM.CarothersT. (Eds.). (2000). Funding virtue: Civil society aid and democracy promotion. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
62.
PaarlbergL. E.MoulickA. G.Van PuyveldeS. (2017). Testing a two-stage grant allocation process: The case of the United Way. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(6), 1117–1141.
63.
PlatteauJ.-P.AbrahamA. (2002). Participatory development in the presence of endogenous community imperfections. Journal of Development Studies, 39(2), 104–136.
64.
PlatteauJ.-P.GaspartF. (2003). The risk of resource misappropriation in community-driven development. World Development, 31(10), 1687–1703.
65.
PodolnyJ. M. (1994). Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 458–483.
66.
PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press.
67.
ReisK.WarrenS. (2016). International grantmaking made easier for US foundations. Alliance Magazine, 21(1), 20.
68.
ReusT. H.LamontB. T. (2009). The double-edged sword of cultural distance in international acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(8), 1298–1316.
69.
RobertsS. M.JonesJ. P.FröhlingO. (2005). NGOs and the globalization of managerialism: A research framework. World Development, 33(11), 1845–1864.
70.
SchildtH. A.LaamanenT. (2006). Who buys whom: Information environments and organizational boundary spanning through acquisitions. Strategic Organization, 4(2), 111–133.
71.
SchraederP.HookS.TaylorB. (1998). Clarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle: A Comparison of American, Japanese, French, and Swedish Aid Flows. World Politics, 50(2), 294–323.
72.
ShiffmanJ.QuissellK.SchmitzH. P.PelletierD. L.SmithS. L.BerlanD.. . . RodriguezM. (2015). A framework on the emergence and effectiveness of global health networks. Health Policy and Planning, 31(Suppl. 1), i3–i16.
73.
SmillieI. (1995). The alms bazaar: Altruism under fire—non-profit organizations and international development. International Development Research Centre.
74.
SmithS. R.LipskyM. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Harvard University Press.
75.
SpiresA. J. (2011). Organizational homophily in international grantmaking: US-based foundations and their grantees in China. Journal of Civil Society, 7(3), 305–331.
76.
StinchcombeA. L. (1965). Social structures and organizations. In MarchJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Rand McNally.
77.
SuárezD. F. (2010). Collaboration and professionalization: The contours of public sector funding for nonprofit organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 307–326.
78.
VakilA. C. (1997). Confronting the classification problem: Toward a taxonomy of NGOs. World Development, 25(12), 2057–2070.
79.
WiepkingP.HandyF. (2015). The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy. Springer.
ZaheerS. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 341–363.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
