Do International Non‐governmental Organizations Walk the Talk? Reconciling the ‘Two Participations’ in International Development

Abstract

International non‐governmental organizations (INGOs) espouse principles of participation and empowerment, for the most part applied to INGOs' beneficiaries rather than their staff. Evidence from a study of seven INGOs operating in Kenya indicates that beneficiaries participate much less, and staff somewhat more, than INGO rhetoric would suggest. Although participation of both groups was limited, beneficiary involvement was episodic at best, whereas staff had continuous, albeit constrained access to regular meetings and other fora. The need to be accountable to donors was a major limiting factor. However, all stakeholders, including donors, share an interest in achieving long‐term results, and the evidence from the literature and our own empirical findings is that participation facilitates achieving those results. Thus, our study suggests that the ‘two participations’ can be reconciled through a focus on the long‐term interests of INGOs' intended beneficiaries. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Analyzing the effectiveness of a Kenyan NGO with the HPO Framework

“…This reflects the fact that its leaders pay ample attention to maintaining long‐lasting relationships with both internal and external stakeholders. This outcome was not surprising, as NGOs typically strive to maintain long‐term relationships with their stakeholders (Brunt & McCourt, ). At ELP, good relations with donors, members, and the communities it serves are fostered through dialogues that ensure stakeholders' participation in decision‐making.…”

“…ELP's relatively low score (6.2) for the HPO factor openness and action orientation would likely improve once the organization's management quality issues are addressed. Devolving authority to lower levels enables employees to become more involved in an organization's day‐to‐day business (Brunt & McCourt, ). This improvement should be relatively easy to achieve, as the organization's employees stated that ELP is not micro‐managed, which means employees are free to go about their tasks and design their work without too much interference.…”

Three Challenges for Communication and Global Social Change

“…Instead, theories perceived to be, strangely, too "theoretical" and "academic" or couched in arcane, abstract language rarely seduce technical officers. Given the weight of specific professional cultures and institutional considerations (Brunt & McCourt, 2012;Cotts Watkins, Swidler, & Hannan, 2012;Suddaby & Viale, 2011), communication theories, ideas, and innovations are selected to conform to dominant dynamics.…”

Participatory Practices in Organizations

“…Case studies of participation within other fields and community settings have proliferated as innovations in participation have themselves diffused globally across sectors. The expansive literature on participation in work organizations is accompanied by distinct and lively literatures on the implications of participation in urban politics (Adams 2007;Alford 1969;Baiocchi 2003;Barnes, Newman, and Sullivan 2007;Bingham, Nabatchi, and O'Leary 2005;Silver, Scott, and Kazepov 2010;Sirianni and Friedland 2001), environmental politics (Agrawal and Gibson 1999;Dietz and Stern 2008;Koontz 1999;Pellow 1999;Sabel, Fung, and Karkkainen 2000;Singleton 2000;Thomas 2001), science and health care (Banaszak-Holl, Levitsky, and Zald 2010;Chilvers and Kearnes 2015;Epstein 2007;Kedrowski and Sarow 2007;Levitsky 2008;McCormick et al 2003;Thorpe and Gregory 2010), and global development (Bastian, Bastian, and Nivaran 1996;Brunt and McCourt 2012;Cleaver 1999;Elyachar 2002;Hickey and Mohan 2004;Kothari and Minogue 2002;Rao 2004, 2013;Sivaramakrishnan and Agrawal 2003). 3 Scholars in art, media, and communications have been particularly intrigued by the ways that new technologies and innovative practices might reshape fields traditionally seen as reliant on solitary geniuses or top-down corporate and state monopolies (Carty 2010;Chadwick 2013;Chen 2009;Delwiche and Henderson 2013;Earl and Kimport 2011;Fish et al 2011;Gainous and Wagner 2013;...…”