NGO Accountability from an NGO Perspective: Perceptions, Strategies, and Practices

Abstract

Summary Extant research in the nonprofit literature focuses on non‐governmental organization (NGO) accountability, framing it relationally. We examine the interplay of several constitutive elements of NGO–donor relationships based on narratives of NGO executives and other staff: NGO perceptions of accountability and of their donors, their assumptions about donor perceptions of the NGO role and expectations of NGO accountability, and their responses to shifts in donor funding. We argue that perceptions and practices of accountability do not only determine to whom an NGO should be primarily accountable but also shape NGO behavior and alter dependence on donors. As such, accountability is not necessarily a consequence of a relationship, but more likely a constitutive element of the relationship. While a favorable response to donor interests might signify upward accountability, it might also suggest that NGOs are more assertive about managing their institutional environments, thereby mitigating their dependence on donors. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Understanding success in micro‐enterprise development: Dimensions and misconceptions

“…While the literature highlights concerns regarding NGO operations being shaped by donors (AbouAssi & Trent, 2016; Agyemang et al., 2017; Andrews, 2014), findings from this study differ, revealing NGOs managed this by selecting donors who supported NGOs' approaches to poverty alleviation. Hence, while NGOs' organisational legitimacy was morally derived based on their mission (AbouAssi & Trent, 2016; Atack, 1999; Gugerty, 2008; Hasnas, 2013), operational legitimacy was based on NGOs managing their activities, processes and structures (Suchman, 1995) to effectively support the poor in terms of training and networks to establish micro‐enterprises. However NGOs' consequential legitimacy was limited to outputs and short‐term outcomes, with long‐term outcomes and impacts largely overlooked.…”

“…Further, such programmes are often criticised for generating only short‐term outcomes, lack of benefits realised by the poor (Hug & Jäger, 2014; Stiles, 2002), and weak collaboration with local communities and the private sector (Islam & Morgan, 2011; Medina‐Muñoz & Medina‐Muñoz, 2020; Sam, 2007). Literature highlights NGOs have legitimacy based on their mission (AbouAssi & Trent, 2016; Nicholls, 2009; O'Leary, 2017), yet concerns have been raised regarding MED NGOs' effectiveness in contributing to sustainable (long‐term) poverty alleviation (Gugerty, 2008; Herman & Renz, 2008; O'Leary, 2017; Ossewaarde et al., 2008). However, there is limited research on NGOs' views of sustainable poverty alleviation and effective (successful) programme outcomes and impacts.…”

Accountability as strategic transparency: Making sense of organizational responses to the International Aid Transparency Initiative

“…McGee (, p. 113) summarizes aid transparency arguments as the “empowerment” case, which emphasizes inclusion, mutuality and partnership with recipients, and which was the primary motivation at Paris and Accra; the “democratic outcomes” case, which emphasizes the accountability of donors to domestic citizens, and has been a strong motivation for many national governments to publish their data; and the “developmental outcomes” case, which emphasizes potential improvements in the quality of aid allocation, delivery and results. Missing, arguably, from this analysis is the “peer pressure case,” which refers to the fact that aid transparency is sometimes conducted because organizations are forced to comply by their funders and contemporaries (Newcomer et al, 2012, p. 72; Pamment & Wilkins, ; Abouassi & Trent, ).…”

“…It is the process of adoption-of operationalizing transparency as a bureaucratic communication practice-that is the subject of this analysis. IATI provides a microcosm of debates surrounding the deployment of transparency as a communicative tool for mutual accountability, particularly in the clash between lofty ideals and the underwhelming realities of how organizations respond to exogenous reporting demands (Ebrahim, 2007;Knack & Rahman, 2007;Renzio & Angemi, 2012;Holzapfel, 2016;Abouassi & Trent, 2016).…”

Accountability in Ontario's Health Care System: The Role of Governance and Information in Managing Stakeholder Demands

“…Managing accountability is about negotiation with and among stakeholders (Anheier, Hass, & Beller, 2013). Recent examples of studies include Andrews (2014), Abouassi andTrent (2016), Gore, McDermott, Checkland, Allen, and Moran (2018), Schwabenland and Hirst (2018). It is important for nonprofit organisations to understand and manage their stakeholder relationships as a way to achieve their organisational objectives (Shaw, Zink, & Lynch, 2014).…”