Global Public Goods and Bads, Culture, Social Policy, Population and Migration, NGO's, NonProfit

Monitoring the Status of Civil Society

Organizer: HSE Centre for Studies of Civil Society and Nonprofit Sector (CSCSNS)

Heads of the project: Lev Yakobson, Irina Mersiyanova

The object of the monitoring the status of the civil society are the structures, processes and phenomena of civil society. It is a society free of self-organization, including an aggregate of social relations, norms, values and actions of individual or collective human nature in the area is not their private (private) and public (or social) life.

The purpose of the research is to assess the current status of the civil society in the developing and the implementing state policy in the areas of the maintenance and the development of its institutions, providing concerned parties current, complete, accurate and regularly updated information necessary for analyzing and forecasting the development of civil society in Russia.

The empirical base of the research. Studies based on the methodology developed and used effectively by the Centre for Civil Society Studies and the nonprofit sector of HSE to explore various aspects of the civil society in Russia. The empirical base of the results of an all-Russian population-based surveys, surveys of socio-professional groups, national surveys of NGOs held in 2011, as well as in the previous waves of monitoring the state of civil society.

Overall, the results of studies related to:

• The development of the scientific research by improving the methodology, developing new indicators and factors of the original collection tools of sociological data;
• The provision of the government, NGOs, media and other stakeholders up to date, complete, reliable and regularly updated information necessary to understand the status of the civil society in Russia;
• The contribution the formation of the state policy in the areas of maintenance and development of the civil society, support decision-making authority;
• The elaboration recommendations on the development of the civil society, addressed to various stakeholders;
• The provision of analytical materials to the Administration of the President, The Government of the Russian Federation, the working group "Development of public institutions" within the expert work on the socio-economic strategy for Russia until 2020, the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, the Public Chamber of Russian Federation and regional public chambers to annual reports on the status of the civil society as a whole in Russia, and in some regions of Russia;
• The application in teaching the knowledge base and analytical material obtained during the monitoring of the civil society.

NGOs and States

This section examines the relationship between NGOs and states. NGOs do not have a single type of relationship with states.  Some NGOs are created or funded by state governments, or have very close government ties. Other times, States actively try to undermine NGO activity by imposing severe restrictions curtailing their activities. This section analyzes the often complicated relationship between NGOs and States. Articles 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 |2008 | 2007 | 2006 | Archived Articles2013Statement: Bahraini Human Rights Organizations Need Support (August 6, 2013)

As the Bahraini society is preparing for mass protests on the 14 August, the human rights situation in the country deteriorates, says a statement of six human rights organizations active in Bahrain published on the website of Social Watch, an international network of citizen’s organizations. The statement calls for international human rights organizations as well as journalists to come to Bahrain to monitor the situation, support the local organizations and report on the situation. The organizations also ask the UK Prime Minister David Cameron and US President Barack Obama to end their active support to the government of Bahrain. (Social Watch)

2012New Russian Bill Aims to Brand NGOs as "Foreign Agents" (July 2, 2012)

The ruling United Russia party has submitted a bill which aims to brand foreign funded nongovernmental organizations in Russia as “foreign agents.” The authors of the bill intend to stop the NGOs from “conspiring” and force them to admit that they are the agents of foreign governments. Rights activists accuse the Kremlin of seeking to discredit civil rights groups that oppose to the regime. (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty)

"NGO": The Guise of Innocence (March, 2012)

In December, Egyptian police raided the offices of several foreign “NGOs” leading to much Western press criticism. But the Western media has not investigated the history of the organizations and the nature of the charges. In fact, many of the groups are government sponsored organizations, receiving majority of their funding from the US National Endowment for Democracy which was formed to legally channel US government funds to opposition groups. By using the term NGO, the groups hide behind the illusion of innocent philanthropists, but if China or Cuba were funding opposition groups with a stated goal of regime change in the US, those involved would be facing much harsher consequences. (Irish Foreign Affairs)

2011US Somalis Can’t Support Families During Famine, Thanks to Anti-Terror Laws (December 16, 2011)

Due to US anti-terror laws, many US citizens face severe restrictions when attempting to directly send money to Somali Famine victims. Somalia has not has a stable government or central banking system for the past 20 years. As a result, Somalis have created hawalas, or money transfer companies that relay money through a neighboring country’s bank. The system worked well before 9/11, but since then, sending money to hawalas has been classified as “financing” the terrorist group, al-Shabab, preventing individual citizens from sending crucial aid. (Colorlines)

A Firewall Should be Built Between USAid and the Defence Department (November 21, 2011)

In this Guardian opinion piece, William Easterly argues that US foreign aid should be re-imagined as poverty relief, not part of a defence or “nation-building” strategy. Easterly states that over the past ten years (under both the Bush and Obama Administration), aid has increasingly become inextricably linked to US Defense strategy. Though US aid is used as a political tool, it is imperative that the US acknowledge the need for poverty relief, separate from defense-building, in the wake of massive US budget cuts. (Guardian)

Development Aid in Afghanistan: The Country Where Hope Goes to Die (October 20, 2011)

Western aid workers in Afghanistan operate in dangerous conditions and face severe lack of funding. Many aid workers have reported that their efforts have been ineffective because of corruption, failed policies and pressure from Western and the Karzai administration Afghani governments. According to one aid worker, the biggest mistake is linking development aid with military assistance, which muddies the relationship between aid workers and citizens in host countries. (Spiegel Online)

The Self-Inflicted Wound of US Foreign Aid Cuts (October 14, 2011)

This Guardian opinion piece criticizes the US’s recent decision to cut foreign aid spending, arguing that this “short-sighted” effort will negatively impact both foreign recipients as well as the United States. Though the author argues that foreign aid is an investment, rather than charity, it is important that the US look at ways to ensure that the investment is not tainted by the US’s political motives. (Guardian)

Flood Impact to Worsen Unless Aid Increases (October 13, 2011)

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that there not enough money or interest in the recent devastating floods in Pakistan. An official from International Federal of the Red Cross believes that the lack of donations is linked to the bad press Pakistan has received, particularly for its reputation for as a haven for armed groups. (IRIN)

Rich States Accused of Blocking UN Climate Talks Over Finance (October 6, 2011)

Several Least Developed Countries (LDCs) have accused the United States and Japan of  blocking funding for vulnerable countries to address climate change, even though they asked the LCDs to implement specific climate change initiatives. Though rich nations committed to provide $100 billion in climate finance by 2020, they failed to agree on ways to donate or distribute the money. (AlertNet)

General Disassembly (October 4, 2011)

As promised in July 2011, the US Congress froze the $200 million in Palestinian aid in retaliation for its statehood bid at the United Nations. This is the latest example of how the US privileges its geopolitical interests over its supposed commitment to humanitarian relief.  Several Republican Congressman have proposed additional legislation to severe the relationship between the US and the UN, despite domestic support for increasing the US-UN relationship and for the US paying its full dues to the UN. (Foreign Policy)

Foreign Aid Set to Take a Hit in US Budget Crisis (October 3, 2011)

Legislators have begun proposing deeper cuts to desperate humanitarian crises in Africa, Pakistan and Japan. NGOs fear that important US foreign aid programs will be eliminated in favour of American national security initiatives. (New York Times)

Swaziland Mulls Multi-Million Dollar Bailout (September 26, 2011)

South Africa has granted a $350 million bailout to financially-starved Swaziland. However, King Mswati III of Swaziland  is hesitant to sign the loan, as the conditions of the loan are unspecified. Swaziland has historically been hesitant to accept aid from outside parties, including the IMF. While Swaziland’s doubts may be justified, the worsening social and economic problems of the nation require immediate action. (IRIN)

Lives Before Politics (September 21, 2011)

A group of twenty NGOs have issued an open letter to the international community pleading that the lives of Somali famine victims must come before government politics. They state that due to lack of proper planning by aid agencies and constant movement of famine victims, only a portion of aid is being effectively delivered. The letter urges the “international community” to change its approach by “enhance[ing] its diplomatic engagement” with various political groups in Somalia in order to ensure that humanitarian aid is delivered. (IRIN)

Moving Aid from Fire-Fighting to Long-Term Results (September 23, 2011)

During an Oxfam International event at the World Bank’s annual Fall meeting, a group of NGOs  argued that investing in preventive measures is more effective than responding after a crisis has begun. As the cost and frequency of global crises--- from earthquakes to famines--- increases, many countries can no longer afford to repeatedly pay for short-term disaster relief. Donor countries must invest more in preventative measures. (IPS Terraviva)

Evidence of Serious Human Rights Abuses Fails to Halt Flow of Aid (September 8, 2011)

Though the Ethiopian government has been accused of ethnic cleansing, widespread torture, and extra-judicial killings, the US, UK and EU continue to donate billions of dollars in development aid. The BBC News and the Bureau have documented several instances where the Ethiopian government has used this foreign aid as a means of political oppression, by creating “capacity-building programs” to promote its own political agenda and silence dissenters. Continuing to donate money to Ethiopia shows that the US, UK and EU values promoting their geopolitical interests, rather than a “humanitarian” agenda. (Alternet)

Donor Government Asked to Review Cambodia Aid if NGO Law is Passed (August 26, 2011)

Foreign NGOs in Cambodia have called upon donor governments, such as the US, UK and Australia, to “reassess” their aid packages if Cambodia passes a controversial law curtailing NGO operations. NGOs in Cambodia have expressed concern that the law will prevent various organizations from representing and protecting marginalized Cambodians, such as farmers and the disabled. As more states begin to regulate NGO activities, it is important that changes are made for legitimate reasons, not political purposes. (Guardian)

Contractors are Accused in Large-Scale Theft of Food Aid in Somalia (August 16, 2011)

The UN World Food Program (WFP) is investigating allegations that corrupt contractors have stolen thousands of sacks of grain and other supplies intended for Somalian famine victims.  Food theft has occurred in Somalia since the early 90s, causing aid workers to coin the term “traditional distribution” to describe when food aid is stolen to be sold on the black market.  Though this New York Times article largely criticizes al-Shabab and the new Somalian transitional government for active participation (and failed prevention) in this large scale food theft, this is only a part of the picture. The root causes of the famine are largely geopolitical, as the Somali people have been made vulnerable to exhausted food resources due to continuous military and political interventions in the region (particularly by Ethiopia, the AU, and the US).

Aid Alone Won’t Help the Desperate Palestinians (August 24, 2011)

The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has released a report directly linking Palestine’s “dire” economic and social situation to Israeli occupation. Although Palestine is the 10th largest recipient of aid worldwide, the report highlights that foreign aid does little to improve the situation in Palestine because of Israeli trade barriers and restrictions. This Guardian article asserts that these aid packages mask the “inaction” of countries that how Israel’s systematically prevents the Palestinian economy from being wholly self-sufficient. Donor states must take active measures to challenge the Israeli occupation, or else their aid will continue to be squandered on ineffective economic and development packages.

Third Draft of Cambodia’s Associations and NGO Law Overlooks Key Concerns (August 12, 2011)

Cambodia has released the third draft of a proposed law that would curtail NGO operations and prevent NGOs from providing crucial humanitarian assistance in Cambodia. NGOs fear that the latest draft of this law undermines the relationship between the Cambodia government and Civil Society, and would prevent various NGOs from representing and protecting “marginalized” Cambodians, such as farmers and the disabled. As more states begin to regulate NGO activities, it is important that changes are made for legitimate reasons, such as holding NGOs accountable for their actions, rather than for political purposes. (Guardian)

US Must Learn from Britain and Not Cut Foreign Aid (August 1, 2011)

NGOs fear that US foreign aid programs will be eliminated during the highly controversial and partisan 2012 budget talks. Currently, US foreign aid funding is considered “discretionary spending,” and some worry that it will be cut as a short-term effort to reduce the federal deficit. This Guardian article warns that these short term fixes will cost more in the long-term and lead to security, humanitarian, and global health problems. Cutting these aid initiatives would show that the US values its geopolitical interests over its humanitarian interests. It would be a shame if US with $14.6 tn GDP could not afford to contribute a small fraction of its GDP to help the rest of the world.

Maternal Death Focus Harsh Light on Uganda (July 29, 2011)

The death of Jennifer Anguka, a Ugandan elected official, calls attention to Uganda’s inability to pay for its public health system even as it spends a half of billion dollars on its military. This New York Times article notes the perverse effects Close of foreign aid: African governments increasingly receive more money to fight AIDS and other infectious diseases they spend less money on public health care and shift their revenues to other priorities.  Nations must continue to support and fund domestic institutions and not depend solely on foreign aid for essential public services.
US Foreign Aid 'Needs Greater Coherence,' Report Says (July 29, 2011)

Following the 2011 Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review, the OECD issued a report card stating that the US should improve coordination among its more than twenty-four governmental departments to better ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid.  The DAC also calls on the US to reduce the amount of aid that is required to be invested in US companies and products.  The report card lacks the necessary criticism of where aid is directed and how it is delivered, ignoring cases such as the use of aid to further US political interests.  However, the report did not address more contentious issues, such as who benefits from US aid, and how the US uses aid money to further its political interests. (Guardian)

US-Pakistan Spy Wars Hit Flood Relief and Aid Workers Get Caught In Dragnet (July 26, 2011)

Strained US-Pakistan relations over the assassination of Osama Bin Laden and the discovery of CIA-sponsored fake vaccination programs are hampering aid efforts to assist the millions of Pakistanis that are still affected by last summer’s devastating floods. Several western aid organizations have reported stricter visa regulations and restrictions on where western aid organizations can work are increasing the costs and delivery of aid to areas hit by the floods. As monsoon season approaches, it is important that US and Pakistan do not “politicize” aid efforts, and allow humanitarian assistance to be delivered. (Guardian)

Al-Shabab Reasserts Foreign Aid Ban (July 22, 2011)

Al-Shabib, a Somalian opposition group,  has announced that it will continue the ban on foreign aid groups working in Somalia, despite prior announcements to lift the ban. Al-Shabib has rejected UN claims about the Somalia famine and requests to bring aid to the region, arguing that these claims are laden with hidden political agendas.  However, Somalia has been most strongly affected by the drought in Horn of Africa region and refugees are fleeing the country. While aid is often politicized, Al-Shabib should allow necessary humanitarian assistance, such as food and water supplies. (Al Jazeera)

NGOs in Standoff over Hamas Audit Demand (July 19, 2011)

International NGOs working in the occupied Palestine territory have questioned the “motive” behind the Hamas government’s audit request. These NGOs are concerned that the audit will “jeopardize vital operations,” particularly for smaller NGOs who do not have the money or resources to conduct an extensive audit. While NGOs must be held accountable for their daily operations, it must be done for legitimate reasons. Aid policies should not be used to promote a political agenda or prevent the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance or services.  (Al Jazeera)

Stronger Civil Society Means More Power for the Weak( July 7, 2011)

A group of international NGOs, including CIVICUS, Asian Forum for Human Rights, and Freedom House, have created the “Embattled NGO Assistance Fund” (ENA) to help international NGO workers resist government crackdowns and pressure.  While there are an increasing number of draft laws prohibiting international NGO activity that make aid work particularly necessary, particularly in places where NGOs have challenged government human rights violations, this Guardian article cautions against the “soft power” associated with the majority of foreign aid. Many NGOs, like Freedom House, are primarily funded by governments and use their aid work to promote a specific political agenda. It is important that the ENA fund be used for legitimate, rather than political, humanitarian purposes. (Guardian)

Draft NGO Law Withheld (June 1, 2011)

Cambodia has restricted public access to a proposed law curtailing NGO operations. NGOs fear that the law will be used to ban NGOs that oppose government policies, preventing legitimate NGOs from providing crucial humanitarian assistance. As more states begin to regulate NGO activities, it is important that changes are made for legitimate reasons, such as holding NGOs accountable for their actions, rather than for political purposes. (Radio Free Asia)

Disquiet Over New NGO Law (May 13, 2011)

A draft NGO law in Somaliland threatens the sustainability of NGO operations by increasing transaction costs and reducing the capacity of organizations to act independently of the government.  As the size and influence of the NGO sector grows, Somaliland and other states are moving to regulate the activities of these organizations.  While regulation is not of itself problematic, it must be done for legitimate reasons, and should not hamper the delivery of humanitarian assistance or be a mechanism to suppress opposition. (IRIN) Israel Aiming Punitive Measures at Soft Targets (April 5, 2011)

Israel is increasingly moving to suppress internal dissent as a rebuke to international criticism of its occupation in the Palestinian West Bank. In early 2011, legislation was passed in the Knesset to establish a commission to investigate the finances of NGOs. Later, Israel-Arab politician, Haneen Zoab, had her parliamentary privileges revoked for participating in the Mavi Marmara flotilla to Gaza.  Additionally, non-violent Israeli activists have been beaten, arrested and subjected to surveillance, for protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes. (IPS Terraviva)

Sri Lanka: NGOs Face Funding Gap and Government Scrutiny (March 15, 2011)

The NGO community in Sri Lanka is being assailed by the government, which purportedly sees these organizations as its opposition in governance.  The state is particularly concerned about funding of local NGOs by foreign governments.  These NGOs are viewed as the tools by which foreign powers are able to influence internal political affairs.  The obscured influence of foreign governments through NGOs is a legitimate concern.  However, this should not be used as an excuse for suppression of valid critics and opposition movements. (IPS Terraviva)

Sudan Governor Expels French Aid Group from Darfur (February 14, 2011)

Médecins du Monde, a French humanitarian NGO, has been expelled from Darfur and 12 of its workers have been arrested.  Sudanese authorities accuse the group of undermining the government and providing support to rebels.  Médecins du Monde was one of the last groups operating in a region of Darfur under rebel control.  The crackdown demonstrates the difficulty faced by organizations giving humanitarian aid to people living under the control of anti-government forces.  Governments often equate aid to direct support of these forces, putting NGO operations in jeopardy. (Reuters Africa)

The Fate of Dr Binayak Sen will Help to Show the Real India (February 8, 2011)Dr Binayak Sen, the founder of Indian NGO Rupantar and prominent human rights activist, has had his application for bail refused by the Indian Supreme Court.  Sen is serving a life sentence for allegedly supporting Maoist rebels and is charged under the same legislation used to incarcerate Ghandi.  Sen has been critical of the government and his work has focused on providing basic services to people the state ignores, including those in Maoist regions.  Sen has already been jailed for over two years without any evidence to support the accusations against him.  The government has repeatedly denied justice to Sen, attracting widespread condemnation in India and internationally. (Amnesty International)Ban on Foreign Funding Leaves Venezuelan Activists in Limbo about Whether they are Targets (January 30, 2011)

Venezuela has introduced a law curtailing NGO operations - joining Israel and Cambodia which have both recently done the same.  The law prevents NGOs from accepting foreign funding and penalizes "opinions that offend state institutions."  As in Israel and Cambodia, the Venezuelan government apparently wants to weaken foreign-backed opposition.  Many NGOs in Venezuela depend on foreign financial support and will struggle to maintain their operations without this funding. (Associated Press)

Iraeli Parliament Backs 'McCarthyite' Investigation Into Human Rights Groups (January 6, 2011)

Israel's parliament has passed a proposal to investigate human rights NGOs.  The right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu Party justifies the proposal by claiming the activities of human rights groups are "delegitimising" Israel's military.  These groups, however, say the proposal is akin to McCarthyism in the US and view it as an attempt to quash internal criticism in Israel. (The Independent)

Hun Sen Focuses Ire on NGO Law Critics (January 5, 2011)

A draft law threatens to significantly restrict the operations of NGOs in Cambodia. Prime Minister Hun Sen says that NGOs in Cambodia are demanding too many rights. In its current form, the law will constrain freedom of association, including limiting founding members of NGOs to Cambodian nationals, prohibiting activities by non-registered NGOs and requiring foreign NGOs to collaborate with the Cambodian government. This is an example of a wider movement among states to implement or amend laws to control NGO operations (Phnom Penh Post)

2010

Afghanistan Shuts down 150 Afghan, Foreign Aid Groups (November 9, 2010)

Around 150 aid groups, including four foreign organizations, have been forced to shut down by a government-backed commission in Afghanistan. The commission was established by President Hamid Karzai as part of his anti-corruption drive and his suspicion of foreign organizations in Afghanistan. According to Afghan law, NGOs are required to submit reports every six months detailing their funding and activities. None of the NGOs ordered to end operations submitted the reports despite warning letters. This ruling follows a similar one in May where the commission shut down 172 NGOs, including 20 foreign groups, for the same reason. (Reuters)

Foreign Policy: Cooperating With The Taliban (August 26, 2010)

Rabkin suggests that following the murder of IAM staff in Afghanistan, aid workers and the Taliban will be forced to cooperate. Humanitarian groups have historically had to strike a delicate balance of distance and cooperation with the Taliban to negotiate for their safety. Whilst aid workers' safety has improved through such communication with the Taliban, a conflict persists because the military insists on NGO cooperation, so NGO's can become identified with the foreign enemies. (NPR)

The Harper Government, Women's Rights and the Cost of Speaking Out (June 4, 2010)

The Harper administration is reversing the traditional policy under which Canadian governments have provided funding to NGOs and civil-society groups, including those which oppose government policies. The hardest hit groups have been those working for women's rights - funding for groups such as International Planned Parenthood has already been cut and the Canadian International Development Agency has warned NGOs to omit phrases like "gender equality" from future proposals to have a chance at funding. Meanwhile international development assistance for projects dedicated to promoting gender equality in Pakistan and Kenya has also been considerably reduced. (The Globe and the Mail)

China's Government's Ambivalence Toward NGOs (May 24, 2010)

Increasing prosperity in China has been accompanied by the growth of an active civil society and an increasing number of NGOs. However, recent reports from China suggest that the government is placing restrictions, such as complex registration procedures and a required approval process for large grants, on NGOs that are speaking up against the government's actions. Furthermore, NGOs receiving foreign funding are being viewed with skepticism and in some cases, facing sanctions. Such intimidation tactics are often successful, as reflected by the appeasing tone of some NGOs' mission statements. Meanwhile there is a growing trend of unregistered grassroots organizations as an alternative to registered, and consequentially government regulated, NGOs. The tenuous relationship between the government and civil society actors is thus shaping the form that civil society action takes in China. (Wall Street Journal)

Afghan Umbrella Bodies Deem NGO Clean-up "fair" (May 13, 2010)

Several NGO coordination bodies in Afghanistan have declared that the Afghan government's decision to ban 152 local and 20 foreign NGOs was a fair one. Most of the dissolved NGOs had failed to comply with the Ministry of Economy regulations; others had simply closed operations and left the country without notice, while some were deemed to have activity levels that were "too low." However, NGOs are providing critical services to the Afghan population, and while some monitoring may be necessary, it is also important to hold the work of the government, donors and private contractors up to the same standards. (IRIN)

Chinese AIDS Activist Flees to US After Harrassment (May 10, 2010)

Wan YanHai - former Chinese Health Ministry Official and prominent leader of a Chinese AIDS advocacy group - has fled China, following repeated harrassment by government authorities. Despite acknowledging the spread of HIV and AIDS as a pressing national health concern, the Chinese government - which recently tightened its regulations on foreign donations to local NGOs - is distrustful and suspicious towards independent groups and activists, whom it views as potential threats to its sovereignty and authority. (The Associated Press)

5 NGOS Dole Out $33M in State Grants (May 10, 2010)

The Russian government has recently announced its 2010 budget to fund local NGOs. 1 billion rubles - $33 million equivalent - will be distributed to the NGO community through five Moscow based organizations which all possess intimate relations with the ruling United Russia party. Such channeling of funds has been criticized by members of civil society as lacking in accountability and transparency. Yelena Panfilova of Transparency International says that allocation of funds by the five appointed organizations has frequently been questioned. (The Moscow Times)

Italian NGO Saga Continues to Make Waves (May 4, 2010)

Nine employees of Emergency - an Afghanistan based Italian aid NGO - were charged for hospital killings and plotting to assassinate an Afghan governor. All accusations have since been dropped, yet controversies continue to surround the humanitarian NGO. Emergency recently admitted to having acted on the Italian Foreign Ministry's instructions when it brokered an agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban in 2007 to "swap" five Taliban prisoners for the release of kidnapped Italian journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo. Should humanitarian NGOs negotiate and mediate on behalf of belligerent parties, especially when it claims to act in "good faith," and where human life is at risk? (IRIN)

Frozen Aid, Little NGO Contact Create New "Dynamic" (April 28, 2010)

More than 60 civil society representatives met with Canadian government officials in a symposium at Vancouver on April 16 - a week prior to the G8 international development conference in Halifax. While the Canada government – which currently chairs the G8 – actively consults large-scale NGOs such as CARE, UNICEF and World Vision on maternal and child health issues, smaller-scale members of civil society struggle to secure constructive dialogue with government officials for their advocacy efforts. (Embassymag.ca)

NGOs and Their Quest for Legitimacy in Africa (April 9, 2010)

Until the 1980s, many failed to appreciate the role of NGOs in influencing and implementing development policy in Africa. This article argues that NGOs are a growing presence in modern Africa and that African states often fail to contribute to development due to their lack of capacity, accountability and transparency. While most governments acknowledge NGOs as valuable assets, many remain wary and consider the rapid expansion of NGO networks as challenges to "state autonomy, legitimacy, revenue and territorial hegemony." (Institute for Security Studies)

Israeli Rights Groups View Themselves as Under Siege (April 5, 2010)

Release of the Goldstone report has led to tightening pressure on Israeli human rights NGOs as the Israeli government takes extreme measures to defend itself against war crimes accusations. Rights advocates now face increasing scrutiny, and are frequently attacked by critics who accuse their work as "endangering the country." This situation is worrying, as a senior aide to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu affirmed in a recent interview that Israel will "dedicate time and manpower to combat human rights groups" which challenge the legitimacy of the Israeli government's human rights practices. (New York Times)

Egypt's Government to Restrict NGO Vote Monitoring (March 22, 2010)

The Egyptian government has recently introduced new draft legislation which requires NGOs and advocacy groups to become members of a government-controlled federation. The federation manages NGO permits, work and funding. Thirty-sex local NGOs have since launched a protest, alleging that the new legislation's underlying purpose is to prevent civil society from monitoring upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections. (Guardian)

New Finance Rules Add to Squeeze on China NGOs (March 12, 2010)

China has tightened its rules on foreign donations to local NGOs - a move civil society groups regard as open to abuse by states officials wanting to exercise greater control. From March 1 onwards, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange does not only demand foreign donations to go into "special foreign exchange bank accounts," it also requires the donations to be accompanied by translated agreement and registration documents by donors. Despite material concerns on legitimacy of NGO funding sources, many argue that new funding regualtions do more harm than good by causing further constraints on the work of "well-intended" NGOs. (Reuters)

Israel's NGOs Must Operate Freely (26 February, 2010)

Gerald Steinberg, founder of NGO Monitor - a web-based project of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs - claims that European-funded human rights NGOs constitute "grotesque distortion" of democracy in Israel due to their criticisms of Israel's human rights record. This article by contrast attributes the nation's worsening democratic deficit to a bill recently introduced by the Israeli legislature. The author argues that the bill - which constraints funding as well as freedom of speech among civil society organizations - legitimizes assaults on human rights organizations that work within occupied Palestinian territories. (Guardian)

Embedding the War on Terror: State and Civil Society Relations (January 2010)

One of the main effects of the war against terrorism has been the diversion of development assistance to front-line states, very often to the detriment of NGOs which address global poverty and worsening income inequalities. Most aid disbursements for "advancing human security" can be viewed as aid disbursements for protecting northern national security interests. This article explores the impact of anti-terror measures on civil society, and is based on eight policy dialogue workshops held over two years by the International NGO Training and Research Centre (INTRACT). It argues that broad anti-terror laws hinder and sometimes, even "criminalize" humanitarian efforts of NGOs in certain areas of the world. (Development and Change: International Institute of Social Studies)

Israel's NGO Crackdown Spells Trouble (January 25, 2010)

NGOs including Oxfam, Save the Children and Doctors without Borders will now face restrictions in their work to serve the needs of the Palestinian population in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. This is due to Israel's new policy of issuing NGO employees with tourist visas instead of work visas. Such repressive policies could only lead to "more hostility, more suspicion and more recriminations." (Guardian)

Zimbabwe: Government is Unable to Manage NGO Funds (January 7, 2010)

The Global Political Agreement (GPA) - signed by three political parties in Zimbabwe - has led to the channeling of all aid and assistance through the Zimbabwean government. This awards the government the right to determine allocation of resources for humanitarian purposes. Zimbabwean political science lecturer Simon Badza supports centralized control of NGO finances, and asserts that "all sovereign states may want to monitor the operations of NGOs to see if they are operating within the parameters of the law." Government control of NGO funds can lead to further strains on NGO work, and it will create unnecessary delays for pressing needs. (All Africa)

Activist Groups Gain Influence in Global Body

By R.C. LongworthChicago Tribune
December 1, 1999

They call themselves the "third sector" of global government or, in their loftier moments, "global civil society." The first two sectors, business and government, call them pests. Their generic name is non-governmental organizations, or NGOs for short. As the demonstrations at the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle this week show, some formerly marginal NGOs have burst into the global economy in a big way and are becoming a serious force in the way the world is run in the global era.

All this is new, a child of the post-Cold War world and the communications revolution. It's a work in progress, but as the global society takes shape, NGOs are in the thick of it. At stake is a battle to write the rules that will govern the new global economy. This economy is powered by global markets, global corporations and global communications, all of which have escaped the laws and frontiers of individual nations.

This process is shifting power to international organizations such as the WTO and the International Monetary Fund. Until now, the rules of these organizations have been set, often in private, by governments and by the global corporations themselves. The usual democratic instruments-- parliaments, political parties, the press and courts--are national in character and cannot follow this new governance as it expands over the world.

The emerging NGOs--mostly small, nimble and at home in cyberspace--can and do jump national borders. In the past two or three years, they have learned how to become a potent voice in the framing of this new global government. "What has changed since 1990 is that we are in the economic political mainstream," said Charles Arden-Clark of the World Wide Fund for Nature, an environmental NGO. "International organizations are learning they have to talk to us at the beginning (of negotiations)."

The Seattle demonstrations involve tens of thousands of people from at least 700 organizations, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. An estimated 30,000 NGOs operate internationally. Some are huge: Amnesty International has a bigger budget than the United Nations human-rights monitors. Most are small, little more than two economists and a filing cabinet. But they all have computers and modems and have become expert at using the Internet to form ad hoc coalitions that can leverage their strengths.

In the '90s, NGOs working together have played major roles in writing the international treaty banning land mines, in turning global warming and Third World debt relief into major issues, in establishing an international criminal court, and in defeating attempts by the 29 leading industrial nations to frame ground rules for global investment.

Some NGOs, such as Doctors Without Borders, deal with health issues, or like Human Rights Watch, fight political and legal battles. But an increasing number focus on economic causes, such as labor, poverty and the environment. The WTO, the international organization overseeing world trade, is a lightning rod for their concerns about the global economy.

NGOs sometimes are called non-profit organizations. Both names tell only what they aren't. They aren't part of government, nor of business. They are private organizations, usually devoted to a single cause, funded by contributions, often from foundations. Some big foundations, such as Ford and the Chicago-based MacArthur, have become powerful behind-the-scenes figures in the global economy through their targeted funding of NGOs. "What the Ford and MacArthur program officers think is important has huge importance for us," said John Cavanagh, director of the left-leaning Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, which relies on funding from "30 or 40 foundations" to fulfill its mandate "to work on behalf of the poorer half of humanity, to help build a global civil society." "Something new is being born," said one of those program officers, the Ford Foundation's Larry Cox. "There is a new global movement. We are right now having to work out global principles that transcend nations."

All this is part of "a shifting economic and political architecture worldwide--as most visibly manifested by the end of the Cold War, rapid economic globalization, the increasing power of international corporations, and the proliferation of cheap communication technologies," wrote Curtis Runyan, assistant editor of World Watch magazine. In this process, the Internet has been crucial. The same communications technology that created global markets and global corporations has empowered the NGO-led backlash.

Critics charge that NGOs are anti-business, anti-globalization, anti-capitalism and anti-almost everything. The fiercely pro-trade British magazine, The Economist, scornfully lumped them together as a "rag-bag." Some NGO members, like the more raucous demonstrators who touched off the clashed in Seattle on Tuesday, might fit that description. Others are more sedate. But others have become a true third party in global governance. The NGOs who helped write the land-mine and international court treaties are examples.

The UN has accredited 1,500 NGOs, and the World Bank has a set it recognizes. Both bodies keep these NGOs briefed on issues under debate and often ask their advice and their help in areas, such as the environment, where the NGOs might have expertise. The IMF and WTO remain uncomfortable with NGOs. The WTO has begun informal briefings for NGOs at the trade organization's headquarters in Geneva, but both sides admit that mutual suspicion has prevented much genuine cooperation.

NGOs can be constructive and destructive, according to Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies. Most believe the WTO has too much power and want to restrain, reform or destroy it, he said. But other NGOs, such as the ones that are helping to create an international criminal court, recognize the power of the global economy and want to build a new web of global environmental, labor and economic regulations to replace what they see as outmoded national codes, he said.

NGOs cut their teeth on political issues, such as voting rights and torture, and political groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have become the biggest and best-known NGOs. "But now the debate is changing," said Michael Posner, executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. "The original focus was on state-sponsored violence, on civil rights regarding torture, disappearances and the like. This is still important. "But now we're in a post-Cold War world, with issues relating to workplace or economic rights, such as sweatshops, abuse of children and mistreatment of women. With a growing global market and growing disparity, and with global companies going to poorer countries, these issues will continue to rise," Posner said.

Critics of NGOs point out that they are non-elected organizations, beholden not to voters but to their financial backers, and so are no more democratic than the WTO and other global organizations. Defenders such as Lori Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch for Public Citizen, argue that NGOs often insist that the global economy abide by national laws and regulations, forged in the democratic process. "On a global scale, democratic accountability is lost," said Wallach, whose Washington-based consumer organization was founded by Ralph Nader. "The true role of international rules is to ensure that nation-states remain robust."

Link to Introduction on NGOs
More Information on the Growing Importance of NGOs

Scaling Up: Thinking Through the Issues
Print
Peter Uvin and David Miller
The World Hunger Program
1994

The World Hunger Program is part of the Watson Institute of International Studies at Brown University. The 1970s and 1980s have witness ed a dramatic growth in the number, the size and the level of activity of non-profit/non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the Third World. They include peasant associations, neighborhood associations, people's movements, community initiatives, urban a ction committees and intermediary NGOs, filling the ranks of what is often referred to as the "associative sector." This phenomenon parallels a slow but profound change in the international aid system. Since the middle of the 1970s, donor agencies have be come increasingly preoccupied with the issue of participation and have looked to Northern and Southern NGOs as the vehicles for carrying forward an agenda of participation. As a result, both the numbers of international and local NGOs and the number of do nor funded projects that have a participation component within them have grown remarkably over the past ten years. This growth in size, number and activities of organized participatory initiatives has become recognized within the development community as" scaling-up." It constitutes an objective, or desire, of many funders, field practitioners and scholars alike.

However, some important questions about scaling-up need to be answered. What role do the participants that expand the ranks of the scaled up o rganizations play within these organizations or within their funded projects? Is there a relationship between donor support of scaling-up and constituent participation? In what way will this new interest in scaling-up affect the rank and file of the parti cipation movement? Has the redirection of development assistance toward scaling-up initiatives been effective? As Edwards and Hulme stated it: "how can [NGOs] increase their development impact without losing their traditional flexibility, value-base and e ffectiveness at the local level?"[1]

Together, these questions constitute a research agenda that, to date, has not received adequate attention. Indeed, most of the literature on grassroots development movements is no rmative in nature; the rest is largely anecdotal. It is as if the usual laws of scientific inquiry, verification and experimentation do not apply when dealing with organizations whose social goals have often eluded the same rigors of measurement administe red among the bottom lines of government and for-profit organization.[2]

This article proposes a first scientific look at scaling up. It does not present any grand theory of scaling up, nor is it the result of detail ed comparative field research. Rather, it represents what can be called a "pre-theory:" the development of some clear definitions and taxonomies, which can constitute the basis for scientific investigation and discussion. Indeed, only when there is an und erstanding of the dimensions of the concept of scaling up can donor and beneficiary, participant and observer, scholar and practitioner, begin to communicate in a way that can address the questions above. This article will also supply the interested reade r with a foray into the existing literature, suggesting paths for further reading.

1. The History of Scaling-up

Schematically, since the 1960s, two basic organizational paradigms for promoting development have dominated th e scene. The first is the top-down, usually state-led model. In it, the central government, with support from the aid system, through its policies, programs and projects, attempts to set in motion development. The population will follow suit, as will `dev elopment.'

For most of the last thirty years, this model has been dominant, with Third World governments, the development aid system and most development scholars. Yet, it also has been the subject of severe criticism. Time has shown the central state often to be very inefficient in `creating' development: too far away from the population, rigid and bureaucratic, often controlled by elite interests and characterized by a condescending attitude towards the poor and the peasants, it does not respond ver y well to the needs of the majority of its population. Subject to internal rivalries and external pressures, plagued by poor budgets and staffed by badly trained and underpaid civil servants, it is a fertile ground for vested interest, rent taking and fac tional enrichment. Hence, the state has proven in most cases to be a poor organizational device to implement effective and just development strategies.[3] Similarly, top-down projects, even if not implemented by the stat e, were proven to be largely unsustainable because of a lack of local institutional involvement.[4]

The second model for organizing development is a reaction against the perceived deficiencies and injustices of the t op-down model. Its origin dates from the 1960s by NGOs and engaged scholars, but it gained only broad acceptance in the second half of the 1980s. The bottom-up, grassroots model seeks to organize development from below. It seeks to increase the capacity o f poor people and communities to take their fate in their own hands, to change the conditions of their lives; in short, to `empower' themselves through `participation' in their own development. This paradigm of participation centers on the creation and th e strengthening of NGOs and community based, grassroots organizations. They are to tap the latent energies of the poor in fostering endogenous development and social transformation.[5]

For various reasons, this strat egy became increasingly accepted by the development community in the 1980s, most of all on the level of discourse, but also, and increasingly so, in practice. The above described limits of the previous state-centered, top-down development strategy were be coming increasingly evident. Project and sectoral evaluations all through the 1980s revealed that projects that were not appropriated by local institutions tended to be much less successful and less sustainable than those in which local communities played a central role. As one Asian Development Bank researcher states it: "NGO provision of services is an effective and growing response to some of the problems that projects have faced in the past."[6] Moreover, a deep econ omic and financial crisis hit most Third World governments in the 1980s. It necessitated that new, internal, sources of financing and investment be found: tapping the financial and human resources of local communities were the evident alternative.[7] Finally, the dominant global ideology of the 1980s was strongly in favor of anything that was not public: private enterprise for the creation of wealth, and private association for its distribution. Hence, reasons of cost ef ficiency and ideological appeal combined to make the more fiscally conservative managers of development aid march down the same road as the more politically liberal advocates of economic and social transformation and popular empowerment.[8]

This "new" participatory, bottom-up, NGO-led, strategy is not without its detractors. Common critiques among many development specialists are that:

most NGO-led programs are too small, underfunded, poorly staffed, slow and localized in the face of the daunting size of the problems of poverty, hunger and environmental degradation, often NGOs actions do not match their rhetoric, for example in the fields of community participation, innovation, cost-effectiveness, reac hing the poorest, most existing NGOs are unable to absorb the massive quantities of money needed to make a difference, the anti-state attitude of most NGOs limits both their capacity to change some of the root causes of underdevelopment (policy level causes) or to have a large impact.

Existing NGO programs were thus considered to be only actions at the margin, capable of providing local relief and service, but not able to tackle the real issues of the eradication of hunger and poverty for hu ndreds of millions of people.[9]

Following this, at the beginning of the 1990s, a new model has been emerging, drawing on the best of both previous strategies. It holds that the state remains necessary, for only it h as the capacity to enable and coordinate the work of NGOs and private initiative on the scale that will make a difference. It can do this by providing certain public services, enabling legislation and subventions in the forms of entitlements. Interacting with the state should be a new breed of large, well managed and competent NGOs that are capable of mobilizing the participation of large numbers of people and channeling large sums of money to large-scale activities. At the state side of the equation, thi s involves a willingness and a capacity to take a partnership position with civil society, to create an "enabling environment" for private initiative. At the NGO side, it implies the need for "scaling-up," i.e. to increase their size, complexity, i mpact and interaction with the state. Presently, much money is poured by development assistance organizations into promoting such scaling-up of Third World NGO activity.

It is already clear that the basic, as yet unanswered, issue concerning scaling up will be the one of its relation with participation. It can be put like this: How can a development initiative move beyond the local level and make a larger impact while continuing to foster participation? Can a participatory, bottom-up program, or the or ganization managing it, scale up while avoiding the problems of cumbersome and overstaffed organizations, detached from their grassroots bases, becoming mere sub-contractors of the foreign aid system or of the state, unaccountable to the communities who t hey claim to represent? This paper will not supply an answer to that question; it will, however, provide some clear terms allowing to address it.

2. The Concept of Participation

The term "participation" has become one of t he most debated terms used in the development community. It has been used to explain a broad host of activities that have been done to, for and by NGO constituents. What is a participatory organization becomes nothing short of a philosophical question. We wish to define the term participation more precisely here, presenting a hierarchy of elements that can be identified in the way an organization conducts its affairs that enhances the participatory nature of that organization.[10]

At the bottom (zero-level) of the hierarchy we find participation by the target population as program beneficiaries -- the stated objective of every development program. Immediately above that, we find organizations seeking constituent part icipation in the costs and the work of their programs. This appears to be the most common form of participation supported by development institutions such as the World Bank, or by many Third World governments. On a higher level, we find people's participa tion in training that permits the transfer of organizational, managerial and technical capacities to members of the target community; supposedly, this will prepare them for taking over after the program or project departs. This is also a prelude to the ne xt level of participation whereby target groups participate in the management of development programs, making routine decisions over the day-to-day operations of the program (also called participation in implementation). While the community may make manag ement decisions, the strategic, goal-setting decisions continue to remain in the realm of the executing or funding agency. The next level -- participation in policy-making -- indeed puts decision making around program goals into the hands of the community (also called participation in design). The highest level of participation is ownership by target group members over the resources of the organization or program. Ownership can take many forms including worker-owned companies, producer or consumer coopera tives, land trusts, and limited equity housing schemes.

It appears that, for maximum effectiveness, each of these elements sits along a continuum that is inclusive of the elements below. For example, ownership of a program is preferable when the owner s are not absent from making policy. They make better policy if they have experience managing the programs. Program managers make better decisions when they have acquired relevant skills. Relevant skills are best learned when they are directly related to a participant's hands-on working experience. And workers are most motivated when they directly benefit from the programs in which they are working. In other words, the higher forms of participation are only superior if the lower forms are present too; if not, they can be meaningless (f.ex. cooperative ownership without decision-making power or capacity)

This paper deals with those organizations and/or programs in which program beneficiaries are engaged at least in the management of their programs, i.e. making decisions about the day-to-day operations and the ways to attain operational program objectives. We do not consider programs or organizations that allow for the lower levels of participation to be truly participatory ones. This, then, is q uite a high cut-off point, designed to exclude the many cases of participation in rhetoric, "that do not go beyond taking advantage of cheap local labor for construction of public works, or, for example, involve token consultation with village chiefs in o rder to gain the acquiescence of the population."[11] Examples of the latter include the socialist-type of participation, most rural cooperatives, or the World Bank type of participation.[1 2]

This definition does not mean, however, that participatory programs have been initiated solely by the target group, nor that they are entirely funded or managed by it.[13] This would be unrealistic and self-de feating. No meaningful development comes without outside contact; given the size of the needs of the poor and the hungry in the Third World, local (financial and human) resources alone are not sufficient to respond successfully to the many challenges faci ng Third World communities. The defining criterion for bottom-up development is not that there is no external funding or expertise, but rather that the people concerned are engaged in the decision-making concerning these resources.

In this paper, we de fine NGOs, approximately following Salamon & Anheier, as those organizations that are formally constituted, non-governmental, non-profit, not overly partisan (in a party political sense) and participatory. This is a broad definition including internat ional, national, regional and local membership organizations; funding, operational and advocacy NGOs; community associations, cooperatives, networks, service providers and intermediary NGOs.[14] In much of the American l iterature, the term NGO is used only for intermediary organizations, i.e. those non-governmental organizations (mainly from the North) that provide financial and technical assistance to grassroots organizations; in the US, the term PVO (Private Vol untary Organization) is also used for them.[15] As can be seen, we employ the term NGO in its larger, generic meaning.

If organizations, and the programs they run, are characterized by high levels of participation in policy-making and management or even ownership, then they really constitute cases of self-help, i.e. people taking care of their own problems through their own actions, maybe receiving some outside support. Hence, in this paper, following Koenraad Verhagen, we will often use the term self-help, distinguishing between two types of organizations: "self-help organizations" (SHOs -- membership organizations searching to advance their own interests through their own activities) and "self-help promotion organizations" (SHPOs -- intermediary organizations working at the behest of self-help organizations). SHOs tend to be local[16] and membership based (but they can form national coalitions), while SHPOs can exist on any geographic level and are usually not membership based.

3. A Taxonomy of Scaling-up

Different definitions of scaling-up have been used in the literature. In a recent USAID evaluation of tw o innovative Freedom From Hunger credit projects in Africa, the term scaling-up -- the focus of the study which is explicitly mentioned in its title -- is equated with `expansion', or, more precisely, the need to "reach several times the actual number of members" in the countries concerned. This definition of scaling-up as expansion of membership or target group is probably the most commonly used one.

Social scientists tend to propose more complicated definitions. Robert Berg, for example, talks about scaling-up organizationally, management-wise and financially, while Goran Hyden differentiates between scaling-up organizationally and functionally or activity-wise. "Organizationally" is defined by both authors as "serving larger constituencies," i.e . the same organization, keeping the same goals, grows in size. This, then, is the same meaning of the term as `expansion.' "Functionally" means that the same organization increases or diversifies its range of activities, regardless of size. Howes and Sattar talk about "intensification," referring to the addition of new activities to existing programs.

Clark, in his book on NGOs,[17] makes a different distinction among three types of scaling-up: project replicatio n, building grassroots movements and influencing policy reform. The first two are linked to expansion, but the latter is new. Fisher also defines scaling up as the process of influencing policy; she uses the term "scaling out" to describe expansion.[18] Although he does not use the term scaling-up in this context, Korten clearly discusses a similar type of scaling-up where he advocates so-called "third generation" NGOs.[19] The latter a re distinct from first and second generation ones by their concerns for "bridging the gap between micro and macro" (i.e. quitting the local level) and their desire to attack the (political) root causes of underdevelopment, and not its manifestation s. This involves the development of relationships with governments as well as international partnerships. Therefore, for Korten, Clark, Fisher and many others, influencing politics is considered to be an important form of scaling-up.

Finally, coming fr om a different tradition, Bernard Lecomte, a French grassroots specialist with decades of field experience in Africa (and co-founder of the "Six-S" movement) writes about different phases in the maturing of self-help organizations -- phases mainly charact erized by increased capacity to innovate, generate local resources and improved organizational capacity.[20] His scaling-up is a matter of autonomy, self-reliance, independence.

All in all the literature of scaling-u p is reminiscent of the Loch Ness monster. It has been sighted enough to make even the most skeptical give it a measure of respectability; and its description is as varied as the people who have written about it. We believe that this variety of def initions is important. It allows us to look at the phenomenon in a number of different ways, giving us some insight into the complexity of the associative sector itself. It also suggests that there are different types of scaling-up, which often go togethe r but are not identical. In the typology below, we look at scaling-up in terms of either structures, programs, strategies or resource base.

Structure

The first type of scaling-up is where a program or an organization expand s its size, through increasing their membership base (in the case of grassroots organizations) or their constituencies (for SHPOs) and, linked to that, their geographic working area or their budgets. This is the most evident kind of scaling-up, equaling ` growth' or `expansion' in their basic meanings. We call it quantitative scaling-up. It happens when participatory organizations draw increasing numbers of people into their realm.

Programs

A second type of scaling-up is where a community-based program or a grassroots organization expands the number and the type of its activities. Starting in agricultural production, for example, it moves into health, nutrition, credit, training, literacy, etc. This we label functi onal scaling-up. It takes place when participatory organizations add new activities to their operational range.

Strategy

The third type of scaling-up refers to the extent to which participator organizations move bey ond service delivery and towards empowerment and change in the structural causes of underdevelopment -- its contextual factors and its socio-political-economic environment. This will usually involve active political involvement and the development of rela tions with the state. This process, similar to a graduation to higher generations in Korten's parlance, we call political scaling-up.

Resource base

Finally, community-based programs or grassroots organizations can increase their organizational strength so as to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their activities. It can be done financially, by diversifying their sources of subvention, increasing the degree of self-financing, creating activities that genera te income (cooperative enterprises, consultancy), or by assuring the enactment of public legislation earmarking entitlements within the annual budgets for the program. It can also be done institutionally, by creating external links with other development actors, both public and private (including the enterprise sector), and by improving the internal management capacity of the staff (such as through training or personnel development) allowing the organization and its programs to grow, to be flexible, to be sustainable. This we label organizational scaling-up.

These different types of scaling-up form part of the dynamics of successful community based development, in all sectors. Take the case of the fight against hunger. In that context, quantitat ive scaling-up essentially refers to the strategy for community mobilization employed by community-based programs: how did these organizations bring about community self-help in the field of food and hunger? How did they draw increasing numbers of people into their programs? How did they manage their expansion? The case of functional scaling-up asks the question of the type of activities organizations have undertaken to combat hunger. This is the more "technical" question on what type and sequence of acti vities organizations or programs undertook against hunger: increase food production or income, organize credit systems, cereal banks, etc. The analysis of political scaling-up asks to what extent have organizations attempted to influence local, regional, national and international factors that cause hunger? Do programs attack the political and economic forces that often underlie hunger such as unequal landholding, unequal access to credit and inputs, corruption and clientism, or the exploitation of ethnic groups, women and children? Finally, the question of organizational scaling-up leads us to the issues of civil society and sustainability. To what extent have organizations created legitimate and diverse social structures, allowing local communities to m anage their own affairs in a sustainable manner? Can existing programs continue, even after the (gradual) withdrawal of foreign aid? Are leadership and management capacity being built that can serve as the starting point for action in other fields? This i s a most important question, often neglected in the usual project approach to development or hunger eradication.

Following the taxonomies laid out above, we will now look more closely at how scaling-up occurs.