NGO Networking

“NGOs work in a society as institutions in their own right and through negotiation with other institutional actors to achieve their interests. Their success in working in society depends to a great extent on their ability to influence others in their environments…” (Doh and Teegan 217)

Optimally, networks have the potential to benefit Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the areas of organizational development, performance, and advocacy; likewise, the means for education and partnership multiply when NGOs connect with other NGOs or organizations. The Bureau of Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance study, “NGO Networks: Building Capacity in a Changing World,” cites key characteristics shared by most networks and diverse approaches to NGO networking. In analyzing these characteristics and the way that networks function, a brief history of network ideology and NGO networking since the 1980’s, when such partnering practices became more common provides background to the topic. NGO networks operate in many different areas of society and the circumstances from which they form are likewise varied. It is understood that as the challenges and benefits of NGO networking are negotiated, the present and future of NGO networks will remain a learning process that means continuing to evolve as engines of change.

Characteristics of Networks

“NGO Networks: Building Capacity in a Changing World,” as well as author of NGOs and Rural Development: Theory and Practice, Joel S.G.R. Bhose maintain that while there are many points about networks that are debated over, some characteristics remain constant. The consensus is as follows:

1. NGO networks are formed for a wide range of purposes and can have various structures depending on their goals.
2. Networks of NGOs are either informal and respond to specific problems/situations, or they are formal and have structured guidelines for membership, management, and communication.
3. The primary center of any given network of NGOs is the relationship between its members.

Operating within these understood parameters, the study notes that “global and regional networks, [as opposed to national ones] provide an environment for information sharing, social exchange, relationship building, and even social interaction” (Leibler and Ferri) that well exceed the limitations of location. In a broad sense, networks can consist of collectives of organizations or simply groups of individuals who collaborate on shared activities with mutual interests. The structures of NGO networks can vary greatly however, formal networks, such as the WANGO, SANGOCO, Arab NGO Development Network, Uganda Women Network, Youth Action Network, and many others, may utilize secretariats or other paid personnel to help in the areas of organization and management. The partnerships between members within networks are usually for the benefit of shared interests or goals, the assessment of the activities members engage in presumably increase as a result of the advantages gained from being part of a network.

History of Networks

  Networks have always existed in some form or another. In communities before the advent of agriculture, a person’s contribution was based on what they were good at doing, and with this idea, the communities survived as a result of the combined strengths of each person. In the Middle Ages, guilds were created as “a way of ensuring economic protection for producers and quality control for consumers that flourished into a norm for production” (Leibler and Ferri). With industrialization came the labor unions, which are essentially networks of workers who come together to advocate for their rights in the workplace. Doctors, psychologists, lawyers and other professionals have formed networks through societies and organizations in efforts to learn and connect with others in their respective fields and seek best practices. 

  The idea of working collectively to benefit the individual as well as the group is especially pervasive in areas of development, particularly in the NGO communities that most often champion for the “environment, poverty reduction, international security, and inequality” (Leibler and Ferri). The potential to utilize network ideology to work toward meaningful political, economic, and social change is limitless.

  Even though networks are not new and have existed in various permutations for a long time, according to Joel S.G.R. Bhose, the “rise of networks of NGOs” (Bhose 48) has become formidable since the 1980’s. These networks are informal and limited in their goals while “umbrella NGOs” (Bhose 48) are structured in their partnering of smaller organizations. Hugh Goyder notes in his article, “A Perspective from an International NGO” that the 1980’s and 1990’s witnessed the reality of NGOs having varied experiences where attempts to network and partner are concerned.

     In the 1980’s when NGO networking entered the global vernacular, NGOs in the southern hemisphere – global south might be a more appropriate term to use (those in developing countries) and NGOs in the global north (those in already developed countries) found themselves in conflict over the traditional role of the northern NGOs as donors and the southern ones as recipients good point. This relationship created an environment that many insiders deemed paternalistic. 

     In an interview with program assistant, Andrea Bertone of the Woodrow Wilson Center on March 2, 2000, Ann Hudock who worked for the Association for Rural Development (ARD) says that “ARD was subject to outside control and donors were driving the process” (Bertone). 

  Despite some of the difficulties that have historically surfaced with NGO partnerships, Goyder claims the reasons behind networking and partnering have genuine value when the partnership is based on a commitment to developing national organizations and not merely on funding. He believes that successful collaboration  “requires joint strategic planning and agreement on objectives and indicators by which progress is measured. Once a relationship is established, problems can be openly acknowledged and addressed before they become overwhelming. There is much scope for learning by both sides” (Goyder). Agree with Goyder, strategic planning is crucial. The concepts and rationale that support the benefits for networks and partnerships remain valid and putting the theories into practice have been as positive as it has been challenging coming into the twenty-first century with the breadth of NGO variety expanding.

Types of NGO Networks

The basic types of NGO networks that presently operate consist of, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Communities of Practice: self-organized; share common work interests and practices; informal in nature; aim to develop capacity for more effective individual practices. Examples: Vietnamese American Non-Governmental Organizations (VANGO), Idealist, Global Volunteer Network (GVN).
2. Knowledge Networks: research, study and disseminate information beneficial to members; can be informal or formal. Examples: European Research Center on Migration and Ethnic Relations (ERCOMER), Internet Center Anti Racism Europe (ICARE), GENET.
3. Sectoral Networks: organized around specific sector (e.g. non-government, health, education, etc.); donor-initiated. Examples: NGO Network Alliance Project,
4. Advocacy Networks: created to further causes of members and achieve specific goals. Examples: European Network Against Racism (ENAR), UNITED for Intercultural Action, Arab NGO Networks for Development (ANND).
5. Service Delivery Networks: individual organizations that collaborate to provide services. Examples: Engineers Without Borders (EWBI), International Ngo Network (INN), Palestinian NGO Network.

NGO Network Formation

Network formation occurs for many reasons, and those reasons may be on a need basis or founding principles can drive it. More often than not, the initial motivation for creating a network continues to affect the work of that network through its permutations over time. There are various types of network formation:

1. Top-Down Formation: This formation usually begins with a donor-recipient relationship much like the kind of partnership that occurs between northern NGOs and southern NGOs. It tends towards collaboration amongst diverse organizations.
2. Bottom-Up Formation: This formation is, unlike the previously mentioned one, informal in nature and arises from a need to achieve a specific goal or address a particular problem. Members generally have come together to work around shared interests, and although they may collaborate to gather more donors for their activities, the network does not originate with the donor-recipient relationship or center around it.
3. Formation as a “Compensatory Mechanism”: This type of network formation occurs in response to a need for services that are no longer provided for by institutions run by the state or local governments of a place.

And, various practical reasons for network formation amongst which are:

1. Donor Attraction
2. Raising Legitimacy of Member NGOs
3. Increasing Opportunities to Start Projects/Activities (Bhose 48)

Another reason for network formation is wanting to make an impact on an issue of real relevance to society. In an August 4, 2004 interview with Leibler and Ferri, Theresa Shaver of the White Ribbon Alliance, “an international coalition of individuals and organizations formed to promote increased public awareness of the need to make pregnancy and childbirth safe for all women and newborns in the developing, as well as, developed countries” (White Ribbon Alliance), Shaver noted that her group’s formation was based on “the vision of a world in which childbirth is not a potential death sentence and women’s lives are valued.” In additional interviews, several network representatives cited “the need to fill a void and said that the anticipated benefits outweighed the potential risks” (Leibler and Ferri).

The prevailing view in the NGO sector is that networks formed “organically” (Leibler and Ferri), as opposed to originating from a donor, are significantly more sustainable. Since these network formations are based on collaboration, interconnectedness and social cohesion,” they often outlast monetary capital which is the basis of donor-recipient network formations.

Factors in NGO Networking and Partnering

Organizational Framework and Vision

Since an organizational framework and vision is what draws individuals to the work of a single NGO, the same concept necessarily translates when bringing together independent organizations to collaborate. These collaborations depend heavily upon shared visions and resources.

Resources

The degree to which an NGO is successful at its work depends heavily upon what resources are available to it as well as how it can provide itself as a resource for other NGOs it wishes to partner with. According to Doe and Teegan, international experts, there are two basic but key resources that are valuable to an NGO.

1. The identity (see Organizational Framework and Vision) of an NGO is often the primary tool it uses in order to communicate its message and to educate others about its purpose. An organization that provides a clear picture of what it stands for and the kind of change it works to advocate necessarily attracts other individuals or organizations with like interests who would want to aid the effort.
2. A second important resource for a NGO is its size, which can be defined in a number of ways. A larger organization has entry to more contacts than a smaller one. Furthermore, its stronger presence is more effective when responding to opposition.

Since the purpose of networking and partnering between NGOs is to build upon shared goals and interests, the effectiveness of doing so when the separate organizations are able to show how they are each invaluable to the network, fulfilling the missing link.

In NGOs and Rural Development: Theory and Practice, Bhose discusses the advantages to networking between organizations and constructing partnerships that include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Since most organizations that are volunteer-based like NGOs operate on a small-scale and with limited staff, there can be a tendency toward isolation. Being part of a network imparts a global context to local work.
2. Many NGOs work towards alleviating social, political, and economical injustices as well as the preservation of our natural environment. This often leads to tension with conflicting sectors, and a network or partnership of individuals or organizations is a stronger force than acting singularly.
3. In collaborating with other organizations, there are increased opportunities for communicating on pertinent issues, sharing information and resources, and acting collectively, while bringing in fresh perspectives to shared interests.

As NGOs increasingly become “full-fledged participants in the business-government interface” (Doh & Teegan 10), there are likewise increased opportunities for organizations to build networks and partnerships in attempts to become more adept at achieving their goals. Below are several important factors in NGO networking and partnering:

1. The organizational framework and vision of an NGO is often clear to its members as well as to its potential constituents and/or partners so that those involved can work around shared ideas.
2. The successful networking and partnering of NGOs relies on what their resources are and how those resources can be maximized through collaboration.
3. Technology has made global communication ever more convenient and NGOs have been and can continue to use this to their advantage when it comes to linking to potential partners.

The Future of NGO Networking and Partnering

The future of NGO networks is contingent on building upon existing models and continued efforts at improving the quality of collaborations. This may entail supporting research, encouraging the sharing of information and resources, helping to fund already existing networks, and experimenting with different approaches to network building.

In an interview with UN System Network on Rural Development and Food Security, Ada Civitani, the head of the Education Unit of Association of Rural Cooperation in Africa and Latin America, provides some thoughts on building better NGO partnerships. Civitani suggests “ a participatory approach” be utilized to moderate the “effective accountability of each target group within a network in which the diversity of actors (geographical, thematic and cultural) will be considered as a quality indicator” (UN System Network on Rural Development and Food Security). Consideration should be given to the building “links between local and national level networking” (UN System Network on Rural Development and Food Security). Civitani goes on to stress building connections between regional and national networking.

Bibliography

Bhose, Joel S.G.R., NGOs and Rural Development: Theory and Practice (New Dehli: India: Concept Publishing Company, 2003).

DeMars, William E., NGOs and Transnational Networks: Wild Cards in World Politics (Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press, 2005).

Parker, Rani A., “Prospects for NGO Collaboration with Multinational Enterprises,” in Globalization and NGOs, ed. Jonathon P. Doh and Hildy Teegan (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2003), 11-105.

Andrea Bertone, “The Case of Empowering Southern NGOs,” interview with Ann Hudock,” Woodrow Wilson Center, March 2, 2000, http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/role/globdem/globgov/2000/1218.htm.

Hugh Goyder, “A Perspective from an International NGO,” Development Policy Management Forum Bulletin, December 1994, http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/role/globdem/funding/2000/111300.htm.

Carol Leibler and Marisa Ferri, “NGO Networks: Building Capacity in a Changing World,” Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, November 2004, http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/private_voluntary_cooperation/conf_leibler.pdf.

UN System Network on Rural Development and Food Security, http://www.rdfs.net/news/interviews/0412in/0412in_ACRA_ERP_en.htm

White Ribbon Alliance, http://www.whiteribbonalliance.org/