Game of Scales

Introduction-

The role that non-profit organizations play as pivotal agents of change has been widely recognized and studied. Theorizing the processes of non-profit management or the “third sector” is by no means a straightforward task. [1] Drawing on personal experiences, management of third-sector entities entails navigating the complex terrain of “scales.” Balancing the “local” and “global” for NGOs is critical regarding the effectiveness of development projects.

In this article, I attempt to ideate theories from Cristina Balboa’s book –?The Paradox of Scale. I also draw on concepts from other research papers and scholars who have explored non-profit management. I came across Crisitna’s book last year and deeply resonated with the ideas presented. The book is predominantly based on qualitative research and analyses of three case studies of environmental organizations in the Asia-Pacific region. The Paradox of Scale by Cristina Balboa [2] is a highly detailed oriented exploration of the successes and failures of NGOs at varying scales. Successful local NGOs often face problems when they are “scaling up,” and conversely, more prominent International NGOs that have established themselves at the global scale struggle to be influential at the local level.?

Having worked for grassroots organizations, I have always struggled with orchestrating donor expectations and the realities of the field. This directly speaks to the age-old tussle between a “top-down” vs. a “bottom-up” approach.

The Paradox Of Scale-

"That what gives an NGO authority or effectiveness on one scale will hurt its authority or effectiveness on another.”

Before we dive into the concepts, I am introducing a few terms to help paint a clearer picture.

Terminologies and Typologies-?

1. Global Authority- Ability of NGOs to influence actors operating at the global scale.
2. Local Authority?– Ability of an NGO to influence actors at the local level.
3. Broad-based Authority- A combination of global and local authority.
4. Raw power- Capacity to achieve desired objectives with little accountability. This can be present on both local and global scales.
5. Bridging Capacity- Ability of an actor to connect the global and local scale.
6. Global Accountability norms- Quantifiable, short-term with quick deadlines, usually technically focused, traditionally created by global actors.
7. Local Accountability norms- Context-Specific and flexible, is focused on relationship building and usually created by actors at the local level.?

The Authority conundrum-?

Power”, “authority,” and “influence” are related and often mistaken as synonyms but have minute yet essential distinctions. Influence is about mobilizing power; authority determines who is allowed to create impact and dictates the kind of impact made, and power defines when influence matters and counts the most [2].

The notion of authority is defined and compared to power to understand how NGOs gain or lose authority at multiple scales. Cristina defines power as the ability of an actor to achieve a desired outcome. The concept of authority stems from power and is classified as “legitimate power.” To better explain the idea, the book compares a democratic government to an NGO; a government derives its authority from an election process or its military, whereas an NGO needs to build its authority and work within the legal framework imposed by the state. In addition to power and authority, the author discusses “influence” as a vehicle for facilitating authority. In international relations, non-state actors such as NGOs possessing authority is a new concept. The study also states that the concept of accountability stems from questioning the legitimacy of an NGO. Accountability has been used as an indicator for assessing the legitimacy of an NGO. Donors establish their authority through accountability mechanisms; conversely, NGOs are legitimized if they are accountable. Additionally, for an NGO to be considered legitimate, its ability to build political networks, manage its operational activities and enhance its technical capacity are all essential at all levels.

Two Critical Elements that Fuel the Paradox of Scale –

1.?????NGOs and the Growth Imperative-

A question that frequently, comes up in the book is – “What prevents an NGO from being content from working on one scale?”.?The following deductions can be made from the book and additional readings-

a.?????The scope of the problem- NGOs begin to understand the scope of the problem which often surpasses the local scale. Additionally, both academicians and practitioners claim that for NGOs to create any long-lasting change, NGOs need to work on multiple levels.

b.????Increase in overall development assistance- Scaling up can be seen as a reaction to an increase in overall funding in the development landscape. The funding landscape in the early 2000’s saw a sudden surge, which meant that donors were pushing for larger programs.

c.?????Attracting Funding- Since growth is seen as a measure of success, NGOs try and increase the scope of their work to attract more funding.

d.????Influence of the For-profit sector- The growth imperative can also be attributed to the increased interaction between the private sector and the third sector.

?

The factors presented above can propel smaller or local organizations to force growth when they do not have the organizational or operational capacity to do so. Operations are formalized and that results in rigidity and lack of effectiveness at local scale. The growth of NGOs often come at the cost of the flexibility which was the usual mode of operation at the local level.

?

2.?????Upward Accountability vs Downward Accountability-

It is fair to say that “Accountability” is one of the most important instruments ?of legitimacy. The relationship between donors and recipient stakeholders is hinged on reporting and accountability [3] . “Upward Accountability” which can be described ?as recipient stakeholders answering or reporting to donors is a fundamental element of various funding mechanisms. However, as Girei (2022) [4] notes in her study that the systems set in place are tailored to donor expectations and desires which is often detached from material and cultural contexts within which NGOs operate [4]. On the other hand, downward accountability represents the extent to which donor agencies respond to priorities and contexts of recipient stakeholders. There have been numerous studies that indicate the lack of downward accountability in development landscape [5]. The overall effectiveness of projects declines as result of lacking downward accountability on the part of donor organizations. For any intervention to be successful on both the global and local scale, downward accountability is essential to enforce social learning that can only positively impact the project. ?NGOs prioritize global accountability norms over local accountability thus undermining the stakeholders at the local level. The inability of global actors to understand and acknowledge the complexities of the local scale creates chaos when NGOs attempt to navigate in between these scales. Usually, the performance of an NGO is assessed by powerful actors such as regulatory bodies and donors which makes NGOs more accountable to stakeholders such as donors and the state at the expense of beneficiaries. When practical challenges such as managerial and methodological challenges arise, NGOs must try to communicate the things that they are struggling with all relevant stakeholders. The concept of beneficiary accountability is closely tied to the relationship between the NGO and the recipient community. The elements of social capital add to beneficiary accountability and can also involve informal discussions, conversations and relationships between NGOs and beneficiaries. Only a small percentage of NGOs have a strong downward accountability [6]

The Antidote: Bridging Capacity and Agents of Bridging Capacity

At this point, the key to tackling this conundrum lies in balancing both scales. For this, an NGO needs to develop?bridging capacity [2].?NGOs need to link global and local scales and their respective actors. For an NGO to succeed at all levels, the staff must have three traits-?extensive intercultural knowledge,?a commitment to acting as an intermediator,?and?the internal power of changing NGO processes.?

What does it mean for an NGO to have bridging capacity?

The concept of bridging capacity depends on an actor's ability to negotiate across different scales. This is where agents of bridging capacity come into play and are vital for an organization's legitimacy at both scales in the long run. The agents of bridging capacity have two essential qualities -

1. They understand complexities that are inherent to the local and global scales. They also know the differences between the two.
2. They can translate and negotiate between the demands of the respective scales.?

For instance, a local actor who represents local interests at a global negotiation is an agent of bridging capacity, or a non-local actor who has lived in the local context for several years and then goes on to influence the global policy discourse can also be classified as an agent of bridging capacity.?

Sources –

1.?????Lewis, David. (2003). THEORIZING THE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NGOs.

2.?????Paradox of Scale – Cristina Balbola 2017

3.????Keystone Survey - La sociedad civil en Línea. (n.d.). Retrieved April 16, 2023, from https://www.lasociedadcivil.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/keystone_survey_apr_06_report.pdf

4.?????Emanuela Girei, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2022.102418

5.????Noor, N. H. M. (n.d.). Enforcing downward accountability for nonprofit effectiveness ... - IJIMT. Retrieved April 16, 2023, from https://www.ijimt.org/vol6/581-H014.pdf

6.????Kilby, P. (2006). Accountability for Empowerment: Dilemmas facing Non-Governmental Organizations. World Development, 34(6), 951–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.009?