Expansion to Ebbs and flows of a painful transition:History of NGO networking in the Philippines

The first three phases of the history of NGOs and subsequent networking in the Philippines have been discussed in the previous post. I classified them from Relief to Release because like the trend worldwide, NGO work started as a response to the ravages of war through relief and reconstruction activities. Later, as engagement in social reformation and transformation endeavors were met with repression by oppressive regime, those working with NGOs found release from their suppressed commitment to serve.The next three phases witness the strategic role of NGOs in changing the sociopolitical landscape.

Expansion and Innovation (1978-1983) 

Learning from the past experiences, NGOs refined their strategies. This effort resulted to qualitative increase in the organized mass movement, as reflected in the formation of more alliances and federations of people organizations. The NGO movement itself experienced tremendous increase in numbers. Human rights advocacy was broadened to include other areas of concern like indigenous people’s rights, ecology/environment problems, and women rights. As a result, more NGOs were organized bannering on respective sectoral issues. This period also witnessed the utilization of new approaches and tools for development like the micromedia, participatory action research, popular education, alternative medicine, and appropriate technology.

Following the increased unpopularity and isolation of the Marcos regime in the international scene, foreign funds flowed freely in support of development work.  Many Northern NGOs and funding agencies even went to the extent of setting up their Philippine desk making the country their base of operations in Asia because of the bulk of projects being supported here. Repression in various forms, however, was also intensified.

Image credit: www.phildhrra-mindanao.org 

As NGOs grew in number, networking as a strategy became attractive because of its effectiveness in lobbying and advocacy work. More regional and national networks were formed during this period, e.g., Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas (PHILDHRRA) which was established in 1983. Moreover, the other regional and provincial NGOs were integrated into new networks.

With these developments, NGOs have become “key players in the country’s sociopolitical landscape.”

NGO Support to the Surging Mass Movement (1983-1986)

The Aquino assassination in 1983 became a rallying point of growing opposition and outrages which gave birth to the “parliament of the streets.” It was a period of multi- sectoral organizing and alliance building as regional and national federations and alliances of POs were formed with NGO support. Similarly, NGOs strengthened their existing networks and formed new ones to share resources and find security in their numbers amidst continuing military harassment. NGOs’ support to the surging of mass movement culminated in their participation in the Snap Election and the subsequent EDSA Revolt.

Image credit: cbclawmatters.blogspot.com

Ebbs and Flows of a Painful Transition (1986-1992)

The EDSA event and the wave of political democratization that followed changed the national terrain overnight. Development efforts continued to flourish as NGO works increased significantly amidst the newly won democratic spaces. In acknowledgement of their role in organizing and mobilizing the popular forces before and during the EDSA Revolt, the contribution of NGOs (and POs) to national development was formally recognized.

The 1987 Constitution clearly acknowledged the role of NGOs and POs in a democratic society by including them in its key provisions.  In a sense, the role of NGOs was institutionalized, so much so that during the first years of Cory government, many of the appointees came from the NGO community. Even funds from government and international bodies were coursed through the NGOs.  As a result, there was a proliferation of NGOs all over the country, covering all possible areas and lines of work. Abad  (1990) observed that this made the Philippines one of the most dynamic NGO communities in Asia, if not in the world.

Image credit: jjcicsi.org

Traditional politicians, entrepreneurs, and even government units that set up their own NGOs for vested interests, however, took the situation. This was so prevalent that so-called development NGOs were forced to band together to distinguish themselves from pseudo ones. Two new networks were formed during the post EDSA period, namely: the Council for People’s Development (CPD) and the Philippine Support Service Agencies (PHILSSA) in 1986 and 1988, respectively.  Others strengthened their unity, stepped up their coordination efforts and responded frequently to unfolding events as networks– and not merely as individual NGOs.

The formation of the Caucus of Development NGOs (CODE NGOs) in 1990 was one of the high points of this trend. In a move unprecedented in the history of the Philippine NGO movement, ten of the largest NGO networks in the country, including the church-based networks and the cooperative sector representing about 1,500 NGOs nationwide, came together in the first ever National Congress of NGOs in December 1991.

From relief to release: History of NGO networking in the Philippines

The first three phases of the history of NGOs and subsequent networking in the Philippines, as discussed in the book of Alan G. Alegre Trends and Traditions; Challenges and Choices, can be classified as Relief to Release. Like the trend worldwide, NGO work was more as a response to the ravages of war through relief and reconstruction activities. Eventually, NGOs engaged in social reformation and transformation endeavors which were met with repression by an oppressive regime whose hard line stance did not spare even legitimate and religious organizations. After an initial wave of repression, those that did not join the underground movement continued with their commitment through institutional work, which eventually came to be known as NGO work. It was in working with NGOs that they found release from their suppressed commitment to serve.

American Colonial Period to Post WWII: Relief, Rehabilitation and Welfare

This period witnessed the emergence of voluntary, private initiatives that engaged mainly in relief and reconstruction work to support a war-ravaged country. Considered to be the first NGOs, their welfare endeavors continued even after normalization. Eventually, the welfare work was geared toward social reform, colored with anti- communist motivation, which concentrated on the problems in the countryside. The environment led to the setting up of the pioneer NGOs in the country: the Institute of Social Order in 1947 and the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement in 1952.

The Deepening Social Crisis and the Rise of New Social Movements (1965-1972)

A conglomeration of events shaped the global and national sociopolitical landscape which affected the history of NGOs in the Philippines. On the one hand, there was a worldwide questioning of the previous development approach; an emergence of new theories of underdevelopment; highlight on revolutionary anti-colonial struggles; and change in the social directions of the Catholic Church which played a key role in this stage of development.

On the other hand, as the Philippine social situation was rapidly deteriorating, there was a resurgence of nationalism and student activism and a groundswell of public outrage, which culminated in the First Quarter Storm. At this period, grassroots organizing dominated the NGOs directions.

Two NGO networks were established during this time: the National Secretariat for Social Action (NASSA) and the Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP) in 1967 and 1971, respectively. NASSA served as a clearinghouse and coordinating mechanism for the Philippine Catholic Church’s social involvement, while PBSP established itself as a network among business corporations and NGOs they supported.

This period also witnessed the emergence of the community organization approach as an alternative to the limitations of community development. This approach led to the establishment of the Philippine Ecumenical Council for Community Organization (PECCO) in 1971. As a result, many NGOs were organized bearing the new orientation/approach. In 1972, after a series of informal meetings, ten NGOs with more traditional business and family foundations came together to form another network, the Association of Foundations (AF).

Coping with Repression, Carving a Niche (1972-1978)

When the late President Marcos used a hard line stance to establish a New Society, the NGO community was included in a systematic crack down on opposition groups. All legal attempts at organizing for popular empowerment were paralyzed. NGOs responded to the situation in various ways. While some went underground to wage armed struggle, others were either coopted or forced to lie low. After an initial wave of repression, those that did not join the underground movement continued with their commitment through institutional work, which eventually came to be known as NGO work.

Three significant developments in the networking took place during this period. In 1974, the National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP) came together and adopted a statement defining the priorities and strategies of the development work of the church and its related organization. This development resulted to the formation of a body similar to NASSA- the Commission on Development and Social Concerns. Four years after, as an offshoot of the split of PECCO, a fellowship of pastors and lay workers to assist churches in development efforts was organized into a network known as the Ecumenical Center for Development (ECD).

In 1977, a network among cooperatives came into existence as a response to the government’s attempt to regulate the cooperatives. Known as National Association of Training Center of Cooperatives (NATCCO), the network was later renamed National Confederation of Cooperatives, Inc. It was observed that these church-related networks were more political compared to the first three networks established earlier, namely: National Council of Social Development, Philippine Business for Social Progress and Association of Foundations.

As seen by Soliman (1990), this period witnessed the birth of secular NGOs established by activists who had been working within the church umbrella wanting to institutionalize social development work outside the church. Their endeavors concentrated on uplifting the conditions of the people through cooperatives and provision of start-up capital for income-generating projects. In the words of Alegre (1996),  “the intersection of three efforts - the church reaching out, the growing needs of POs, and the development concerns of secular NGOs - gave birth to creative programs that showed NGOs coping amidst repression.”

The situation also became favorable to groups and organizations with political and ideological leanings directly opposing the martial law regime. With their relatively advanced coping mechanism, these groups became influential in the NGO movement. They even set up different NGOs and exerted a considerable influence in the programs and projects of existing ones to become more effective in the latter part of this period

NGO Networking in the Philippines

Previous posts discuss the asset and liability of non government organizations (NGOs); their vulnerabilities to groups with vested interests; and coping strategies which Korten (1990) describes as “three generation strategy” to describe the stages of development of NGOs. All these lead to  linkages and networking between and among NGOs, even with other sectors of society.

Linkages and networks serve as protective mechanism of NGOs  from any form of threat because of their collective nature. Network also prevent  unnecessary duplication or overlapping of development effort.  As a strategy, networking has been used by many sectors in pursuing development endeavors. Networks link local efforts for more effective lobbying and advocacy and provide venues for the exchange of experiences and resources between similar NGOs.

John Clark (1991) associated the emergence of networks with the development of advocacy group. This is the last of the six schools  he formulated to trace the historical evolution of Northern NGOs his book Democratizing Development: The Role of Voluntary Organizations.  The first network to make a name was the International Baby Foods Action Network. Set up in 1979 by seven NGOs, it grew to about 150 NGOs from all parts of the world and led the successful campaign for international governmental agreement on a code of marketing for baby foods.

The milestone  of NGO networking in the Philippines happened in 1990 with the launching of the Caucus of Development NGOs (CODE NGOs). This solidarity, however, did not happen overnight. It was a culmination of decades of common struggle similar to what other NGOs in other countries experienced in the course of historical development characterized by diverse intensity and highlights.

Alegre (1996) traced the beginning of NGO networking in the Philippines from the formation of the Council of Welfare Agencies Foundation of the Philippines, Inc. (CWAFPI), the forerunner of the present-day National Council of Social Development (NCSD). As early as 1952, a group of social work leaders organized the Philippine National Committee of the International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW). This eventually evolved into the Council of Welfare Agencies Foundation of the Philippines, Inc. (CWAFPI), the umbrella organization of the various welfare and civic organizations, e.g., the Catholic Women’s Clubs, Boy/Girl Scouts of the Philippines, National Red Cross, etc. which, up to this day, cater to such sectors as traditional women’s groups, children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.

The early organizational formation, however, is only one part of the story of networking with particular focus on welfare agencies. Alegre (1996) presented a comprehensive discussion of the factors that contributed to the growth and development of networking in the Philippine NGOs in his book Trends and Traditions; Challenges and Choices. This observation is complemented by a chronological presentation of the formation of nine mainstream national networks after NCSD in From the Present Looking Back: A History of Philippine NGO by Karina David (1998).   Hence, the history of networking in the Philippine is better understood in the context of historical evolution of NGOs in the country.

The story of Philippine NGOs generally follows the trend of the world history of NGOs- from relief and welfare endeavors to social reformation which eventually led to the transformation approach.  Alegre (1996) divided the history of NGOs into six distinct phases rooted in key points in the country’s recent past, as follows: American Colonial Period to Post WWII: Relief, Rehabilitation and Welfare; The Deepening Social Crisis and the Rise of New Social Movements (1965-1972); Coping with Repression, Carving a Niche (1972-1978).  Expansion and Innovation (1978-1983); NGO Support to the Surging Mass Movement (1983-1986); Ebbs and Flows of a Painful Transition (1986-1992; Maturation and Renewal (1992 to the Present). Each phase will be discussed in the succeeding posts.

Networking: A development strategy

My fondness for the concept of networking began while conducting a study on the subject as development strategy of non-government organizations (NGOs) for my Master of Social Work thesis in the University of the Philippines- Diliman. Since then I have internalized the learnings and live with it in my whatever development endeavors I engage in.

Networking has been used by development workers and organizers as a strategy to strengthen their ranks especially during the times they were faced with the problem of either co-optation or reprisal from the government and other traditional power holders that want to maintain the status quo. Moreover, they have to deal with the proliferation of pseudo NGOs that undermine the sector’s credibility. Set up to take advantage of funding sources for dubious or narrow purposes, they are fly- by- night organization

Linkages and networks serve as protective mechanism of NGOs  from any form of threat because of their collective nature. Network also prevent  unnecessary duplication or overlapping of development effort.  As a strategy, networking has been used by many sectors in pursuing development endeavors. Networks link local efforts for more effective lobbying and advocacy and provide venues for the exchange of experiences and resources between similar NGOs.

John Clark, in his book Democratizing Development: The Role of Voluntary Organizations,  associates the emergence of networks with the development of advocacy group. This is the last of the six schools formulated by Clark to trace the historical evolution of Northern NGOs.  It was during this period when NGOs, particularly those who were dependent on government or conservative constituency for funding, faced a dilemma because the culprits that victimized the poor were most often Western based.

The NGOs who continued with advocacy work for the poor suffered a declining support when they opened up to their supporters. Those who continued advocacy but made little effort to communicate the dilemma to their supporters, have lived with the contradiction ever since.

An important leap in advocacy work happened in the 1980s. Influenced by their staff, some of the Northern NGOs with overseas programs became expressive and active in their advocacy work. Likewise, Third World advocacy groups started to make waves. As a result, North-South networks of advocacy groups started to take shape and to gain authenticity, strength, and power that made them a force to reckon with.

The first network to make a name was the International Baby Foods Action Network. Set up in 1979 by seven NGOs, it grew to about 150 NGOs from all parts of the world and led the successful campaign for international governmental agreement on a code of marketing for baby foods.

The more progressive Northern NGOs with Third World program have supported the evolution of these networks, have often funded them, but have tended to take a backseat role. This is partly because, according the Clark (1990), of a residual concern about their public image and legal status, partly because they have a few staff strong on the skills needed for advocacy and networking and partly – in spite of the rhetoric- because of an organizational half heartedness.

In the Philippines, NGOs have reached the highest level of unity in networking during the launching of the Caucus of Development NGOs (CODE NGOs) in 1990. This solidarity, however, did not happen overnight. It was a culmination of decades of common struggle similar to what other NGOs in other countries experienced in the course of historical development characterized by diverse intensity and highlights.

(To be continued)
_______________________

This article is part of the series of posts on NGOs. Admittedly, the current pork barrel controversy in the Philippines  involving the Napoles  network of fake NGOs has besmirched the noble aim and name of  non-government organizations (NGOs). However, we consider the crisis an opportunity to bring to the public consciousness the role of NGOs in nation building. Previous posts tackle the rationale of this series, heterogeneity of NGOs, their history,  classification,  strategies and imperative of networking.

Networking: An imperative

In the previous post,  I pointed out  the critical role of NGOs  which is considered both an asset and liability. Because they frequently pioneer new approaches and challenge development orthodoxy,NGOs are vulnerable to groups with vested interests.Consequently, the NGOs face the problem of either co-optation or reprisal from the government and other traditional power holders that want to maintain the status quo. Moreover, they have to deal with the proliferation of pseudo NGOs that undermine the sector’s credibility. A number of these pseudo NGOs set up not for any other purpose than to take advantage of funding sources for dubious or narrow purposes, according to Abad (1990).This issue has been  highlighted by  the current pork barrel controversy in the Philippines  involving the Napoles  network of fake NGOs.

Photo Credit: www.naujan.com

Faced with such problems and threats to their credibility, NGOs have seen the need to establish linkages and networks among themselves and with other sectors of society. Melgrito (1994) has defined networking as coordination among people, groups or organizations of various interests and orientation, working together as in a chain so as to function in a specific manner. It takes place when organizations link up together and make concerted efforts for mutual advantage and greater effectiveness towards the achievement of a common goal.

As a strategy, networking has been used by many sectors in pursuing development endeavors. Networks link local efforts for more effective lobbying and advocacy and provide venues for the exchange of experiences and resources between similar NGOs. A proper coordination of NGO activities, in networking, helps prevent unnecessary duplication or overlapping of development effort. NGOs are also protected from any form of threat because of their collective nature, while they police their own ranks through common code of conduct.

Networks are defined as units, institutions, agencies or organizations united for a free flow of information and resources between members without any established hierarchy or structure (Third World Studies Center, 1990). Forming networks and umbrella organizations is advantageous to NGOs for varied reasons. Aldaba (1990) cites six benefits in this regard, namely: (1) Greater economic and political impact; (2) Access to and sharing of resources; (3) Sector Protection; (4) Effective relations with governments; (5) Establishing sector standard; and (6) Linkage with other sectors for social transformation.

Alegre (1996) cites the following strategic concerns addressed by establishing networks: (1) Sharing and exchange of resources, such as information, funds, technology, and expertise; (2) The coordination and complementation of programs and projects; (3) The formulation of common agenda or plans of action for purposes of advocacy, participation in governance, and resource mobilization; (4) Consciousness raising and development education, especially on the relations between developed and developing countries and between the NGO and PO communities in these countries.

Clark (1990) noted that networking offers a lot of advantages to NGOs. These advantages apply equally to international lobbying endeavors. In addition to mutual fortification and mutual protection, networking or lobbying provides the possibility for NGOs to specialize in areas in which they have individual advantage. According to Clark, NGOs can also lobby their own government on their intentions, replication and mainstreaming of initiatives of member NGOs. Networks can engage in wide scale consortium projects covering larger areas. Political impact through issue advocacy is strengthened and more effective when there is a collective effort to lobby and mobilize.

Networks are better able than an individual NGO to tap resources internally among members and externally from the government, donor agencies, and other NGOs. Similarly, they can facilitate resource accessing for individual NGOs since the former can guarantee the track record of the latter.

________________________

This article is part of the series of posts on NGOs. Admittedly, the current pork barrel controversy in the Philippines  involving the Napoles  network of fake NGOs has besmirched the noble aim and name of  non-government organizations (NGOs). However, we consider the crisis an opportunity to bring to the public consciousness the role of NGOs in nation building. Previous posts tackle the rationale of this series, heterogeneity of NGOs, their history,  classification and strategies.

Asset and liability of NGOs

The non-government organizations (NGOs)  came to aid world development and to establish outlooks and attitudes that laid the foundation for a modern development perspective. According to Alegre (1996) NGOs have emerged as a new catalyzing, social organization and as a significant player in development. They are increasingly significant actors in global governance and in international development.

Clarke (1994) provides the following explanation why NGOs play a prominent role in contemporary social movements, as follows: (1) Their access to significant source of funds from abroad; (2) Their capacity to generate the mass leaders needed to sustain social movements; (3) Their use of their direct experience in providing services to beneficiaries as a platform from which to engage in more political activity.

The role of NGOs, says Clarke, has resulted in two specific consequences: (1) A history of effective service delivery gives NGOs significant “legitimacy” in the eyes of other political actors; and (2) NGO political activity is informed by direct experience and is therefore more clearly based on practical experience.

Clark (1990) has vividly described the critical role NGOs have to play: Because of their international structure and linkages they have the potential to construct global networks of citizens pressure. Because they command a unique vantage point they are ideally placed to study and describe how contemporary crises affect the poor. Because of their size and flexibility they are able to experiment with new approaches to the crises and so, through demonstration, serve as pioneers or catalysts for government action. Because of their access to the media they are well placed to reach out with their message. And because they do not stand to make personal profit the public trusts them at large.

The critical role of NGOs is both an asset and liability.  More often than not, they are confronted with ambivalence. While their size and flexibility make it easily for them to adjust to changing circumstances and conditions in the implementation of programs and projects, they have a weak capacity to absorb bigger undertakings. Although aware of such limitations, NGOs are still hesitant to increase their size, fearing that their flexibility and dynamism may be sacrificed in the process.

Because they frequently pioneer new approaches and challenge development orthodoxy, NGOs are vulnerable to groups with vested interests. Consequently, the NGOs face the problem of either co-optation or reprisal from the government and other traditional power holders that want to maintain the status quo. Moreover, they have to deal with the proliferation of pseudo NGOs that undermine the sector’s credibility. A number of these pseudo NGOs set up not for any other purpose than to take advantage of funding sources for dubious or narrow purposes, according to Abad (1990).

This issue has been  highlighted by  the current pork barrel controversy in the Philippines  involving the Napoles  network of fake NGOs. But this is not the first controversy. I doubt if it will be the last.

_______________________

This article is part of the series of posts on NGOs. Admittedly, the current pork barrel controversy in the Philippines  involving the Napoles  network of fake NGOs has besmirched the noble aim and name of  non-government organizations (NGOs). However, we consider the crisis an opportunity to bring to the public consciousness the role of NGOs in nation building. Previous posts tackle the rationale of this series, heterogeneity of NGOs, their history, and classification.

Classification of NGOs

NGOs may be classified into various types according to different criteria, namely:  (1) Activities they perform, (2) Areas of operation, (3) Size or number of staff, (4) Sector they serve, (5) Ideological bias, and (6) Their initiators. Subsequently, there are NGOs that engage themselves in community organizing among peasants, workers, fisherfolks and urban poor. Their areas of operation range from local to international. Abad (1990) observed that NGOs reflect certain ideological leaning or persuasion depending on the sector that organized them, e.g., business, political, religious.

Korten (1990) classifies NGOs into four types, namely: 1) voluntary organizations (VOs); 2) public service contractors (PSC); 3) hybrid governmental/non- governmental organizations (GONGOS), and 4) people’s organization (POs). The first three NGOs are referred to as Third Party Organizations since they exist to serve the needs of the third party or those persons who are not members of the organization. The fourth sector is referred to as the First Party Organization, since they are basically governed and managed by the people themselves.

According to Korten, of the Third Party Organizations, Voluntary Organizations are distinctively value-driven, pursuing a social mission that make them relatively immune to the political agenda of either the government or the economic forces of the market place. Although small in size, their capacity for social and institutional innovation has been well developed. This feat is seldom found in government and business sectors. However, while voluntary organizations serve as channels for innovation, they are often placed in a controversial position as they pursue their commitment towards social change.

The Public Service Contractors, on the other hand, are dependent on economic power in sustaining their program. They acquire their resources through the exchange and market of goods and services. They also tend to be responsive to economic needs rather than to genuine public service. In this type of NGO, the customer is the donor.

Korten observed that the first two types are, oftentimes, mistaken to be synonymous because of their characteristics as non- – profit organizations. Moreover, they have the same type of legal registration with similarities in mission statements. The difference, however, lies on their commitment. While the former  are committed to social mission, the latter appear to be  business – oriented. Unlike Voluntary Organizations, Public Service Contractors often evade advocacy and controversy.

As far as the hybrid  governmental/non- governmental organizations (GONGOs) are concerned, essentially they are instruments of the government in carrying its policies. Created and managed by the government, GONGOs are accountable to the state and not to their members or independent board. On the other hand, the last type i.e.  People's Organizations  represent their members’ interest. Characterized by self-reliance, they are considered organizations that are truly “ by the people, of the people and for the people.”

___________________

This article is part of the series of posts on NGOs. Admittedly, the current pork barrel controversy in the Philippines  involving the Napoles  network of fake NGOs has besmirched the noble aim and name of  non-government organizations (NGOs). However, we consider the crisis an opportunity to bring to the public consciousness the role of NGOs in nation building. 

History and development of NGOs

Although voluntary organizations of various persuasions existed long before the twentieth century in the Western and the eastern hemispheres, their identification as NGOs have a more recent history. NGOs are categorized according to their origin and home base. Those coming from industrialized countries are referred to as “northern or international” NGOs while those which originate in and operate within developing countries are labeled as “southern” NGOs.

According to Clark (1990), the early Southern NGOs typically arose out of independence struggles. He cited the case of the Gandhian movement in India, which had many offshoots that still flourish today. These offshoots include “handloom centers and other appropriate technology initiatives; schools concentrating on functional education; people’s courts that use non violent citizens’ pressure to achieve justice for the lowest castes; and campaigning organizations for land reform and other aspects of social justice.”

The historical evolution of Northern NGOs is better understood when viewed according to the six schools formulated by Clark (1990), as follows:

Relief and Welfare Agencies
The first Northern NGOs emerged after the First World War, with relief and rehabilitation as their focus. After World War II, this type of approach was strengthened primarily in war-ravaged Europe. Pioneers of this relief work include, among others, the Catholic Church-based CARITAS, Save the Children Fund, Catholic Relief Services, and Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere (CARE). Shifting their attention to the Third World, they broadened their services with welfare endeavors as an additional feature.

Technical Innovation Organizations
Clark (1990) pointed out another development took place during the 1950s and 1960s when northern NGOs flourished with a new focus or direction. From welfare activities, they shifted to development endeavors. NGOs realized that relief work was palliative. It only dealt with symptoms, not root causes of the problem. Hence, they redirected their institutional work to community based projects. NGOs managed their own projects to pioneer new or improved approaches to problems, which tend to remain specialized in their chosen field. This approach has further opened the eyes of Northern NGOs to the full reality of poverty. In the first locations the symptoms of poverty are apparent, in the second, its root causes.

Public Service Contractors
NGOs at this period followed the conventional model of helping poor communities to become more like Northern societies by importing northern ideas, technology and expertise, unmindful of their local counterpart and other indigenous structures. NGOs set up their own projects, with their own staff to make poor communities a replica of northern societies. Funded mostly by northern governments, they worked closely with Southern governments and official aid agencies.

Popular Development Agencies
It did not take long when NGOs acknowledged and consequently criticized the weaknesses of the traditional development model. Seriously questioning their contribution to it, they started to shift to a new role, that of providing service to the popular grassroots organization and self –help movements. Landim (1987), as cited in Clark (1990) believed that this work was characterized by its small scale, its local (or at least national) leadership and its support for economic and political independence of the poor. Such change of direction, coupled with the increased funding opportunities from northern voluntary sources, led to mushrooming of southern NGOs. Many of these grew rapidly to become “national-level institutions which served as intermediate organizations, channeling assistance from the Northern NGO to the grassroots level.”

According to Broadhead (1988) as cited in Clark (1990), a conglomeration of events further introduced changes in the NGOs’ direction. New political concepts emerging from the Third World intellectuals, such as theology of liberation, generally influenced NGO thinking during this period. Development theory once dominated by northern practitioners, was becoming an indigenous process led by the people themselves. Such development has broken the homogeneity among NGOs. While some remained with their traditional activities, others progressed to new activities and analyses at different rates. Southern NGOs started to become assertive. Thus, the NGO community has become increasingly a shared ground, initially shared with southern NGOs created by their northern “partners.”

Grassroots Development Organization
In the 1970s, another leap took place in the NGO community. Many NGOs realized the limitation of self-help endeavors especially when dominated by the vested interests of the political and economic elite. Development perspective has also changed during this time. It was viewed as a liberating process for the poor, both from their physical oppressors and from their own resignation to poverty.

Consequently, new approaches were tried, e.g., the Brazilian “conscientization approach” which traces its roots from Paolo Freire. A combination of political education, social organization, and grassroots development, this approach was designed not only to improve the living condition of the poor. It also traces the root causes of the problem and offer opportunities to fight out exploitation through mass organization. This new approach became prevalent among NGOs in the Third World during this time resulting to grassroots organizations characterized by militancy.

Advocacy group and networks
The changing perspective on development, as well as the view regarding poverty being political in nature, gave birth to another phenomenon in the NGO community, i.e., and advocacy. NGOs began programs of development education, public campaigning, and parliamentary lobbying in pursuit of political changes. It was during this period when NGOs, particularly those who were dependent on government or conservative constituency for funding, faced a dilemma because the culprits that victimized the poor were most often Western based.

The NGOs who continued with advocacy work for the poor suffered a declining support when they opened up to their supporters. Those who continued advocacy but made little effort to communicate the dilemma to their supporters, have lived with the contradiction ever since.

An important leap in advocacy work happened in the 1980s. Influenced by their staff, some of the Northern NGOs with overseas programs became expressive and active in their advocacy work. Likewise, Third World advocacy groups started to make waves. As a result, North-South networks of advocacy groups started to take shape and to gain authenticity, strength, and power that made them a force to reckon with.

The first network to make a name was the International Baby Foods Action Network. Set up in 1979 by seven NGOs, it grew to about 150 NGOs from all parts of the world and led the successful campaign for international governmental agreement on a code of marketing for baby foods.

The more progressive Northern NGOs with Third World program have supported the evolution of these networks, have often funded them, but have tended to take a backseat role. This is partly because, according the Clark (1990), of a residual concern about their public image and legal status, partly because they have a few staff strong on the skills needed for advocacy and networking and partly – in spite of the rhetoric- because of an organizational half heartedness.

________________________

This article is part of the series of posts on NGOs. Admittedly, the current pork barrel controversy in the Philippines  involving the Napoles  network of fake NGOs has besmirched the noble aim and name of  non-government organizations (NGOs). However, we consider the crisis an opportunity to bring to the public consciousness the role of NGOs in nation building. 

Heterogeneous nature of NGOs

NGOs emerged to respond to needs, which were not readily met by the government due to systemic limitations. With elite and/or traditional politicians at the helm of leadership, the government, most often, cannot initiate major reforms. This is a situation where NGOs take active role as catalysts for change. Providing stimuli for the various sectors of society to organize them, NGOs equip the poor with the important skills, knowledge and resource necessary in their struggle towards a better life and a more humane society (Aldaba ,1993).

Image credit: lingofeeds.com: 

However, the term NGOs itself elicits discussion or debate. It is not consistently used which results to various definitions/classifications. According to records, one of the earliest mentions of the term "NGO" was in 1945, when the United Nations (UN) was created. Being an inter-governmental organization, the UN opens its  door to  international non-state agencies - or non-governmental organizations which are awarded observer status at its assemblies and some of its meetings. Thereafter, the term  was widely used to  refer to nonprofit entities independent of governmental influence.

In a broad sense, NGOs are simply agencies or groups which are different from government bodies. Quizon, as cited in Racellis (1998), defines NGOs: as private, voluntary organizations; social development agencies; or professional support; or cause oriented groups that are non-profit –oriented and legal, which are committed to the task of development and established primarily for socio-economic services, civic, religious, charitable and/or social welfare purposes.

This definition covers the heterogeneous nature of NGOs. As such, various acronyms were  as used to describe  them. Wikipedia and Nonprofit Expert  have released the following classifications: BINGO is short for Business-oriented International NGO. TANGO means Technical Assistance NGO  while RINGO is an abbreviation of Religious International NGO.  ENGO refers to  environmental NGO while GONGOs are Government-Operated NGOs, which may have been set up by governments to look like NGOs in order to qualify for outside aid. DONGO means Donor Organized NGO while QUANGOs are quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations. There  is also  PANGO which is a Party NGO set up by parties and disguised as NGOs to serve their political matters and  MANGO which refers to  Market Advocacy NGO.

Image credit: transmissionsmedia.com

On the other hand, Karina David has  the following classifications of NGOs: DJANGOs  for Development, justice and advocacy NGOs. Commonly called as Development NGOs, they  perform  a mixture of direct and support service function with and for GUAPOs (genuine, autonomous people’s organization.) Primary form of intervention is community and sectoral organizing, developments in recent years have spawned organizations that provide support services (legal, medical, research, etc.)

Next, the TANGOs  (Traditional NGOs ) representing the charitable, welfare, and relief organization, TANGOs perform valuable services for the poor. While they intersect with the POs and DJANGOs their primary focus remains on marginalized individuals and families. There is also the  FUNDANGOs  (Funding agency NGOs). These foundations and grant-giving are linked to grassroots organizations primarily through providing financial and other forms of support.

Of course, there are also MUNGOs  (Mutant NGOs),  according to David. Theses are extensions of the state (because they are GRINGOs government-run NGOs) or personal interests. Another is the  BONGOs, business organized NGOs which refer to those that are created primarily as tax dodges, vehicles for quelling labor unrest, or means to project a benevolent company image. Finally, the  COME N’GOs. These are NGO entrepreneurs with  fly-by-night organizations that package proposals and promptly disappear with the funds and/or work the funding game by hiring themselves out to large donor organizations.

I don’t know if the controversial network of  fake NGOs created by Napoles will ever classify to any of the categories or there is a need for amendments to the aforementioned classifications.

_______________________

This article is part of the series of posts on NGOs. Admittedly, the current pork barrel controversy in the Philippines  involving the Napoles  network of fake NGOs has besmirched the noble aim and name of  non-government organizations (NGOs). However, we consider the crisis an opportunity to bring to the public consciousness the role of NGOs in nation building.  A phenomenal movement which came to aid world development and to establish outlooks and attitudes that laid the foundation for a modern development perspective, genuine NGOs  have emerged as a new catalyzing, social organization and as a significant player in development  (Alegre,1996).

NGOs: reel or real?

Since the expose of the alleged multi-billion pork barrel scam  by the whistleblower Benhur Luy in July, Filipinos have been both enraged and entertained by the seemingly incredible development and extent of the conspiracy to steal taxpayer’s money. Worse, the alleged brain (although many won’t consider her as such but a mere pawn) Janet L. Napoles  seemed to besmirch the noble aim and name of  non-government organizations (NGOs) in cohorts with some legislators and other officials of the implementing government agencies.

Photo credit:  Prinx  Vencer

The public outrage appears to build up as more revelations and denials are reported by the mainstream media and netizens. Hopefully, it will not die down until significant changes are undertaken by the government itself or by people’s initiatives nationwide.

In an attempt to do our share in responding to today’s challenge, the board of directors of our NGO- PO Network met some weeks ago to discuss the issue and unite on a particular stand. Being a loose coalition of various aggrupation  of non-government organizations (NGOs) and people’s organizations (POs) with diverse programs, services, directions, leanings and  persuasions, our network seldom makes an organizational  stand, not until we reach a consensus. Yet, when it  does, the result has greater impact.

We have seen two angles in the current controversy- the systemic graft and corruption practices and the role of the NGOs. We considered the act a double injury. The large -scale misuse of the people’s money is outrageous. Siphoning money out of government coffers thru fake NGOs adds insult to injury. For it besmirch the good image established by the genuine NGOs for decades. Worse, it provides justification to some government officials and local  chief executives who do not feel comfortable with the watchful eyes of NGOs and their seeming intervention as provided for by the local government code in the  Philippines.

Haribon Foundation officers and personnel
guesting  our CATV show 

It is in this second angle that the Iloilo Coalition of NGOs and POs (ICON) decided to focus, While some members continue to actively take part  in the local anti pork barrel movement representing their respective organizations, ICON has committed to inform the public about the existence and corresponding programs or services of genuine NGOs.

For the past months, I have discussed in my CATV show the history and development of NGOs and related issues and concerns. A segment featuring member NGOs of our network, as well as those of the Social Welfare and Development Learning Network (SWDL-Net) has been a regular part of the show. This way, we give the public the opportunity to ask questions to clear their doubts and reservations brought about by the pork barrel scandal.

Co -host Rev.  Talha asks Boyet Areno and Ted Aldwin Ong
(extreme right)  regarding the stand of the  Iloilo Caucus
of Development NGOs (ICODE) on the pork barrel scam

We consider the crisis an opportunity to bring to the public consciousness the role of NGOs in nation building.  For indeed,  one way of averting  the systemic  robbery in our government is to involve genuine NGOs in  monitoring projects. As Alegre (1996) once contends:  NGOs have emerged as a new catalyzing, social organization and as a significant player in development. They are increasingly significant actors in global governance and in international development.


But what are NGOs? How can they contribute to development? What are their roles, strategies, strengths and vulnerabilities? All of these and more will be the subject of  the upcoming series of posts on NGOs.