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.

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. 

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).