Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

There’s no place like home: Explaining international NGO advocacy

  • Published:
The Review of International Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

INGO advocacy can range from cooperative to confrontational, and these tactical choices can have important repercussions for the overall success of the organization’s policy work, yet little attention has been paid to this variation. We contend that INGO advocacy strategies are shaped by the organization’s national origin. Drawing on insights from sociology and political science, we argue that there is substantial variation among wealthy industrialized democracies in the availability and structure of material resources as well as the domestic institutional environment surrounding INGO work. Together, these national-level factors shape INGOs’ choice of the level of confrontation or conciliation that they adopt in their advocacy. We first demonstrate the importance of INGO national origin using new data on the confrontational advocacy strategies of over 3000 non-governmental organizations from OECD countries that are international in focus. We then explore the relationship between national origin and INGO practice through comparative case studies of INGO umbrella organizations in the relief and development sector. Throughout, we focus on four countries in particular: the United States, Britain, France, and Japan. These countries differ significantly in terms of the material resources and institutional environments faced by INGOs and thus allow us to understand whether and how these factors influence INGO advocacy choices. These systematic differences in INGO strategies have important ramifications for understanding national and global advocacy by INGOs and demonstrate an enduring role of the state in shaping the behavior of non-state actors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is a distinction made by the UIA (UIA 2001/2002) in its annual categorizations of international organizations. See also Tarrow (2005: 43).

  2. Pfeffer and Salancik (1978); see also Johnson and Prakash (2007) for a succinct discussion of how the search for resources can shape organizational strategy and structure.

  3. Exact figures on US government spending through NGOs is unfortunately unavailable, as the US government does not compile these figures or report them to the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). This estimate comes from the OECD DAC Peer Review of the United States (2001). Percentages for France and Britain refer to a 2002–2009 average, based on data extracted from OECD DAC statistics.

  4. We define institutions as the “rules of game” and contend that this encompasses both formal regulations concerning INGOs and informal social norms about the role of the organization and its relationship to the state. Sociological institutionalists use slightly different terms but also highlight how social norms, existing organizational models, and regulatory structures shape organizational strategies and structures.

  5. See Russett et al. (1998) and Smith and Wiest (2005) for other uses of UIA data. Our data is based on an earlier coding project by author (Murdie and Davis 2012).

  6. The dataset includes only “internationally-oriented national organizations,” coded as "type G" in the Yearbook's classification system.

  7. Roughly 10 % of the sample included organizations based in two or more of the countries focused on in this research. The models presented here were performed using the first secretariat listed in the Yearbook. Robustness tests were performed without these organizations in the sample and with the alternative coding(s) of each organization's nation of origin. These results were identical in sign and significance to the results presented here.

  8. Forbes, “America’s Top 200 Charities,” Forbes.com November 22, 2006. Available online at http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/22/largest-charities-nonprofits-pf-philo_cz_wb_1122charitiesintro.html. Relief and development INGOs are not necessarily the most numerous. Boli and Thomas find that INGOs in sectors like industry and technical standards are the most numerous but “peculiarly invisible,” while human rights and relief and development INGOs make up about seven percent of the total INGO population and include the most prominent INGOs (Boli and Thomas 1999: 41–43).

  9. An examination of several key INGOs from each country suggests that these umbrella groups are reflections of the organizational practices of members, rather than complements to or replacements for particular approaches to advocacy (Stroup 2012).

  10. The merger brought together two other umbrella organizations, ACVAFS (formed in 1946) and PAID (formed in the late 1970s). The merger’s champions sought to create a single voice in the NGO community in order to improve their access to policymakers. “New Unity for Humanitarian Groups,” Christian Science Monitor, June 18, 1984: 3; “Volunteer Agencies Playing a larger role in US foreign aid,” New York Times, March 12, 1984: A1.

  11. CARE is based in Atlanta, Mercy Corps is in Portland, World Vision is outside Seattle, the International Rescue Committee is in New York, and Save the Children USA is in Westport, CT.

  12. Reid and Kerlin (2006). In the same year, InterAction reported that “collectively, InterAction members receive $3 billion in private donations and another $2 billion in US government support.” InterAction, Annual Report 2006: 2.

  13. The share of InterAction’s income from the US government has steadily increased, from 25 % in 2004 to 34 % in 2007. InterAction, Annual Report, various years.

  14. “Save-a-child charity carried dead children on rolls,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette March 15, 2008; InterAction Annual Report 2004: 3 (available at www.interaction.org).

  15. Smith (1990: 129–30).

  16. In 1993, InterAction held its first “Advocacy Day” and hired professional policy staff. InterAction, “Our First 25 Years,” Annual Report 2008 (available at http://www.interaction.org/2008-annual-report-first25, accessed August 9, 2010).

  17. “Private Agencies lend hand,” Chicago Sun-Times, November 27, 1994; “Volunteer groups laud Clinton on aid,” Boston Globe, March 24, 1993: 13.

  18. “Foreign Aid Bleeding, but Alive,” Chicago Sun-Times, September 24, 1995; Lancaster (Lancaster 2007: 90–1).

  19. Personal Interview, September 1, 2010.

  20. The most popular charitable causes in Britain are health, social care, and international assistance; these three rotate spots as the #1 cause. “Make Poverty Political,” The Guardian, February 15, 2006.

  21. The name of the group is the British Overseas Aid Group (BOAG), formed in 1980 as an informal working group of the five largest aid agencies (whose combined income accounts for over half the income of all British INGOs). Sunderland (2004: 20). Meetings with government officials can be confrontational. See Gideon Burrows, “The Aid Agencies Fear Collateral Damage,” The New Statesman, April 21, 2003.

  22. BOND still gets perhaps 20 % of its income from DFID.

  23. See Oxfam’s justification for advocacy in 1994, quoted in BOND, The How and Why of Advocacy (London: BOND, 2005: 2).

  24. For two examples, see “Be inspired, get involved,” The Networker 84 (February/March 2009) and the April/May 2009 issue of the Networker, titled “Influence the Debate.”

  25. “Building Campaigning Effectiveness,” The Networker 82 (October/November 2008: 10).

  26. Cumming (2008), 93–96; DGCID, “Coordination SUD: Évaluation strategique de son action (1997–2005),” Paris: MAEE, February 2007. These competing federations include the French Committee Against Hunger (CFCF), the Development Research and Information Center (CRID), a youth and education federation (CNAJEP), and a group of NGOs that use volunteers (CLONG-Volontariat).

  27. Coordination SUD, “L’aide publique française au développement et la politique de coopération au développement” Paris, 2006. Available at http://www.coordinationsud.org/L-aide-publique-francaise-au.

  28. Coordination SUD 2008 Annual Report; “2010: mauvais cru pour l’aide publique au développement,” Nouvelles de Sud 138 (décembre 2009).

  29. About a quarter of all French INGOs’ official income originates with the French government; the rest comes from international organizations. Commission Coopération Développement, Argent et Organisations de Solidarité Internationale (CCD, September 2008).

  30. JICA/JANIC, Understanding Japanese NGOs from Facts and Practices, March 2008: 25 (available online at www.jica.go.jp).

  31. http://www.janic.org/en/whatisjanic.html.

  32. Smillie and Helmich (1993: 185–6); MOFA International Cooperation Bureau, “International Cooperation and NGOs,” November 2007: 9, 15.

  33. Government grants account for 31.4 % of JANIC’s income, coming from the MOFA and JICA (http://www.janic.org/en/funding.html, accessed August 10, 2010). See also Hirata (2002).

  34. MOFA 2007; “G8 Mobilization reflects professionalization of Japan’s NGOs,” Civil Society Monitor [Japan Center for International Exchange] 13 (November 2008: 1).

  35. “Breaking new ground for NGO advocacy in Japan,” Civil Society Monitor 12 (August 2007: 6); Aya Okada, “The Challenge of Development NGO Advocacy,” Masters Thesis, University Of Pittsburgh (2008: 20–42).

  36. Position Statement of JANIC, October 9, 2009. http://www.janic.org/mt/pdf/Statement-toOECD.pdf

References

  • Agg, C. (2006). Trends in Government Support for Non-government organizations. UNRISDCivil Society and Social Movements Program Paper No 23 (June).

  • Andrews, K. T., & Biggs, M. (2006). The dynamics of protest diffusion: Movement organizations, social networks, and news media in the 1960 sit-ins. American Sociological Review, 71(October), 752–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, E. (2001). Historical roots of the nonprofit sector in France. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, S., & Dore, R. (Eds.). (1996). National diversity and global capitalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkovitch, N., & Gordon, N. (2008). The political economy of transnational regimes: The case of human rights. International Studies Quarterly, 52, 881–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boli, J., & Thomas G. M. (1999). Constructing world culture: international non-governmental organizations since 1875. Stanford University Press.

  • Bond, D., Bond, J., Oh, C., Jenkins, J. C., & Taylor, C. L. (2003). Integrated Data for Events Analysis (IDEA): An event typology for automated events data development. Journal of Peace Research, 40(6), 733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busby, J. (2007). Bono made Jesse Helms Cry: Jubliee 2000, Debt relief, and moral action in international politics. International Studies Quarterly, 51(2), 247–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, R. C. (2007). Setting the advocacy agenda: Theorizing issue emergence and nonemergence in transnational advocacy networks. International Studies Quarterly, 51(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, B. (2009). The international struggle for new human rights. University of Pennsylvania Press.

  • Cooley, A., & Ron, J. (2002). The NGO scramble: Organizational insecurity and the political economy of transnational action. International Security, 27(1), 3–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, G. (2008). French NGOs in the global era. Palgrave McMillan.

  • Doremus, P. N., Keller, W. W., Pauly, L. W., & Reich, S. (1998). The myth of the global corporation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreher, A., Molders, F., & Nunnenkamp, P. (2010). Aid delivery through non-governmental organizations: Does the aid channel matter for the targeting of Swedish aid? World Economy, 33(2), 147–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. (1993). Does the doormat influence the boot? Development in Practice, 3, 163–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. (1992). A conflict -cooperation scale for WEIS data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 369–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grugel, J. (1999). Democracy without borders: Transnationalization and conditionality in new democracies. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner-Burton, E. (2008). Sticks and stones: Naming and shaming the human rights enforcement problem. International Organization, 62(4), 689–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines, H. H. (1984). Black radicalization and the funding of civil rights: 1957–1970. Social Problems, 32(1), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. (1999). Social capital in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 29, 419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, D. W., Moore, W. H. & Mukherjee, B. (2012). Information politics v organizational incentives: are amnesty international’s naming and shaming reports biased? International Studies Quarterly, forthcoming.

  • Smillie and Helmich (1999). Stakeholders: Government-NGO Partnerships for International Development. Earthscan/OECD.

  • Hendrix, C., & Wong, W. (2010). The pen is truly mighty: Direct communication, amnesty international’s urgent action campaigns, and human rights practices in target states. Paper for International Studies Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, February 17–20.

  • Hirata, K. (2002). Whither the developmental state? The growing role of NGOs in Japanese aid policy making. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 4.

  • Hopgood, S. (2006). Keepers of the flame: Understanding amnesty international. Cornell University Press.

  • Japanese International Cooperation Agency [JICA] with JANIC. (2008). Understanding Japanese NGOs from facts and practices.

  • Johnson, E., & Prakash, A. (2007). NGO research program: A collective action perspective. Policy Sciences, 40(3), 221–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press.

  • Kendall, J., & Almond, S. (1999). United Kingdom. In L. Salamon et al. (Eds.), Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, G., & Lowe, W. (2003). An analysis automated information extraction tool for international conflict data with performance as good as human coders: A rare events evaluation design. International Organization, 57(3), 617–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuroda, K., & Imata, K. (2003). Evolution of legitimacy discussion of international development NGOs and its absence in Japan. Paper Prepared for the ARNOVA conference, November 20–22, 2003, Denver, Colorado.

  • Lancaster, C. (2007). Foreign aid: Diplomacy, development, domestic politics. University of Chicago Press.

  • Manji, F. (1997). Collaboration with the south: Agents of aid or solidarity? Development in Practice, 2(2), 175–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mawdsley, E., Townsend, J. G., & Porter, G. (2005). Trust, accountability, and face-to-face interaction in north–south NGO relations. Development in Practice, 15(1), 77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1996). Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Murdie, A., & Davis, D. R. (2012). Looking in the mirror: Comparing INGO networks across issue area. Review of International Organizations, 7(2), 177–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moog, S. (2009). Exporting associational logics into the amazon? In D. Hammack & S. Heydemann (Eds.), Globalization, philanthropy and civil society: Projecting institutional logics abroad. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overseas Development Institute. (1964). Not by governments alone: The role of British non-government organizations in the development decade. London: ODI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paquot, É. (2001). (GRET), International solidarity organisations and public authorities in Europe: Comparative study on National and European Aid and consultation schemes. Ministère des Affaires Étrangères.

  • Pekkanen, R. (2006). Japan’s dual civil society: Members without advocates. Stanford University Press.

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potevin, N. (2000). E´tude comparative du soutien des gouvernements europe´ens et de la Commission Europe´enne aux ONG. Paris: CCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, E. J., & Kerlin, J. A. (2006). The international charitable nonprofit subsector in the United States. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimann, K. (2003). Building Global Civil Society from the outside in? Japanese International Development NGOs, the State, and International Norms. In F. J. Schwartz & S. J. Pharr (Eds.), The state of civil society in Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russett, B., Oneal, J., & Davis, D. R. (1998). The third leg of the kantian tripod for peace: International organizations and militarized disputes, 1950–1985. International Organization, 52, 441–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas, 9(3), 213–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Columbus, OH: McGraw–Hill.

  • Slim, H. (2006). Critique de la raison humanitaire. Paris: Le Cavalier bleu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smillie, I., & Helmich, H. (1993). Non-governmental organizations and governments: Stakeholders for Development. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. (1990). More than Altruism: The politics of private foreign aid. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. (2008). Social movements for global democracy. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J., & Wiest, D. (2005). The uneven geography of global civil society: National and global influences on transnational association. Social Forces, 84(2), 621–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard, A. (2006). Humanitarian alert: NGO information and its impact on US foreign policy. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroup, S. S. (2012). Borders among activists: International NGOs in the United States, Britain, and France. Cornell University Press.

  • Sunderland, D. (2004). The British international development sector: A panorama study. Paris: Coordination SUD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarrow, S. (1996). States and opportunities: The political structuring of social movements. In D. McAdam et al. (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarrow, S. (2005). The new transnational activism. Cambridge University Press.

  • Thatcher, M. (2004). Varieties of capitalism in an internationalized world. Comparative Political Studies, 37(7), 751–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UIA. (2001/2002). Yearbook of international organizations (Vols. 1–4). Union of International Associations.

  • Wilcox, R., Charlin, V., & Thompson, K. (1986). Communications in Statistical Simulation and Computation, 15(4), 933–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, W. H. (2008). Centralizing principles: How Amnesty International shaped human rights politics through its transnational network. PhD thesis University of California, San Diego.

  • Wright, K. (2001). Generosity vs. Altruism: Philanthropy and charity in the United States and the United Kingdom. Voluntas, 12 (4).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT, USA

    Sarah S. Stroup

  2. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

    Amanda Murdie

Authors
  1. Sarah S. Stroup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda Murdie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah S. Stroup.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DO 0 kb)

ESM 2

(DTA 7980 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stroup, S.S., Murdie, A. There’s no place like home: Explaining international NGO advocacy. Rev Int Organ 7, 425–448 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-012-9145-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-012-9145-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation