Intersections of accountability: measuring the effectiveness of international development NGOs

Abstract

The complex nature of civil-society accountability places specific methodological demands on INGOs account for their work, and conversely on particular types of account-making shape INGOs ' relationships with their diverse stakeholders. This paper outlines a preliminary theoretical framework which views the multidirectional character of INGO accountability as constructed, negotiated, and contested through the interplay of power and knowledge. Thus, INGOs ' upward accountability to donors necessarily emphasizes different measurement methods and techniques than their downward accountability toward local communities, or even horizontal accountability to their own organizational missions and values. Examples from two INGOs in Bangladesh demonstrate various accountability commitments are negotiated and prioritized through their measurement, monitoring, and evaluation practices. The paper concludes by arguing that current expectations for knowledge-based accounts (i.e., decisionmaking, demonstrating competitiveness, and advocacy) inevitably prioritize the interests of INGOs ' upward stakeholders over the local communities and populations for whom they work. The relationship between knowledge and the governance of international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) has thus far been examined almost exclusively from the perspective of INGOs using knowledge in their role as accountability watchdogs in relation to states, intergovernmental organizations, and other governing bodies (Brown and Fox 2001; Fox and Brown 1998; Fox 2001; Jasanoff 1997; Keck and Sikkink 1998). Consequently, the ways in which specialized forms of knowledge are used in INGOs' own governance, including the use of particular measurement methodologies to secure their organizational accountability and legitimacy, have yet to be fully explored. This paper begins to investigate the complex nature of INGO accountability places specific methodological demands on they account for their work, and conversely particular types of account-making shape INGOs' relationships with their diverse This content downloaded from 157.55.39.220 on Fri, 02 Sep 2016 04:04:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 28 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY stakeholders. The first section provides a brief review of the growing importance of INGOs on the global stage to provide historical context for why accountability is one of the key issues facing humanitarian and development organizations today. The second section lays out a preliminary theoretical framework that treats accountability as an intrinsically political and epistemic practice that is, accountability relationships are viewed as constructed, negotiated, and contested through the interplay of power and knowledge. As a result, the multidirectional character of INGO accountability is presented as one that must balance three general types of power configurations among stakeholders and their corresponding criteria for appropriate account-making. The third section maps out the different types of INGO-stakeholder relationships to highlight specific power configurations are shaping the discourse around the who and how of INGO account-making. Thus, INGOs' upward accountability to donor stakeholders unavoidably emphasizes different measurement methods and techniques than their downward accountability towards local communities, or even horizontal accountability to their own organizational missions and values. Given that the legitimacy of INGOs is dependent upon successfully maintaining multiple types of relationships, it is suggested that INGOs must practice a form of methodological pluralism to produce accounts that satisfy all of their various stakeholders. The final section presents examples of multidirectional accountability plays out in the measurement, monitoring and evaluation practices of two INGOs in Bangladesh. Findings from these INGOs suggest that they have multiple and largely separate systems of measurement that produce targeted accounts for different stakeholder groups. Examples of INGOs' various accountability commitments are negotiated and prioritized through the measurement, monitoring, and evaluation practices are presented. The paper concludes by identifying three areas (i.e., decision-making, competition, and advocacy) that have gained importance in the current climate of aid and development reform which require INGOs to produce accounts that prioritize the interests of their upward stakeholders over the local communities and populations for

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.