World Development Vol. 33, No. 11, pp. 1845–1864, 2005 Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev 0305-750X/$ - see front matter doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.004 NGOs and the Globalization of Managerialism: A Research Framework

SUSAN M. ROBERTS University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA

JOHN PAUL JONES III University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

and

OLIVER FRO¨ HLING * Centro de Encuentros y Dia´logos Interculturales, Oaxaca, Mexico

Summary. — One of the more overlooked aspects of globalization is the circulation of modern managerial practices and knowledges through transnational networks of nongovernmental organi- zations (NGOs). In this paper, we offer an analytical framework for understanding the complex cir- culation of managerialism through dispersed networks of NGOs, connecting the spatially extensive international NGO (INGO) sector to the projects undertaken by grassroots NGOs. This frame- work first involves a conceptualization of all flows that might potentially be activated through a hypothetical network comprising all potential nodes. We then offer a discussion of a range of man- agerialist practices and knowledges. A table summarizing and operationalizing the analytical framework interlinks aspects of managerialism with the cultures, structures, and projects of NGOs. Examples chosen from our ongoing work in the NGO sector in Oaxaca, Mexico, serve as illustra- tions of how the analytical framework might generate insight into the contradictory workings of managerialism in NGO networks. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Key words — NGOs, networks, globalization, managerialism

1. INTRODUCTION geographical ranges and, in addition to being connected to one another, often are entangled In its economic form, globalization is most with state or quasigovernmental agencies, as often associated with integrative flows through well as with businesses (Aldaba, Antezana, the capitalist economy—in trade, investment, and finance. These flows join multinational corporations in complex relations among one * The research reported here is funded by a grant from another, and between such corporations and the National Science Foundation (SBE-GRS # 024329- more nationally and locally oriented business 5). The authors would like to thank Dick Gilbreath enterprises. Given a traceable connection to Laurel Smith, David Walker, and Margath Walker for the international sphere, any related corporate their valuable assistance with this paper at various sta- entity can be conceptualized as a node of and ges. We also gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of for economic globalization. Paralleling such the Directors and staff of World Wildlife Fund—Mex- connectivity in the domain of the economy ico’s Bosques Mexicanos office in Oaxaca, the Fundacio´n are complex relational networks existing in civil Comunitaria Oaxaca. The comments of the anonymous society, and especially among nongovernmental reviewers were very helpful in improving the paper. We organizations (NGOs). NGOs have complex alone are responsible for the contents of this paper. 1845 1846 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Valderrama, & Fowler, 2000; Fowler, 2000a; (Ebrahim, 2003b; Edwards & Fowler, 2002; Malhotra, 2000). Globalization in the NGO Lewis, 2001). We are interested, first, in how sector is exemplified by a complex field of spa- to conceptualize transnational NGO networks; tially stretched and interlocking webs of inter- the content and implications of managerialism organizational relations. within the networks; and the ways managerial- Though these webs are becoming more ism gets reworked as it circulates through the noticeable, they are difficult to conceptualize networks. We then offer a research framework, analytically, in part because of the density of structured through a table whose elements potential connections. Their nodes can include illustrate how four aspects of managerial the 30,000 international NGOs (INGOs) active knowledges and practices—accountability, in the world today and the millions of NGOs organizational definition, capacity building, active domestically (The Economist, 2000; and spatial strategies and discourses—might af- Union of International Associations, 2003/ fect the culture, structure, and on-the-ground, 04). It is likely that most NGOs are related day-to-day, projects of networked NGOs. This in some way or another to one or more net- general analytic is offered with the recognition works, and the rapid growth of INGOs over that findings from concrete analyses will be the past 20 years means that most of the net- contingent upon the particular NGO sector worked NGOs have connections that reach be- examined, the actual organizations involved in yond the nation state to the global domain. the network, and a host of social, cultural, Even the smallest NGOs often actively seek political, and economic factors that vary out connections that embed them in webs of nationally, regionally, and locally. In the table relations with other NGOs and with INGOs and where it makes sense in the paper, we point and other international donors. NGOs may to some examples drawn from our on-going participate in transnational networks in an at- research with NGOs in Oaxaca, southern tempt to support their projects and to expand Mexico. The state of Oaxaca is home to at least their impact in quantitative, substantive, and 400 NGOs working in virtually every sector. spatial terms. These efforts are increasingly They share a rich diversity in the extensiveness facilitated by a growing cadre of local, regio- of their connections to other NGOs locally, nal, and nationally based intermediary nationally, and internationally, as well as to NGOs—organizations that do not carry out state institutions and capitalist enterprises. projects, but rather connect grassroots organi- zations to international funding agencies. In spite of the growth of these networks, it re- 2. CONCEPTUALIZING NGO mains the case that many NGOs choose to NETWORKS be independent and autonomous, while others more deliberately seek to link themselves only The worldwide proliferation of NGOs has in horizontal networks with other grassroots been met with a large literature, including NGOs. Still another option for NGOs is to important works that have attempted to estab- be part of less formal but still potentially lish classificatory schemas (Desai & Preston, transnational networks, based on solidarity 2000; Uvin, 1995; Vakil, 1997). As part of a and perhaps the transfer of information rather broader effort to understand the political possi- than financial resources (see Esteva, 1987; bilities and shortfalls inherent in the NGO sec- Fisher, 2003; Perrault, 2003). tor, some analysts distinguish among NGOs Noting the increasing prevalence of NGO according to their relations to progressive so- networks, some analysts have begun to develop cial movements and popular struggles on the frameworks for the examination of particular one hand, and their degree of embeddedness aspects of their form and function (e.g., Ebra- within neo-liberal institutions on the other him, 2003a, 2003b; Lindenberg & Bryant, (Bond, 2000, 2003; Demirovic, 1998; Joseph, 2001, pp. 139–154). This paper is a further con- 2000; Murphy, 2000; Nelson, 2000; Reid & tribution to that endeavor. We outline a con- Taylor, 2000; Townsend, Porter, & Mawdsley, ceptual framework for the analysis of NGO 2004). Others focus more on differentiating networks, focusing upon managerialism. Man- NGOs on the basis of their relations with gov- agerialism is a term that captures the bundles ernmental organizations, or with the state more of knowledges and practices associated with generally (Bebbington, 2000; Bebbington & formalized organizational management—a cen- Farrington, 1993; Coston, 1998; Fernando & tral feature of contemporary NGO networks Heston, 1997; Mercer, 1999; Smillie, 1993). NGOs AND THEGLOBALIZATION OF MANAGERIALISM 1847

Our focus, while acknowledging the impor- increasingly being channeled through, or medi- tance of both the politics of NGOs and of ated by, a cadre of intermediary organizations state-NGO relations, takes the spatial range taking the form of clearinghouse, partner, or of operations as the key differentiating crite- affiliate NGOs (Abramson, 1999; Bebbington rion. Figure 1 offers an ‘‘ideal type’’ illustration & Riddell, 1997; Carroll, 1992; Fisher, 1993, of all possible nodes and connections within a 1998; Stremlau, 1987; Townsend, 1999; Town- fully capacitated network spanning all three send, Porter, & Mawdsley, 2002). These inter- societal sectors (state, civil society, capital). mediary organizations can be valuable for As shown in the central portion of the figure, initiating interorganizational connections, con- the NGO sector is distributed from interna- necting larger NGOs and INGOs to local tional donor groups, through INGOs, and on NGOs through tactical, temporary alliances to locally operating NGOs that, in turn, sup- (Gordenker & Weiss, 1997). In Oaxaca, for port particular on-the-ground projects. While example, a local clearinghouse NGO, the Fun- the figure depicts all potential connections, the dacio´n Comunitaria Oaxaca (FCO), mediates NGO community of course exhibits differences relations between a number of INGOs and var- with respect to the degree of connectivity to ious local, project-based NGOs. In partnership INGOs and international donors. Some grass- arrangements, by contrast, connections are roots organizations are relatively less connected more formalized and relatively stable. For to the circuits of funding, practices, and knowl- example, one US-based INGO, The Interna- edges of INGOs (often deliberately so), while tional Youth Foundation (IYF), establishes others have extensive relations with a range of ‘‘Country Partners’’ who themselves are international foundations, state agencies, and embedded in a network known as YouthNet capital. International (IYF, 2000). Finally, affiliate NGO networks serve to link organizations, arrangements are akin to corporate franchises but in doing so they can also fuel stratification or branch offices; the World Wildlife Fund among NGOs, as Hayden (2002, p. 58) has (WWF), for example, has an affiliate NGO, noted. Indeed, INGO–NGO relationships are WWF—Mexico, which supports local projects

CAPITALCIVIL SOCIETY STATE

Multi-national Multi-national International Donor Agencies Corporations Gov’t Organizations

INGOs

National Nation Corporations States National NGOs

Regional Intermediate NGOs Sub-national Corporations States

Grassroots NGOs

Local Local Businesses Projects Projects Projects Governments

Figure 1. A fully capacitated NGOnetwork. 1848 WORLD DEVELOPMENT in several regions of the country. Though each partite partnership linking elements of the of these types of intermediary arrangements state, capital, and civil society. Certainly, the may distribute technical and administrative official strategies of major organizations such assistance to local NGOs, thereby relieving as the World Bank (2004) promote such tri-sec- them of some managerial burdens, they may toral partnerships and in Oaxaca, for instance, also elide, or even contribute to, asymmetries their benefits are touted by the clearinghouse of power and stratification in interorganiza- NGO, FCO (2000; see also Pezzullo, 2000). tional relations (Crewe & Harrison, 1998; also Again, whether an NGO establishes linkages Hamilton, 2000; Hudock, 2000; Keengwe, with government agencies is a political issue. Percy, Mageka, & Adan, 1999; Lewis, 1998, For example, given the slimming down of the 2001; Lister, 2000; Malhotra, 2000; Mawdsley, state throughout the south under Structural Porter, & Townsend, 2000; Mawdsley, Town- Adjustment Programs (SAPs) in particular, send, Porter, & Oakley, 2002; Postma, 1994; and neoliberalism more generally, many states Yonekura, 2000). are looking to outsource public services One of the most striking elements in the through NGOs. The willingness of NGOs to changing landscape of NGO activity is the engage in this dynamic varies (Aitken, Craske, proliferation of dense intersectoral relations Jones, & Stansfield, 1996; Bond, 2003; Gwynne (between NGOs and the state and capital). In & Kay, 2000; Meyer, 1992, 1999; Paley, 2001; addition to partnerships between NGOs and Pearce, 1997; Slater, 1999; Stewart, 1997; INGOs and donors, it is increasingly common Watts, 1999). for organizations to seek out and form partner- An important aspect of Figure 1 is the recur- ships or other formalized relations with capital sivity implied for each connection between (Bishwapriya, 1997; Heap, 2000; see left hand organizational nodes. In other words, one side of Figure 1). The IYF, for example, has a should not assume that managerial flows range of links not only with corporate-affiliated through the network are unequivocally perni- foundations (Ford, Kellogg, etc.), but also cious impositions onto the organizational cul- directly with multinational corporations, ture of NGOs. Equally, it would be unsound including Nike, Nokia, Cisco Systems, and to assume that managerialism flows unidirec- Microsoft. The IYF’s partnerships with busi- tionally and without mediation from ‘‘top’’ to nesses have been hailed by Alan Pike in the ‘‘bottom,’’ or that the transfer necessarily rein- Financial Times as ‘‘A Social Role for Capital- forces extant power relations between the ism.’’ More instrumentally, and in distinctly developed and developing worlds. INGOs or managerialist tones, the founder of IYF says donors more generally, for example, can have of his corporate partners: ‘‘[t]hrough IYF and in place mechanisms by which they learn from our national partner organizations they can NGOs—for example, through meetings and outsource investment in communities in the training sessions with NGO personnel, as well same way they outsource any other business as by witnessing first hand, and by studying activity’’ (Financial Times, 2000). Of course, the reports produced from, their funded pro- many NGOs are not interested in, and are even jects. This information, in turn, can be incorpo- opposed to, conducting outsourced ‘‘invest- rated into INGO or donor documents and ment in communities’’ on behalf of corpora- operating procedures, finding its way through tions (see also Lindenberg & Bryant, 2001, other transnational connections into the prac- pp. 162–168). Nonetheless, for some NGOs, tices and projects of NGOs operating in differ- the forging of alliances with elements of the ent locales (see Lindenberg & Bryant, 2001, pp. corporate sector—especially in the local set- 234–236, for a discussion of this sort of organi- ting—may be viewed as a positive opportunity zational learning). For example, WWF’s and may be crucial to ensuring the NGO’s sus- Bosques Mexicanos implements community tainability (Aldaba et al., 2000; Henderson, participation models that have been developed 2000; also see below). While corporatist forms by both grassroots NGOs and by WWF—Uni- of managerialism may infuse the relations be- ted Kingdom; these same models are now circu- tween NGOs and businesses, links with govern- lating throughout all of WWF—Mexico’s ment agencies (see right hand side of Figure 1) programs. Indeed, the whole idea and ideal of and with bilateral and multilateral donors may participation may work to empower grassroots also act as channels for the circulation of man- NGOs and to effectively undermine top–down agerialism (Lindenberg & Bryant, 2001). Some- managerial practices (although they may times, networks may embed NGOs in a tri- not—see Cooke & Kothari, 2001). Finally, it NGOs AND THEGLOBALIZATION OF MANAGERIALISM 1849 is important to keep in mind that managerial that have fully embraced major elements of knowledges are differentially understood, nego- managerialism. The adoption and adaptation tiated, and put into practice by NGOs: they can of managerialism in the NGO sector has been adopt any number of stances toward the many twinned with a pervasive culture of profession- elements of managerialism. These can include alization, and managerialism has become a cen- promotion, resistance, adoption, circumven- tral daily concern for staff in networked NGOs. tion, contextual adaptation, or some combina- It is increasingly the case that in order to be tion. One should therefore deliberately avoid eligible for project funds, NGO staff must dem- conceptualizing NGOs as the endpoints of onstrate that they understand and apply man- vectors of managerialism (Crewe & Harrison, agement practices in line with those employed 1998, p. 180; Stirrat & Henkel, 1997). Instead, by their donor agencies. Managerialism, how- it is important to recognize NGO staff as ever, should not be assumed to be unitary— knowledgeable and heterogeneous agents, with one can point, for example, to the growing sophisticated and diverse understandings of the trend toward social and ethical accounting, institutional, social, economic, and political auditing, and reporting (Korten, 1998, 1999; contexts within which they carry out their pro- Spinosa, Flores, & Dreyfus, 1999; Thrift, jects (see also Bebbington, 2000; Mawdsley 1998; Zadek, Bruzan, & Evans, 1997). None- et al., 2002; Mutersbaugh, 2002). theless, even though this heterogeneity should be acknowledged, mainstream northern man- agerialism has become a fairly entrenched and 3. ELEMENTS OF MANAGERIALISM institutionally developed set of knowledges and practices in the NGO sector. Such organi- The nodes described capacitate flows of zational transfers are not only inflected by a many different kinds. A range of tangible items, north–south divide, they are also gendered, as including money and people, flow through are all aspects of organizations (see Cala´s& NGO networks, but so too do a host of Smircich, 1992; Hearn & Parkin, 1992). This practices and knowledges. Significant within fact has not escaped the attention of NGO ana- the latter cluster are managerial practices and lysts (Crewe & Harrison, 1998; Mawdsley et al., knowledges that not only flow through the net- 2000, 2002; Peake & Trotz, 1999; Stubbs, 2000; works but also in part constitute the nodes, as Townsend, Mawdsley, & Porter, 2000). Specif- well as the transfer of other flows. Managerial- ically, it seems reasonable to note that many of ism of a distinctly northern type—marked by the skills, characteristics and attributes that are concepts like accountability, transparency, par- valued in and by managerialism, are often not ticipation, and efficiency, as well as practices those commonly ascribed to women. like double-entry bookkeeping, strategic plan- Lewis (2001) has documented the ways in ning, Logical Framework Analysis, project which managerialism came into the NGO evaluation, and organizational self-assess- sector. He notes the widespread adoption of ment—has been shown to be pervasive in generic management knowledges and practices NGOs’ operations (Edwards & Fowler, 2002; and, since the late 1990s, the development of Lewis, 2001). Research has also shown how specific NGO managerial knowledges blending managerialism has transformed the form and and tailoring elements from corporate, third day-to-day operations of even the smallest sector, and public managerialism. Over the past NGOs in the global south (Crewe & Harrison, ten years or so, a growth industry in NGO 1998; Mawdsley et al., 2000, 2002; Robinson, management has developed. From this has 1997). come a wealth of books, newsletters, and arti- In this paper, we use managerialism as a gen- cles devoted to specifying managerial knowl- eral term for both knowledges and practices of edges and practices for NGOs (Lewis, 2001, organizational governance and operations. 2002). The weighty Reader on NGOManage- While the roots of managerialism are particu- ment (Edwards & Fowler, 2002) captures much larly associated with the corporation, as a set of the state of play in this field. Other key sites of knowledges and practices it has come to for the production and dissemination of NGO infuse a whole host of other institutions and managerialism include a growing number of social spheres beyond the corporate world. institutions such as the International NGO For many NGOs, managerialism may in fact Training and Research Center (INTRAC), be experienced as an impulse emanating from established in 1991 (see Thrift, 1998, on the bilateral donors, such as USAID for example, production and circulation of management 1850 WORLD DEVELOPMENT knowledge more generally). There are also of accountability, including disclosures/reports, numerous consultants, think-tanks, private performance assessments and evaluations, organizations, and universities offering special- processes of internal self-regulation, and social ized training programs in NGO management auditing. He notes, for example, that Logical (Lewis, 2001, p. 10; see, e.g., British Overseas Framework Analysis and other project evalua- NGOs for Development, 2004; School for tion/assessment tools aimed at comparing International Training, 2004; UNESCO/Gali- objectives to outcomes can: overly emphasize lee College, 2004; also see the Global Develop- quantitatively measurable outcomes; direct ment Research Center’s NGO Cafe´, 2004). The NGO resources from actions to analysis; and production and circulation of managerialism confuse evaluation outcomes with NGO per- has earlier roots, but it has markedly expanded formance, thereby punishing those organiza- the 1990s and since. Wilson and Larson (2002) tions that undertake riskier projects. report that the number of graduate degree pro- Of course, few would argue against the need grams in nonprofit management in the United to ensure that projects funded by INGOs and States rose from 17 in 1990 to over 90 in other large NGOs are administered effectively. 2000, for example. In what follows, we divide But within a managerial regime, this sort of the major elements of managerialism circulat- oversight can take on a life of its own, meaning ing through NGO networks into four broad that every aspect of each project, from initial categories. In each category, we identify and proposal to final report, is subjected to a range discuss key constitutive concepts and how they of internal and external evaluations and assess- are operationalized in NGO networks. ments. The IYF and its country partners, for example, promote the use of a specially devel- (a) Accountability oped project assessment tool called the ‘‘Frame- work for Effective Planning.’’ Once a project Few NGO financial connections operate out- has been approved, it is subject to rounds of side of a managerial regime known as account- assessments by funders or their partners, ability. Defined by Edwards and Hulme as ‘‘the through site visits, assessments, and internal means by which individuals and organizations reviews (Charlton & May, 1995; Gibbs, Fumo, report to a recognized authority (or authorities) & Kuby, 1999; Hyman & Dearden, 1998). and are held responsible for their actions’’ (Ed- The on-going and complex nature of these wards & Hulme, 1996b, p. 967), accountability assessment and performance-review exercises is usefully divided into external (upward) and requires a project-based NGO to have person- internal (downward) dimensions. The former nel with appropriate, often quantitative-ana- is associated with connections between NGOs, lytic, abilities (Robinson, 1994), skills that in state entities, and business enterprises, while some contexts may not be considered ‘‘natural’’ the latter involves assessments of projects for women. Additionally, it is frequently the undertaken by NGOs (see below). Internal case that assessment reports have to be in Eng- accountability, by contrast, involves self-assess- lish, which in many places means relying on ments by the organization with respect to its language skills possessed by only a small per- own rules, practices, goals, and achievements centage of the local population. In addition, (see also Edwards & Hulme, 1996a; Fisher, such practices assume a certain level of technol- 2003). This formulation, however, can elide ogy (perhaps only a personal computer) and the fact that accountability does not always in- skills that may or may not be easily obtained clude ‘‘downstream’’ client or beneficiary popu- by a local NGO (Alam, 1998; Everett, 1998). lations. Thus, while NGO staff may be required The overall result is the establishment of a ‘‘re- to demonstrate accountability to donors seek- port culture’’ (Mawdsley et al., 2000). While as- ing to assist, for example, poor women and pects of it may work to safeguard financial children, they are not always required to in- probity and to foster a culture of efficiency in clude those same women and children as agents targeting scarce resources (Charlton & May, to whom the NGO is accountable (see Linden- 1995), participating in this culture requires both berg & Bryant, 2001, pp. 211–213). technical and language skills—‘‘knowing the In whatever event, many widely employed buzzwords’’ (Mawdsley et al., 2000)—and it accountability practices are well poised to be often comes with a burdensome level of bureau- vectors of managerialism. Ebrahim (2003a) cratization and culturally disjunctive profes- shows this in his useful categorization and dis- sionalization (Abramson, 1999; Pitner, 2000; cussion of different mechanisms and processes Powell & Seddon, 1997). NGOs AND THEGLOBALIZATION OF MANAGERIALISM 1851

Overall, the endless rounds of assessment other hand, it is possible that particular NGO exercises are justified by recourse to generally staff may desire a certain evaluation regime in accepted norms of transparency (Fox, 1992; order, say, to reinforce their own positions Fox & Brown, 1998; Najam, 1996; Poelhekke, within an organization or network. In these 1999; Smillie, 1997). Transparency is aimed at and other ways, NGOs do not merely accept ensuring a project’s financial probity and the norms of accountability as promoted in guarding against any financial ‘‘leakages’’ or managerialism but rather rework them as they diversions, and is thus normatively associated put them into practice (or not). with ethics (e.g., Fundac¸a˜o Abrinq, 1999, p. 8). Most commonly, transparency entails the (b) Defining the organization adoption of standard accounting practices and the production of ‘‘quantities of information’’ A formal and legally recognized institutional (Lindenberg & Bryant, 2001, p. 212), such as form often is a base requirement for NGOs financial statements (schedules of revenues seeking to participate in networks—especially and expenditures) and annual reports based those centered around funding relations with on audits undertaken by qualified accountants INGOs. Though requirements vary nationally, (see Anderson-Gough, Grey, & Robson, 2005, the legal incorporation of an NGO typically on the gendered organizational processes in brings expectations of standardized account multinational audit firms). In some cases, keeping and compliance with audits, tax laws NGOs select auditors from prestigious and and codes, and so on. This implies that NGOs expensive global accountancy firms (notably must have access to credentialed professionals Price Waterhouse Coopers, Ernst and Young, (such as notaries, lawyers, and accountants) KMPG, or Deloitte and Touche) in an effort with expert knowledge. Such professionals are to ensure a level of transparency acceptable to typically clustered in urban areas, and the spa- INGOs. An important element of transparency tial distribution of NGOs might be expected is that the NGO’s accounts and assessment re- increasingly to mirror this urban bias as man- ports be made available to stakeholders. Thus, agerialism spreads through NGO networks for example, under a heading ‘‘The Need for and as NGOs face pressures to formalize their Transparency’’ in its annual report, the corpo- status in order to participate in networks. In rate-sponsored foundation Global Alliance for many places, such professional networks tend Workers and Communities states ‘‘Global Alli- to be populated by men more than women, ance is now publishing on a regular basis all adding a gender bias to the urban bias already assessment tools and results on its website..., noted. In addition to these more legalistic and as well as other Global Alliance-related infor- structural elements, contemporary discourses mation, including survey instruments’’ (Global of managerialism, as found throughout INGO Alliance, 2000). and NGO documents, stress a specific ap- In the end, accountability and its associated proach to defining an organization through its elements lead to an increased workload for central focus and coherence of values (Borren, NGOs, requiring either a specialist staff or the 2000). In the language of managerialism, this extension and diversion of existing staff from is often described as defining the organization’s other, often more project-related, tasks. For vision, an idea that has direct roots in the North some NGOs in Oaxaca, as is undoubtedly the American corporate management literature case elsewhere, a range of resistant practices (Roberts, 2003). As one manual puts it, have emerged to counteract the burdensome ‘‘[y]our NGO’s vision describes your desired requirements of accountability. NGOs might picture of reality,’’ adding ‘‘your vision also is keep two sets of financial books: one organized dynamic and changes as the needs of the groups to satisfy the funding agency, and another you serve and the environments you work in reflecting the way finances actually were dis- shift’’ (Pezzullo, 2000, p. 13). In addition to a bursed. While NGO staff may become experts vision statement, each organization is expected at complying with their funders’ assessment to develop a mission statement: ‘‘Your mission and evaluation requirements, they can at the communicates your NGO’s purpose, its rea- same time run the daily activities along quite son(s) for being’’ (Pezzullo, 2000, p. 13; see also different, and locally specific, lines. Nor is it Hailey, 2000). Although stated abstractly in the unusual for NGOs to shy away from a particu- language of managerialism, the actual task of lar INGO if it is perceived to require an espe- defining a mission is a highly politicized one cially onerous level of accountability. On the for many NGOs. Who is included in the creation 1852 WORLD DEVELOPMENT of the mission statement and how much it should course highlights the importance of public be tailored to appeal to potential funders are is- relations, the promotion of NGOs and their sues that can potentially be quite divisive and projects, and other attempts to raise and main- controversial for an organization. tain the visibility of NGOs. Techniques from According to managerialist principles, an marketing, such as branding, are employed NGO’s mission is developed and refined very effectively by many NGOs in establishing through recurring rounds of strategic planning. and solidifying their image. One of the most Strategic planning entails conducting situa- successful examples of NGO branding is the tional assessments of key threats and oppor- WWF’s panda image, which is used systemati- tunities in the organization’s environment. cally and strategically throughout the organiza- Often, emerging associations of NGOs will be tion. WWF’s Bosques Mexicanos uses both the useful in assembling data on NGO activity in panda and a locally resonant symbol—the jag- a particular region or sector, for example in uar—on its promotional materials. the form of a directory, in part to assist mem- Whether they possess a professionally ber NGOs in their situational assessment exer- designed logo or not, NGOs seeking to partici- cises (Meyer, 1997; Stremlau, 1987; and see pate in relations with professionalized clearing- Children & Youth Foundation of the Philip- house NGOs and INGOs are likely to engage in pines, 2000; FOCO, 2000). Situational assess- public relations activities. Typically, NGOs ment is followed by planning exercises (often have staff members devoted to the production through focus groups) that help identify an and dissemination of a variety of printed pub- organization’s key issues, goals, and strategies licity materials (booklets, reports, newsletters, over a certain time period, say three to five etc.) and websites. Such materials may be incor- years (see, e.g., Fundac¸a˜o Abrinq, 1999; IYF, porated into organized campaigns (Chapman & 2000; Pezzullo, 2000). Such planning activities Fisher, 2000; Jordan & van Tuijl, 2000; Lei- typically involve not only NGO staff but also pold, 2000) and advocacy programs (Anderson, members of stakeholder groups (identified in 2000; Nelson, 2000). Among the better funded part through situational assessments) and NGOs these materials are often in several lan- INGO consultants, and can be quite elaborate. guages and of a very high quality—reflecting Deciding who is going to be counted and in- a significant cost outlay for graphic design, cluded as a stakeholder can, of course, en- translation services, printing, and so on. In gender serious discussion and even struggle addition, NGOs seek to publicize their organi- within NGOs and NGO networks, and between zation through radio and television spots, NGOs and the communities they serve. In videos, newspaper feature stories, and special order to participate in planning procedures, as events (ceremonies, prizes, exhibitions, semi- in accountability practices, stakeholders may nars, workshops, and so on; see, e.g., Children be expected to themselves become professional- of Slovakia Foundation, 1999; Fundac¸a˜o ized. For example, one of the WWF’s goals in Abrinq, 1999). As in the case of accountability, Mexico is to help rural environmental NGOs the practices associated with defining the orga- in the rainforests of Chimalapas, in the State nization and publicizing its achievements are of Oaxaca, ‘‘develop the skills and tools to time consuming and expensive. Some NGO work effectively’’ by providing ‘‘technical assis- staff may feel that these sorts of practices are tance in the areas of organizational assessment, diverting scarce human and financial resources strategic planning, financial resource develop- away from their actual on-the-ground projects. ment, and community outreach and participa- A final aspect of organizational definition is tion methods’’ (WWF, 2001). sustainability (Bebbington, 1997a, 1997b; Scho- Another aspect of managerial logic that suf- ener, 1997; van Tuijl, 1999). As used in the fuses the external relations of NGOs is image managerial literature, this term refers to the creation. Formulating a corporate identity is a long-term viability of an NGO and its projects. task linked with defining a coherent vision This is a narrower definition than some others and mission (see above), but can be as equally that have been posited (see, e.g., Cannon, geared toward promoting the NGO to state 2002) and relies upon a conflation of financial agencies or corporate interests as to its constit- sustainability with organizational sustainability uencies (Moore & Stewart, 1998). As it is being (Pezzullo, 2000, p. 8). Financially, sustainabil- circulated in the NGO sector through, for ity is understood as resting on an organization’s example, national and international confer- ability to raise funds from a changing range of ences of NGO operatives, the managerialist dis- sources (a major reason behind many NGOs NGOs AND THEGLOBALIZATION OF MANAGERIALISM 1853 involvements in networks to begin with). With- theorists have pointed out that, in many cases, in the organizational definition, sustainability women tend to prefer different, less vertically immediately raises questions about an NGO’s stratified organizational structures, and tend missions and objectives. If an NGO is set up to operate with more horizontal and face-to- to accomplish a narrowly defined mission that face decision-making processes (Cala´s & Smirc- it subsequently achieves, it could be said to ich, 1992; Hearn & Parkin, 1992). Moreover, have succeeded, but then there will no longer without ascribing essentialized notions of differ- be a reason for it to exist. Sustainability there- ence to local or indigenous ways of organizing fore requires that this sort of success is never and building institutions, it can also be seen achieved, or that successful NGOs change their that in many cases by not recognizing alterna- missions in order to be sustainable. The contra- tive organizational styles, INGOs and donors dictory logic of sustainability in NGO manage- may miss opportunities to synergistically build rialism runs parallel to the broader history of effective programs upon culturally congruent development practices in the global south, frameworks. In any event, it is the case that wherein serial policy failure becomes the ‘‘fate in some NGOs the sort of hierarchical structure and fuel of all policy’’ rather than cause for assumed by much managerialism is at odds its rethinking or abandonment (Dillon & Reid, with the NGO’s deliberate attempts to operate 2000, p. 13; see also Ferguson, 1994). Indeed, through a more horizontal, fluid, or democratic the concept of sustainability has to be seen organizational structure. within the wider idea of development, which Leaders, according to managerialism, are itself necessarily implies change not stasis also supposed to develop responsive leadership (Arndt, 1981; Cowen & Shenton, 1996). techniques; skills that enhance adaptability, flexibility, and innovation in organizational cul- (c) Capacity building tures and practices (Fyvie & Ager, 1999). Thus, for example, ‘‘[h]aving leadership that is open NGO managerialism also recognizes the minded and savvy to changes in the environ- importance of developing the attributes of an ment and able to rally staff to shift its program organization’s staff. Thus, capacity building and services accordingly can be one of the can be conflated with managerialist aspects of more valuable characteristics of a viable human resource development, emphasizing NGO’’ (Pezzullo, 2000, p. 20). NGO leaders skills-oriented learning and in-house training can take courses and learn techniques to build for staff and/or their attendance at local and effective teams in their organizations, as well international workshops and courses in order as to hone their communication skills—for to increase an organization’s ‘‘ability to achieve use both within the NGO and in communicat- an impact’’ (Fowler, 2002, p. 76). Though ing with external constituencies. For example, many NGOs are deliberately organized in the Vermont-based School of International nonhierarchical ways, with collective decision Training offers a Masters Degree in NGO making, the rotation of positions, and team- Leadership and Management, with courses on oriented projects, much human resource devel- capacity building, intercultural communica- opment is based on models of leadership and tion, policy development, management systems, efficiency that mirror more corporate and and leadership (School for International Train- masculinist forms of organizational structure ing, 2004). Active entrepreneurship on the part (Cala´s & Smircich, 1992). These models may of NGOs and their leaders is also sometimes assume that work is stratified according to presented as a theme in capacity building organizational charts, with staff occupying sta- (Jeans, 1998; Meyer, 1995, 1999) within a more ble and unambiguous positions in a hierarchy. generally valorized corporate organizational Such models may also assume that there is a identity (Fowler, 2000b; Moore & Stewart, definable group within the wider NGO who 1998). Especially valued in such settings is one’s are, or who want to be, leaders (Perrault, Beb- ability to be entrepreneurial in identifying po- bington, & Carroll, 1998)—people who engage tential funders and in writing successful grant in ‘‘the process of identifying and developing applications. The overall managerialist impera- the management skills necessary to address pol- tive, in terms of the way an organization is run icy problems; attracting, absorbing and man- and functions, can be summed up in the ubiqui- aging financial, human and informational tous terms efficiency and effectiveness which are resources; and operating programmes effec- themselves captured by the more overarching tively’’ (Umeh, 1992, p. 58). Organizational concern for good governance (Edwards & 1854 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Hulme, 1996b; Hulme & Edwards, 1997; and in the spaces of flows that connect NGOs Manzo, 2000). in networks. A potentially useful way to con- Capacity building, moreover, is often ex- ceptualize this fluid set of social relations is by tended beyond the NGO and into the domains way of its spatiality. By this we mean the sev- of community groups they work to assist (often eral ways in which managerialism, NGOs, and couched in the language of technical assistance). NGO networks are constituted spatially while For example, the WWF hires facilitators to at the same time contributing to the socio- work with a community NGO in Oaxaca’s rain- spatial contexts within which they operate forests, ‘‘analysing [its] actual organizational (Del Casino, Grimes, Hanna, & Jones, 2000). structure..., consolidating its technical and Our framework attends to at least three ways administrative teams, and conducting the tasks in which contemporary forms of NGO net- of organizational strengthening necessary to works are geographical. First, the networks implement both strategic and operating plans’’ themselves are enacting a geography—linking (WWF, 2001). Yet top–down capacity building actors in often quite distant locales. In some can come at a cost, as northern standards of cases, these geographies correspond to older management are imposed on southern NGOs geographies of north–south relations, but in and their target groups, resulting in what Fisher other cases networks may deliberately or not (1994) calls a ‘‘subtle paternalism.’’ This sort of undo some of these sedimented geographies imposed managerialism circulates in the multi- and their asymmetries of power. Second, every national management-consulting firm, Mc- NGO is a spatial actor with its own spatial Kinsey and Company. Their report, Effective strategies—whether explicitly stated as such or Capacity Building in Nonprofit Organizations not (Mutersbaugh, 2002). These can vary in notes the resistance to capacity building on terms of: location and extensiveness of opera- the part of NGOs: ‘‘All too many nonprofits tion; the ratio of in-house visits by clients to focus on creating new programs and keeping outreach visits to clients; and the mix of peo- administrative costs low instead of building ple-based versus place-based objectives found the organizational capacity necessary for in projects. Third, managerialism is implicated achieving their aspirations effectively and effi- in the spatial discourses enacted by NGOs. ciently. [...] This must change; both nonprofit These enactments include carving up the com- managers and those that fund them must recog- plex and overlapping social spaces ‘‘on the nize that excellence in programmatic innova- ground’’ into the discrete and abstracted spaces tion and implementation are insufficient for of projects, reports, and evaluations. They also nonprofits to achieve lasting results. Great pro- include efforts aimed at scaling up or taking to grams need great organizations behind them’’ scale (see below). (McKinsey & Company, 2001, p. 19). Such per- The spatial strategies and discourses of spectives overlook not only the many diverse NGOs can be aligned with managerialism’s ways in which excellence, efficiency, and effec- technical rationality. Such a rationality implies tiveness might otherwise be formulated and a conceptualization of space that sees it in realized, but also the gendered and culturally terms of discrete units, oftentimes decontextu- specific practices that such objectives under- alized, and marked by quantitative attributes write. Given these disjunctures, it is not surpris- (as in Geographical Information Systems ing that, in Lewis’s terms, capacity building and (GIS), for example—a mapping and data ana- the practices associated with it have: ‘‘brought lysis technology that is rapidly spreading NGO organization and management issues into through the NGO sector). This can be seen in focus more sharply than ever’’ (Lewis, 2001, p. the cases when organizations rely upon na- 183; also Eade, 1997; Fisher, 1994; Fowler, tion-state definitions of social space, such as Campbell, & Pratt, 1992; Lewis, 1998). census units, to assess needs and target funding (Mitchell, 2002) or use official indices of mar- (d) Spatial strategies and discourses ginalization based on municipal boundaries to define target areas, as is frequently the case in Managerialism, as a set of changing knowl- Oaxaca. It can also occur when the grids used edges and practices, does not emerge in any to spatially reference environmental informa- one site and then diffuse, unchanged, through tion derived from satellites are mapped onto any organization or network (see Thrift, census data, or vice-versa. Indeed, any mapping 1998). Rather, it circulates, gets reworked or and analysis of spatially referenced information even rejected in complicated ways in NGOs can lead to what Lefebvre (1991) termed ‘‘ab- NGOs AND THEGLOBALIZATION OF MANAGERIALISM 1855 stract’’ space—an imaginary geography Thus, the IYF asks of NGOs with successful bleached clean of the messy spatiality of projects, ‘‘How do we expand and replicate on-the-ground social relations. Such a ‘‘grid their efforts? How do we take them to scale?’’ epistemology’’ (Dixon & Jones, 1998) can, for (Schubert & Little, 1996). Howes (1997) notes example, drive data collection and analysis in that scaling up dovetails with NGO manageri- strategic planning exercises and project devel- alism’s emphasis on becoming sustainable. opment in NGOs, leading to situations in But Edwards and Hulme (1992) offer that scal- which the segmentations of territories found ing up by an NGO can skew the projects that it in a GIS fail to match the relational flows of pursues and cause the organization to lose lived spaces among those that the organizations touch with its context in ways that might act are attempting to help. The risks here include to exclude certain groups, such as women (see the underestimation of a project’s spillover also Ebdon, 1995; Markowitz & Tice, 2001). effects; the inability to assess cultural or envi- As Billis and MacKeith note, ‘‘scaling up is ronmental differences within the spatial units an organizational as well as a policy question’’ employed, such as municipalities, which are (Billis & MacKeith, 1992, p. 126) and, as has often used to organize NGO projects in Oaxaca been argued above, the implications of this (even those that are not aimed at municipalities can occasion serious struggles within NGOs in toto, but rather at specific sites within them); as they seek to orient themselves in relation to the uncritical acceptance of an extant spatial these elements of managerialism. classification while ignoring the socio-political processes that created it (e.g., the deliberate gerrymandering of indigenous territories into 4. A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS mixed municipalities in Mexico); and the reifi- cation of spatial units (e.g., ‘‘rural versus Table 1 serves as both an elaboration and urban,’’ ‘‘Appalachia,’’ ‘‘District I,’’ etc.) that extension of the framework presented above. come to take on a life of their own simply for In it, we stratify the four domains of manageri- their utility within managerial knowledges and alism by three general areas of organizational practices more generally. analysis: culture, structure, and projects. Each Sometimes, organizational arrangements can of these is highly pertinent to the work that parallel such hierarchical and state-centric NGOs undertake, and can be hypothesized in spatial understandings and can engender a dis- numerous ways to respond to and to impact juncture between administratively convenient the flows of managerialism operating within demarcations of territory and more malleable, any given NGO network. More precisely, we historically contingent, and socially grounded conceptualize as recursive the relationships be- spatial imaginaries that might be embedded in tween accountability, organizational definition, grassroots NGOs. Any such disjuncture be- capacity building, and spatial strategies and tween abstract divisions of space and on-the- discourses, on the one hand, and organizational ground social relations can not only rework culture, structure, and projects, on the other an NGO’s internal operations, reconfiguring hand. Thus, when asking how the aspects of the social space of the NGO, it can also affect accountability impinge on organizational cul- how ‘‘turf,’’ including competition for fund- ture within an NGO, we must simultaneously ing in specific locales, is negotiated in the com- inquire as to the impact of that culture on the plex relationships existing among grassroots mediation and reconstitution of accountability. NGOs. The table is divided into two parts. The first In addition to these territorial issues, there is page fleshes out what we take to be the key com- a distinctive explicit scalar language at work in ponents of organizational culture, structure, managerialism. Central elements in the spatial and projects. The second and third pages con- strategies of INGOs and NGOs are processes nect each aspect of managerialism discussed known as taking to scale, scaling up, scaling above to these three aspects of organizations, down, and scaling out. The ubiquity of these specifying a common research agenda focusing terms has led Uvin and colleagues to investigate on the recursive relations between them. Read- them and their relations to one another (Uvin, ers should have in mind the details on the first 1995; Uvin, Jain, & Brown, 2000; Uvin & page when assessing the ‘‘recursive understand- Miller, 1996). They note the tendency for ings’’ between managerialism and organizations INGOs and NGOs to attempt to reproduce found on the second and third pages. In addi- and extend are assessed as successful projects. tion, for each of the twelve intersections we offer 86WRDDEVELOPMENT WORLD 1856

Table 1. Impacts of managerialism: A framework for analysis Some key features Organizational culture Organizational structure Organizational projects of organizations —Decision-making environment: —Formal structure: legal status; —Establishing priorities: processes for centralized versus decentralized; extent of external input through defining sectors of action (e.g., health egalitarian versus hierarchical; advisory boards and community versus environment); spatial distribution democratic versus autocratic; participation; level of intra- (e.g., area selection, centralized versus routine versus ad hoc; pragmatic organizational differentiation dispersed); social content (e.g., versus idealistic; radical versus and task delineation; affiliation indigenous peoples versus women); conformist; conservative versus type (e.g., clearinghouse, partner, types of assistance (e.g., technical opportunistic subsidiary, independent) assistance versus service provision) —Personnel characteristics: rate —Operational structure: centralized —Projects: determined externally or of turnover; skill and reward versus ‘‘branch plant’’ versus dispersed internally; selected before funding levels; extent and impact of the operations; in-house provision versus secured or funding-driven; valuation of social differences outreach orientation; fixed versus administered from center or from field of education, training, age, flexible organizational form offices; extensiveness and longevity gender, race, class, ethnicity, —Network structure: extensiveness of projects; place-, people-, or indigeneity, and sexuality of intersectoral linkages (e.g., with state issue-based; single-source funding —Work environment: nurturing and capital); degree of horizontal and or multiple-source funding versus hostile; stimulating versus vertical integration within the NGO —Everyday activities: daily work boring; collaborative versus network; stability of the network schedules, including division of individualistic; cooperative (long term or shifting relations); labor on projects, conduct of meetings, versus competitive; patronage quantity and quality of resources, characteristics of field excursions, versus merit-based reward system information, and personnel carrying out projects and —Resources: level of and differential flowing through the network assessment exercises access to technological and other equipment, funds, perks, etc.; differential abilities to marshal the organization’s resources Accountability (including —Recursive understanding of the —Recursive understanding of the —Recursive understanding of the compliance relations between accountability relations between accountability relations between accountability and with principles of and the various aspects of and the various aspects of the details of organizational projects transparency, organizational culture listed above organizational structure listed above listed above reporting and assessment —Oaxaca example: One of —Oaxaca example: The FCO and —Oaxaca example: The FCO is requirements, and WWF’s Bosques Mexicanos WWF’s Bosques Mexicanos have sustained by an Inter-American efforts to international funders, USAID, different models of accountability: Development Bank’s program that ensure

has strict policies regarding NGO the FCO’s clearinghouse model is requires it to continually 1857 identify new MANAGERIALISM OF THEGLOBALIZATION AND NGOs sustainability) compliance with specific tasks more flexible, requiring only opportunities for technical assistance formulated in grant proposals; financial probity, while the groups in the state’s rural villages; this has resulted in a conservative WWF’s partner NGO has stricter the FCO sometimes complies by organizational culture within Bosques standards of transparency, constituting ‘‘communities of reporting, and assessment across women working together’’ where none all aspects of its programs previously existed Defining the organization —Recursive understanding of the —Recursive understanding of the —Recursive understanding of the (including specifying the relations between organizational relations between organizational relations between organizational organization’s vision and mission, definition and the various aspects definition and the various aspects of definition and the various aspects of undertaking strategic planning of organizational culture listed above organizational structure listed above organizational projects listed above exercises, and building —Oaxaca example: The WWF —Oaxaca example: The FCO’s —Oaxaca example: The FCO long-term sustainability) network has broadened its mission hierarchical structure, when coupled publicly eschews projects that might to include social and economic with its independence as a clearinghouse, be considered ‘‘political;’’ however, factors as it pursues its environmental enables a few key actors within the with the organizational structure goals; the staff of the WWF’s organization to exert tremendous described at left, the FCO’s key actors Bosques Mexicanos, however, power, including control over strategic were able to recraft their mission is composed solely of natural planning; here a small core of permanent statement in an application to an scientists; over the past staff act as gatekeepers for the content INGO seeking to fund projects on decade they have had to and form of managerialism as it circulates human rights abuses and on implement programs reflecting throughout the NGO’s network programs aimed at redressing the the more inclusive goals of the effects of neoliberalism international organization (continued next page) Table 1—continued DEVELOPMENT WORLD 1858

Some key features Organizational culture Organizational structure Organizational projects of organizations Capacity building —Recursive understanding of the —Recursive understanding of the —Recursive understanding of the (including human relations between capacity building relations between capacity relations between capacity building resource development, and the various aspects of building and the various aspects and the various aspects of leadership training, organizational culture listed above of organizational structure listed above organizational projects listed above entrepreneurship, —Oaxaca example: Cultural —Oaxaca example: WWF’s model —Oaxaca example: WWF sent a staff efficiency and equity, disjunctures can inhibit capacity of inclusive or ‘‘participatory’’ member to an Brazilian workshop good governance) building by alienating targeted decision-making converged with aimed at helping local communities personnel: in one Oaxaca conference regional autonomy movements market certified wood (form sustainable of Latin American NGO professionals, in the state’s rural areas; the forestry); this knowledge was the organizers, leaders of a large, result has been an increase in embedded in the WWF’s local projects US-based INGO, scheduled meetings the capacity (e.g., skills, in the Sierra Norte—rather than to conform to the US workday and interpersonal networks) of attempt to end logging in the region, eating schedule, a faux pas that community organizers—a WWF produced a pragmatic upset many attendees partial outcome of WWF’s compromise with local communities open organizational structure dependent on the forest resource Spatial strategies and —Recursive understanding of the —Recursive understanding —Recursive understanding of the discourses (including relations between spatial strategies of the relations between spatial relations between spatial strategies spatial range of and discourses and the various strategies and discourses and and discourses and the various aspects operation, spatial data aspects of organizational culture the various aspects of of organizational projects listed above collection, socio-spatial listed above organizational structure —Oaxaca example: The FCO applies segmentation, definition —Oaxaca example: Two of the listed above a single model of project assessment of ‘‘community,’’ and largest women-centered —Oaxaca example: WWF is to each community organization with developmental, nature-society, NGOs in Oaxaca City have explicitly organized around which it works, regardless of sector, and other spatial discourses vastly different spatial strategies; regions; its mapping of project type, or region; this and the technological practices constituencies travel to the environmental ‘‘hot spots’’ identified one-size-fits-all strategy is reported they work through) headquarters of the one whose four environmentally sensitive to be reinforced at international leaders share an upper class eco-regions, each focused around workshops on program assessment led background, while the less well the preservation of particular by a large INGO resourced NGO conducts flora and fauna; in this sense, significantly more outreach Mexico’s biodiversity organizes through field-based projects the WWF—Mexico’s administrative structure NGOs AND THEGLOBALIZATION OF MANAGERIALISM 1859 a brief empirical example drawn from our with one another and with institutions in the ongoing work in Oaxaca, which is centered on state sector as well as with corporations. These two NGO networks in the state. The nodal point networks comprise many nodes and are ani- of one is a clearinghouse NGO, FCO, whose mated by flows of resources and knowledge. major current project involves technical assis- The transfer of managerial practices and tance to micro-regions via a program funded knowledges in these networks is central to their by the Inter-American Development Bank. working, and scholars are beginning to criti- The other network is concentrated on Bosques cally analyze their content, form, operation, Mexicanos, a unit of the WWF—Mexico, which meaning, and impacts (see Crewe & Harrison, is part of the WWF’s global network headquar- 1998; Lewis, 2001; Mawdsley et al., 2000, tered in Switzerland. The Bosques office in Oax- 2002). aca works with other NGOs and community This paper addresses the need for a general- groups in the forested areas of the state; its ized and coherent research agenda for the study major funding comes from WWF—Mexico, of managerialism in the NGO sector. While we WWF—United Kingdom, and USAID. only scratched the surface of this agenda from an empirical standpoint, the research frame- work presented here aims to be a contribution 5. CONCLUSION to addressing this particular aspect of the NGO sector and its emerging networked form. The globalization of capital and of labor has While researchers and NGO operatives will been much investigated (Dicken, 2003; Han- necessarily have to contextualize the frame- ham & Banasick, 1998; Harvey, 1989; Herod, work to fit their unique circumstances, since 1997; Martin, 1994; Thrift & Leyshon, 1995; the literature demonstrates that similar pro- Sassen, 1998), and the relationship of the state cesses of NGO managerial transfers are occur- to globalization has also been well-researched ring in every continent, a general framework (Helleiner, 1994; Kapstein, 1994; Ould-Mey, may be helpful in capturing their tension-filled 1999; Webber, 1998). Others have debated the dynamics. ways in which civil society writ large is being re- Finally, as we have stressed at several junc- shaped under globalization (Gray, 1999; Hobe, tures throughout this paper, managerialism’s 1997; Kleinberg & Clark, 2000; Vellinga, 1998; elements can differentially infuse the daily but see the critiques of Allen, 1997; Feldman, workings of NGOs, and do so in ways that cre- 1997; Ferguson, 1998). The spectacular growth ate a range of orientations to them. We noted in the number and significance of NGOs has the ways in which tensions may arise within been situated in terms of the almost-ubiquitous and between NGOs themselves as certain types neoliberal downsizing of the state, and atten- of knowledge, and expertise, are concentrated dant emphases on promoting the NGO sector and valorized. We also noted how managerial by international organizations such as the imperatives flowing through networks can be World Bank (Aitken et al., 1996; Bond, 2003; met with open resistance. Other examples point Gwynne & Kay, 2000; Meyer, 1992, 1999; to how aspects of managerialism are reworked Pearce, 1997; Slater, 1999; Stewart, 1997; as they are put into practice in organizations. Watts, 1999). In studies of the globalization Many NGO operatives complain that manage- of the NGO sector, however, the growth in rial practices are burdensome and diversionary. the sheer number of NGOs has sometimes More than this, though, the many tensions overshadowed the major changes in the form contained within and spilling out from the cir- of NGOs and of inter-NGO relations that are culation of managerialism in NGO networks proceeding apace. These changes include the bespeak its deeply contradictory and political rise of a dense web of networks linking NGOs nature.

REFERENCES

Abramson, D. M. (1999). A critical look at NGOs and Aitken, R., Craske, N., Jones, G. A., & Stansfield, D. E. civil society as means to an end in Uzbekistan. (Eds.) (1996). Dismantling the Mexican state? New Human Organization: Journal of the Society for York: St Martin’s Press. Applied Anthropology, 58(3), 240–251. 1860 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Alam, B. (1998). Empowerment or bust: Making NGOs Rethinking organization: New directions in organiza- work for grassroots development. Science, Technol- tion theory and analysis (pp. 227–253). London: Sage ogy and Development, 16(3), 135–143. Publications. Aldaba, F., Antezana, P., Valderrama, M., & Fowler, A. Cannon, L. (2002). Defining sustainability. In M. F. (2000). NGO strategies beyond aid: Perspectives Edwards & A. Fowler (Eds.), Earthscan reader in from Central and South America and the Philip- NGOmanagement (pp. 363–365). London: Earth- pines. Third World Quarterly, 21(4), 669–683. scan. Allen, C. (1997). Who needs civil society? Review of Carroll, T. F. (1992). Intermediary NGOs. The support- African Political Economy, 24(73), 329–337. ing link in grassroots development. West Hartford, Anderson, I. (2000). Northern NGO advocacy: Percep- CT: Kumarian Press. tions, reality, and the challenge. Development in Chapman, J., & Fisher, T. (2000). The effectiveness of Practice, 10(3&4), 445–452. NGO campaigning: Lessons from practice. Develop- Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C., & Robson, K. (2005). ment in Practice, 10(2), 151–165. ‘‘Helping them to forget...’’: The organizational Charlton, R., & May, R. (1995). NGOs, politics, embedding of gender in public audit firms. Account- projects and probity: A policy implementation per- ing, Organizations and Society, 30(5), 469–490. spective. Third World Quarterly, 16(2), 237. Arndt, H. W. (1981). Economic development: A seman- Children and Youth Foundation of the Philippines tic history. Economic Development and Cultural (2000). Getting to know the filipino out of school Change, 24(3), 457–466. children and youth. Manila: Children and Youth Bebbington, A. (1997a). Reinventing NGOs and Foundation of the Philippines. rethinking alternatives in the Andes. Annals of the Children of Slovakia Foundation (1999). Annual report American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1999. Bratislava, Slovakia: Children of Slovakia 554, 117–136. Foundation. Bebbington, A. (1997b). New states, new NGOs? Crises Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.) (2001). Participation: and transitions among rural development NGOs in The new tyranny? New York: Zed Books. the Andean region. World Development, 25(11), Coston, J. M. (1998). A model and typology of 1755–1767. government–NGO relationships. Nonprofit and Vol- Bebbington, A. (2000). Reencountering development: untary Sector Quarterly, 27(3), 358–382. Livelihood transitions and place transformations in Cowen, M. P., & Shenton, R. W. (1996). Doctrines of the Andes. Annals of the Association of American development. New York: Routledge. Geographers, 90(3), 495–521. Crewe, E., & Harrison, E. (1998). Whose development? Bebbington, A., & Farrington, J. (1993). Governments, An ethnography of aid. New York: Zed Books. NGOs and agricultural development: Perspectives on Del Casino, V., Grimes, A., Hanna, S., & Jones, J. P. changing inter-organisational relationships. The (2000). Methodological frameworks for the geo- Journal of Development Studies, 29(2), 199–220. graphy of organizations. Geoforum, 31(4), 523– Bebbington, A., & Riddell, R. (1997). Heavy hands, 538. hidden hands, holding hands? Donors, intermediary Demirovic, A. (1998). NGOs and social movements: A NGOs and civil society organisations. In D. Hulme study in contrasts. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, & M. Edwards (Eds.), NGOs, states, and donors: Too 9(3), 83–92. close for comfort? (pp. 107–127). London: Macmil- Desai, V., & Preston, I. (2000). Urban grassroots lan. nongovernmental organizations in Bombay: A Billis, D., & MacKeith, J. (1992). Growth and change in suggested typology. Environment and Planning C: NGOs: Concepts and comparative experience. In M. Government and Policy, 18(4), 453–468. Edwards & D. Hulme (Eds.), Making a difference: Dicken, P. (2003). Global shift: The internationalization NGOs and development in a changing world. London: of economic activity (4th ed.). New York: Guilford. Earthscan. Dillon, M., & Reid, J. (2000). Global governance, liberal Bishwapriya, S. (1997). NGOs’ self-defeating quest for peace, and complex emergency. Alternatives, 25(1), autonomy. Annals of the American Academy of 117–143. Political and Social Science, 554, 21–33. Dixon, D., & Jones, J. P. III, (1998). My dinner with Bond, P. (2000). The Africa grassroots and the global Derrida, or spatial analysis and poststructuralism do movement. Znet Commentary, (October 19), Avail- lunch. Environment and Planning A, 30(2), 247–260. able from http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/ Eade, D. (1997). Capacity building: An approach to 200-01/10bond.htm. people-centred development. Oxford: Oxfam Publica- Bond, P. (2003). Cultivating African anti-capitalism. Z tions. Magazine, 16(2), 1–9, Available from http://zmag- Ebdon, R. (1995). NGO expansion and the fight to reach site.zmag.org/Feb2003/bond0203.html. the poor: Gender implications of NGO scaling-up in Borren, S. (2000). Development agencies: Global or solo Bangladesh. IDS Bulletin, 26(3), 49–55. players? Development in Practice, 10(3&4), 408–419. Ebrahim, A. (2003a). Accountability in practice: Mech- British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND) anisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), . 813–829. Cala´s, M., & Smircich, L. (1992). Re-writing gender into Ebrahim, A. (2003b). NGOs and organizational change: organizational theorizing: Directions from feminist Discourse, reporting, and learning. Cambridge: Cam- perspectives. In M. Reed & M. Hughes (Eds.), bridge University Press. NGOs AND THEGLOBALIZATION OF MANAGERIALISM 1861

Edwards, M., & Fowler, A. (2002). Earthscan reader in Fowler, A. F., Campbell, P., & Pratt, B. (1992). NGOmanagement . London: Earthscan. Institutional development and NGOs in Africa: Policy Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1992). Scaling up the perspectives for European development agencies. NGO developmental impact of NGOs: Concepts and management series, No. 1. Oxford: INTRAC. experiences. In M. Edwards & D. Hulme (Eds.), Fox, J. (1992). Democratic rural development: Making a difference: NGOs and development in a Leadership accountability in regional peasant changing world (pp. 13–27). London: Earthscan organizations. Development and Change, 23(2), Publications Ltd. 1–36. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (Eds.) (1996a). Beyond the Fox, J., & Brown, L. D. (Eds.) (1998). The struggle for magic bullet: NGOperformance and accountability in accountability: The World Bank, NGOs, and Grass- a post cold war world. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian. roots movements. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996b). Too close for Fundac¸a˜o Abrinq (1999). Abrinq foundation for chil- comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovern- dren’s rights: Annual report.Sa˜o Paulo: Fundac¸a˜o mental organizations. World Development, 24(6), Abrinq Pelos Direitos da Crianc¸a. 961–973. Fundacio´n Comunitaria Oaxaca (2000). Oaxaca: A Esteva, G. (1987). Regenerating people’s space. Alter- community of contrasts. Oaxaca: FCO. natives, 12(1), 125–152. Fyvie, C., & Ager, A. (1999). NGOs and innovation: Everett, M. (1998). Latin America on-line: The Internet, Organizational characteristics and constraints in development, and democratization. Human Organi- development assistance work in The Gambia. World zation: Journal of the Society for Applied Anthropol- Development, 27(8), 1383–1397. ogy, 57(4), 385–393. Gibbs, C., Fumo, C., & Kuby, T. (1999). Nongovern- Feldman, S. (1997). NGOs and civil society: (Un)stated mental organizations in world bank supported pro- contradictions. Annals of the American Academy of jects—A review. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Political and Social Science, 554, 46–66. Global Alliance (2000). 1999–2000 annual report. Balti- Ferguson, J. (1994). The anti-politics machine: ‘‘develop- more, MA: Global Alliance for Workers and Com- ment,’’ depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in munities. Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Global Development Research Center (2004). NGO Press. Cafe´ Available from http://www.gdrc.org/ngo/ncafe- Ferguson, J. (1998). Transnational topographies of ks.html. power: beyond Ôthe state’ and Ôcivil society’ in the Gordenker, L., & Weiss, T. G. (1997). Devolving study of African politics. Occasional Paper of the responsibilities: a framework for analysing NGOs Roskilde University, International Development Stud- and services. Third World Quarterly, 18(3), 443. ies, 19, 45–71. Gray, M. L. (1999). Creating civil society? The emer- Fernando, J. L., & Heston, A. (1997). Between states, gence of NGOs in Vietnam. Development and markets, and civil society. Annals of the American Change, 30(4), 693–713. Academy of Political and Social Science, 554, 8–21. Gwynne, R., & Kay, C. (2000). Views from the Financial Times (2000). A social role for capitalism, periphery: Futures of neoliberalism in Latin Amer- January 27 Survey. London: Financial Times. ica. Third World Quarterly, 21(1), 141–156. Fisher, J. (1993). The road from Rio: Sustainable Hailey, J. (2000). Indicators of identity: NGOs and the development and the nongovernmental movement in strategic imperative of assessing core values. Devel- the third world. London: Praeger. opment in Practice, 10(3&4), 402–407. Fisher, J. (1994). Is the iron law of oligarchy rusting Hamilton, K. (2000). Constructing an NGO sector in away in the third world? World Development, 22(4), transitional contexts: The reach of NGO-donor 129–144. Ôpartnerships’ in post-Soviet Georgia. IDS Bulletin, Fisher, J. (1998). NGOs and the political development of 31(3), 48–56. the third world. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Hanham, R. Q., & Banasick, S. (1998). Japanese labor Fisher, J. (2003). Local and global: International gov- and the production of the space-economy in an era of ernance and civil society. Journal of International globalization. In A. Herod (Ed.), Organizing the Affairs, 57(1), 19–39. landscape: Geographical perspectives on labor union- FOCO (Foro de Organismos Civiles de Oaxaca) (2000). ism (pp. 99–119). Minneapolis: University of Min- Directorio de Organismos Civiles del Estado de nesota Press. Oaxaca. Oaxaca: FOCO. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity: An Fowler, A. F. (2000a). NGDOs as a moment in history: enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford: Beyond aid to social entrepreneurship or civic Blackwell Publishers. innovation? Third World Quarterly, 21(4), 637– Hayden, R. (2002). Dictatorships of virtue: States, 655. NGOs, and the imposition of democratic values. Fowler, A. F. (2000b). NGO futures beyond aid: NGDO Harvard International Review, (Summer), 56–61. values and the fourth position. Third World Quar- Heap, S. (2000). NGOs engaging with business: A world terly, 21(4), 589–603. of difference and a difference to the world. Oxford: Fowler, A. (2002). Organizing non-profits for develop- INTRAC. ment. In M. Edwards & A. Fowler (Eds.), Earthscan Hearn, J., & Parkin, W. (1992). Gender and organiza- reader in NGOmanagement (pp. 74–85). London: tions: a selective review and a critique of a neglected Earthscan. area. In A. J. Mills & P. Tancred (Eds.), Gendering 1862 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

organizational analysis (pp. 46–66). Thousand Oaks: Lewis, D. (2001). The management of non-governmental Sage. development organizations: An introduction. New Helleiner, E. (1994). States and the reemergence of York: Routledge. global finance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Lewis, D. (2002). Non-governmental organizations: Press. Questions of performance and accountability. In V. Henderson, J. (2000). Dissonance or dialogue: Changing Desai & R. B. Potter (Eds.), The companion to relations with the corporate sector. Development in development studies. London: Arnold. Practice, 10(3&4), 371–376. Lindenberg, M., & Bryant, C. (2001). Going global: Herod, A. (1997). Labor as an agent of globalization Transforming relief and development NGOs. Bloom- and as a global agent. In K. Cox (Ed.), Spaces of field, CT: Kumarian. globalization: Reasserting the power of the local Lister, S. (2000). Power in partnership? An analysis of an (pp. 167–200). New York: Guilford Press. NGO’s relationships with its partners. Journal of Hobe, S. (1997). Global challenges to statehood: The International Development, 12(2), 227–239. increasingly important role of nongovernmental Malhotra, K. (2000). NGOs without aid: Beyond the organizations. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Stud- global soup kitchen. Third World Quarterly, 21(4), ies, 5(1), 191–210. 655–668. Howes, M. (1997). NGOs and the development of local Manzo, K. (2000). Nongovernmental organizations institutions: A Ugandan case study. The Journal of and models of development in India. Journal Modern African Studies, 35(1), 17–37. of Environment and Development, 9(3), 284– Hudock, A. C. (2000). NGOs’ seat at the donor table: 313. Enjoying the food or serving the dinner? IDS Markowitz, L., & Tice, K. (2001). The precarious balance Bulletin, 31(3), 14–18. of scaling up. Women’s organizations in the americas. Hulme, D., & Edwards, M. (Eds.) (1997). NGOs, states Working Papers on Women and International and donors: Too close for comfort? London: Macmil- Development. East Lansing: Michigan State Univer- lan. sity. Hyman, E. L., & Dearden, K. (1998). Comprehensive Martin, R. (1994). Stateless monies, global financial impact assessment systems for NGO microenterprise integration and national economic autonomy: The development programs. World Development, 26(2), end of geography? In S. Corbridge, R. Martin, & N. 261–276. Thrift (Eds.), Money, power and space (pp. 253–278). International Youth Foundation (2000). Framework for Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. effective programming: Assessment tool. Baltimore: Mawdsley, E., Porter, G., & Townsend, J. G. (2000). International Youth Foundation. How can southern NGOs have more of an influence Jeans, A. (1998). Small enterprises and NGOs: Meeting on the development agenda? Consultation document. in the marketplace. Appropriate Technology, 25(2), 1. Whose ideas? Development charities talking Jordan, L., & van Tuijl, P. (2000). Political responsibility from the Grassroots to the Internet. Available in transnational NGO advocacy. World Develop- from http://www.geography.durham.ac.uk/grass- ment, 28(12), 2051–2065. roots/kite3.html. Joseph, A. J. (2000). NGOs: Fragmented dreams. Mawdsley, E., Townsend, J., Porter, G., & Oakley, P. Development in Practice, 10(3&4), 390–401. (2002). Knowledge, power, and development agendas: Kapstein, E. B. (1994). Governing the global economy. NGOs north and south. Oxford: INTRAC. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McKinsey and Company (2001). Effective capacity Keengwe, M., Percy, F., Mageka, O., & Adan, M. S. building in nonprofit organizations. Report (1999). Partnership dilemmas for international and prepared for Venture Philanthropy Partners. Reston, local NGOs: A view from Kenya. Appropriate VA: Venture Philanthropy Partners. Available Technology, 25(4), 6. from http://topics.developmentgateway.org/ngo/rc/ Kleinberg, R. B., & Clark, J. A. (Eds.) (2000). Eco- filedownload.do~itemId=348901. nomic liberalization, democratization, and civil soci- Mercer, C. (1999). Reconceptualizing state-society rela- ety in the developing world. New York: St Martin’s tions in Tanzania: Are NGOs Ômaking a difference’? Press. Area, 31(3), 247–259. Korten, D. C. (1998). Globalizing civil society: Reclaim- Meyer, C. A. (1992). A step back as donors shift ing our right to power. Open media pamphlet series institution building from the public to the Ôprivate’ (Vol. 4). New York: Seven Stories Press. sector. World Development, 20(8), 1115–1126. Korten, D. C. (1999). The post-corporate world: Life Meyer, C. A. (1995). Opportunism and NGOs: Entre- after capitalism. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian. preneurship and green north–south transfers. World Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Development, 23(8), 1277–1291. Blackwell. Meyer, C. A. (1997). The political economy of NGOs Leipold, G. (2000). Campaigning: A fashion or the best and information sharing. World Development, 25(7), way to change the global agenda? Development in 1127–1141. Practice, 10(3&4), 453–460. Meyer, C. A. (1999). The economics and politics of NGOs Lewis, D. (1998). Development NGOs and the challenge in Latin America. Westport, CT: Praeger. of partnership: Changing relations between north Mitchell, T. (2002). Rule of experts: Egypt, techno- and south. Social Policy and Administration, 32(5), politics, modernity. Berkeley: University of California 501–513. Press. NGOs AND THEGLOBALIZATION OF MANAGERIALISM 1863

Moore, M., & Stewart, S. (1998). Corporate governance Robinson, G. F. (1994). The cultural challenge of for NGOs? Development in Practice, 8(3), 335– supporting enterprise. Grassroots Development: Jour- 342. nal of the Inter-American Foundation, 17–18(2–1), 23. Murphy, B. (2000). International NGOs and the chal- Robinson, M. (1997). Privatising the voluntary sector: lenge of modernity. Development in Practice, NGOs as public service contractors. In D. Hulme & 10(3&4), 330–347. M. Edwards (Eds.), NGOs, states and donors: Too Mutersbaugh, T. (2002). Building co-ops, constructing close for comfort? (pp. 59–78). London: Macmillan. cooperation: Spatial strategies and development Sassen, S. (1998). Globalization and its discontents. New politics in a Mexican village. Annals of the Associa- York: The New Press. tion of American Geographers, 92, 756–776. Schoener, W. (1997). Non-governmental organizations Najam, A. (1996). NGO accountability: A conceptual and global activism. Indiana Journal of Global Legal framework. Development Policy Review, 14(4), Studies, 4(2), 537–570. 339–353. School for International Training (2004). advocacy in international policy. Development in Schubert, R., & Little, R. (1996). Programs that work: Practice, 10(3&4), 478–490. Effectiveness, scale and sustainability. International Ould-Mey, M. (1999). The new global command econ- Youth Foundation 1996: Annual report. Available omy. Environment and Planning D: Society and from http://www.iyfnet.org/document.cfm/26/gen- Space, 17(2), 155–180. eral/53. Paley, J. (2001). Marketing democracy: Power and social Slater, D. (1999). Situating geopolitical representations: movements in post-dictatorship Chile. Berkeley: Uni- Inside/outside and the power of imperial interven- versity of California Press. tions. In D. Massey, J. Allen, & P. Sarre (Eds.), Peake, L., & Trotz, D. A. (1999). Gender, ethnicity and Human geography today (pp. 62–84). Malden, MA: place: Women and identities in Guyana. New York: Blackwell. Routledge. Smillie, I. (1993). Changing partners: Northern NGOs, Pearce, J. (1997). Between co-option and irrelevance? Northern governments. In I. Smillie & H. Helmich Latin American NGOs in the 1990s. In D. Hulme & (Eds.), Non-governmental organisations and govern- M. Edwards (Eds.), NGOs, states and donors: Too ments: Stakeholders for development (pp. 13–43). close for comfort? (pp. 257–276). London: Macmil- Paris: OECD. lan. Smillie, I. (1997). NGOs and development assistance: Perrault, T. (2003). Changing places: Transnational A change in mind-set? Third World Quarterly, 18(3), networks, ethnic politics, and community develop- 563. ment in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Political Geogra- Spinosa, C., Flores, F., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1999). phy, 22(1), 61–88. Disclosing new worlds: Entrepreneurship, democratic Perrault, T. A., Bebbington, A. J., & Carroll, T. F. action and the cultivation of solidarity. Cambridge, (1998). Indigenous irrigation organizations and the MA: MIT Press. formation of social capital in Northern Highlands Stewart, S. (1997). Happy ever after in the marketplace: Ecuador. Yearbook, Conference of Latin Americanist Non-government organisations and uncivil society. Geographers, 24, 1–15. Review of African Political Economy, 24(71), 11–34. Pezzullo, S. (2000). Growing your organization: A Stirrat, R. L., & Henkel, H. (1997). The development sustainability resource book for NGOs. Baltimore: gift: The problem of reciprocity in the NGO world. International Youth Foundation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Pitner, J. (2000). NGOs’ dilemmas. Middle East Report, Social Science, 554, 66–80. 21(4), 34–37. Stremlau, C. (1987). NGO coordinating bodies in Poelhekke, F. (1999). Transparency and accountability Africa, Asia, and Latin America. World Develop- in non-governmental development actions. Develop- ment, 15(Suppl.), 213–225. ment, 42(3), 86–89. Stubbs, J. (2000). Gender in development: A long haul- Postma, W. (1994). NGO partnership and institutional but we’re getting there! Development in Practice, development: Making it real, making it intentional. 10(3&4), 535–542. Canadian Journal of African Studies, 28(3), 447– The Economist (2000). The world in 2001. London: The 471. Economist. Powell, M., & Seddon, D. (1997). NGOs and the Thrift, N. (1998). The rise of soft capitalism. In A. development industry. Review of African Political Herod, G. O’Tuathail, & S. M. Roberts (Eds.), Economy, 24(71), 3–11. Unruly world? Globalization, governance, and geogra- Reid, H., & Taylor, E. (2000). Embodying ecological phy (pp. 25–71). New York: Routledge. citizenship: Rethinking the politics of grassroots Thrift, N. J., & Leyshon, A. (1995). A phantom state. mobilization in the United States. Alternatives, The de-traditionalization of money, the international 25(4), 439–466. financial system and international financial centers. Roberts, S. M. (2003). Managing the globe: Discourses Political Geography, 13, 299–327. of global strategic vision in management. In W. Townsend, J. G. (1999). Are non-governmental organi- Mauer & R. W. Perry (Eds.), Globalization under zations working in development a transnational construction: Governmentality, law, and identity community? Journal of International Development, (pp. 1–38). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. 11, 613–623. 1864 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Townsend, J. G., Mawdsley, E., & Porter, G. (2000). Vakil, A. C. (1997). Confronting the classification Consultation document on the NGO community in problem: Toward a taxonomy of NGOs. World Mexico. Whose ideas? Development charities talking Development, 25(12), 2057–2071. from the Grassroots to the Internet. Available van Tuijl, P. (1999). Establishing a framework—NGOs from http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/grassroots/ and human rights: Sources of justice and democracy. mexico.html. Journal of International Affairs, 52(2), 493– Townsend, J., Porter, R. E., & Mawdsley, E. E. (2002). 513. Different poverties, different policies? The role of the Vellinga, M. (Ed.) (1998). The changing role of the state transnational community of NGOs. Journal of in Latin America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. International Development, 14(6), 829–839. Watts, M. J. (1999). Collective wish images: Geograph- Townsend, J., Porter, R. E., & Mawdsley, E. E. (2004). ical imaginaries and the crisis of national develop- Creating spaces of resistance: Development NGOs ment. In D. Massey, J. Allen, & P. Sarre (Eds.), and their clients in Ghana, India, and Mexico. Human geography today (pp. 85–107). Malden, MA: Antipode, 36(5), 871–889. Blackwell. Umeh, O. J. (1992). Capacity building and development Webber, M. (1998). Producing globalization: Apparel administration in southern African countries. Inter- and the Australian state. In A. Herod, G. O’Tuat- national Review of Administrative Sciences, 58(1), hail, & S. M. Roberts (Eds.), Unruly world? Global- 57–70. ization, governance, and geography (pp. 135–161). UNESCO/Galilee College (2004). Wilson, M. I., & Larson, R. S. (2002). Nonprofit Union of International Associations (2003/04). Year- management students: Who they are and why they book of international organizations: Guide to civil enroll. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, society networks. Munich: K.G. Saur Verlag. 31(2), 259–270. Uvin, P. (1995). Scaling up the grass roots and scaling World Bank (2004). nongovernmental organisations and the United World Wildlife Fund (2001). Uvin, P., Jain, P. S., & Brown, L. D. (2000). Think large Yonekura, Y. (2000). Partnership for whom? Cambo- and act small: Toward a new paradigm for NGO dian NGOs’ supporting schemes. IDS Bulletin, 31(3), scaling up. World Development, 28(8), 1409–1419. 35–47. Uvin, P., & Miller, D. (1996). Paths to scaling-up: Zadek, S., Bruzan, P., & Evans, R. (Eds.) (1997). Alternative strategies for local nongovernmental Building corporate accountability: Emerging practices organizations. Human Organization: Journal of the in social and ethical accounting and auditing. London: Society for Applied Anthropology, 55(3), 344–354. Earthscan.