A critical analysis of NGOs

Tvedt emphasizes the strengths of nongovernmental organizations by elaborating on their

grass roots level work and their intention of helping the poor through direct means of support in

the community. Tvedt discusses the typical NGO project cycle which assesses needs, implements projects

and then evaluates project performance. MSF actively does this through its organizational structure which

is broken down by core countries which plan, implement and evaluate projects while other peripheral

countries which are responsible for outreach, education and innovative funding avenues. The interaction

and communication between these two sectors is essential as funding needs must to be assessed by the

core sectors so that peripheral sectors can plan accordingly to meet these respective financial needs. Tvedt

also stresses that NGOs are “non-governmental” which takes away the source of mistrust and

apprehension that one usually feels about state led development projects. Furthermore, NGOs are screened

for productivity and efficiency periodically which allows them to evaluate their performance and improve in future projects. Many development projects run by government officials lack this evaluation process and continue with methods without ever testing for their efficiency or productivity. Therefore NGOs provide a means by which development projects can be monitored in order to determine which strategies should be kept while which others should be abandoned.

Another positive aspect of NGOs is that they are most responsive to the people who have dire

need. Their concerns and goals deal with the actual community members who are affected by a particular

crisis situation. This goal allows NGOs to work face to face with individuals in order to provide more

suitable conditions for aid and development. For example, MSF caters to communities who have been

struck by natural disasters, disease, and famine among other circumstances. MSF is usually one of the

first organizations to enter any crisis situation. They are able to provide urgent medical care and

rehabilitate patients immediately after a particular crisis has occurred. This type of aid and investment is a

tangible means of development which proves promising for future projects. Other forms of development

which seem to target the economic and political structures are less efficient and effective in meeting the

needs of the community.

Because NGOs like MSF do grass roots level work, the individuals who are in dire need are getting some sort of assistance immediately. However, even with the best of intentions, NGOs like MSF have many obstacles which they face. MSF is constantly concerned about the availability of funding options which are open to them. Because it is largely funded by public donors, the amount of donations varies from year to year. Since 85% of its funds do come from public donors, MSF is expected to portray a certain image of itself to the donors. Donors usually want to have the benefit of the doubt that the contribution which they are making to the organization will go to where they (the donors) think is most suited. Sometimes there may be a discrepancy between projects which actually have a need in contrast to projects which the donor chooses to support. This constant struggle which exists between assessing the desires of the donors to meeting the needs of the beneficiaries proves to be a major hindrance for NGOs like MSF.

NGOs also struggle with the image which they are trying to encompass. The donor pool for MSF is diversified not only by region but also by language, culture and ethnicity. This indicates that an organization like MSF needs to maintain a mission which suits the needs of donors in all these categories without alienating a particular group. Yet if the mission is too generic and broad, donors may be deterred to contribute. NGOs like MSF are often caught in the middle between creating a mission which satisfies the desires of its diversified donor pool, yet at the same time ensuring that the actual mission is specific enough that donors will contribute. NGOs like MSF may therefore feel obligated to compromise some of the needs of the beneficiaries in order to appease donor wishes.

Another problem faced by NGOs is the rise of other NGOs. For example, MSF would perhaps get much more money from donors if other organizations like “Partners in Health” with similar missions and aspirations did not exist. Although it is encouraging to see the creation of more NGOs , there is also a growing concern that if the amount of donated money is divided among so many little NGOs, the actual money which each NGO is receiving may not amount to a great extent. This becomes a major concern for NGOs which compels them to compete with other NGOs for funding.

Because NGOs need to be constantly concerned about funding and need to find various means and ways to do so, it may undermine their work in a particular community. For example, 13 sectors of the organizational hierarchy within MSF need to work to find funding avenues. If financial security and sustainability were available through other means, these countries could contribute in more effective ways by potentially planning and implementing their own programs.

The development argument is one that brings about much melancholy and somberness in the atmosphere because one can often times feel helpless due to the difficulties and complexities which exist in trying to implement any form of change. Nevertheless, NGOs do serve as the primary way by which many individuals can contribute. In the future, NGOs may be made more efficient by being given a certain amount of funding by the government with the condition that the governments gift, in no way obligates the NGO to act in ways which is biased to the government’s wishes. Furthermore, organizations like the World Bank and IMF should fund a greater number of NGOs far more regularly then attempting to implement project themselves. If more projects were assigned to NGOs, the source of funding would be secured to a greater extent. In addition, projects run by NGOs are evaluated and therefore can be regulated. This would save a lot of money as World Bank will not be compelled to give blindly but instead will consider funding options for qualified NGOs. This form of development may provide a more efficient way for NGOs to function and promote their already noble cause. Lastly, NGOs are only a sector which contributes to development and that true development and change can only be attained through changes in policy and infrastructure which may take far more complicated measures than we have access to. Nevertheless, the grass roots work and awareness is definitely the first step towards a better future.