'Western-Backed NGOs: A Hollow Version of Civil Society'/ Almut Rochowanski
"After World War II, in parallel to decolonization, NGOs — tellingly, “nongovernmental organizations” — rose slowly but unstoppably to become one of the main players in international development aid, because donor countries did not trust the (Third World) state with social and economic agendas. Initially, this attitude came from a place of earnest people-to-people solidarity, but it soon developed explicitly neoliberal side effects. And since it was the Cold War, NGOs operating in developing countries were routinely co-opted by Western security services. This did long-term damage to the reputation of NGOs around the world, in almost all cases unjustly...
Western legislative traditions going back to the nineteenth century reflected the classic civil right of freedom of association and thus provided a regulatory framework for associations in the literal sense: people coming together as members of a club or union, taking action primarily through members’ volunteer activities to benefit each other or the common good, funded by default by membership fees. The NGOs that Western governments finance with their development aid budgets look nothing like this, but more like start-ups run by social entrepreneurs. Instead of members and volunteers, they have bosses and employees organized in strict hierarchies, and hard borders separate those who build lucrative careers managing NGOs from those who benefit from their assistance...
The NGO sector as it currently exists in the Global South and the EU’s periphery — almost entirely foreign-funded, simultaneously bloated and deficient — belongs to the global order of the post–Cold War unipolar moment. That global order is now cracking at the seams. NGOs are no Siberian tigers, worthy of conservation for their own sake. Having realized that, we should not frantically shore up vested interests, but earnestly try to let better, more sustainable, and locally anchored forms of civil society take shape."
******
To be clear, I don't agree with this gloss. Apparently establishing 'left-wing' credibility means saying liberals and their NGO's are not just bad, but at least as bad as- or worse than- fascists. Seems odd to me.
Unfortunately, Stuart, Science has become highly politicized, as well as NGOs, and almost everything else. Our current government appears to be ANTI-SCIENCE, which affects all of us. And so an analytical mind from the perspective of science can provide just as valid a point of view as anyone in the political arena. If you want to talk research, here, why isn't any discussing the current situation with oceanic cyanobacteria, which provide approximately 50% (yeah, this might be a wild guess, but 71% of Earth's surface is seawater), and how global warming, reduced atmospheric sulfur (thus increased UV at the ocean surface), microplastics, and farm pesticide runoff are affecting those delicate cyanobacteria?
The discussion around NGOs is not about World Vision or the Red Cross. It is about NGOs getting vast sums of money from USAID and other government agencies. People are concerned that these agencies were given money to work against the best interests of American Citizens. Some agree and some don't. BUT WHY ARE YOU, IN THE GOOD SCIENCE PROJECT, DISCUSSING A HIGHLY POLITICIZED TOPIC? It's worthy of discussion, but IMHO, this is not the forum. Do you argue that political debate belongs in this forum? There are so many others holding this debate. Let's talk science and research here.
This topic has a ton of overlap with high-quality science and research. Some of the best social science in the world (i.e., randomized trials of educational interventions, poverty interventions, etc.) is done by NGOs like Innovations for Poverty Action and J-PAL at MIT. Both of them had a lot of USAID grants and contracts (see, e.g., https://www.povertyactionlab.org/blog/2-28-25/reflecting-end-usaid). Why should we cancel all of that out of spite towards the very idea of NGOs?
Stuart, "Why should we" or "Why shouldn't we" is in fact a political discussion. The answers are based on political power. There is always an intersection of politics and science. For instance, the NSF and other science granting organizations banned expenditures on "cold fusion." I pick that because it's not controversial today. Yet there were indications that it might have potential. But some charletans tainted the topic with some fraud. Nevertheless, I would not support a discussion about the politics of their support or oppostion. I would support a discussion on the merits of the SCIENCE and research. I PREFER we stick to science and eschew politics. Just one man's opinion.
If I get my car's brakes replaced, I couldn't care less who the mechanic votes for. I just care if they fix the brakes, and don't overcharge me. Same for 90% of what government and NGOs do. If a Red Cross nurse draws your blood, do you care who she votes for, or whether she causes excruciating pain from inserting the needle incorrectly?
If there are two car mechanics, and mechanic A is slightly more experienced but also will funnel profits into gang members in your city, which do you choose?
There is a tendency to think about NGO exactly as ChatGPT describes here or in the context of education and churches. The reality is though that is way more complicated.
In the US, a 501c3 "non-profit" can also have private subsidiaries. Basically, the NGO piece is a marketing front for the company that offers services to address the problem the it is advocating for. The public has the perception of the ChatGPT picture so, they don't question the HUGE marketing campaigns NGO's are running.
I've seen this in technology; it's a major issue in the climate tech space. But in my own town, churches own luxury retirement communities. So, apparently it happens in real estate, too.
Then there is the dark money laundering that goes on within the broader 501c sector where money just moves around among the same group of people.
A more subtle issue is stuff like hospitals. They are often 501c3 non-profits but in many (most?) cases there is nothing about hospital systems that is not for profit.
It's a mess.
It is right for the government to clean up the 501c designation but it is really VERY wrong to only target specific adversarial interests.
As I understand it, the reason it has not been taken up wholesale by Congress is because both parties gain from the current debacle of the designation. The IRS never dealt with it because by definition the sector is non-revenue generating. I think it was always messy but the depth of the current issue dates to the Citizens United decision.
An interesting piece… might have been worthwhile explaining a bit about the NGO as doing the governments work with government funding and a nonprofit or voluntary organization that - to quote from the Filer Commission - is not business and is not government. Rather a third and independent sector. I also thought you might have missed the mark on your characterization of who does humanitarian work. In my experience it used to cut across the political spectrum. If that is truly no longer true… we should ask why… and i suspect it will be more about the culture of an organization than the nature of the work of helping others.
It turns out NGO's are deeply unpopular with self-described 'leftists' as much as any critics on the right-
https://jacobin.com/2025/02/western-ngos-funding-civil-society
'Western-Backed NGOs: A Hollow Version of Civil Society'/ Almut Rochowanski
"After World War II, in parallel to decolonization, NGOs — tellingly, “nongovernmental organizations” — rose slowly but unstoppably to become one of the main players in international development aid, because donor countries did not trust the (Third World) state with social and economic agendas. Initially, this attitude came from a place of earnest people-to-people solidarity, but it soon developed explicitly neoliberal side effects. And since it was the Cold War, NGOs operating in developing countries were routinely co-opted by Western security services. This did long-term damage to the reputation of NGOs around the world, in almost all cases unjustly...
Western legislative traditions going back to the nineteenth century reflected the classic civil right of freedom of association and thus provided a regulatory framework for associations in the literal sense: people coming together as members of a club or union, taking action primarily through members’ volunteer activities to benefit each other or the common good, funded by default by membership fees. The NGOs that Western governments finance with their development aid budgets look nothing like this, but more like start-ups run by social entrepreneurs. Instead of members and volunteers, they have bosses and employees organized in strict hierarchies, and hard borders separate those who build lucrative careers managing NGOs from those who benefit from their assistance...
The NGO sector as it currently exists in the Global South and the EU’s periphery — almost entirely foreign-funded, simultaneously bloated and deficient — belongs to the global order of the post–Cold War unipolar moment. That global order is now cracking at the seams. NGOs are no Siberian tigers, worthy of conservation for their own sake. Having realized that, we should not frantically shore up vested interests, but earnestly try to let better, more sustainable, and locally anchored forms of civil society take shape."
******
To be clear, I don't agree with this gloss. Apparently establishing 'left-wing' credibility means saying liberals and their NGO's are not just bad, but at least as bad as- or worse than- fascists. Seems odd to me.
Let's use this forum for non-political discussions. Those can be discussed in a thousand other places. Let's discuss science here. Science.
Unfortunately, Stuart, Science has become highly politicized, as well as NGOs, and almost everything else. Our current government appears to be ANTI-SCIENCE, which affects all of us. And so an analytical mind from the perspective of science can provide just as valid a point of view as anyone in the political arena. If you want to talk research, here, why isn't any discussing the current situation with oceanic cyanobacteria, which provide approximately 50% (yeah, this might be a wild guess, but 71% of Earth's surface is seawater), and how global warming, reduced atmospheric sulfur (thus increased UV at the ocean surface), microplastics, and farm pesticide runoff are affecting those delicate cyanobacteria?
Stuart,
The discussion around NGOs is not about World Vision or the Red Cross. It is about NGOs getting vast sums of money from USAID and other government agencies. People are concerned that these agencies were given money to work against the best interests of American Citizens. Some agree and some don't. BUT WHY ARE YOU, IN THE GOOD SCIENCE PROJECT, DISCUSSING A HIGHLY POLITICIZED TOPIC? It's worthy of discussion, but IMHO, this is not the forum. Do you argue that political debate belongs in this forum? There are so many others holding this debate. Let's talk science and research here.
This topic has a ton of overlap with high-quality science and research. Some of the best social science in the world (i.e., randomized trials of educational interventions, poverty interventions, etc.) is done by NGOs like Innovations for Poverty Action and J-PAL at MIT. Both of them had a lot of USAID grants and contracts (see, e.g., https://www.povertyactionlab.org/blog/2-28-25/reflecting-end-usaid). Why should we cancel all of that out of spite towards the very idea of NGOs?
Stuart, "Why should we" or "Why shouldn't we" is in fact a political discussion. The answers are based on political power. There is always an intersection of politics and science. For instance, the NSF and other science granting organizations banned expenditures on "cold fusion." I pick that because it's not controversial today. Yet there were indications that it might have potential. But some charletans tainted the topic with some fraud. Nevertheless, I would not support a discussion about the politics of their support or oppostion. I would support a discussion on the merits of the SCIENCE and research. I PREFER we stick to science and eschew politics. Just one man's opinion.
Nah. More money to them is more power to the enemy, even if they personify the enemy’s sheepskin.
Don’t forget their true nature. Starve all dems out of rep’s tax dollars
If I get my car's brakes replaced, I couldn't care less who the mechanic votes for. I just care if they fix the brakes, and don't overcharge me. Same for 90% of what government and NGOs do. If a Red Cross nurse draws your blood, do you care who she votes for, or whether she causes excruciating pain from inserting the needle incorrectly?
If there are two car mechanics, and mechanic A is slightly more experienced but also will funnel profits into gang members in your city, which do you choose?
I guess I'd choose the former, but that's not what anyone has ever experienced. Completely imaginary.
There is a tendency to think about NGO exactly as ChatGPT describes here or in the context of education and churches. The reality is though that is way more complicated.
In the US, a 501c3 "non-profit" can also have private subsidiaries. Basically, the NGO piece is a marketing front for the company that offers services to address the problem the it is advocating for. The public has the perception of the ChatGPT picture so, they don't question the HUGE marketing campaigns NGO's are running.
I've seen this in technology; it's a major issue in the climate tech space. But in my own town, churches own luxury retirement communities. So, apparently it happens in real estate, too.
Then there is the dark money laundering that goes on within the broader 501c sector where money just moves around among the same group of people.
A more subtle issue is stuff like hospitals. They are often 501c3 non-profits but in many (most?) cases there is nothing about hospital systems that is not for profit.
It's a mess.
It is right for the government to clean up the 501c designation but it is really VERY wrong to only target specific adversarial interests.
As I understand it, the reason it has not been taken up wholesale by Congress is because both parties gain from the current debacle of the designation. The IRS never dealt with it because by definition the sector is non-revenue generating. I think it was always messy but the depth of the current issue dates to the Citizens United decision.
An interesting piece… might have been worthwhile explaining a bit about the NGO as doing the governments work with government funding and a nonprofit or voluntary organization that - to quote from the Filer Commission - is not business and is not government. Rather a third and independent sector. I also thought you might have missed the mark on your characterization of who does humanitarian work. In my experience it used to cut across the political spectrum. If that is truly no longer true… we should ask why… and i suspect it will be more about the culture of an organization than the nature of the work of helping others.