NGOs in a New Paradigm of Civil Society

Abstract

Since the 1970s the world has seen the emergence of institutions and groups organized outside the state yet making claims on the polity and for the polity. Social movements such as those favoring women, the environment, and peace, or those opposing nuclear power and war become crystallized through the creation of organizations to implement their agendas. The existence of these NGOs (non-governmental organizations) has been examined by scholars in the developing countries and in Europe; interest on the part of US scholars is relatively recent and does not always grasp the core nature of NGOs. Some NGOs started with religious philosophies and sought to create spaces for ethical reflection; others emerged to mitigate the experience of political authoritarianism; still others are helping shape alternative visions of society and thus fit better as the crystallization of new social movements. There is variation in the objectives and performance of NGOs but the large majority of them are less concerned with their own self-interest than with collective gains. They also tend to produce flatter organizational structures and to foster steady participation in internal decision-making. In developing countries, they tend to be concerned with populations facing devalued or oppressed cultural expression and living under extremely poor conditions of living. And it is quite true, as Ilon (this issue) remarks, that they must balance alternative visions while operating in environments that are increasingly driven by market dynamics and profit rationales. Functions Steiner-Khamsi (this issue) observes that many NGOs in Eastern and Central Europe engage in corrupt practices. In the aftermath of a pervasive socialist regime, it is quite possible that NGOs there are staffed by old government officials under new clothing. Other instances of manipulation by government officials, in various Sub-Saharan and Asian countries, have occurred when governments set up their own "branches," under the guise of NGOs. These distortions and forms of co-optation are unavoidable, especially in countries where economic crises prevail. Ginsburg (this issue) refers to different kinds of NGOs with different levels of wealth and national scope. He contends that how we see them is a matter of perspective, and depends on whether one holds an equilibrium or conflict model of social action. While he is correct in saying that one's philosophical perspectives may shade one's view of the relative social benefit of a particular NGO, let me argue that there are several objective grounds for valuing the contribution of NGOs. NGOs fulfill at least three major functions: (1) service delivery (e.g., relief, welfare, basic skills); (2) educational provision (e.g., basic skills and often critical analysis of social environments; and (3) public policy advocacy (e.g., lobbying for international assistance for specific purposes and monitoring or promoting pertinent state policies). These functions are critical in the absence of stable political parties or organized low-income