By orientation level

The law is considered to have several characteristics. One of them is bilaterality (an individual other than the affected one is empowered to demand compliance with a norm), which gives the quality of an attributive imperative to the right. It is imperative since it imposes a duty of conduct (such as paying taxes) and attributive due to what was mentioned above regarding the power to demand compliance with the imperative.

Related concepts

In addition to "NGO", there are many alternative or overlapping acronyms and phrases in use, for example: voluntary sector, also known as Social Economy (TSO), Non-profit Organization (NPO), voluntary organization (VO), civil society organization (CSO), social movement organization (SMO), private voluntary organizations (PVO), non-state actors, Third Sector, etc. Related government organizations and non-government organizations are a heterogeneous group. As a result, a long list of additional acronyms has been developed, including:.

USAID defines NGOs as private voluntary organizations. However, many scholars have argued that this definition is very problematic, since many NGOs are actually corporate-funded and state-managed projects, and/or have professional staff.

NGOs are created for various purposes, usually to promote the political or social objectives of their members or founders. There are examples that include improving the environmental situation, raising awareness of the observance of Human Rights, improving the well-being of the most disadvantaged or representing a corporate agenda. However, there are a large number of organizations and their objectives cover a wide range of political and philosophical positions. This may also apply to private schools and sports organizations.

National NGOs: include national organizations such as professional, educational, religious associations, etc. Some have state, provincial or municipal branches, and help local NGOs.

Development, environment and human rights NGO

NGOs are organizations that work in different fields, but the term is generally associated with those seeking social transformation and improving the quality of life. Development NGOs are the most visible sector, and include both international and local organisations, as well as those working in the humanitarian emergency sector. Human rights NGOs can also overlap with development NGOs, but they are a different category. Amnesty International is perhaps one of the best known.

Many of these organizations are associated with international aid and voluntary donation, but there are also NGOs that choose not to take funds from donors and try to generate funds through other means, such as selling crafts or charging for services.

Environmental NGOs are another subsector, which sometimes overlaps with non-governmental development organizations. An example is Greenpeace, which like other NGO networks, as a transnational environmental network can gain a variety of benefits in exchanging information with other organizations, campaigning around an issue and exchanging information about it. Since transnational environmental NGOs advocate for different issues of public interest, such as air pollution, deforestation of green areas or problems with access to water, it is more difficult for them to give their campaigns a human face than non-governmental organizations that directly fight for human rights issues. Some of the earliest forms of transnational environmental NGOs began to appear after World War II with the creation of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). After the creation of the UN in 1945, more environmental NGOs began to emerge in order to address more specific environmental issues.

In November 1945, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) was created with the aim of contributing to peace and security in the world through education, science, culture and communications, and the purpose of collaborating with environmental NGOs. In 1969 the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) was founded to increase and improve collaboration among environmentalists. This collaboration was later reinforced and stimulated with the creation of the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program in 1971. In 1972 the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm sought to address this issue in Sweden and advocate for international intervention on transboundary pollution from other industrialized countries. Europe.

Transnational environmental NGOs have addressed various problems around the world, but one of the best-known cases involving the work of environmental NGOs can be traced back to Brazil during the 1980s. The United States had begun to become concerned about the problem of deforestation due to environmental complaints that showed that deforestation was already a global concern, and starting in 1977, an Environment and Natural Resources section was added to the Foreign Assistance Act. In the 1980s the Brazilian government created the Polonoreste development program, which the World Bank agreed to finance. The Polonoreste program aimed at urbanizing areas of the Amazon that were already occupied by local indigenous groups. The rapid deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon prompted the intervention of UNESCO, which used its Program on Man and the Biosphere to advocate against the Polonoreste program, on the basis of the violation of the rights of the indigenous groups that lived in the area. In the case of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, environmental NGOs were able to pressure the World Bank to cancel loans for the Polonoreste program. Due to the influence of the United States on the World Bank, in 1985 it suspended financial aid for the Polonoreste Program. The work of environmental NGOs in the case of Brazil was a success because there was no point of leverage that made actors vulnerable to international pressure.[12]​.

Although non-governmental organizations may have relatively common objectives on development or environmental issues, interests and perspectives are diverse. A distinction can be made between the interests and objectives of NGOs located in industrialized countries, which often refer to northern countries, and NGOs in developing countries, usually southern countries. Sometimes there is tension between them, with southern countries blaming developed nations for excessive consumption, pollution resulting from industrialization and for sustaining inequality in the international economic system.

There is also a distinction between groups focused on particular and specific socioeconomic issues. For example, the Women's Environment and Development Organization was created in 1990 with the purpose of advocating for gender inclusion in work related to the Earth Summit. Other groups may focus on issues that include racial minorities or people with lower incomes.[13]

Second-way diplomacy

Second-way dialogue or second-way diplomacy refers to transnational coordination between unofficial members of the Government, including epistemic communities as well as former political officials or analysts. It aims to get politicians and analysts to reach a common solution through discussions through unofficial means. Unlike first-track diplomacy, where government officials, diplomats, and elected leaders meet to discuss certain issues, second-track diplomacy includes experts, scientists, professors, and other figures who are not involved in government affairs. Members of second-track diplomacy generally have more freedom to exchange ideas and reach compromises on their own.[14]​.

Methods

NGOs vary in their methods. Some act mainly as pressure groups, while others mainly carry out programs and activities. For example, there are NGOs, such as Oxfam, that are concerned with poverty alleviation and are dedicated to providing people in need with the equipment and skills to find food and water to drink, while other NGOs such as FFDA assist through the investigation and documentation of human rights violations and provide legal assistance to victims of human rights abuses. Others, such as Afghanistan Information Server Management, provide products and services to support development activities carried out on the ground by other specialized technical organizations.

NGOs are intended to fill a gap in Government services, but in countries like India and China, NGOs are slowly gaining a position in decision-making. In the area of ​​sustainability, most donors require NGOs to demonstrate a relationship with the Government.[15] Governments themselves are vulnerable because they lack financial resources and a potential planning and visioning strategy. They are, therefore, very closely linked to non-governmental organizations, since political bodies, commercial organizations and major donors/funders can only make short-term decisions but have no effect in the long term.[16]​ In India, for example, NGOs are under regulators, policies and recipients of large funds from the government and international donors. NGOs often occupy responsibilities outside their scope of skill. Governments do not have access to the number of projects or amount of funds received by NGOs. There is an urgent need to regulate this group although its role is not restricted to just complementing Government services.

Regarding the activity of NGOs, the classification used by the World Bank divides them into operational and campaign:[17]​.

Operational NGOs aim to "achieve small-scale change directly through projects."[11] These NGOs mobilize financial, material and volunteer resources to create localized programs in a field. They hold large-scale fundraising events and may obtain grants or contracts from governments and organizations to raise money for projects. They often operate in a hierarchical structure, with a headquarters made up of professionals who plan projects, create budgets, keep accounts, and report and communicate to field workers who work directly on the projects.[11] Operational NGOs deal with a wide range of issues, but are most often associated with social assistance and service delivery, environmental issues, emergency relief, and public welfare. Operational NGOs can in turn be classified according to their orientation. A frequently used categorization is the division of development-oriented versus aid-oriented organizations; They can also be classified according to whether they insist on the provision of services or on participation; or if they are religious or secular; and if they are more oriented towards the public or the private. Although operational NGOs may be community-based, many of them are national or international. The definition of activity in operational NGOs is the execution of projects.[11]​.

Campaigning NGOs seek to "achieve large-scale change promoted indirectly through the influence of the political system."[11] Campaigning NGOs need an efficient and effective group of professional members who must be able to keep supporters informed and motivated. They must plan and demonstrate their hosting skills at events where the media will be present. Its members must keep informed a broad network of supporters who can mobilize at events to attract media attention and influence policy changes. A defining activity of campaign NGOs is holding demonstrations.[11] Campaign NGOs are often faced with issues relating to human rights, women's rights, children's rights, etc. The main purpose of a non-governmental campaign organization is to promote or promote a specific cause. Unlike running project management, these organizations often try to raise awareness, acceptance and knowledge through lobbying, press work and activist events.

It is not unusual for non-governmental organizations to make use of both activities. Many times operational NGOs will use action techniques if they continually face the same problems in a field that could be remedied through policy changes. At the same time, campaigning NGOs, like human rights organisations, have programs that assist the individual victims they are trying to help through their advocacy work.[11]​.

Public relations

Non-governmental organizations need to have a healthy relationship with the public in order to meet their objectives. Foundations and charities use public relations campaigns to raise funds and employ techniques that follow the patterns of lobbying with governments. Interest groups can be politically important because of their ability to influence social and political outcomes. For this reason, the World Association of Non-governmental Organizations established a code of ethics in 2002.

Project management

There is a growing awareness that management techniques are crucial to the success of non-governmental organization projects.[18] In general, private NGOs have either a community focus or an environmental focus. They deal with a variety of topics such as religion, emergency aid, or humanitarian issues. They mobilize public support and voluntary aid contributions. They often have strong ties to community groups in developing countries, and often work in areas where government-to-government aid is not possible. NGOs are accepted as a part of the landscape of international relations, and while influencing national and multilateral policy formulation, they are increasingly directly involved in local action.

Staff

Some NGOs are highly professionalized and rely primarily on paid staff. Others are based on volunteer work and are less formalized. Not all people who work for non-governmental organizations are volunteers. There are also few cases of NGOs that have a completely voluntary structure, with professionals and technicians formalized in their field, such as: Visió Sense Fronteres, Enganchados, Fundación Iluminafrica and etc.

Many NGOs partner with the use of international civil servants working in developing countries, but there are many northern and southern NGOs that rely on local employees or volunteers. There is some controversy as to whether expatriates should be sent to developing countries. Frequently, this type of staff is used to satisfy a Donor who wants the project they support to be managed by a person from a developed country. However, the experience of these employees or volunteers can be offset by a number of factors: the cost of foreign staff is often higher, they do not have connections in the country to which they are sent and local experience is often undervalued. [17]​.

The NGO sector is a significant employer in numerical terms. For example, at the end of 1995, Concern Worldwide, a northern international anti-poverty NGO, employed 174 expatriates and just over 5,000 local people working in ten developing countries in Africa and Asia, and in Haiti.

Financing

NGOs, whether small or large, need resources to work towards their objectives. But the volume of budget they need varies from one organization to another; Thus, large NGOs can have annual budgets of thousands or millions of dollars. For example, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) had more than $540 million available in 1999.[19]​.

The main sources of financing for NGOs are: membership fees paid by members, the sale of goods and services, donations from international institutions, contributions from national governments and private donations from individuals or companies.

Although the term "non-governmental organization" implies not being part of governments, many NGOs rely heavily on governments for funding.[20] For example, a quarter of the $162 million used for Oxfam's hunger relief in 1998 was donated by the British government and the European Union. The Christian aid and development organization World Vision USA obtained $55 million in assets from the US government in 1998. Government funding of NGOs is a controversial issue, since, according to David Rieff, author of The New Republic,.

Some organizations such as Greenpeace do not accept funds from governments or intergovernmental organizations, but do accept funds from particular rulers (princes, kings, deputies, presidents, etc.).[22]​[23]​.

Overheads

Overhead expenses are the amount of money spent on the operation of the NGO itself, not on its projects.[24]​ This includes office expenses,[24]​ salaries, banking and accounting. The percentage of the total budget that an NGO's overheads make up is often used to judge it, with less than 4% considered good.[24]​ The World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations states that, ideally, more than 86% should be spent on programmes/projects and less than 20% on overheads.[25]​ The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has specific guidelines on how much overheads should be. to receive funding based on where the funds are going, and often must be below 7-5%.[26]​ Meanwhile, the World Bank typically allows up to 37%.[27]​ A high percentage of overheads to total expenses can make it much more difficult to generate funds.[28]​ High indirect costs can also attract criticism, with some claiming that certain NGOs with high overheads are in operation simply to benefit the people who work for them.[29]​.

Although overhead can be a legitimate concern, focusing solely on it can be counterproductive.[30]​ Research published by the Urban Institute Archived April 26, 2013 at the Wayback Machine. and the Center for Social Innovation at Stanford University have shown how rating agencies create incentives for nonprofits to lower or hide their overhead, which can actually reduce organizational effectiveness, depriving NGOs of the infrastructure they need to effectively deliver their services. A more meaningful rating system would provide, in addition to financial data, a qualitative assessment of the organization's transparency and governance: (1) an assessment of program effectiveness; (2) an evaluation of the feedback mechanisms designed for donors and recipients; and (3) a rating system that also allows organizations to respond to a nominal evaluation by a rating agency.[31]​ More generally, popular nonprofit evaluation discourse must move away from financial notions of organizational effectiveness and toward a more substantial understanding of its programmatic impact.

Monitoring and control

In a March 2000 report on United Nations reform priorities, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan wrote in favor of international humanitarian intervention, arguing that the international community has the "right to protect"[32] the world's citizens from ethnic cleansing, genocide, and crimes against humanity. In this report, the Canadian government launched the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) project[33]​ highlighting the issue of humanitarian intervention. While the R2P doctrine has wide applications, among the most controversial has been the Canadian government's use of it to justify its intervention and support for the coup in Haiti.[34] Years after R2P, the World Federalist Movement, an organization that supports "the creation of global and democratic structures accountable to the citizens of the world, and the call for the division of international authority among independent bodies", has launched the responsibility to protect the participation of the Society Civil (R2PCS). The collaboration between the WFM and the Canadian government aims to bring NGOs together shoulder to shoulder with the principles outlined within the framework of the original R2P project.

Governments of countries where NGOs work or are registered require reporting or other types of oversight monitoring. Funders generally require reporting and evaluation, although such information is not necessarily available to the public. There may also be associations and organizations monitoring research and details that are published about the actions of NGOs working in particular geographic or scheduled areas.

In recent years, many large companies have increased their corporate social responsibility departments in an attempt to stay ahead of NGO campaigns against certain business practices. As the logic goes, if corporations work "with" NGOs, NGOs will not work "against" corporations. Greater collaboration between companies and NGOs creates inherent risk of co-option for the weaker party, where nonprofit organizations often participate.[35]​.

In December 2007, U.S. Department of Defense Under Secretary for Health Affairs Ward Cassells established an International Health Division in Force Health and Force Protection. Part of the mission of international health is to communicate with nongovernmental organizations in areas of mutual interest. In 2005, Department of Defense Directive 3000.05[37] required the Department to consider stability-enhancing activities as a mission of equal importance to combat. In compliance with the Geneva Convention of international law, the Department of Defense has necessarily developed the capacity to improve essential services in conflict zones such as Iraq, where the State Department's regular major agencies struggled to operate. Unlike the "co-option" strategy described for corporations, the OASD (HA) recognizes the neutrality of health as an essential service. Health International cultivates collaborative relationships with non-governmental organizations, albeit at a distance, recognizing their traditional independence, experience and status as honest intermediaries. While the goals of the Department of Defense and NGOs may seem incongruent, the former's emphasis on stability and security to reduce and prevent conflict suggests, on careful analysis, important mutual interests.

International non-governmental organizations have a history dating back to at least the 19th century.[38]​[39]​ International NGOs were important in slavery abolitionism and the women's suffrage movement, and reached their peak at the time of the World Conference on Disarmament.[40]​ However, the term "non-governmental organization" did not come into popular use until the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 with the provisions of Article 71. of Chapter 10 of the Charter of the United Nations,[41]​ a consultative function for organizations that are not part of the government or member states (Consultative Status). The definition of "international non-governmental organization" (NGO) is first given in ECOSOC resolution 288 (X) on 27 February 1950: it is defined as "any international organization not founded on an international treaty". The fundamental role of non-governmental organizations and other "major groups" in sustainable development was recognized in Chapter 27[42]​ of Agenda 21, which led to intensive arrangements for a consultative relationship between the UN and non-governmental organizations.[43]​ It has been observed that the number of international NGOs founded or dissolved coincides with the "state of the world" in general, increasing in periods of growth and decreasing in times of crisis.[44]​.

The rapid development of the non-governmental sector occurred in Western countries as a result of state welfare restructuring processes. Furthermore, the globalization of this process occurred after the fall of the communist system and was an important part of the Washington Consensus.[20]​.

Globalization in the century gave rise to the importance of NGOs. Many problems cannot be solved within a nation. International Treaties, international organizations, as well as the World Trade Organization, focused mainly on the interests of capitalist companies. In an attempt to counter this trend, NGOs developed to emphasize humanitarian issues and aiding sustainable development. A prominent example of this is the World Social Forum, held annually in January in Davos, Switzerland. The fifth World Social Forum was held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in January 2005, with more than 1,000 NGO representatives in attendance.[45] Regarding environmental and sustainable development issues, the Earth Summit held in Rio in 1992 was the first to showcase the power of international NGOs, when nearly 2,400 NGO representatives came to play a central role in the deliberations. Some have argued that, in forums like these, NGOs take the place that should belong to popular movements of the poor. Whatever the case, the transnational network of NGOs is increasingly extensive.[46]​.

The legal form of NGOs is very diverse and depends on the interpretations of the laws and practices of each country. However, the four main NGO groups that can be found around the world are:[47]​.

The Council of Europe in Strasbourg drafted the European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of International Non-Governmental Organizations in 1986, which establishes a common legal basis for the existence and work of NGOs in Europe. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of association, which is also a fundamental norm for NGOs.[48]​.

World NGO Day - World NGO Day is celebrated annually on February 27.[49]​[50]​ It was officially recognized and declared on April 17, 2010 by 12 countries of the IX Baltic Sea NGO Forum at the Eighth Baltic Sea States Summit in Vilnius (Lithuania).[51]​ World NGO Day was marked internationally and recognized on February 27. 2014 by Helen Clark, Administrator of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in Helsinki, Finland.

Contenido

Issa G. Shivji") es uno de los principales expertos en África sobre cuestiones de derecho y desarrollo como autor y académico. Su crítica a las ONG se encuentra plasmada en dos ensayos: "Silencios en el discurso de las ONG: El papel y el futuro de las ONG en África" y "Reflexiones sobre las ONG en Tanzania: lo que somos, lo que no somos y lo que deberíamos ser". Shivji cuestiona también las buenas intenciones de los líderes y activistas de las ONG, mostrándose crítico con los "efectos objetivos de las acciones, independientemente de sus intenciones".[52]​ Shivji argumenta también que el aumento repentino de las ONG es parte de un paradigma neoliberal más que de motivaciones altruistas puras. Es crítico con las manifestaciones actuales de las ONG que desean cambiar el mundo sin entenderlo, y sostiene que la relación imperialista continúa hoy con el auge de las ONG.

James Pfeiffer"), en un estudio del caso de la participación de las ONG en Mozambique, habla de los efectos negativos que las ONG han tenido en materia de salud en el país. Argumenta que en la última década, las organizaciones no gubernamentales en Mozambique han "fragmentado los sistemas de salud local, socavado el control local de los programas de salud, y han contribuido a la creciente desigualdad social local".[53]​ Señala, además, que las ONG pueden estar descoordinadas, con la creación de proyectos paralelos entre diferentes organizaciones, que tiran de los trabajadores de servicios de salud fuera de sus tareas de rutina con el fin de servir a los intereses de las ONG. Esto socava en última instancia, los esfuerzos locales de atención primaria de salud y quita la capacidad de los gobiernos para mantener la agencia sobre su propio sector de la salud.[54]​ J. Pfeiffer sugirió un nuevo modelo de colaboración entre las ONG y el DPS (la Dirección Provincial de Salud de Mozambique). Mencionó que las ONG deben "trabajar oficialmente con las normas y el cumplimiento en el país de acogida", por ejemplo, reduciendo proyectos 'escaparate' y programas paralelos que demuestren ser insostenibles.[55]​.

Jessica Mathews") escribió en "Foreign Affairs" en 1997: "A pesar de sus puntos fuertes, las ONG tienen intereses especiales. El mejor de ellos... a menudo sufren de visión de túnel, al juzgar cada acto público por la forma en que afecta a su particular interés".[56]​ Dado que las ONG tienen que preocuparse por los compromisos políticos, el impacto global de su causa puede traer más daño a la sociedad.[57]​.

Vijay Prashad") argumenta que a partir de la década de 1970 "el Banco Mundial de Robert McNamara defendió a las ONG como una alternativa para el Estado, dejando intactas las relaciones globales y regionales de poder y producción."[58]​.

Otros argumentan que las ONG son en general imperialistas,[59]​ que a veces operan de una manera radical en los países del tercer mundo, y que cumplen una función similar a la del clero durante la alta época colonial. El filósofo Peter Hallward") argumenta que las ONG son una forma aristocrática de la política.[60]​ También señala que el hecho de que las organizaciones no gubernamentales como Ayuda en Acción y Christian Aid "efectivamente justifiquen el golpe de Estado" contra el gobierno electo en Haití, los vuelve parte del "rostro del imperialismo humanitario".[61]​ Los movimientos populares en el sur global, como la Campaña contra el desalojo de Cabo Occidental en Sudáfrica, se han negado en ocasiones a trabajar con las ONG con el argumento de que eso comprometería su autonomía.[62]​[63]​ También se ha argumentado que las ONG pueden desempoderar a estos movimientos, al permitir que las personas donantes puedan impulsar la estabilidad antes que la justicia social.[64]​.

Otra de las críticas a las ONG es que son diseñadas y utilizadas como extensiones de los instrumentos de política exterior de ciertos países o grupos de países occidentales.[65]​ En la 43.ª Conferencia de Múnich sobre Política de Seguridad de 2007, el presidente ruso Vladímir Putin hizo esta acusación a las ONG, concluyendo que "son formalmente independientes pero están financiadas con un propósito y por lo tanto bajo control."[66]​ Además, Michael Bond escribió: "La mayoría de las grandes ONG, como Oxfam, Cruz Roja, CAFOD y Ayuda en Acción, se esfuerzan por hacer que su prestación de ayuda sea más sostenible. Pero algunas, sobre todo en Estados Unidos, siguen exportando las ideologías de sus patrocinadores."[67]​.

Las ONG han sido acusadas de utilizar "mentiras blancas" o consejos mal informados para promulgar sus campañas, es decir, de haber ignorado temas críticos. Doug Parr"), responsable científico en Greenpeace, ha dicho que estas organizaciones parecen haber perdido su esfuerzo en ser verdaderamente científicas y ahora parecen ser más interesadas en sí mismas. En vez de operar a través de la ciencia para ser racionales y efectivas en la práctica, las ONG han sido acusadas de abusar de la utilización de la ciencia para obtener sus propias ventajas. En un principio, como Parr indicó, había "una tendencia entre nuestros críticos a decir que la ciencia era la única herramienta para la toma de decisiones... pero los intereses políticos y comerciales están utilizando la ciencia como una cubierta para salirse con la suya."[68]​ Al mismo tiempo, puede parecer que las ONG no son cooperativas con otros grupos, de acuerdo con el exresponsable político de la rama alemana de Amigos de la Tierra, Jens Katjek"), que ha dicho: "Si las ONG quieren lo mejor para el medio ambiente, tienen que aprender a comprender."[69]​.

Legitimacy challenges

The issue of NGO legitimacy raises a number of important questions. This is one of the most important assets that a non-governmental organization possesses, which is obtained through the perception that they are an "independent voice."[70]​[71]​ Their representation also emerges as an important issue. Who gives responsibilities to NGOs or INGOs and how they gain representation of citizens and civil society has not yet been fully analyzed. For example, in an article Neera Chandhoke states: "To put the point crudely: are the citizens of southern countries and their needs represented in global civil society, or are the citizens, as well as their needs, constructed by practices of representation? and when we realize that INGOs almost never come face to face with the people whose interests and problems they represent, or who are accountable to the people they represent, things get even more problematic."[72]

On the other hand, important questions are also emerging around the legitimacy and accountability of NGOs.[73] There are various perceptions and images that NGOs provide, and they are generally distinguished as "non-state actors" or "influential civil society representatives who advocate for the citizen." Accountability may be able to offer this and also assist activities by providing focus and direction.[74]​ As non-state actors have considerable influence over governance in many areas, concerns have been raised about the extent to which the views of the public are represented and the extent to which they allow the public to be held to account.[75]​.

The origin of funding can have serious consequences for the legitimacy of NGOs. In recent decades NGOs have increased their number and variety of activities to a level where they have become increasingly dependent on a limited number of donors.[75]​ Consequently, competition for funds has increased, as has the expectations of donors themselves.[76]​ This has the risk of donors adding conditions that may jeopardize the independence of NGOs. For example, an over-reliance on official aid can dilute "the willingness of NGOs to speak out on issues unpopular with governments."[71]​ In these situations NGOs are being held accountable by their donors, who may erode rather than increase their legitimacy, a difficult challenge to overcome. Some commentators have argued that changes in NGOs' funding sources have ultimately modified their functions.[71][77][78]​.

NGOs have also been accused of not necessarily representing the needs of developing countries, through diminishing the so-called "voice of the south." Some posit that there is a north-south divide in the NGO arena.[79] They question the equality of relations between the northern and southern parts of the same NGOs, as well as the relations between southern NGOs and northern NGOs working collaboratively. This suggests that a division of labor may develop in which the north takes the lead in advocacy and resource mobilization, while the south engages in service delivery in the developing world.[79] All of this may mean that the needs of the developing world are not appropriately addressed by northern NGOs that do not consult adequately or engage in partnerships. The real danger of this situation is that Western views can take control and assign unrepresentative priorities.[80]​.

By orientation level

The law is considered to have several characteristics. One of them is bilaterality (an individual other than the affected one is empowered to demand compliance with a norm), which gives the quality of an attributive imperative to the right. It is imperative since it imposes a duty of conduct (such as paying taxes) and attributive due to what was mentioned above regarding the power to demand compliance with the imperative.

Related concepts

In addition to "NGO", there are many alternative or overlapping acronyms and phrases in use, for example: voluntary sector, also known as Social Economy (TSO), Non-profit Organization (NPO), voluntary organization (VO), civil society organization (CSO), social movement organization (SMO), private voluntary organizations (PVO), non-state actors, Third Sector, etc. Related government organizations and non-government organizations are a heterogeneous group. As a result, a long list of additional acronyms has been developed, including:.

USAID defines NGOs as private voluntary organizations. However, many scholars have argued that this definition is very problematic, since many NGOs are actually corporate-funded and state-managed projects, and/or have professional staff.

NGOs are created for various purposes, usually to promote the political or social objectives of their members or founders. There are examples that include improving the environmental situation, raising awareness of the observance of Human Rights, improving the well-being of the most disadvantaged or representing a corporate agenda. However, there are a large number of organizations and their objectives cover a wide range of political and philosophical positions. This may also apply to private schools and sports organizations.

National NGOs: include national organizations such as professional, educational, religious associations, etc. Some have state, provincial or municipal branches, and help local NGOs.

Development, environment and human rights NGO

NGOs are organizations that work in different fields, but the term is generally associated with those seeking social transformation and improving the quality of life. Development NGOs are the most visible sector, and include both international and local organisations, as well as those working in the humanitarian emergency sector. Human rights NGOs can also overlap with development NGOs, but they are a different category. Amnesty International is perhaps one of the best known.

Many of these organizations are associated with international aid and voluntary donation, but there are also NGOs that choose not to take funds from donors and try to generate funds through other means, such as selling crafts or charging for services.

Environmental NGOs are another subsector, which sometimes overlaps with non-governmental development organizations. An example is Greenpeace, which like other NGO networks, as a transnational environmental network can gain a variety of benefits in exchanging information with other organizations, campaigning around an issue and exchanging information about it. Since transnational environmental NGOs advocate for different issues of public interest, such as air pollution, deforestation of green areas or problems with access to water, it is more difficult for them to give their campaigns a human face than non-governmental organizations that directly fight for human rights issues. Some of the earliest forms of transnational environmental NGOs began to appear after World War II with the creation of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). After the creation of the UN in 1945, more environmental NGOs began to emerge in order to address more specific environmental issues.

In November 1945, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) was created with the aim of contributing to peace and security in the world through education, science, culture and communications, and the purpose of collaborating with environmental NGOs. In 1969 the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) was founded to increase and improve collaboration among environmentalists. This collaboration was later reinforced and stimulated with the creation of the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program in 1971. In 1972 the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm sought to address this issue in Sweden and advocate for international intervention on transboundary pollution from other industrialized countries. Europe.

Transnational environmental NGOs have addressed various problems around the world, but one of the best-known cases involving the work of environmental NGOs can be traced back to Brazil during the 1980s. The United States had begun to become concerned about the problem of deforestation due to environmental complaints that showed that deforestation was already a global concern, and starting in 1977, an Environment and Natural Resources section was added to the Foreign Assistance Act. In the 1980s the Brazilian government created the Polonoreste development program, which the World Bank agreed to finance. The Polonoreste program aimed at urbanizing areas of the Amazon that were already occupied by local indigenous groups. The rapid deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon prompted the intervention of UNESCO, which used its Program on Man and the Biosphere to advocate against the Polonoreste program, on the basis of the violation of the rights of the indigenous groups that lived in the area. In the case of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, environmental NGOs were able to pressure the World Bank to cancel loans for the Polonoreste program. Due to the influence of the United States on the World Bank, in 1985 it suspended financial aid for the Polonoreste Program. The work of environmental NGOs in the case of Brazil was a success because there was no point of leverage that made actors vulnerable to international pressure.[12]​.

Although non-governmental organizations may have relatively common objectives on development or environmental issues, interests and perspectives are diverse. A distinction can be made between the interests and objectives of NGOs located in industrialized countries, which often refer to northern countries, and NGOs in developing countries, usually southern countries. Sometimes there is tension between them, with southern countries blaming developed nations for excessive consumption, pollution resulting from industrialization and for sustaining inequality in the international economic system.

There is also a distinction between groups focused on particular and specific socioeconomic issues. For example, the Women's Environment and Development Organization was created in 1990 with the purpose of advocating for gender inclusion in work related to the Earth Summit. Other groups may focus on issues that include racial minorities or people with lower incomes.[13]

Second-way diplomacy

Second-way dialogue or second-way diplomacy refers to transnational coordination between unofficial members of the Government, including epistemic communities as well as former political officials or analysts. It aims to get politicians and analysts to reach a common solution through discussions through unofficial means. Unlike first-track diplomacy, where government officials, diplomats, and elected leaders meet to discuss certain issues, second-track diplomacy includes experts, scientists, professors, and other figures who are not involved in government affairs. Members of second-track diplomacy generally have more freedom to exchange ideas and reach compromises on their own.[14]​.

Methods

NGOs vary in their methods. Some act mainly as pressure groups, while others mainly carry out programs and activities. For example, there are NGOs, such as Oxfam, that are concerned with poverty alleviation and are dedicated to providing people in need with the equipment and skills to find food and water to drink, while other NGOs such as FFDA assist through the investigation and documentation of human rights violations and provide legal assistance to victims of human rights abuses. Others, such as Afghanistan Information Server Management, provide products and services to support development activities carried out on the ground by other specialized technical organizations.

NGOs are intended to fill a gap in Government services, but in countries like India and China, NGOs are slowly gaining a position in decision-making. In the area of ​​sustainability, most donors require NGOs to demonstrate a relationship with the Government.[15] Governments themselves are vulnerable because they lack financial resources and a potential planning and visioning strategy. They are, therefore, very closely linked to non-governmental organizations, since political bodies, commercial organizations and major donors/funders can only make short-term decisions but have no effect in the long term.[16]​ In India, for example, NGOs are under regulators, policies and recipients of large funds from the government and international donors. NGOs often occupy responsibilities outside their scope of skill. Governments do not have access to the number of projects or amount of funds received by NGOs. There is an urgent need to regulate this group although its role is not restricted to just complementing Government services.

Regarding the activity of NGOs, the classification used by the World Bank divides them into operational and campaign:[17]​.

Operational NGOs aim to "achieve small-scale change directly through projects."[11] These NGOs mobilize financial, material and volunteer resources to create localized programs in a field. They hold large-scale fundraising events and may obtain grants or contracts from governments and organizations to raise money for projects. They often operate in a hierarchical structure, with a headquarters made up of professionals who plan projects, create budgets, keep accounts, and report and communicate to field workers who work directly on the projects.[11] Operational NGOs deal with a wide range of issues, but are most often associated with social assistance and service delivery, environmental issues, emergency relief, and public welfare. Operational NGOs can in turn be classified according to their orientation. A frequently used categorization is the division of development-oriented versus aid-oriented organizations; They can also be classified according to whether they insist on the provision of services or on participation; or if they are religious or secular; and if they are more oriented towards the public or the private. Although operational NGOs may be community-based, many of them are national or international. The definition of activity in operational NGOs is the execution of projects.[11]​.

Campaigning NGOs seek to "achieve large-scale change promoted indirectly through the influence of the political system."[11] Campaigning NGOs need an efficient and effective group of professional members who must be able to keep supporters informed and motivated. They must plan and demonstrate their hosting skills at events where the media will be present. Its members must keep informed a broad network of supporters who can mobilize at events to attract media attention and influence policy changes. A defining activity of campaign NGOs is holding demonstrations.[11] Campaign NGOs are often faced with issues relating to human rights, women's rights, children's rights, etc. The main purpose of a non-governmental campaign organization is to promote or promote a specific cause. Unlike running project management, these organizations often try to raise awareness, acceptance and knowledge through lobbying, press work and activist events.

It is not unusual for non-governmental organizations to make use of both activities. Many times operational NGOs will use action techniques if they continually face the same problems in a field that could be remedied through policy changes. At the same time, campaigning NGOs, like human rights organisations, have programs that assist the individual victims they are trying to help through their advocacy work.[11]​.

Public relations

Non-governmental organizations need to have a healthy relationship with the public in order to meet their objectives. Foundations and charities use public relations campaigns to raise funds and employ techniques that follow the patterns of lobbying with governments. Interest groups can be politically important because of their ability to influence social and political outcomes. For this reason, the World Association of Non-governmental Organizations established a code of ethics in 2002.

Project management

There is a growing awareness that management techniques are crucial to the success of non-governmental organization projects.[18] In general, private NGOs have either a community focus or an environmental focus. They deal with a variety of topics such as religion, emergency aid, or humanitarian issues. They mobilize public support and voluntary aid contributions. They often have strong ties to community groups in developing countries, and often work in areas where government-to-government aid is not possible. NGOs are accepted as a part of the landscape of international relations, and while influencing national and multilateral policy formulation, they are increasingly directly involved in local action.

Staff

Some NGOs are highly professionalized and rely primarily on paid staff. Others are based on volunteer work and are less formalized. Not all people who work for non-governmental organizations are volunteers. There are also few cases of NGOs that have a completely voluntary structure, with professionals and technicians formalized in their field, such as: Visió Sense Fronteres, Enganchados, Fundación Iluminafrica and etc.

Many NGOs partner with the use of international civil servants working in developing countries, but there are many northern and southern NGOs that rely on local employees or volunteers. There is some controversy as to whether expatriates should be sent to developing countries. Frequently, this type of staff is used to satisfy a Donor who wants the project they support to be managed by a person from a developed country. However, the experience of these employees or volunteers can be offset by a number of factors: the cost of foreign staff is often higher, they do not have connections in the country to which they are sent and local experience is often undervalued. [17]​.

The NGO sector is a significant employer in numerical terms. For example, at the end of 1995, Concern Worldwide, a northern international anti-poverty NGO, employed 174 expatriates and just over 5,000 local people working in ten developing countries in Africa and Asia, and in Haiti.

Financing

NGOs, whether small or large, need resources to work towards their objectives. But the volume of budget they need varies from one organization to another; Thus, large NGOs can have annual budgets of thousands or millions of dollars. For example, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) had more than $540 million available in 1999.[19]​.

The main sources of financing for NGOs are: membership fees paid by members, the sale of goods and services, donations from international institutions, contributions from national governments and private donations from individuals or companies.

Although the term "non-governmental organization" implies not being part of governments, many NGOs rely heavily on governments for funding.[20] For example, a quarter of the $162 million used for Oxfam's hunger relief in 1998 was donated by the British government and the European Union. The Christian aid and development organization World Vision USA obtained $55 million in assets from the US government in 1998. Government funding of NGOs is a controversial issue, since, according to David Rieff, author of The New Republic,.

Some organizations such as Greenpeace do not accept funds from governments or intergovernmental organizations, but do accept funds from particular rulers (princes, kings, deputies, presidents, etc.).[22]​[23]​.

Overheads

Overhead expenses are the amount of money spent on the operation of the NGO itself, not on its projects.[24]​ This includes office expenses,[24]​ salaries, banking and accounting. The percentage of the total budget that an NGO's overheads make up is often used to judge it, with less than 4% considered good.[24]​ The World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations states that, ideally, more than 86% should be spent on programmes/projects and less than 20% on overheads.[25]​ The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has specific guidelines on how much overheads should be. to receive funding based on where the funds are going, and often must be below 7-5%.[26]​ Meanwhile, the World Bank typically allows up to 37%.[27]​ A high percentage of overheads to total expenses can make it much more difficult to generate funds.[28]​ High indirect costs can also attract criticism, with some claiming that certain NGOs with high overheads are in operation simply to benefit the people who work for them.[29]​.

Although overhead can be a legitimate concern, focusing solely on it can be counterproductive.[30]​ Research published by the Urban Institute Archived April 26, 2013 at the Wayback Machine. and the Center for Social Innovation at Stanford University have shown how rating agencies create incentives for nonprofits to lower or hide their overhead, which can actually reduce organizational effectiveness, depriving NGOs of the infrastructure they need to effectively deliver their services. A more meaningful rating system would provide, in addition to financial data, a qualitative assessment of the organization's transparency and governance: (1) an assessment of program effectiveness; (2) an evaluation of the feedback mechanisms designed for donors and recipients; and (3) a rating system that also allows organizations to respond to a nominal evaluation by a rating agency.[31]​ More generally, popular nonprofit evaluation discourse must move away from financial notions of organizational effectiveness and toward a more substantial understanding of its programmatic impact.

Monitoring and control

In a March 2000 report on United Nations reform priorities, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan wrote in favor of international humanitarian intervention, arguing that the international community has the "right to protect"[32] the world's citizens from ethnic cleansing, genocide, and crimes against humanity. In this report, the Canadian government launched the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) project[33]​ highlighting the issue of humanitarian intervention. While the R2P doctrine has wide applications, among the most controversial has been the Canadian government's use of it to justify its intervention and support for the coup in Haiti.[34] Years after R2P, the World Federalist Movement, an organization that supports "the creation of global and democratic structures accountable to the citizens of the world, and the call for the division of international authority among independent bodies", has launched the responsibility to protect the participation of the Society Civil (R2PCS). The collaboration between the WFM and the Canadian government aims to bring NGOs together shoulder to shoulder with the principles outlined within the framework of the original R2P project.

Governments of countries where NGOs work or are registered require reporting or other types of oversight monitoring. Funders generally require reporting and evaluation, although such information is not necessarily available to the public. There may also be associations and organizations monitoring research and details that are published about the actions of NGOs working in particular geographic or scheduled areas.

In recent years, many large companies have increased their corporate social responsibility departments in an attempt to stay ahead of NGO campaigns against certain business practices. As the logic goes, if corporations work "with" NGOs, NGOs will not work "against" corporations. Greater collaboration between companies and NGOs creates inherent risk of co-option for the weaker party, where nonprofit organizations often participate.[35]​.

In December 2007, U.S. Department of Defense Under Secretary for Health Affairs Ward Cassells established an International Health Division in Force Health and Force Protection. Part of the mission of international health is to communicate with nongovernmental organizations in areas of mutual interest. In 2005, Department of Defense Directive 3000.05[37] required the Department to consider stability-enhancing activities as a mission of equal importance to combat. In compliance with the Geneva Convention of international law, the Department of Defense has necessarily developed the capacity to improve essential services in conflict zones such as Iraq, where the State Department's regular major agencies struggled to operate. Unlike the "co-option" strategy described for corporations, the OASD (HA) recognizes the neutrality of health as an essential service. Health International cultivates collaborative relationships with non-governmental organizations, albeit at a distance, recognizing their traditional independence, experience and status as honest intermediaries. While the goals of the Department of Defense and NGOs may seem incongruent, the former's emphasis on stability and security to reduce and prevent conflict suggests, on careful analysis, important mutual interests.

International non-governmental organizations have a history dating back to at least the 19th century.[38]​[39]​ International NGOs were important in slavery abolitionism and the women's suffrage movement, and reached their peak at the time of the World Conference on Disarmament.[40]​ However, the term "non-governmental organization" did not come into popular use until the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 with the provisions of Article 71. of Chapter 10 of the Charter of the United Nations,[41]​ a consultative function for organizations that are not part of the government or member states (Consultative Status). The definition of "international non-governmental organization" (NGO) is first given in ECOSOC resolution 288 (X) on 27 February 1950: it is defined as "any international organization not founded on an international treaty". The fundamental role of non-governmental organizations and other "major groups" in sustainable development was recognized in Chapter 27[42]​ of Agenda 21, which led to intensive arrangements for a consultative relationship between the UN and non-governmental organizations.[43]​ It has been observed that the number of international NGOs founded or dissolved coincides with the "state of the world" in general, increasing in periods of growth and decreasing in times of crisis.[44]​.

The rapid development of the non-governmental sector occurred in Western countries as a result of state welfare restructuring processes. Furthermore, the globalization of this process occurred after the fall of the communist system and was an important part of the Washington Consensus.[20]​.

Globalization in the century gave rise to the importance of NGOs. Many problems cannot be solved within a nation. International Treaties, international organizations, as well as the World Trade Organization, focused mainly on the interests of capitalist companies. In an attempt to counter this trend, NGOs developed to emphasize humanitarian issues and aiding sustainable development. A prominent example of this is the World Social Forum, held annually in January in Davos, Switzerland. The fifth World Social Forum was held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in January 2005, with more than 1,000 NGO representatives in attendance.[45] Regarding environmental and sustainable development issues, the Earth Summit held in Rio in 1992 was the first to showcase the power of international NGOs, when nearly 2,400 NGO representatives came to play a central role in the deliberations. Some have argued that, in forums like these, NGOs take the place that should belong to popular movements of the poor. Whatever the case, the transnational network of NGOs is increasingly extensive.[46]​.

The legal form of NGOs is very diverse and depends on the interpretations of the laws and practices of each country. However, the four main NGO groups that can be found around the world are:[47]​.

The Council of Europe in Strasbourg drafted the European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of International Non-Governmental Organizations in 1986, which establishes a common legal basis for the existence and work of NGOs in Europe. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of association, which is also a fundamental norm for NGOs.[48]​.

World NGO Day - World NGO Day is celebrated annually on February 27.[49]​[50]​ It was officially recognized and declared on April 17, 2010 by 12 countries of the IX Baltic Sea NGO Forum at the Eighth Baltic Sea States Summit in Vilnius (Lithuania).[51]​ World NGO Day was marked internationally and recognized on February 27. 2014 by Helen Clark, Administrator of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in Helsinki, Finland.

Contenido

Issa G. Shivji") es uno de los principales expertos en África sobre cuestiones de derecho y desarrollo como autor y académico. Su crítica a las ONG se encuentra plasmada en dos ensayos: "Silencios en el discurso de las ONG: El papel y el futuro de las ONG en África" y "Reflexiones sobre las ONG en Tanzania: lo que somos, lo que no somos y lo que deberíamos ser". Shivji cuestiona también las buenas intenciones de los líderes y activistas de las ONG, mostrándose crítico con los "efectos objetivos de las acciones, independientemente de sus intenciones".[52]​ Shivji argumenta también que el aumento repentino de las ONG es parte de un paradigma neoliberal más que de motivaciones altruistas puras. Es crítico con las manifestaciones actuales de las ONG que desean cambiar el mundo sin entenderlo, y sostiene que la relación imperialista continúa hoy con el auge de las ONG.

James Pfeiffer"), en un estudio del caso de la participación de las ONG en Mozambique, habla de los efectos negativos que las ONG han tenido en materia de salud en el país. Argumenta que en la última década, las organizaciones no gubernamentales en Mozambique han "fragmentado los sistemas de salud local, socavado el control local de los programas de salud, y han contribuido a la creciente desigualdad social local".[53]​ Señala, además, que las ONG pueden estar descoordinadas, con la creación de proyectos paralelos entre diferentes organizaciones, que tiran de los trabajadores de servicios de salud fuera de sus tareas de rutina con el fin de servir a los intereses de las ONG. Esto socava en última instancia, los esfuerzos locales de atención primaria de salud y quita la capacidad de los gobiernos para mantener la agencia sobre su propio sector de la salud.[54]​ J. Pfeiffer sugirió un nuevo modelo de colaboración entre las ONG y el DPS (la Dirección Provincial de Salud de Mozambique). Mencionó que las ONG deben "trabajar oficialmente con las normas y el cumplimiento en el país de acogida", por ejemplo, reduciendo proyectos 'escaparate' y programas paralelos que demuestren ser insostenibles.[55]​.

Jessica Mathews") escribió en "Foreign Affairs" en 1997: "A pesar de sus puntos fuertes, las ONG tienen intereses especiales. El mejor de ellos... a menudo sufren de visión de túnel, al juzgar cada acto público por la forma en que afecta a su particular interés".[56]​ Dado que las ONG tienen que preocuparse por los compromisos políticos, el impacto global de su causa puede traer más daño a la sociedad.[57]​.

Vijay Prashad") argumenta que a partir de la década de 1970 "el Banco Mundial de Robert McNamara defendió a las ONG como una alternativa para el Estado, dejando intactas las relaciones globales y regionales de poder y producción."[58]​.

Otros argumentan que las ONG son en general imperialistas,[59]​ que a veces operan de una manera radical en los países del tercer mundo, y que cumplen una función similar a la del clero durante la alta época colonial. El filósofo Peter Hallward") argumenta que las ONG son una forma aristocrática de la política.[60]​ También señala que el hecho de que las organizaciones no gubernamentales como Ayuda en Acción y Christian Aid "efectivamente justifiquen el golpe de Estado" contra el gobierno electo en Haití, los vuelve parte del "rostro del imperialismo humanitario".[61]​ Los movimientos populares en el sur global, como la Campaña contra el desalojo de Cabo Occidental en Sudáfrica, se han negado en ocasiones a trabajar con las ONG con el argumento de que eso comprometería su autonomía.[62]​[63]​ También se ha argumentado que las ONG pueden desempoderar a estos movimientos, al permitir que las personas donantes puedan impulsar la estabilidad antes que la justicia social.[64]​.

Otra de las críticas a las ONG es que son diseñadas y utilizadas como extensiones de los instrumentos de política exterior de ciertos países o grupos de países occidentales.[65]​ En la 43.ª Conferencia de Múnich sobre Política de Seguridad de 2007, el presidente ruso Vladímir Putin hizo esta acusación a las ONG, concluyendo que "son formalmente independientes pero están financiadas con un propósito y por lo tanto bajo control."[66]​ Además, Michael Bond escribió: "La mayoría de las grandes ONG, como Oxfam, Cruz Roja, CAFOD y Ayuda en Acción, se esfuerzan por hacer que su prestación de ayuda sea más sostenible. Pero algunas, sobre todo en Estados Unidos, siguen exportando las ideologías de sus patrocinadores."[67]​.

Las ONG han sido acusadas de utilizar "mentiras blancas" o consejos mal informados para promulgar sus campañas, es decir, de haber ignorado temas críticos. Doug Parr"), responsable científico en Greenpeace, ha dicho que estas organizaciones parecen haber perdido su esfuerzo en ser verdaderamente científicas y ahora parecen ser más interesadas en sí mismas. En vez de operar a través de la ciencia para ser racionales y efectivas en la práctica, las ONG han sido acusadas de abusar de la utilización de la ciencia para obtener sus propias ventajas. En un principio, como Parr indicó, había "una tendencia entre nuestros críticos a decir que la ciencia era la única herramienta para la toma de decisiones... pero los intereses políticos y comerciales están utilizando la ciencia como una cubierta para salirse con la suya."[68]​ Al mismo tiempo, puede parecer que las ONG no son cooperativas con otros grupos, de acuerdo con el exresponsable político de la rama alemana de Amigos de la Tierra, Jens Katjek"), que ha dicho: "Si las ONG quieren lo mejor para el medio ambiente, tienen que aprender a comprender."[69]​.

Legitimacy challenges

The issue of NGO legitimacy raises a number of important questions. This is one of the most important assets that a non-governmental organization possesses, which is obtained through the perception that they are an "independent voice."[70]​[71]​ Their representation also emerges as an important issue. Who gives responsibilities to NGOs or INGOs and how they gain representation of citizens and civil society has not yet been fully analyzed. For example, in an article Neera Chandhoke states: "To put the point crudely: are the citizens of southern countries and their needs represented in global civil society, or are the citizens, as well as their needs, constructed by practices of representation? and when we realize that INGOs almost never come face to face with the people whose interests and problems they represent, or who are accountable to the people they represent, things get even more problematic."[72]

On the other hand, important questions are also emerging around the legitimacy and accountability of NGOs.[73] There are various perceptions and images that NGOs provide, and they are generally distinguished as "non-state actors" or "influential civil society representatives who advocate for the citizen." Accountability may be able to offer this and also assist activities by providing focus and direction.[74]​ As non-state actors have considerable influence over governance in many areas, concerns have been raised about the extent to which the views of the public are represented and the extent to which they allow the public to be held to account.[75]​.

The origin of funding can have serious consequences for the legitimacy of NGOs. In recent decades NGOs have increased their number and variety of activities to a level where they have become increasingly dependent on a limited number of donors.[75]​ Consequently, competition for funds has increased, as has the expectations of donors themselves.[76]​ This has the risk of donors adding conditions that may jeopardize the independence of NGOs. For example, an over-reliance on official aid can dilute "the willingness of NGOs to speak out on issues unpopular with governments."[71]​ In these situations NGOs are being held accountable by their donors, who may erode rather than increase their legitimacy, a difficult challenge to overcome. Some commentators have argued that changes in NGOs' funding sources have ultimately modified their functions.[71][77][78]​.

NGOs have also been accused of not necessarily representing the needs of developing countries, through diminishing the so-called "voice of the south." Some posit that there is a north-south divide in the NGO arena.[79] They question the equality of relations between the northern and southern parts of the same NGOs, as well as the relations between southern NGOs and northern NGOs working collaboratively. This suggests that a division of labor may develop in which the north takes the lead in advocacy and resource mobilization, while the south engages in service delivery in the developing world.[79] All of this may mean that the needs of the developing world are not appropriately addressed by northern NGOs that do not consult adequately or engage in partnerships. The real danger of this situation is that Western views can take control and assign unrepresentative priorities.[80]​.