The third part of this series looks at the NGO hierarchy, where the NGO derives its power from, who it is accountable to and how these considerations affect social change.

The first of this series is NGOs, Market Forces and Foreign Funding - Part I
The Second of this series is NGOs, Market Forces and Foreign Funding - Part II
NGOs – Their Powers, Their Accountability

Politics of Development
In international politics today, certain governments, various corporations (and their consortiums) as well as certain institutions that represent overlapping interests (World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc are proactively and aggressively involved in extending their influences over other parts of the world. International politics is made up of complex collaborations and conflicts between these forces. Various religious groups and lobbies have significant influence in these collaborations and conflicts depending on the geography. It is in this landscape that NGOs exist.

Since the 18th century, religious groups have attempted to break up social structures in ‘less developed’ regions and engage in religious conversions under the guise of development . These activities continue in the global south – especially in areas that are non-Christian. With extraordinarily high levels of funding from US and Europe, funding agencies operate through their own organizations or through NGOs, using processes of charity as means of proselytizing. Such activities have torn the social fabric of small communities resulting in local riots, killings and unrest. Often, local militant groups – or sometimes non-militant ones – have risen out of such situations and work against these NGOs and against those that have been converted. This has been the cause of great violence in these areas.

Corporations are interested in how they can have greater access to markets for increased profits or how they can have easier access to raw materials or labor at lower prices thus making themselves more profitable. To they extent that they can change the regulations of a nation such that they are able to produce their own products less expensively, they are interested in lobbying national governments or bringing about social change. For example, to the extent that there are less regulations vis-à-vis rights of workers or compensation, they can get their products made less expensively. To the extent that there are fewer environmental regulations, they do not have to worry about clean up costs and thus make more profits. Corporate lobbies find ways to ‘educate’ governments on how these policies need to be changed. At the same time, corporations are also interested in influencing changes in behavior patterns in societies so that they can encourage people to consume more of their products. One example is the increased sale of water. This is tied to a growing perception that regular water provided by the city is ‘dirty’ or not good enough to drink. It is also connected to an increasing pollution of our water sources – ironically, often by the corporate sector. Similar trends are connected to consumption of shoes, clothes, or food.

While many of these were driven through ads and through lobbying with governments – and even bribery as the Enron saga suggests – the NGOs were used effectively in others. There has been a general change in behavior from a premium on saving to a trend of increasing consumption. Use of pesticide was largely driven by ‘education’ of farmers by certain corporations through government agencies and the NGO sector. Similarly, NGOs are today being influenced by pharmaceutical industries vis-à-vis health practices and use of medicines. Certain states in India, for example, have banned midwives from delivering children. Only registered nurses and health workers can do so. For one, there is a critical absence of trained nurses or health workers. Second, the procedure of delivery is becoming more ‘drug’ intensive. Similarly, where there was a certain tendency to avoid the use of drugs, there is a greater tendency to use drugs for minor ailments – often through education of the NGO sector by corporate lobbies. Similar practices are true in the area of health and nutrition, family planning, among others.

Corporations are not in the business of charity or social empowerment. All they care about is profits; if this was in doubt, the slew of corporate scandals in the last few years has certainly cleared any questions. Some of their efforts with communities is tied to public relations. It has been suggested that a company gets greater return on investment through spending on community programs (to a certain level of spending) that enhances the reputation of the company than through advertisements. Beyond that, corporate interests in funding efforts of social change are thus directly tied to influencing these changes so that they could make more profits. This is generally true of foreign governments as well. Their primary purpose vis-à-vis international relationships is to ensure great dominance over or influence in the affairs of other nations. To the extent that one nation can control the growth or behavior of another, it can stay dominant.

The governments of certain countries thus use NGOs to influence behavior patterns, and even power structures and politics of another region. American and British aid is usually tied to implementation of certain policies and programs. Often these are connected to providing economic incentives to American corporations. For example, equipment bought with USAID money often must be from American companies. Other times, these are connected to certain ‘values’ of the American regime in power. The canceling of aid to NGOs working in the area of family planning is an example. Yet, at other times, these are tied to the NGO providing information about the specific region of activity – information including social unrest, demographic divides in religious following or caste, economic details, among others.

If 90% or NGO funding in India comes from foreign aid, it is clear that a significant portion of ‘social development programs’ are being driven by corporate interests or the interests of other governments. The collaboration between corporations and NGOs threatens a situation that is extremely dangerous. While corporations have always been focused on profits (though, originally, they also had a social responsibility), their attempts to engineer social changes were more obvious, and thus less dangerous. When NGOs become the instruments of social engineering for political or economic interests of funding agencies, corporations have direct (and yet, non-obvious) access to social engineering for corporate interests. It will be a situation similar to the corporate control of media – most people feel that the media they consume is free while it is increasingly been driven by the interests of a small set of corporations. Only, now it will be corporate control of social change. Often, such vested social engineering will be driven without the NGOs – the instrument of the social change – even being aware of this. That is the most dangerous implication of role of NGOs in such a landscape.
- Sanat Mohanty

Related Articles:
Overactive NGOs Attacking MNCs?
The Branding of India
Therefore Alternatives: Questioning Development
Therefore Alternatives: Survival of the Fittest