Abstract
This study investigates the participation of countries in one of the leading international library organizations, IFLA. IFLA has aimed to strengthen libraries for a more literate, informed and participatory society. Its structure includes Sections, a Governing Board, and Regional and Professional Divisions. From an exploratory investigation on the IFLA web pages, the author surveyed the participation of countries in the entire structure, the nationality of the presidents and the headquarters of the World Library and Information Congress. The need for the organization to expand its regional diversity through internal policies stands out, since Global South countries, such as those in Latin America and Africa, occupy few places. Since IFLA is the main global entity in librarianship, it is essential to expand these representations, from participation in its structure to the possibility of a president-elect from these regions or the largest congress being hosted in these areas more often.
Introduction
To democratically ensure that a cause or the rights of an entity or group are defended in public spheres, articulation among interested individuals is fundamental. One of the most effective ways of doing this is advocacy. Advocacy is a term that accompanies the transformations over time in political and power relations. It comes from the verb ‘to advocate’, which means to defend and argue in favour of a cause, a demand or a position, usually with political incidence or pressure and with articulations mobilized by organized civil society (Libardoni, 2000). Being such a broad concept and applied by different organizations, advocacy is found in broad causes and areas, including libraries.
McLane (2011) exemplifies the work of the Association of College and Research Libraries, which, through a government relations group, sought to amplify in the legislative sphere discussions around censorship, access to information, copyright and privacy. These are contemporary, ever-changing issues that affect both libraries and the community.
To ensure the defence of the library profession and of libraries, the work of professional associations is of paramount importance. The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) is a global, non-profit institution, with its headquarters in The Hague, the Netherlands; it was created on 30 September 1927, in Edinburgh, Scotland. It has almost a thousand affiliated institutions from more than 130 countries, besides the possibility of individuals also joining. Its vision is to create ‘[a] strong, united global library field, empowering literate, informed, and participatory societies’, and its mission is ‘[t]o inspire, engage, enable, and connect the global library field’ (IFLA, 2022).
Recently, as part of its strategic efforts to promote and showcase the work of libraries worldwide, IFLA aligned itself with the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This Agenda has been incorporated into reports, events, meetings, guides, and toolkits, and has gathered inspiring library projects for the IFLA Library Map of the World.
To be able to act globally, taking into account the different types of libraries and diversity of technical topics, IFLA’s organizational chart is quite complex and structured. It was recently updated in 2019 and 2021, where affiliated individuals and institutions were consulted via questionnaires and face-to-face meetings to identify new strategies for action. Figure 1 illustrates the new organizational chart resulting from this process.
IFLA’s governance structure.
Except for the IFLA headquarters, where the work is paid, in the other bodies the activity is voluntary, with an election process for people who apply for the available positions in the Sections, Regional Divisions, Professional Divisions, Special Interest Groups and Governing Board. The term of office is two years for the Regional Divisions and Governing Board, and four years for the other groups. Librarians who would like to serve on the Advisory Committees can submit their letters of interest during the election process, and the Governing Board will analyse them (IFLA, 2023a). Table 1 presents the details of this governance structure.
IFLA’s governance structure.
Source: IFLA website, https://www.ifla.org
The largest number of representations and groups are concentrated in the Sections, with up to 20 members in each. Currently, there are 42 Sections, with their own management plans, which report their results to the Professional Council and Governing Board whenever necessary. They are distributed between types of libraries (public, parliamentary, national and school, among others) and themes (administration and marketing, new media, statistics and evaluation, and architecture and equipment for libraries, among others). Specifically, within each Section committee there is a person elected as chair and secretary; the others are members, being responsible for projects and other activities proposed in the management plans.
The dedicated and specialized work of each Section is fundamental for advocacy actions. Examples of this can be found in the UK with regard to the future of library science education based on IFLA's proposed reflections on advocacy and political engagement (Marcella and Oppenheim, 2020). There is also evidence on how library advocacy promotes community engagement and the importance of developing a well-established brand (Singh and Trinchetta, 2020). Finally, in Bradley (2009), IFLA's own experiences in measuring the impact of its activities are discussed.
Many of these Sections contribute considerably to librarianship on a global level. One of the best-known cases is the IFLA-UNESCO Public Libraries Manifesto. In 1949, UNESCO created the document ‘The public library: A living force for popular education’, which later, in 1994, had the cooperation of IFLA for the creation of the current Manifesto (IFLA Public Libraries Section, 2022). To begin, it is fundamental to recognize that they are predisposed to develop pioneering projects that advance the field through events, publications and collaborations with non-governmental organizations.
In view of the importance of these groups, it is necessary to consider the diversity in their constitution. In the procedures for the last elections, the only guideline concerning the representation of countries was that there could not be more than two elected members from the same country for the same committee (IFLA, 2021b). However, this does not guarantee the necessary regional representation that considers socio-economic differences and countries’ very particular realities.
Thus, the purpose of this article is to analyse this representation of countries on IFLA committees since 2015 (which includes the last three management mandates); the nationality of the presidents who have been at the head of the institution since its establishment; its affiliated institutions; and the countries that have hosted the IFLA World Library and Information Congress (WLIC) since 1928. Since its founding, IFLA has made efforts to be internationally active, with links to a large number of countries. Throughout its history, however, political conditions may have affected some of this work. Underwood (2015) mentions, for example, the apartheid policies in South Africa that have severely impacted this work. Here again, the influence of UNESCO was important for the continuity of global action, not only by IFLA, but also by other international organizations.
Finally, I will use in this article the definition of Global North and Global South from the theoretical contributions of Santos (2014), who states that a global hegemony of economic, social, cultural and political standards exists in the countries of the Global North. This phenomenon is not only due to the geographical aspect, but also mainly to the inequality and multiplicity of knowledge made invisible and wasted by modernity, which is an evident colonialist characteristic, according to Santos (2014). Moreover, it presents itself in different contexts, including the institutional context, as is the case of IFLA from the results presented in this article.
Methodology
This research is an exploratory and documentary study based on the historical records on the web pages of the IFLA website, which are maintained and preserved by the Internet Archive Initiative. The procedure was based on a visit to the IFLA home page (ifla.org) within the Wayback Machine search tool. The Internet Archive Initiative is ‘non-profit [and] is building a digital library of internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form’; it comprises 625 billion pages and 38 billion books and other materials (Internet Archive, 2022). For each IFLA group, there is a dedicated web page. However, I chose to navigate from the home site to avoid inconsistencies or the impermanence of URLs over the years.
Before turning to the Internet Archive, IFLA was contacted to request the data to write this article, but the answer was negative because the data was not organized in the requested format (without personal identification). Some old pages were found by browsing the IFLA Archive, 1 but the old Sections page presents only the names of the chairs and secretaries, which made the collection of information unfeasible because it did not represent the whole and could prejudice the counting of other countries involved.
The data of the members who make up each of the committees is public, containing their name, affiliation, email, country and the period of the term for which they were elected. An Excel spreadsheet was used to organize the data and subsequently create graphs for better visualization of the distribution of the countries. The data was collected in October 2023, covering the last five IFLA administrations (from 2015 to 2025). This period was selected because it yielded the most results, since the Wayback Machine does not store all time periods.
In its new governance format, which was updated in a process covering the years 2019 and 2020 and took effect in July 2021, IFLA has the following structure, which guided access to the web pages: 42 Sections, one Governing Board, six Regional Divisions and two Councils (one professional and one regional). These new changes had no impact on the data collection as the number of vacancies remained the same. What was identified was a greater representation of countries in the Regional Divisions, given the rule that no more than two members from the same country can be elected.
The data of the Special Interest Groups was not collected because the old IFLA website did not give the names of all members, only the convenor of each. With regard to the Advisory Committees, data was collected from the three that have records since 2015 (Standards, Copyright and Other Legal Matters, and Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression). The others were created later (Cultural Heritage) or discontinued, changing their name (Action for Development through Libraries and Library Development Programme) or even becoming Sections (e.g. Environment, Sustainability and Libraries).
In addition to IFLA's governance structure, the regional distribution of the 88 WLICs was analysed, as well as the nationality of the presidents who have been at the head of the institution and the distribution of affiliated associations and institutions by country. The latter information is available on the IFLA website, without the need to explore the Internet Archive.
The data on the WLIC and the nationality of the presidents, as it is open access on the IFLA website, was considered from IFLA’s creation as it will contribute to the verification of the predominance of the Global North over the years. Data relating to IFLA Sections was considered based on the availability of the Internet Archive, with most pages preserved from 2015. This collection of data brings a more complete vision of how country representation occurs within IFLA.
Results
IFLA membership is available in two categories: personal and institutional. To become a member, one simply has to choose the type of membership (association, institution or individual) and pay the annual fee. The amount is defined according to the specific characteristics of each category, such as associations’ operational expenses and the three bands of the UNESCO Scale of Assessment, for example (IFLA, n.d.c). The data of the affiliated associations and institutions is public and, in the August 2023 update, there were 142 countries represented (IFLA, n.d.a). Table 2 shows the 12 countries with the highest number of member institutions.
Countries with highest number of affiliated associations and institutions.
Source: IFLA (n.d.a).
The figures in Table 2 indicate a strong presence from the Global North (expect for China and South Africa). It is difficult for countries in the Global South to be among those with the most members due to the costs of membership and even the absence of local support. This is detrimental because, according to Santos (2014), the development of a field from a single cultural and socio-economic perspective (mainly European and North American countries) can lead to the exclusion of various other cultures, knowledge and needs. The English language can also be an obstacle. Even though IFLA has six other official languages (IFLA, n.d.b), the translation of documents is not always carried out because it is dependent on voluntary collaboration.
On the other hand, in electoral processes, the fact that one country has more members than another does not interfere in the Standing Committees because votes for a potential member can come from any affiliated member. What happens in most cases is that many Sections do not have regional representation because there is no internal policy to ensure diversity (that each Section has one country from each region, for example). However, the number of affiliated members per country, from the same region, can influence the election for president. Since its inception in 1927, Germany has had the most people elected to the position (four), followed by the USA and Australia (three each). Only Botswana and South Africa, as Global South countries, have had presidents, in 2003 and 2009 respectively. Table 3 lists the IFLA presidents and their countries of origin. 2
IFLA presidents and their countries of origin.
Source: IFLA (2023c).
The longer the career of a candidate for the IFLA presidency, the more recognition they will receive from countries. This is important because, in addition to a consolidated record of work on behalf of libraries, the following characteristics are essential to winning the position. These numbers may make it difficult for other professionals from the Global South with the same qualities because, generally, they have fewer members to support them.
Next to the presidency, a fundamentally important team for the work of each administration is the Governing Board because it is responsible for a series of strategic decisions. The representation by country in this group is as follows: Australia and the Netherlands (seven members each); the UK and the USA (six); Denmark and Germany (five); Canada and South Africa (four); Greece, Mexico and Singapore (three); Brazil, China, Egypt, Finland, India, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland (two); and Argentina, Bangladesh, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway and Slovakia (one).
Organized annually, the WLIC is considered one of the largest international events in the area. Currently held over five days and usually in the last week of August, the WLIC brings together participants from, and facilitates the exchange of knowledge related to, the IFLA groups. Organized since 1928, the congress has been held on 88 occasions in 40 different countries (IFLA, 2023b). Denmark, England, France, Italy and the USA are the countries that have hosted the WLIC the most (five times each). As for South Global countries, South Africa stands out once again, having held the Congress twice (IFLA, 2023b). IFLA seeks to spread the Congress across countries to allow for the greates number of participants and to decentralise away from the European axis. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, WLIC 2020, which was to be held in Dublin, was cancelled and moved to 2022, and WLIC 2021 was held virtually. The 2024 congress, which was due to take place in Dubai, was cancelled by the Emirates Library and Information Association.
To host the Congress, a country needs to make a large financial investment, which makes it impossible for many countries in the Global South to organise the event. This investment is the result of a strong articulation between local governments and companies that can provide financial support. Other determining factors include a strong national library association, the necessary infrastructure for hosting international events and security measures.
As for data on the representation in the IFLA Sections, it was collected for the period 2015 to 2025 – that is, five administrations. For some Sections, it was not possible to collect data in the Wayback Machine regarding their management from 2017 to 2019. However, this did not have a detrimental effect on the analysis intended for this article. It is also important to mention that although each administration had 20 vacancies, not all of them were filled. Table 4 presents all the IFLA Sections and the countries’ representation. I choose to present the data in detail in order to allow for other analyses, such as regional or even thematic.
Countries’ representation in IFLA Sections and Advisory Committees.
Source: Research data (2023).
aUntil 2021, these groups were considered Sections within IFLA and where therefore been tabulated. From 2021, they became Regional Divisions and are currently in the process of finalising their first management.
There is no data on the IFLA website regarding the composition of this Advisory Committee before 2021.
The IFLA website has data on this Advisory Committee only for the term 2015–2017.
The IFLA website has data on this Advisory Committee only for the term 2019–2021.
From this data, it can be observed that the USA is in first position with the largest number of positions occupied (693). Of the 44 IFLA Sections, there are only three in which it does not have representation, which are regional Sections (Asia and Oceania, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Africa). Next comes China with 198 places, Germany with 172, Canada with 161, France with 139, Sweden with 121, Australia with 102, the UK with 100, Italy with 82, and Russia with 76. In relation to South Global countries, the country with the most places in the IFLA Sections is Brazil, with 64. Among the countries with the lowest number of representations (one each) are Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Belarus, Fiji, Latvia, Mali, Mariana Islands, Mauritius, Nepal, Paraguay, Puerto Rico, Somalia, Syria, Tanzania, Vietnam, the United Nations and Uzbekistan.
There are three positions on the Standing Committee of each Section: Chari, Secretary and Information Coordinator. The position of Chair is considered to be a proeminent one, both in terms of leadership and knowledge of the subject the Section is working on. Here again, the USA ranks first with 66 people serving as chair, followed by Australia (18), Canada (12), the UK (9), France (8), Finland (7), and Germany and Italy (6 each). Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, Egypt, India, Mexico and South Africa are the only southern countries with members holding the position of chair.
The committees with the largest number of countries represented are those of the National Libraries Section (34), Management of Library Associations Section (30), and Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression Advisory Committee (29). Since there is generally one national library per country, this accounts for the National Libraries Section being that with the largest number of countries. Academic and Research Libraries results from the fact that these types of library tend to have the most resources and employ the most professionals. And finally, the Management of Library Associations Section is related to countries’ librarian associations.
Discussion
For the organization of the discussion of the results, I start from what is illustrated in Table 5.
General research notes.
The highlight at the regional level is Europe. It is the countries of this region that have the largest number of affiliated associations and institutions (438), including representations in IFLA (31). This helps to account for the fact that, since 1927, 15 European presidents have been elected and 60 WLICs have been held in European cities.
The USA has the largest number of affiliated associations and institutions, and therefore also the largest number of representatives in IFLA. It has a strong advocacy for libraries that is exemplary for others; the American Library Association (2022) has almost 50,000 members. The USA's interest in global librarianship activities can be found as early as 1877 in its participation in the founding of the British Library Association. Almost 20 years later, Melvil Dewey, president of the American Library Association, hoped that the association's congress could be increasingly international (Mohrhardt, 1977).
South Africa and Botswana stand out as the only countries from the Global South with a presidency in IFLA. There is no representation from Latin America and the Caribbean among the 23 presidents, and only Gloria Pérez-Salmerón had Spanish as her native language, which was considered a very positive approach by Latin American and Caribbean countries.
A better distribution of the regions is noticeable on the Governing Board. It is important to consider that a member may have been re-elected, and so was counted again, as is the case with Australia, Brazil, Mexico and other countries where the same people have served two consecutive terms.
With regard to the WLIC, the countries that hosted the event the most were Denmark, England, France, Italy and the USA (five times each). Rome and Copenhagen were the cities that hosted the event the most times (four each). It is also possible to observe representation from South Global regions, such as Kuala Lumpur (2018), Cape Town (2015), Singapore (2013), San Juan (2011), Durban (2007), Seoul (2006), Buenos Aires (2004), Jerusalem (2000), Bangkok (1999), Beijing (1996), Havana (1994), New Delhi (1992), Nairobi (1984) and Manila (1980). As mentioned earlier, organizing the Congress requires stable political and socio-economic conditions, with an infrastructure that is suitable for hosting international events and a strong national library association. The full set of these features is often difficult to find in Global South countries, especially in terms of finance.
An IFLA Section's mandate is generally represented by an average of 20 countries. When analysing the mandates selected for this research (since 2015), the number can vary from 10 (such as the Indigenous Matters Section and the Africa Division) to 34 countries (such as the National Libraries Section).
It is interesting to note that not all countries that have institutions affiliated with IFLA have representation in the groups. This is the case of Albania, Andorra, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, Curaçao, Dominican Republic, Faroe Islands, Gambia, Georgia, Gibraltar, Greenland, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Malawi, the Maldives, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, North Korea, North Macedonia, Panama, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tuvalu, Ukraine and the Vatican City.
The distribution of the data on the structure of IFLA, the countries that hosted the WLIC and the nationality of the presidencies demonstrates a strong predominance of the Global North. Jordan (1954) stated that several initiatives failed or were merely symbolic, even with work with organizations such as UNESCO and FID (Fédération Internationale de Documentation) on behalf of Global South libraries. Jordan explained that it was necessary to have better planned work that understood the nature of regional problems. Allied to this, there was the problem of the passage of two World Wars, which brought about a great impasse in international politics and the dialogue between nations – in other words, a very fragile socio-economic context (Campbell, 2002).
It was 50 years after its foundation that IFLA created initiatives that paid attention to the countries of the Global South – most notably, the Working Group for Developing Countries (Parker, 1977). At the time, of the 350 positions in the IFLA structure, only 22 were held by librarians from that region, which led to the creation of the Division for Regional Activities. It was a milestone for the time that culminated in programmes for regional development, the emergence of regional offices (Parker, 1977) and the first steps towards what is now understood as the IFLA Regional Divisions.
Conclusion
In the 96 years of its existence, IFLA has been considered the ‘global voice of libraries’. Its structure has been consolidated into Sections, Regional Divisions, Special Interest Groups, Advisory Committees, a Governing Board and the staff at its headquarters in The Hague. This allows IFLA to reach different types of libraries and subfields of librarianship. However, regional diversity is still a challenge to be overcome. In a blunt letter to Pierre Bourgeois, the IFLA president, Ranganathan (1954), an Indian professor, stated that IFLA's vision of what was meant by ‘international’ stopped with Western Europe and North America. Thus, Ranganathan indicated that there should be more representation in the decision-making groups, avoiding a colonialist attitude.
The data from this survey shows a predominance of Global North countries, especially European ones, which may stem from the historical factors around IFLA (its establishment in Edinburgh, the headquarters moving to The Hague in the Netherlands in the 1970s, and the first congresses being held in European cities). In a way, this data shows that Ranganathan's concern nearly 70 years ago remains.
The absence of Latin American countries, for example, in certain IFLA Sections may be detrimental to the regional development of the field. The Education and Training Section is one example. 3 It seeks to work around ‘new professional competencies and tools for the development of librarians in an ever-changing information age’ (IFLA Education and Training Section, 2022), and there is no representation from Latin America. This may indicate discussions around professional profiles, training curricula and theoretical frameworks centred on realities that have little to do with Latin America and the Caribbean.
The Indigenous Matters Section is another example where the presence of Latin American countries would be important, since its goal is to promote international cooperation between libraries, and culture, knowledge and information services to indigenous communities (IFLA Indigenous Matters Section, 2022). According to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (2015), mainly South American countries have made different efforts on behalf of indigenous peoples, from census mapping to the preservation of their cultural practices.
When it is not in the Regional Divisions, the participation by Global South countries requires support during the election period, knowledge of the English language, and the availability to travel to mid-year meetings and to the WLIC. In addition, those countries compete with professionals from countries that may have more recognition in certain subjects.
IFLA has always been aware of this context with regard to Global South countries. Recent efforts to minimize it can be highlighted in the Building Strong Library Associations programme and the International Advocacy Programme. The first was dedicated to the strengthening and sustainability of library associations, as they are seen a strong points for the representation of their countries (IFLA, 2016). The second brought advocacy activities carried out by libraries around the world to include them in national development plans for the implementation of the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 (IFLA, 2017). Both projects worked well in the past and should be taken up again.
More recently, IFLA has been working to broaden the diversity of countries in its groups. Since the 2020 election, based on the results obtained from the process called ‘IFLA's Global Vision’, which structured the new governance system, it is not possible to have more than two people from the same country in the same Regional Division. However, this decision alone does not prevent certain Sections from having a predominance of only one region, as is most often the case with Europe. It would be necessary to make it mandatory that all regions be represented among the 20 members that are elected.
There are other options inspired by, but not limited to, Ranganathan (1954). One that could be incorporated, at least in the discussions within the Sections, is for IFLA to guide and monitor how each Standing Committee treats regional diversity in its discussions. Internal guidelines and tool kits could be used in this regard. Broadening the number of official languages could also be a way forward, bringing in those that are most widely spoken instead of keeping only to those of the countries with the most paying members. As for the membership aspect, differentiated values should be applied, not only following the UNESCO Scale of Assessment and the United Nations’ List of Least Developed Countries, but also observing more closely the financial reality of each country. The practice of sponsorship between institutions could also help, so that more members from countries in the Global South can participate.
During the research, it was identified that there are many countries with IFLA-affiliated institutions but without any representation in the groups. Future research is recommended to analyse the reasons why small countries (such as the Nordic countries) have large representation in IFLA and other larger countries (such as Ukraine and Israel) are not part of the groups that make up the institution's structure. I also suggest comparing the populations of the countries in terms of the number of affiliated members and libraries to identify the strength of the profession in each.
Nearing its 100th anniversary, IFLA will remain an institution of global relevance. Its challenges are typical of organizations of this size, but its work to extend its regionality does not depend exclusively on itself, but also on the regional interest of librarians. Advocacy for libraries goes beyond institutional boundaries and should be seen as an opportunity and a duty for all professionals.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
