How to Allocate Public Funding to Nongovernmental Development Organizations

Abstract

The Dutch co-financing system for nongovernmental development organizations (NGDOs) is unique in Europe. Almost a quarter of public development aid is channeled through a selective group of NGDOs that have to satisfy a broad range of institutional and operational criteria. The procedures for defining the eligibility of these co-financing organizations have recently been streamlined to enhance competition and to guarantee more objective fund allocation. This article provides a critical review of the current system for allocating public funding to private development organizations and discusses the criteria used for comparing institutional performance and assessing the quality of submitted multiyear co-funding requests. Even though important progress has been made in cross-organizational appraisal of development agencies, the operationalization of selected indicators still suffers from ambiguities and arbitrary weighing procedures. Past performance and demand-side criteria are not yet considered, thus reducing the potential relevance of the assessment system for improving the effectiveness of development projects.

Keywords

public co-financing NGOs agency selection development cooperation Netherlands

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adler, M. , & Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing into the oracle. Bristol , UK: Jessica Kinsley.

Adviescommissie MFP. (2003). Breed uitgemeten: Eindrapport van de Adviescommissie Medefinancieringsprogramma breed [Final report Advisory Committee Broad Co-Financing Program). The Hague: MFP.

Adviescommissie MFS. (2006). Quality in development: Final report Advisory Committee Co-Financing System (MFS). The Hague: MFS.

Agg, C. (2006). Trends in government support for non-governmental organizations: Is the "golden age" of the NGO behind us? (Civil Society and Social Movements Program Paper No. 23). Geneva: UNRISD.

Bebbington, T. , & Mitlin, D. (1996). The NGO sector and its role in strengthening civil society and securing good governance. London: IIED.

Carrothers, T. (2006). The backlash against democracy promotion. Foreign Affairs, 85(2), 55-68.

Cassen, R. (1994). Does aid work? Report to an intergovernmental task force (2nd ed.). Oxford , UK: Clarendon.

Cidin. (2006). The added value of the theme-based co-financing program TMF. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Centre for International Development Issues Nijmegen .

Collier, P. , & Dollar, D. (1999). Aid allocation and poverty reduction (Policy Research Working Paper No. 2041). Washington, DC: World Bank.

10.

Crackwell, B.E. (2000). Evaluating development aid: Issues, problems and solutions. New Delhi: Sage.

11.

De Ruijter. (2006). Evaluation of the theme-based co-financing program (TMF) of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Utrecht, Netherlands: TMF Steering Committee.

12.

Dgis. (2001). Civil society and poverty reduction [Policy paper]. The Hague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Directorate General for International Cooperation.

13.

Dgis. (2003). Mutual interests, mutual responsibilities [Policy paper]. The Hague: Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Directorate General for International Cooperation.

14.

Dgis. (2006). Kamerbrief inzake uitwerking van maatschappijopbouw in het MFS en beleidskader lokaal actieve NGO's [Letter to Parliament regarding the effects of civil society building in the co-financing program and policy framework for locally active NGOs] . The Hague: DGIS.

15.

Downs, G.W. , Rocke, D.M. , & Barsoom, P.N. (1996). Is the good news about compliance good news about co-operation? International Organisation, 50(3), 379-406.

16.

Edwards, M. (2004). Civil society. Cambridge, UK: Polity .

17.

Edwards, M. , & Hulme, D. (2002). NGO performance and accountability: Introduction and overview. In M. Edwards & A. Fowler (Eds.), Earthscan reader on NGO management (pp. 187-203). London: Earthscan .

18.

Fowler, A. (2005). Aid architecture: Reflections on NGDO futures and the emergence of counter-terrorism (Occasional Paper No. 45). Oxford: INTRAC .

19.

Gibson, C.S. , Andersson, K. , Ostrom, E. , & Shivakumar, S. (2005). The samaritan's dilemma: The political economy of development aid. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

20.

Hulme, D. , & Edwards, M. (1997). NGOs, states and donors: Too close for comfort . New York: St. Martin's.

21.

Kaul, I. (2006). Exploring the policy space between markets and states: Global public-private partnerships. In I. Kaul & P. Conceicao (Eds.), The new public finance: Responding to global challenges (pp. 219-268). New York: Oxford University Press for UNDP.

22.

Koch, G.J. , Westeneng, J. , & Ruben, R. (2007). Does marketisation of aid reduce country poverty-targeting of private aid agencies? European Journal of Development Research , 19(4), 635-656.

23.

Lister, S. (2004). The future of international NGOs: New challenges in a changing world order [Working paper]. London: BOND.

24.

Meyer, B.D. (1995). Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13(2), 151-161.

25.

Piciotto, R. (1995). Putting institutional economics at work (World Bank Discussion Paper No. 304). Washington, DC: World Bank.

26.

Schulpen, L. , & Hoebink, P. (2001). Development cooperation through private development organizations: The co-financing Organizations in Perspective. In L. Schulpen (Ed.), Aid in development: Building blocks for the future of international cooperation [in Dutch] (pp. 159-192). Assen, Netherlands: van Gorcum.

27.

Wallace, T. (with Bornstein, L. , & Chapman, J. ) (2006). The aid chain: Coercion and commitment in development NGOs. Warwickshire: ITDG.