1 NOHA Groningen University Faculty of Arts March 2010 Master thesis By Birke Loonen S1837656 Supervised by Dr. Liesbet Heyse
To Make the World an Accountable Place
2
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ... 6
Chapter 2 Private Initiatives ... 11
2.1.1 Private Initiatives: What and Who are they? ...12
2.1.1.1 Organizational characteristics of private initiatives ...12
2.1.1.2 Objectives private initiatives ... 13
2.1.1.3 Vision private initiatives on development and humanitarian aid ... 13
2.1.1.4 Thematic work field of private initiatives ... 13
2.1.1.5 Geographic work field of private initiatives ...14
2.1.2 Private Initiatives: A Classification ...14
2.1.2.1 Development aid versus humanitarian aid ...16
2.1.3 Reasons and Triggers for the Establishment of Private Initiatives ... 17
2.1.4 Contributions of Private Initiatives ... 18
2.1.4.1 Public support ...19
2.1.4.2 Practical contributions ...19
2.1.5 Funding Private Initiatives ...19
2.1.6 The Attitude of Private Initiatives Towards Different Funding Canals ...21
2.1.7 Private Initiatives: Discussion and Conclusion...21
Chapter 3 Legitimacy and Accountability ... 23
3.1 Legitimacy: An Introduction ... 24
3.2 Accountability: An Introduction ... 27
3.2.1 Defining accountability ... 28
3.2.2 Potential effects of accountability ... 30
3.2.3 Main drivers of accountability ... 32
3.2.4 Accountable, to whom? ... 33
3.2.5 Accountability relationships: the different types ... 37
3.2.6 Organizational strategies and accountability ...41
3.2.7 Core accountability mechanisms ... 44
3.2.8 Private initiatives and accountability: existing data ... 45
3.3 Legitimacy and Accountability: Discussion and Conclusion... 47
Chapter 4 Methodology ... 51
4.1 Data and Methods ... 51
4.1.1 Research strategy ... 51
3
4.1.3 Sample ... 51
4.1.4 Validity and reliability ... 52
4.2 Content Questionnaire ... 53
4.2.1 What are the organizational characteristics of Dutch private initiatives? ... 53
4.2.2 In theory, what is accountability and what is its importance in the aid sector? ... 54
4.2.3 How do private initiatives perceive the concept of accountability? ... 55
4.2.4 What are the mechanism private initiatives employ to ensure accountability? ... 56
4.3 Statistical Data Analysis ... 57
4.3.1 Descriptive analysis ... 57
4.3.2 Coding qualitative data ... 57
4.3.3 Parametric techniques ... 58
4.3.4 Non-parametric technique... 58
Chapter 5 Results Organizational Characters of PIs ... 60
5.1 Year of establishment PI ... 60
5.2 Countries where PIs operate ... 60
5.3 Main reason for establishment PI ...61
5.4 Aid support as key task ...61
5.5 Importance of religion ... 62
5.6 Type of PI ... 62
5.7 Main goals PIs ... 63
5.8 Main themes of PIs support ... 63
5.9 Number of employees ... 64
5.10 Average age of employees ... 64
5.11 Main source of income PIs ... 65
5.12 Average annual income ... 65
Chapter 6 Results Accountability and Accountability Mechanism ... 67
6.1 The Perception of PIs on the Concept of Accountability ... 67
6.1.1 Definition of accountability ... 67
6.1.2 Identification stakeholders... 68
6.1.3 Level of importance of being accountable ... 69
6.1.4 Perceived reasons for the level of importance of being accountable ... 73
6.1.5 The perceived type of accountability relationship ... 75
6.2 Mechanisms PIs Employ to Ensure Accountability ... 78
4
6.2.2 Accountability tools ... 79
6.2.3 Conclusion ... 82
6.3 Relation between Organizational Strategy and Perception on Accountability ... 82
6.3.1 Organizational strategy and definitions of accountability ... 83
6.3.2 Organizational strategy and importance of being accountable ... 83
Chapter 7 Discussion and Conclusion ... 88
7.1 Organizational Characteristics of PIs ... 88
7.2 Accountability and PIs ... 92
7.2.2 Perception on accountability ... 94
7.2.3 Accountability mechanisms and tools ... 101
7.2.4 Organizational strategy and perception on accountability ... 103
7.3 Conclusion ... 105
7.4 Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research ... 107
Epilogue ... 109
Appendix I ... 111
5
List of Abbreviations
CIDIN Centre for International Development Issues Nijmegen COS Centrum voor Internationale Samenwerking
IMF International Monetary Fund
INGO(s) International Non-Governmental Organization(s)
NCDO National Committee for International Cooperation and Sustainable Development
NGO(s) Non-Governmental Organization(s) MDGs Millennium Development Goals MFOs Co-financing Organizations PI(s) Private Initiative(s)
UN United Nations
6
Chapter 1 Introduction
Bilateral and multilateral aid, as well as aid provided by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) – the so-called civilateral aid – is currently broadly criticized for being not effective and efficient enough (Ebrahim, 2003). Due to increased prominence and greater influence of aid organizations there has been a rapid growth in discussions about their legitimacy, actual contribution and overall effectiveness of their work. Consequently, within the aid arena an increasing pressure on organizations to demonstrate and improve their performance can be identified.
In the aid arena a new group of actors – the private initiatives (PIs) – has emerged. PIs are relatively small, in terms of employees as well as financials, often operate on the basis of volunteers, and are not very domain specific (Develtere & Stessens, 2006; Kinsbergen, 2007). Recent estimations by the Centre for International Development Issues Nijmegen (CIDIN) show that the number of Dutch private initiatives lies somewhere between the 6.000 and 10.000 (Kinsbergen, 2007). It is often argued that PIs find their origin partly in the negative images that exist, regarding the public sector in general and traditional aid providers such as NGOs and governments in particular (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005; Kinsbergen, 2007; Schulpen, 2007). PIs often argue that the provision of multilateral, bilateral and civilateral aid as well as aid provided by established NGOs is not efficient, effective and transparent enough and, moreover, looses too much money on overhead costs (Kinsbergen, 2007).
7
As PIs raise the issue that traditional aid organizations do not sufficiently show what the meaning and impact of their work is, it is to be expected that PIs are much better in showing what they actually do and contribute. To fulfill this promise PIs must themselves grapple with clarifying their legitimacy as actors in the aid arena and with their accountabilities to key stakeholders to ensure that they contribute to development and decrease human suffering.
Whilst executing their missions, PIs make promises to their donors to live up to specific purposes. However, PIs also make promises to other actors in the field, such as to beneficiaries, partnerorganizations, governments and staff members. When the claims of all different stakeholders are aligned, there is no difficulty, but when stakeholders have contradictory or different interests, being fully accountable to all different stakeholders is impossible (Brown & Jagadananda, 2009). For aid organizations it is often difficult to identify stakeholders who have primacy in their accountability claims, as the consequences of decisions are great: a lack of accountability to donors, will dry up funding sources; no accountability to regulators, may revoke charters; without accountability to beneficiaries, services may not be used; a lack of accountability to staff and volunteers might trigger the erosion of the operational capacity; and no accountability towards members and political constituents may undermine the credibility of organizations (Brown & Jagadananda, 2007).
The concept of accountability has been defined in many ways and generally implies elements of acting responsible, taking responsibilities and showing that one can be held responsible (Brown & Jagadananda, 2007; Brown & Moore, 2001; Ebrahim, 2003; Wenar, 2006). In comparison with the general contextual expectations that shape legitimacy of aid organizations, accountability may focus on specific claims – such as financial accounting and assessing delivered services – and are therefore more subject to direct influence by organizations than legitimacy perceptions.
Accountability involves a relationship between two or more actors (Brown & Jagadananda, 2007; Brown & Moore; Raynard, 2000; Sikkema, 2003). There are different types of accountability relationships and organizations might have different accountability relationships with their different stakeholders (Brown & Jagadananda, 2007).
8
The Global Accountability Project identifies four core accountability mechanisms that are critical to managing accountability claims. These mechanisms – transparency, participation, evaluation and complaints and redress mechanisms – are starting points for accountability management strategies with internal and external stakeholders (Brown & Jagadananda, 2007).
Since the issue of accountability gains more and more importance and as the number of PIs is rapidly increasing, it is essential to develop an understanding of the concept of accountability for PIs and the ways the notion of accountability is imbedded in their working strategies. Does the same count for PIs as is the case for traditional aid organizations? So, do PIs with different organizational strategies employ different accountability structures? And do PIs maintain different accountability relations with their different stakeholders? Consequently, the following research question arises:
What is the perception of Dutch private initiatives on the concept of accountability, what are the current mechanisms private initiatives employ to ensure accountability and how is the organizational strategy of private initiatives related to their perception on accountability?
To answer this research question, five different sub questions are formulated.
As not much is known about PIs, this study first of all gives insights in the organizational characteristics of PIs. Who are they? What do they do? And why do they do it? As such, the first sub question studied in this research is:
What are the organizational characteristics of Dutch private initiatives?
Although there is widespread sense about the meaning of accountability, it is a term on which it is difficult to come to an agreement when putting it into practice. Furthermore, the perceived importance of accountable behavior is not unambiguous. Therefore, accountability should be critically discussed in terms of its actual meaning importance within the aid arena. Hence, the following sub question arises:
In theory, what is accountability and what is its importance within the aid sector?
9
definition of accountability as given by PIs; perceived importance of being accountable; main drivers of accountability; and accountability relationship with different stakeholders.
The third sub question studied in this research is:
How do private initiatives perceive the concept of accountability?
PIs might employ different mechanism to ensure accountability towards their different stakeholders. To research the use of transparency/evaluation mechanisms, participation mechanisms and complaints and redress mechanisms by PIs the following sub question is formulated:
What are the current mechanism private initiatives employ to ensure accountability?
For the purpose of this study the organizational strategies of PIs are classified as service-delivery, capacity building and (political)lobbying. As the organizational strategy of traditional aid providers is related to different accountability structures, it is researched within this study whether the organizational strategy of a PI is related to its perception on accountability. Figure 1 exposes the conceptual framework regarding this part of the research.
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework Definition of
accountability Perceived importance of being accountable
Perception on accountability Service-delivery PIs Capacity building
PIs (Political)lobby PIS
Organizational strategy
Main drivers
10
Based on the above, the last sub question formulated in this research is the following:
Is there a relation between the organizational strategy of private initiatives and their perception on accountability?
This study is aimed to increase and expand the current understanding of the role PIs play in the area of aid support. It is essentially not an evaluating study of the work of PIs, rather this study has an explorative character and aims at first-fact finding, which is important since the existing knowledge of the context in which PIs operate is limited. This study is conducted with the main aim of increasing the understanding of the concept of accountability for PIs, by identifying the perceptions on the concept of accountability and its importance within the humanitarian aid arena. Furthermore, this study aims to obtain insights in the ways accountability is embedded in the working strategy of Dutch PIs.
Better insights in the issues regarding the perceptions of PIs on accountability are first of all of scientific use, as the current knowledge regarding accountability in the context of PIs and the aid support they provide is very limited. Since accountability is closely related to legitimacy, better insights in the concept of accountability increases the understanding of legitimacy within the context of PIs. Furthermore, this study gives insights in the working strategies of PIs and in the ways PIs perceive the importance of being accountable towards different actors. Yet, this study increases the understanding about the relationships and power differences between different actors within the aid arena. Since this study also identifies the employed mechanisms by PIs to ensure accountability, increased insights about the latter are provided through this research. Better insights create the opportunity to formulate appropriate recommendations for policy designers, donors and PIs on their „best practices‟.
11
Chapter 2 Private Initiatives
Recent studies showed increasing support for international cooperation by non-traditional actors, the so called private initiatives. However, very little is known about these actors. Who are they? What do they do? Why do they do it? What are the problems they face? This chapter focuses on the numbers and figures of Dutch private initiatives, their motives and vision and the role they play in international cooperation – in terms of practical aid delivery, as well in terms of raising awareness. Currently, there are not many academic studies, focusing on private initiatives, their organizational characteristics, missions and visions, available. The following is drawn from the small number of available studies of PIs conducted in The Netherlands and Belgium.
From the end of the Cold War onwards, a great proliferation of humanitarian organizations can be identified. Within the broad range of different organizations offering humanitarian aid in the contemporary world, four different pillars of organizational types can be distinguished. The first pillar, so called bilateral aid, involves aid which is given by the government of one country directly to another. The second pillar, multilateral aid, includes aid which is given from the government of a country to an international agency, such as the United Nations (UN), World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), whom are generally governed by the contributing countries. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also play a major role is distributing humanitarian aid, and as such they form the third pillar. Although Aid NGOs are a heterogeneous group, it can be said that they are all non-profit and essentially operate independent from local, national or international governments. Examples of important Dutch NGOs are Cordaid, Icco and Oxfam Novib. Currently, the fourth pillar – the so called private initiatives – is growing and becoming more and more important (Develtere & Stressens, 2006). See Box 1 for more information.
It seems that individual civilians, companies, corporations and civil organizations all want to contribute to international cooperation by doing „something‟ to make the world a better place. Important to note in this regard is that they primarily want to „do it‟ by their selves (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005). More and more often non-traditional actors initiate their own (small scale) organization which focuses on development and/or humanitarian aid. Consequently, the domain of development assistance is no longer an activity solely executed by governments and established NGOs.
12
humanitarian aid, exist (NCDO, 2005). This number implies that on average four initiatives on every 10.000 inhabitants are organized.
2.1.1 Private Initiatives: What and Who are they?
In the following section the organizational characteristic of PIs, their objectives, as well as their thematic and geographic work field is described.
2.1.1.1 Organizational characteristics of private initiatives
The group of PIs within the development and humanitarian aid arena is, as well as the group of NGOs – the so called third pillar – characterized by strong diversity. Hence, clear criteria to distinct PIs from other organizations, active in the area of development and humanitarian work, do not exist. However, important organizational characteristics of fourth pillar organizations are that they are relatively small, in terms of employees as well as financials. On average PIs exist of five to ten people (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2004). The annual turnover of 40% of the PIs is lower than 20.000 Euros, where an equal percentage of the group of PIs has an annual turnover somewhere between the 20.000 and 100.000 Euros. A small number of PIs – about 15% - has an annual turnover above the 100.000 Euros (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2004). PIs often operate on the basis of volunteers, and are not very domain specific (Develtere & Stessens, 2006; Kinsbergen, 2007), implying that they have different focus areas and not solely focus on one area of international cooperation.
According to Bouzoubaa & Brok (2005), PIs can, in general, be subdivided in two different organizational forms. Firstly, there are PIs who perceive development and/or humanitarian aid delivery as their main task and who are established with the main aim to execute this task. This first group of PIs can be further distinguished into independent organizations and organizations connected to national organizations1. The second group of PIs contains existing
organizations who, originally, do not perceive development and/or humanitarian assistance as their main task, but rather focus on development and/or humanitarian aid delivery besides the execution of their core activities. Examples of the latter are companies, educational institutions and churches that focus on development and/or humanitarian aid in addition to their main goals.
As described before, the major part of the Dutch PIs exists of five to ten volunteers, and almost all PIs fall into the category of small corporation – which has a maximum of fifty employees (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005). One-third of the PIs have a more or less equal division in terms of the gender of staff members. Yet, in general more men than women are active
1 These organizations often do not execute their own projects, but rather support bigger national organizations.
13
within PIs. More than 50% of the staff of PIs is older than the age of fifty, 66% percent is older than forty years, and 1.7% of the employees is younger than 20 (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005). The major part of the PIs – almost 66% - says to operate on the basis of non-religious principles (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005). Of the PIs who do operate on the basis of religion, the majority is Christian (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005).
PIs are mainly funded by donations of individuals and approximately half of the PIs have fixed people or organizations who financially contribute to their work (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005). Secondly, allowances and funds of civil organizations are important sources of income. Moreover, money obtained from organized activities, collections, sales and sponsoring by companies provide income for PIs.
Although PIs are widely diverse in terms of organizational characteristics, mission, vision and finances, a general picture can be drawn. The major part of the PIs is initiated in the last ten years. An average PI exists for approximately five years and receives on an annual basis 50.264 Euros from donors and private individuals (CIDIN, 2008).
2.1.1.2 Objectives private initiatives
Bouzoubaa & Brok (2005) showed in their study that for the majority of PIs the main objective is to improve the living standards and conditions of people in development countries. Furthermore, a great part of the PIs perceives the provision of support as their organizational goal. In this latter context, the activity of the PI is brought forward as the aim of the organization (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005). Bouzoubaa & Brok (2005) argue that in the latter situation the objective of an organization is based on the existence of the organization itself.
2.1.1.3 Vision private initiatives on development and humanitarian aid
The PIs that are researched in the study of Bouzoubaa & Brok (2005) are of the opinion that local participation and ownership are of high significance within aid projects. In the context of poverty alleviation, fair trade is seen as an important aspect. Furthermore, technical assistance is positively considered by PIs.
2.1.1.4 Thematic work field of private initiatives
14
Dutch Ministry of Development Cooperation2. The activities that are undertaken by the PIs
are diverse, and include but are not restricted to (re)construction, infrastructure, education, water supply, health care, support for children, employment, microcredit projects, delivery of fabrics, transport, emancipation and construction of civil society (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005).
2.1.1.5 Geographic work field of private initiatives
PIs are active in many different areas, countries and regions in the world. Bouboubaa & Brok (2005) found in their study that approximately 56.6% of the PIs operate in Africa; 26.7% in Asia; 25.7% in Latin America; 9.4% in Eastern Europe; and 2.4% in the Middle East. Again, these geographic work fields are in consistence with the priority areas of the Dutch Ministry of Development Cooperation.
2.1.2 Private Initiatives: A Classification
The fourth pillar – or the so called „new actors‟ – of aid support, as discussed before, is very diverse, consisting for example out of support groups for missionaries or volunteers, health insurance organizations, private companies, trade unions, schools, health care institutions, youth or migrant organizations and local authorities. The „new actor‟ channel can be divided, according to the findings of Beerends & Broere (2004) as presented by Schulpen (2007), into five different types. The first group exists of (semi) government organizations, such as police and local councils. The second group of actors are not-for-profit institutions, focusing for instance on health campaigns, and the third group is formed by migrants‟ organizations. The fourth group of new actors are private companies and banks. What these four groups of different actors have in common is that they all contribute to aid support but do not see this as their key task. The fifth and last group of new actors constitutes of organizations who perceive aid support as their key task and have been set up specifically to fulfill that task, the so called „active (groups of) citizens‟. PIs belong to this last group and consist of citizens who, often but not necessarily are organized in groups and are truly active in striving for a better world (Schulpen, 2007). The group of PIs is widely diverse and can be, according to Schulpen (2007), roughly distinguished into six different types (Table 1).
The (political) lobby groups include for example anti-globalists who protest against the international policy of the IMF, or groups of people who advocate for equal power relations between men and women. Type 2 consists of groups of active citizens who focus on raising funds (and goods) which they donate to other aid organizations. So, this type is itself not
2 Dutch Development policies mainly focus on education, health care, gender issues and water supply. The
15
involved in the actual implementation of aid interventions. For example, these fundraising groups were very active after the Tsunami that hit the shore of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and India in 2001. The type 3 initiatives, the philanthropists, consist of a group of wealthy citizens who actively contribute to the good goal sector – they are in other words the „rich ones‟, or the „happy few‟ (Schulpen, 2007, p. 9). Type 4, the volunteers, consists of people who voluntarily work in aid projects for any duration of time. The fifth group of PIs, consists of private citizens who (financially) support a specific individual (or family) in a developing country/disaster area. Type 6, the development organizations consists of groups of active citizens who are involved in concrete individual-exceeding development interventions (Schulpen, 2007).
Type3 Description
1 (political) lobby groups Private citizens who (in the Netherlands or abroad) try to influence international policy with regard to developing countries and international cooperation.
2 Fundraising activities Private citizens who set up fund raising activities for development interventions supported and/or implemented by others, such as traditional NGOs or PIs of type 6.
3 Philanthropists Wealthy citizens active in the good goal sector often with their own organization and programme(s).
4 Volunteers Private citizens who work as temporary development and/or humanitarian worker in a development country/disaster area, with an aid organization.
5 Individual sponsoring Private citizens who (financially) support a specific individual (or family) in a developing country/disaster area.
6 Development organizations Private citizens who are directly linked (for funding, expertise and/or implementation) to concrete development interventions in developing countries which cover more than one individual or family.
Source: Adapted from Schulpen (2007): Private Initiatives – A Taxonomy. Table 1 Classification Private Initiatives
Schulpen and Kinsbergen (2010) state that although the group of PIs is widely diverse in terms of main focus, vision and mission, regarding the ways to solve poverty the organizational strategies of PIs are rather the same. Yet, Schulpen and Kinsbergen (2010) introduce three different organizational strategies of PIs to reduce poverty, namely
16
(political)lobbying, capacity building and service-delivery. This typology is in accordance
with the topology of the organizational strategies of INGO as examined by Brown and Moore (2001) and Ebrahim (2003) which are in turn based on typologies formulated by Uphoff (1996) and Vakil (1997). The typology of PIs as discussed by Schulpen and Kinsbergen (2010) shows that the organizational strategies of PIs to alleviate poverty are the same as those executed by INGOs. Although Develtere and Stressens (2006) state that clear criteria to distinct PIs from other aid organizations do not exist, PIs do differ from (I)NGOs in terms of for example size, scope and finances. However, the above implies that the organizational strategies PIs apply to alleviate poverty are the same as those executed by (I)NGOs. Consequently, for the purpose of this study, the organizational strategies of PIs are examined according the typology of INGOs and PIs as introduced by respectively Brown and Moore (2003) and Schulpen and Kinsbergen (2010).
2.1.2.1 Development aid versus humanitarian aid
PIs are mainly seen as actors in the development sector, rather than in the humanitarian arena. However, as Schulpen (2007) argues, the work of PIs often seems to be more concerned with providing structural relief support than with sustainable poverty alleviation. Although humanitarian and development aid are often perceived as two dissimilar activities, both are also seen as two interchangeable concepts.
17
of relief support. Both humanitarian and development projects attempt to transform resources drawn from rich individuals into permanent benefits for those living in poverty or undergoing human suffering. In the context of this study, PIs are classified in terms of their specific activities, rather than as development or humanitarian actors. Consequently, PIs are in this study referred to as aid support organizations.
2.1.3 Reasons and Triggers for the Establishment of Private Initiatives
Research on reasons and motives to start PIs is relatively scarce. However, there are a handful of studies that focused on this particular question. In these studies several explanations for the emergence of PIs are presented. The Donateursvereniging states that the rising number of PIs reflects changes in society at large. In this context increased communication possibilities, growing individualism and de-segregation of Dutch society are often pointed out as such societal developments leading to increased active engagement (Develtere & Stressens, 2006 as discussed by Schulpen, 2007). Globalization is seen as the most important catalyst of the growing number of private initiatives (Develtere & Stessens, 2006). For instance, the growth in communication possibilities made people increasingly aware that they are world citizens, that their actions also have consequences in other parts of the world and that a large part of the world population lives in poverty. This triggered and still triggers active engagement of people in the arena of international cooperation. Meanwhile, this „socialization of international cooperation‟ is facilitated and strengthened by a government that stresses the responsibility of citizens and creates subsidy mechanisms to support those people who want to take this responsibility (Schulpen, 2007).
Another type of explanation is that PIs find their origin partly in the negative images that exist, regarding the public sector in general and traditional aid providers such as NGOs and governments in particular (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005; Kinsbergen, 2007; Schulpen, 2007). One often argues that the provision of multilateral and bilateral aid as well as aid provided by established NGOs is not transparent enough and looses too much money on overhead costs (Kinsbergen, 2007). Moreover, PIs often state that NGOs and government systems are not efficient and effective enough in providing development and humanitarian aid (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005; Kinsbergen, 2007). However, this negative image concerning the work strategies of NGOs and government systems is in the majority of cases not the direct reason to initiate own projects, and as such different factors seem to play a bigger role (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005).
18
not in development cooperation, but that in the majority of cases PIs are initiated as a result of globalization (Develtere & Stessens, 2006). The growing number of people traveling the world whilst getting to know more about the world and its people in development countries, who often receive little support through official canals, triggers the development of PIs (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005; Kinsbergen, 2007). Moreover, the media increasingly confronts people with the living conditions in different parts of the world, which as a result triggers the initiation of PIs (Develtere & Stressens, 2006; Kinsbergen, 2007). So, people start PIs because they experience a „moral case for aid‟ and because of „some sense of responsibility or duty to help people suffering and in need‟ (Easterly, 2007 as quoted by Schulpen, 2007, p. 6). Despite the latter potential triggers for the establishment of PIs, the link between the emergence of PIs and the (negative) opinions about traditional development agencies remains wide open (Schulpen, 2007). Many people working for a PI already had affinity with development work before they started their work. For existing organizations who contribute by organizing aid related activities, the negative image regarding the work of established aid canals often does not play a great role. Yet, the initiation of their own PI is seen as their only opportunity to apply their expertise in the context of development countries (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005). Another reason to start a PI that is often given is that PI-initiators, confronted with a specific need contact traditional organizations, receive no support for their plans and ideas and consequently start their own organizations or project (Man & Van Hemert, 2006). Whilst taking personal motives of the staff of PIs into account, a feeling of solidarity is the most important factor for being active within the area of PIs. In the study of Bouzoubaa & Brok (2005) the majority of people state that they have a strong need to mean something for others, to contribute to the issue of poverty alleviation and to let others share in their own prosperity4. Furthermore, self-development is an important reason of initiators of PIs, even
as feelings of guilt (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005). Linked to the issue of globalization, the increasing number of people with contacts in different parts of the world, or with people who have experiences and contacts in other parts of the world, triggers the initiation of PIs (Develtere & Stressens, 2006; Kinsbergen, 2007).
2.1.4 Contributions of Private Initiatives
Whilst looking at the contribution of PIs in the area of development and humanitarian aid delivery, two contributing components of the work of PIs – creating and increasing public
4 In The Netherlands there is a big group of migrants actively involved in the work of PIs. The main reason for
19
support as well as contributing by practical activities – can be identified. Both components will be discussed here.
2.1.4.1 Public support
Besides actual and practical contributions of PIs, public support – making people more aware and conscious about the situation in the world – is an important aspect in the working strategy of PIs. Bouzoubaa & Brok (2005) argue that the key aim of creating public support is mainly to increase knowledge regarding development cooperation. In general, PIs are confident about their skills to raise public support (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005). However, PIs reach with their activities, which vary from workshops and school activities to sales and lectures, a big group of people who are already involved in aid delivery, and as a result public support is raised but not dispersed to other people. Despite the latter finding, Bouzoubaa & Brok (2005) argue that activities of PIs that focus on youth do indeed raise the awareness of those, others than already active and involved in development cooperation.
2.1.4.2 Practical contributions
The contribution of PIs to humanitarian and development aid is often critically discussed. There are many skeptics who state that PIs do not adequately take consequences of their actions into account. The people initiating a PI do, in the majority of the cases, not have a professional education in the sector nor experiences. Furthermore, it is often argued that PIs offer supply-driven rather than demand-driven support (Koch, 2007).
PIs are highly diverse and do run very different projects and activities. Yet, general statements concerning the contributions and effectiveness of the work of PIs is difficult. Instead, what can be argued is that the PIs provide the support that is not delivered by the professional sector. As such, the work of the professional aid sector and the PIs can be complementary.
2.1.5 Funding Private Initiatives
The funding of PIs comes from different sources. Where some PIs execute their projects and activities from funding solely obtained from private supporters, others apply for funding to official donors, or do both. The last two groups can be considered as the more „professional‟ volunteers. Currently (November, 2009)5, there are five Front Offices in The Netherlands
where PIs can apply for funding.
5 The Dutch national policies regarding international cooperation are currently subjected to different changes, as
20
By the order of the Dutch Ministry of Development Cooperation, five6 different co-financing
organizations – the so called medefinancieringsorganizaties (MFOs) – together with the NCDO formed an advisory committee in 2001. The main task of this advisory committee was to shape the ideas regarding the Front Office to promote PIs. As a result of the discussions within the advisory committee, the following steps were undertaken:
1. Six Front Offices were established at five cofinancing organizations – Cordaid; Hivos; ICCO; Novib; Plan Nederland – and at the NCDO.
The Front Offices were initiated with the aim to increase the participatory attitude of Dutch people towards development aid, and moreover, with the aim to actively recruit new PIs. At the Front Offices, PIs can apply for funding for their projects. As stated before there are currently five Front Offices left, namely Cordaid, Hivos, Impulsis Oxfam Novib and the NCDO.
2. A helpdesk that supports PIs with the development of their project proposals and applications to donors was established at the regional centers for international cooperation: the COSsen.
COS is a regional knowledge and expertise centre for development issues and international cooperation. The COSsen exist of a national organization (COS Nederland) and eleven regional offices. The regional offices are to a large extent independent from each other and from the national office. Moreover, the regional COS offices have their own responsibility for the recruitment of finances. In the majority of the cases, the funding for the regional offices comes from regional sources, such as provinces and local governments. The COSsen offer support to PIs by providing practical assistance regarding the formulation of project proposals, application for funding, organization of workshops and, moreover, by examine at which Front Office PIs best can apply. The COSsen receive funding for these activities from the NCDO.
3. Linkis was established.
The different parts of the project are brought together under the name Linkis, which means Laagdrempelige Initiatieven en Kontakt- en Informatiecentrum
21
Internationale Samenwerking. First of all the webpage, where the current four Front
Offices come together, www.linkis.nl was launched. The webpage provides information about how to apply for funding for small scale development projects. Furthermore, the webpage easily links visitors of the site to the Front Offices and to information about approved projects. The webpage also contains an „extranet‟, which is not visible for all visitors, where the Front Offices and the COSsen can exchange information. In addition to the former options, Linkis also provides two reflecting organs: a platform which deliberates on a strategic level and, a workgroup where executive staff comes together.
2.1.6 The Attitude of Private Initiatives Towards Different Funding Canals
The study of Bouzoubaa & Brok (2005) shows that the channels for funding are well known by PIs. The diversity of funds where PIs apply for funding are as a result substantial. Noteworthy is that of the number of PIs that apply for funding through the Front Offices, only a small part knows of the existence of Linkis (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005). The majority of PIs applies for funding because of the financial contribution. However, also the acknowledgement that PIs gain through admission of funding by well known organizations plays a role (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005). The PIs studied in the research of Bouzoubaa & Brok (2005) show that the fear to be influenced by donors is small. In general PIs positively judge the different funding channels available. Motivations given by PIs to not apply for funding are mainly concerned with the great amount of time the writing of project proposals, in order to get funding, takes (bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005).
The PIs that do not apply for funding through the official donor canals of one of the Front Offices, obtain their money from private supporters, and as a result the work of these PIs is hidden from the „control‟ of the Front Offices.
2.1.7 Private Initiatives: Discussion and Conclusion
22
23
Chapter 3
Legitimacy and Accountability
PIs have been at the centre of attention in the relief and development aid debate. While the actions of PIs are expanding, many are concerned by the actual contribution that PIs are adding to the aid arena. Where PIs were initially regarded as an expression of public support for international cooperation7 PIs seem to have gone through a process of „adulthood‟
(Schulpen, 2007). Important indicators of this maturity process are the streamlining of government subsidy through Linkis and the political statements regarding the importance of PIs in the context of public support and practical contributions in the South (Schulpen, 2007). The announcement by Koenders (2005) – the Dutch minister of development cooperation – that PIs are crucial for public support and therefore to set aside 50 million Euros for „public, societal, private and business initiatives that contribute to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)‟ can be (partly) regarded as the belief that PIs indeed contribute in the field of aid delivery (Schulpen, 2007). However, it is also argued that such political backing of PIs has everything to do with the search for public support for international cooperation (Samson, 2006 as discussed by Schulpen, 2007). In short the above implies that PIs are considered important by their supporters for two reasons, namely because PIs are considered crucial in the search for public support for international cooperation, and because PIs are considered important actors in the fight against poverty in the world. The claim that PIs contribute to public support seems to be the least controversial (Schulpen, 2007). However, Bouzoubaa & Brok (2005) showed in their study that PIs indeed contribute to strengthen public support, but do not broaden it.
The second claim, which includes that PIs deliver practical contributions in the context of the alleviation of poverty, is widely discussed. As stated before, where some see PIs as part of the solution to the problems of poverty in the world, others perceive PIs as part of the problem. Moreover, some argue that PIs focus on direct poverty reduction projects, but that for the achievement of structural development more is required (Termeer, 2005 as discussed by Schulpen, 2007). Furthermore, PIs are criticized for their focus on activities that are not executed by the professional organizations anymore and for the impression that they as „contributors‟ have the feeling they have something to offer and therefore often act as they „are in the driver seat‟ (Schulpen, 2007: 11). Moreover, it is often argued that PIs solely focus on countries that are listed as popular holiday destination, possibly neglecting much poorer countries. Although the claim that PIs focus on those activities, the professional organizations want to get rid of, it is also argued that PIs form, with their specific micro-level
24
activities, a „supplement‟ to the macro-level assistance provided by the other three aid channels. In other words, PIs fill the gap that is left open by the other three aid channels in their increased move away from direct poverty reduction projects (Schulpen, 2007).
Schulpen (2007) states that it can hardly be expected of PIs to contribute to goals such as good governance or fairer trade regimes, for the reason that PIs do not have the capacity, interest and/or means to engage in activities that move beyond concrete interventions within a specific time-frame, target group and locality. On the other hand, Schulpen (2007) assumes that PIs can be regarded as the ideal aid channel as they are often perceived as organizations who have strong relations with the local poor, as they provide services that other aid channels do not pay attention to and because PIs are viewed as important in creating legitimacy to international cooperation.
As stated before, it is often argued that PIs find their origin partly in the negative images that exist, regarding the public sector in general and traditional aid providers such as NGOs and governments in particular (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005; Kinsbergen, 2007; Schulpen, 2007). PIs regularly state that NGOs and government systems are not efficient and effective enough in providing development and humanitarian aid (Bouzoubaa & Brok, 2005; Kinsbergen, 2007). Accountability is increasingly coming under the political and media spotlight as well as internal examinations, as a way to justify and improve performance (Raynard, 2000) effectiveness and efficiency and, moreover, to initiate or enlarge the legitimacy of aid organizations and interventions. If PIs find their origin partly in the negative opinions about traditional aid agencies, it might be expected that PIs are much better at showing what they actually do and contribute. In order to research whether this is indeed the case, it is important to firstly tear apart the complexities of the concepts legitimacy and accountability and to describe examples of the growing array of systems and practices for responding to legitimacy and accountability challenges, as employed by aid agencies. This chapter gives insights in the currently available information and knowledge about legitimacy and accountability and, moreover, presents the (construction of the) conceptual framework and hypotheses for this study.
3.1 Legitimacy: An Introduction
25
organizations to be legitimate. One way to acquire legitimacy is by being accountable. Ebrahim (2003) argues that high costs of administration, operation, and fundraising; wealth accumulation; commercialization; and failure to reach the poor have all contributed to an erosion of public confidence in non-profit organizations. It is argued that for an organization to successfully claim legitimacy, it must seek to meet the demands of all their different stakeholders (Brown & Jagadanada, 2007). Meeting the demands of all different stakeholders implies that one should be accountable to all stakeholders involved.
Before the discussion on the concept of legitimacy can be continued, it is important to stress that legitimacy and accountability imply different levels. Brown and Jagadananda (2007) introduce the idea that accountability standards can be articulated at the organizational, domain and societal levels. Consequently, the aid sector, or in the context of this study the PI sector, can be or not be perceived legitimate on a organizational, domain and societal level. Hence, an organization can be or not be perceived as legitimate an sich; the domain to which an organization belongs can be or not be perceived as legitimate; and within the societal context an organization can be or not be perceived as legitimate. Where organizational accountability systems focus on strategies and activities of individual organizations; domain accountability systems require inter-organizational negotiations to define standards for community members; and constructing societal accountability systems involves society-wide laws, norms, practices and expectations about „the way things are done‟ (Brown & Jagadananda, 2007, p. 36).
Although extremely interesting, the latter discussion goes beyond the scope of this study. Hence, the legitimacy of an organization – a PI – is perceived in this study at the organizational level and based on those findings, conclusions are generalized towards the legitimacy of the PI sector in general.
26
In the context of PIs, it is important to discuss the following four kinds of legitimacy: legal legitimacy, normative legitimacy, pragmatic legitimacy and cognitive legitimacy. Legal (or also called regulatory) legitimacy implies that legitimacy can grow from compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, such as following the law and obeying to codes of conduct. This form of legitimacy draws on the authorizing power of the nation-state and its legislation (Brown & Jagadananda, 2007). The second form, normative legitimacy, refers to the fact that organizations can also derive their legitimacy from widely held social values, norms and standards. Normative legitimacy can be considered highly important for PIs, as PIs are often value-based organizations that emphasize contributions to the public good at the heart of the mission. Furthermore, there is pragmatic legitimacy, which implies that the legitimacy of PIs may also emerge from the instrumental value they provide to different stakeholders, either in terms of specific outputs or in terms of creating conditions that meet the interests of the different stakeholders involved. Lastly, cognitive legitimacy is important to discuss in the context of PIs, as this form of legitimacy plays an important role in determining the level of legitimacy of PIs . Cognitive legitimacy may be derived from acceptance of organizational activities which fit into a comprehensible and acceptable story about the role of an organization in the society, and, moreover, it may emerge from the widespread perception that the organization is a social institution that is taken for granted by the society (Brown & Jagadananda, 2007). The latter implies that an organization is perceived as legitimate as it is accepted as being part of „the way things are‟.
27
four different strategies start at strict alignment with existing expectations and move step by step to actively changing the expectations that underpin the legitimacy judgements.
Aid organizations face the critical challenge in their justifications to voice their opinions or speak on behalf of others. Yet, in the contemporary aid arena, aid organizations are being asked where their legitimacy comes from and how accountable they actually are. Even though Western aid agencies closely work together with local organizations one might ask whether a community leader is really representative of the others in the community. It is often argued that increased transparency and tightened accountability mechanisms are necessary to maintain or enhance legitimacy of aid organizations (Brown & Moore, 2001; Edwards, 1999 as described by Ossenwaarde et al, 2008).
As discussed before, in the last twenty years, new actors have emerged in the aid scene. Nancy and Yontcheva (2006) state that the assumptions including that the civilateral aid channel works more cost-effective in reaching the poor and that NGOs are representative for the poor, makes that more and more public funds are channeled through NGOs, rather than through bilateral or multilateral aid channels. The relationship with the local people is seen as giving NGOs greater public legitimacy than some governments, as their managerial features are seen as permitting private sector levels of cost-control and efficiency (Nancy & Yontcheva, 2006). As PIs maintain even closer relations with the „local people‟ than NGOs do and, moreover, spend less money on overhead costs, it can be assumed than PIs possess even greater public legitimacy than NGOs do.
3.2 Accountability: An Introduction
28
in the proliferation of initiatives focussing on accountability, including but not restricted to the „Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief8‟, the „People in Aid Code9‟, the „Active Learning Network on Accountability
and Performance (ALNAP)10‟, the „Humanitarian Accountability Project11‟, and the
„Ombudsman Project12‟. Despite the former initiatives, development and humanitarian aid
agencies are often accused of not being accountable enough. Currently, there is an increasing pressure on organizations to demonstrate and improve their social performance and accountability (Raynard, 2000).
In order to gain insights in the concept of accountability, its negative and positive effects and its role within the humanitarian and development arena, firstly accountability is defined. Secondly, the benefits as well as the negative effects of accountability are discussed to show the (non)importance of being accountable. Thirdly, the main drivers of accountability are introduced, to show what factors might influence organizations to decide whether they become accountable or not. Fourthly, it is discussed how aid organizations decide to whom one wants to be accountable, in order to identify the different positions and roles of different stakeholders. Hereafter, four different accountability relationships are discussed, to show that accountability involves different formats. Fifthly, different organizational strategies are examined in order to show that accountability is not fixed and differs between organizations. Lastly, the concept of accountability and its importance is discussed in the specific context of PIs. To conclude, an overview of the expected results within this study is provided.
3.2.1 Defining accountability
Although there is a widespread sense about the meaning of accountability, accountability is a term on which it is difficult to come to an agreement regarding the exact definition when putting it into practice. As a result, before the discussion on accountability in the context of humanitarian and development action can be continued, it is important to have a critical look at the actual definition of the concept.
8 The Code of Conduct is one of the baseline documents used for the development of the Sphere Humanitarian
Charter.
9 See www.peopleinaid.org.uk/code 10 See www.alnap.org
11 See www.hapgeneva.org
12 The Ombudsman Project is a non-governmental inter-agency initiative to establish a Humanitarian
29
According to Edwards & Hulme (1996b, p. 967) accountability is „the means by which individuals and organizations report to a recognized authority (or authorities) and are held responsible for their actions‟. In line with this definition, Fox & Brown (1998, p. 12) state that accountability is „the process of holding actors responsible for actions‟. Cornwall, Lucas & Pasteur (2000, p. 3) broaden this perspective by suggesting that accountability is about both being „held responsible‟ by others and „taking responsibility‟ for oneself. Wenar (2006) argues the same as the latter and describes accountability in this context as second-order responsibility. Responsibility in this context means that whenever someone is responsible for something, that it is up to this person to take care of it. Accountability, however, implies that whenever someone is accountable for something, that this particular person has an extra responsibility on top of it, namely the responsibility to be able to show that he or she fulfilled their original responsibility (Wenar, 2006). Furthermore, Wenar (2006) argues that an accountable agent is accountable to some person or agency, and as such accountability has a direction – it points to those to whom one must give account. Wenar (2006), moreover, argues that any authority to whom accountability points will have distinguishable powers, even when these powers are in the hands of a single actor. Ebrahim (2003) combines all definitions and consequently sees accountability as „the means through which individuals and organizations are held externally to account for their actions and as the means by which they take internal responsibility for continuously shaping and scrutinizing organizational missions, goals and performance‟. Also Kearns (1996, p. 43) introduces the idea that accountability should be viewed as containing „as many as three dimensions: the higher authority to whom organizations and individuals are accountable, the standards or performance…for which organizations are held accountable, and the responses to the accountability environment…from insight the organization‟. Cutt and Murray (2000, p. 570) state that an actor is „accountable‟ when that actor recognizes that it has made a promise to do something and accepted a moral and legal responsibility to do its best to fulfil that promise.
Furthermore, Ebrahim (2003) argues that the understanding of accountability is socially constructed. Weber (1999, p. 453) observes in the same line that „the conceptualization of democratic accountability, rather than being a sacrosanct concept that all can agree on, varies dramatically over time‟. Hammack (1995) similarly argues that the changing context of nonprofits in the late 20th century render traditional accountability mechanisms, which relied
on shared religious beliefs and compact communities, largely unworkable (Ebrahim, 2003).
30
responsibility and the second who accepts this responsibility and reports on and account for the way the responsibility is carried out13. As an actor could feel and act as though it were
accountable to an abstract purpose14, accountability can also be perceived as being
responsible for a moral ideal as well as a relationship between two or more actors (Brown & Moore, 2001). Furthermore, the definitions of accountability show that accountability is about providing information by the actor of responsibility to the actor who allocated the responsibility. In this context, however, it should be noted that it is generally recognised that accountability goes beyond the idea of only involving information requirements. Yet, accountability includes not only the responsibility to provide an account, but also to the responsibility to undertake certain actions – or refrain from taking actions (Raynard, 2000).
Following the discussion above, hypothesis 1 can be formulated:
PIs will include in their definition of accountability one or more of the following elements: taking responsibility, being held responsible and showing responsibilities.
3.2.2 Potential effects of accountability
Accountability is currently a non-ignorable key- and buzzword within aid projects. However, it is highly important to critically look at the significance of accountability by discussing the positive and negative effects of it, in order to identify the importance of being accountable.
3.2.2.1 Potential negative effects
Wenar (2006) argues that accountability brings along extra costs, as for instance an aid agency needs to divert funds away from running programs in order to show that they are accountable. Furthermore, Wenar (2006) states that accountability is the opposite of trust. Yet, making actors accountable can signal to those actors that outsiders distrust them to fulfil their responsibilities. Moreover, accountability implies a certain formal structuring of relationships, as the demands of accountability may focus the accountable agent‟s activities on satisfying certain bureaucratic requirements instead of pursuing its underlying missions (Wenar, 2006). Lastly, Wenar (2006) shows that accountability can even be dangerous, as when greater transparency – which is an important aspect of accountability – in an aid
13 See 3.2.5 for an extensive discussion on the multidimensional character of accountability (Brown &
Jagadananda, 2007; Brown & Moore, 2001; Sikkema, 2003; Raynard, 2000).
14 For example an humanitarian agency could say that it is accountable for the achievement of some transcendent
31
agency‟s efforts to empower the poor allows vested interests more easily to identify and threaten those working for political reform.
High costs of administration, operation, and fundraising, as well as wealth accumulation, commercialization, and failure to reach the poor have all contributed to an erosion of public confidence in non-profit organizations15 (Ebrahim, 2003). Although the natural response to
these accountability concerns would be more oversight and regulation of non-profit organizations, the question whether there is a danger of being too accountable should be posed (Ebrahim, 2003). In this context there are two major concerns, as funders and oversight agencies might abuse their power of oversight and, moreover, efforts to control inappropriate behaviour in a relatively small number of organizations might unintentionally stifle experimentation and innovation (Ebrahim, 2003).
3.2.2.2 Potential benefits
Although accountability has costs, these costs can sometimes be outweighed by benefits. Humanitarian aid essentially consists of a one-sided transfer of resources, usually from industrialized countries into poorer ones (Transparency International, 2006). Where aid providers generally act on a voluntary basis, aid recipients are often dependent on external assistance. This often results in an imbalanced power relation, which consequently provides difficult conditions for accountability (Transparency International, 2006). As the aid recipient have very few powers of sanction in relation to aid providers, the aid providers are to a large extent able to choose for themselves the level of scrutiny to which their work is subjected. In the contemporary society, many established aid agencies have developed sophisticated mechanisms that have improved their capacity for financial accountability. However, these systems are often geared towards justifying expenditures to donors rather than to intended beneficiaries, which can result in corruption (Transparency International, 2006). As such, accountability is potentially a mechanism to decrease corruption.
Furthermore, an important benefit of accountability is the incentive it gives to agents (Wenar, 2006). An agent who knows that its affairs must be capable of withstanding scrutiny will have an incentive to respond to the values of those to whom they are accountable (Wenar, 2006). Generally, an accountable agent is expected to be more efficient, to put more effort in fulfilling its responsibilities, to maintain higher ethical standards and to take extra care in planning and acting (Wenar, 2006). Secondly, making aid agencies accountable provides assurance to certain principles (Wenar, 2006). For instance, it provides assurance to the donors of the aid projects and it has the potential to solve coordination problems by providing this assurance. Also, an aid agency with a reputation of accountability may be more
32
effective, as many people converge on directing their resources to it (Wenar, 2006). The third potential benefit of accountable agencies is that these agents are more open to scrutiny, which makes it easier to subject their actions to systematic study, which can produce knowledge (Wenar, 2006). Fourthly, accountability implies transparency, which is often perceived as morally better in itself (Wenar, 2006). Lastly, Wenar (2006) argues that an important benefit of being accountable is the likelihood that what accountable organizations receive will track what they deserve.
In short, increasing accountability can increase efficiency, assurance and honesty, but it also has the potential to waste resources, divert attention toward irrelevant targets and to foster distrust (Wenar, 2006). These findings bring along an interesting discussion about „good behaviour‟. In this context, an important question to answer is whether accountability should always be promoted or whether accountability should only be increased when its benefits are worth its costs. Wenar (2006) argues in this context that an increase of accountability is only desirable if it leads to a more effective achievement of the primary goal – whether this is the alleviation of poverty or a decrease in human suffering.
3.2.3 Main drivers of accountability
Whilst looking at the concept of accountability it is important to understand the aspects that drive the accountability agenda, in order to understand how to influence it and how best to react. Raynard (2000) argues that there are three main drivers of accountability, namely: external pressure, internal strategy and values. External pressure is exerted upon an organization to change the way in which it acts, whether this happens through campaigning or legislation16. External pressure can be applied by donors, the public, media, governments
and international organizations (Freih, 2000). Over the past few years, for example, negative press reports about the performance of aid organizations have in several cases led to increased calls for accountability (Wenar, 2006). The second main driver of accountability is, according to Raynard (2000), the internal strategy whereby an organization sees strategic value in being more effective by for example involving local people in their projects, by disclosing evaluation reports or by allowing external verification of compliance to commonly-held standards and best practices (Freih, 2000). Lastly, for those involved in humanitarian
16 It is important in this context to stress the relation between accountability and legitimacy, as legitimacy could
33
assistance, the bottom line is all about values, as expounded in humanitarian principles and law (Raynard, 2000). Values seem to be a fundamental foundation on which to drive accountability in humanitarian assistance, as a set of powerful values can allow one to develop accountability systems based upon the principles of humanitarianism or development cooperation (Raynard, 2000). Freih (2000) states that additional reasons that drive aid organizations to be more accountable are the dramatic increase in the scale, complexity and frequency of humanitarian operations, as well as the shift in dialogue within the humanitarian community into a more rights based approach.
Overall, the perceived level of importance of being accountable can be based on external pressure, internal strategy or values. As a major part of the PIs receives its funding from donors and/or individual contributions, it might be expected that these funders execute external pressure on the PIs, so that the PIs live up to their (contracted) goals and activities. Moreover, as being accountable might increase legitimacy, it might be expected that the perceived level of importance regarding accountability is also part of external pressure. However, an increase in legitimacy can also be part of the internal strategy of PIs, as PIs might see strategic value in being more effective by for instance involving local people in their projects. Lastly, as there are aid principles and laws, it might be expected that the perceived level of importance regarding accountability depends on these values. As nothing is known about the main drivers of accountable behavior of PIs other than the above, no specific expectations are formulated in this context.
As such, the following hypothesis - hypothesis 2 – is formulated in a rather general way:
PIs will identify external pressure, their internal strategy and aid principles and laws as the most important driver of their accountable behavior.
3.2.4 Accountable, to whom?
