Non-governmental Organization - Critiques

Critiques

Stuart Becker provides the following summary of the primary critiques of NGOs:

There’s a debate that, NGOs take the place of what should belong to popular movements of the poor. Others argue that NGOs are often imperialist in nature, that they sometimes operate in a racist manner in Third World countries and that they fulfill a similar function to that of the clergy during the colonial era. Philosopher Peter Hallward argues that they are an aristocratic form of politics."

Issa G. Shivji is one of Africa's leading experts on law and development issues as an author and academic. His critique on NGOs is found in two essays: "Silences in NGO discourse: The role and future of NGOs in Africa" and "Reflections on NGOs in Tanzania: What we are, what we are not and what we ought to be". Shivji argues that despite the good intentions of NGO leaders and activists, he is critical of the "objective effects of actions, regardless of their intentions". Shivji argues also that the sudden rise of NGOs are part of a neoliberal paradigm rather than pure altruistic motivations. He is critical of the current manifestations of NGOs wanting to change the world without understanding it, and that the imperial relationship continues today with the rise of NGOs.

James Pfeiffer, in his case study of NGO involvement in Mozambique, speaks to the negative effects that NGO's have had on areas of health within the country. He argues that over the last decade, NGO's in Mozambique have "fragmented the local health system, undermined local control of health programs, and contributed to growing local social inequality" He notes further that NGO's can be uncoordinated, creating parallel projects among different organizations, that pull health service workers away from their routine duties in order to serve the interests of the NGO's. This ultimately undermines local primary health care efforts, and takes away the governments ability to maintain agency over their own health sector. J. Pfeiffer suggested a new model of collaboration between the NGO and the DPS (the Mozambique Provincial Health Directorate). He mentioned the NGO should be 'formally held to standard and adherence within the host country', for example reduce 'showcase' projects and parallel programs that proves to be unsustainable.

Jessica Mathews once wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1997: "For all their strengths, NGOs are special interests. The best of them ... often suffer from tunnel vision, judging every public act by how it affects their particular interest". Since NGOs do have to worry about policy trade-offs, the overall impact of their cause might bring more harm to society.

Vijay Prashad argues that from the 1970s "The World Bank, under Robert McNamara, championed the NGO as an alternative to the state, leaving intact global and regional relations of power and production."

Others argue that NGOs are often imperialist in nature, that they sometimes operate in a racialized manner in third world countries, and that they fulfill a similar function to that of the clergy during the high colonial era. The philosopher Peter Hallward argues that they are an aristocratic form of politics. Popular movements in the global South such as, for instance, the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign in South Africa have sometimes refused to work with NGOs arguing that this will compromise their autonomy.

Another criticism of NGOs is that they are being designed and used as extensions of the normal foreign-policy instruments of certain Western countries and groups of countries. Russian President Vladimir Putin made this accusation at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy in 2007, concluding that these NGOs "are formally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore under control." Also, Michael Bond wrote "Most large NGOs, such as Oxfam, the Red Cross, Cafod and Action Aid, are striving to make their aid provision more sustainable. But some, mostly in the US, are still exporting the ideologies of their backers." Indeed, whether the NGOs are adiding for evangelical purposes or their ideological intentions, various NGOs are examined and accused of their nature.

There has also been the overwhelming disaster of NGOs using white lies or misinformed advise to enact their campaigns. In other words, NGOs have been quite ignorant about critical issues because, as chief scientist at Greenpeace Doug Parr claims, these organizations have lost their efforts in being trully scientific and are now more self-interested. Rather than operating through science so as to be rationally and effectively practical, NGOs are now abusing the utilization of science in order to gain their own advantages. In the beginning, as Parr indicated, there was "'a tendency among our critics to say that science is the only decision-making tool . . . but political and commerical interests are using science as a cover for getting their way.'" At the same time, NGOs have shown themselves not to be very cooperative with other groups, as the previous policy-maker for the German branch of Friends of the Earth Jens Katjek acknowledged. "If NGOs want the best for the environment, he says, they have to learn to compromise."