The relations of NGOs with other public actors like Government or CBOs are usually based on the following factors: the size, scope, and nationality of the members (Turner 1988, p. 173). Still, in order to introduce a clear and thorough evaluation of the relations between these three different organizations, it is crucially important to remember about the dependency of NGOs on the above-mentioned public actors.
In fact, this dependency seems to be obvious: Government has the power to legitimate the use of any kind of force in order to implement its requirements and rules and call on the required legitimate authority any time, and CBOs, in their turn, may easily require certain contributions from their members. These activities are not available for NGOs.
In the Table 1, it is possible to observe that governmental contributions are higher than those offered by private organizations (Clark 1991, p. 43). It proves that NBOs’ relations with Government are still of a hierarchical type, and the members of NGOs are not ready to contribute any sphere they find more preferable.
The main point is that UK NGOs realize that they have a kind of dual mandate as they are dependent on Government and its decision to provide a number of funds in addition to the core funding and support total income or not (Eversole 2003, p.30).
Still, the relations which are observed between NGOs and Government have a positive impact on NGOs’ development and promotion: for example, Barrow and Jennings (2001) admit that during the 1990s, “British government contributions have also increased both as a proportion of NGO income and as a proportion of the spending of official development assistance” (p. 5).
Still, it is necessary to admit that if NGOs did not use the assistance offered by Government and rely on their own contributions (Table 2 illustrates the incomes during the 1970-80s), this type of organization would hardly achieve good results in their intentions and would not be able to generate their incomes charging.
The relations between CBOs and NGOs are also based on dependency. This dependency is not that crucial in these relations but still evident (Gibbs, Kuby, & Fumo 1999, p. 33).
CBOs are self-organized by residents, and NGOs by outsiders, still, their relation is close, and these two types of organizations are able to federate and provide the services of the same kind. In spite of the fact that NGOs cannot control their funds and enforce human rights, they may rely on the contributions offered by CBOs and make use of sanctions offered by these organizations.
NGOs and CBOs are the organizations that aim at taking the steps which contribute peacebuilding. Both of them have a number of concerns and beliefs with the help of which they try to support the idea of development and improvement of the current living conditions.
In case one organization makes a decision to worsen the created relations, both will undergo considerable changes and challenges. NGOs could lose a successful contributor to promote their activities, and CBOs could lose the partner with the help of which it is still possible to create a kind of competition and dictate some requirements to be met.
Still, the three public actors under analysis are similar in their purposes which are the promotion of policies which may help to defend human rights and interests; this is why this kind of relations should be constantly improved by all parties.
Reference List
Barrow, O & Jennings, M 2001, The charitable impulse: NGOs & development in East & North-East Africa. James Currey Publishers, Oxford.
Clark, J 1991, ‘What are voluntary organizations and where have they come from?’ In: Democratizing development: the role of voluntary organizations. Earthscan, London, pp. 34-51.
Eversole, R 2003, Here to help: NGOs combating poverty in Latin America. Sharpe Inc., New York.
Gibbs, CJ, Kuby, T, & Fumo, C 1999, Nongovernmental organizations in World Bank supported projects: review. World Bank Publications, Washington.
Turner, JF 1988, ‘Conclusions’, In: Building community: a Third World case book. Community Books, London, pp. 169-181.