NGOs and social movements

market for good deeds

• conventional view

• clifors bob says

conventional view

• funders are principals

• NGOs are agents

Clifors Bob says

• NGOs are suppliers (not principal agent relationship)

• social movements (SMs) are demanders

NGO characteristics

• few have substantial influence (publicity, political standing)

• few have substantial capacity (material resources)

NGO hierarchy

gatekeepers and followers

gatekeepers

strong reputation: credibility, clout

strong organization: global lobbying, public relations

gatekeepers examples

amnesty international, human rights watch

followers

national basis and niche functions

social movements: resources

• low capacity

• low influence

• limitless numbers

social movement: types

mobilized groups and unmobilized groups

mobilized groups

active demand

unmobilized groups

latent demand…nearly infinite

NGO-SM market structure

• NGOs as suppliers of good deeds

• SMs as demanders of good deeds

• Supply is scarce; demand is abundant

• NGOs can afford to be choosy; SMs become supplicants, trying to frame their cause to attract NGOs

How do NGOs select SMs?

• SMs frame their cause in simplistic terms, e.g. good v. evil

• SMs blame known villains, e.g. MNCs of rogue states

• SMs emphasize trendy causes, e.g. Indigenous peoples’ rights

• SMs emphasize universalistic aspects of their cause, e.g. violations of IL

• SMs connect their cause to international collective goods, e.g. environmentalism, antiterrorism

NGOs’ organizational needs

• maximize “bank for the buck”; avoid lost causes

• maximize global impact of local change

• avoid reputational harm; vet information from SMs

implication

• imbalnace of power

• NGO choice

• select causes that will raise their profile, increase funding

• no necessary connection between need and support

imbalance of power

• patron-client relationship

• SMs have to try to adapt themselves to western values