The INGO Problem – Power, Privilege and Renewal by Deborah Doane: a review

Deborah Doane describes her book as a personal reflection that draws heavily on the pioneering RINGO project.

The outstanding knowledge and experience of Deborah Doane and her bold leadership in the RINGO project raise high expectations.

Are the high expectations met? ‘The INGO Problem’ is not the first book on the current and future role of so-called ‘INGOs’ in international cooperation. Our conclusion is a wholeheartedly ‘yes’.

Before we dive into the contents, we would like to mention that the book is a real page-turner. Deborah Doane has a fluent writing style, backs up her analyses – based on a wealth of practical experience – with numerous references and real-life examples, and she is not afraid to tell it like it is.

What makes this book a must read? Doane takes up the big challenge to cover nearly every aspect that has been raised on the ‘INGO problem’ in a concise narrative. There is a comprehensive review of the ‘history’ of ‘INGO’s – mainly focused on the UK, but with some side steps to other European countries and the US – which ultimately leads to a well-reasoned conclusion that the existing concept of the ‘INGO’ is outdated. In particular, the chapter with the challenging title ‘Show me the Money’ makes a compelling case for this.

But Doane does not stop there. And that is certainly another major plus point of ‘The INGO Problem’. In the final chapter ‘Renewal’, without pretending to offer a blueprint for change, she outlines elements of a strategy that could lead to a renewal of the concept of the ‘INGO’.It is to Doane’s credit that she takes a stand on the way forward. In setting out her ideas, she offers an interesting and welcome way of moving the debate forward.

We would like to take up the invitation by putting forward our thoughts on the concept of ‘INGO’, a concept that keeps bothering us:

The chapter ‘Knowledge is Power’ provides an excellent summary of the current debate on the role of language in the context of power relations in international cooperation. But why does the term ‘INGO’ remain untouched? Isn’t equating ‘international’ organisations with the North and ‘local’ organisations with the South part of the narrative we want to distance ourselves from? Besides, ‘local’ organisations have long been advocating and linking at the international level, while ‘INGOs’ are increasingly being asked to take on the ‘local’ role they have to play in building support for global solidarity and social change from their own societies,

The perspective of zooming in and out on the role of ‘INGOs’ is attractive because the ‘INGO’has so far played a quite dominant role in international cooperation and can therefore also be an important factor in bringing change to the system. But the flip side is that Doane’s outline of a renewed ‘INGO’, despite her attempt to eliminate the one-dimensional North-South divide, is still too much stuck in a divide that defines the ‘INGO’ as ‘enabler’ of civil society organisations (CSOs) in the Global South to find their way in an outdated system. The risk is that the broader ‘renewal picture’ is bypassed.

A picture in which Southern CSOs seek relationships with a variety of actors in other countries of the Global South, at the international level (UN etc.) and in countries of the Global North, in order to realise their agenda. A lot is happening in the Global South, among Southern CSOs, in terms of Southern funding, initiatives with the Southern private sector, Southern governments, regional cooperation, etc. In this sense, a highly relevant article by Themrise Kahn could have helped the book to sharpen the discussion. (see: Khan, T. (2023). Envisioning an alternative ecosystem for global development and humanitarianism. Centre for Humanitarian Leadership, Deakin University).

Situating ‘The INGO Problem’ in the vibrant multidimensional context in the Global South, would, in our view, have helped to better define the position of ‘INGOs’. From such a perspective, ‘INGOs’ will focus increasingly on their own societies, where they can remove barriers for their peer CSOs in the Global South, support promotion of international solidarity in their societies, and lobby their governments, for example to maintain ODA. The switch of ‘INGOs’ to focus on their own societies is almost entirely missing from Doane’s argument.

Contrary to what Doane seems to imply when she describes the new pivotal role for ‘INGOs’ as facilitating at the international level, we believe that at the international level the ‘INGOs’ should work alongside Southern CSOs. They may occasionally facilitate, but Southern CSOs can do this as well. Who takes a pivotal role, depends on the issue at hand. Global issues do not recognise borders and sometimes Global South issues, e.g. on climate, health or trade, need to be (also) addressed by ’INGOs’ to safeguard the well-being of people in the Global South. On other occasions Global South CSOs take a pivotal role.

Doane outlines the balancing act ’INGOs’ find themselves in: ‘They need to use their power to shift power; they need to embrace modesty and humility; they need to use the muscle to influence the wider system to shift power too’. Of course, it is important for ‘INGOs’, who are convinced that they should take a step back and play another role, to use their power. For example, to promote direct funding (let’s not forget that funders themselves can play an important role here by embracing direct funding). On the other hand, it is good to mention also here the wider picture, for example that Southern CSOs and social movements are connecting more and more to the rapidly developing philanthropy in their own context to work on social change with communities.

Concluding, we fully agree with Doane’s closing words that we need a strong globally connected civil society. International civil society indeed connects people at the forefront of social change. And when she rightfully states that we need institutions in civil society to make this a reality, we would plead for saying farewell to the term ‘INGO’. Instead of the ‘delegated donors’ they grew into, the‘INGOs’ should become CSOs (again), just like the Southern CSOs.

An important part of their work is in their own society, next to an advocating, and -if needed- facilitating role at the international level. Like it is for the Southern CSOs. It is crucial that they connect and support each other. A trustful relationship on an equal footing is crucial. Sticking to the ‘INGO’ terminology, renewed or not, doesn’t go with that.