What is Negotiated in Negotiated Accountability? The Case of INGOs

Abstract

This paper discusses the constructivist, negotiated perspective to INGO accountability. According to this perspective, INGO accountability is a process of mutual negotiations between different INGO stakeholders who hold different accountability demands. Acknowledging that this perspective provides a good starting point for a better understanding of INGO accountability, we comment on this conceptualization of INGO accountability. Through an analysis of accountability instruments and procedures, we examine closely how the demands of the INGO's stakeholders are embedded in particular relationships of accountability which are sustained by particular accountability logics. From this analysis, we point out that, due to the differences that exist between these accountability logics, processes of negotiation are likely to be filled with complex tensions and trade-offs. Moreover, as some accountability logics are much clearer and more compelling than others, a constructivist perspective on INGO accountability does not automatically coincide with an understanding of INGO accountability in which primordial importance is given to the beneficiaries.

Learning to learn: The experience of learning facilitation for grantees of Comic-Relief-funded projects

“…Results-based management involves the development of systems and tools for performance measurement that regulate an agents' behaviour in the interests of the principal (Berghmans 2016;Eyben 2015:24;Shutt 2016:23;Williams 2010:31).…”

“…A further problem with unequal power relations and topdown-control reporting and measurement frameworks is that accountability tends to be upward towards those with money and the power to decide its allocation, rather than to staff, partners or beneficiaries (Berghmans, Simons & Vandenabeele 2016). But what is accountability, and can one truly be accountable without learning?…”

Putting Humpty Together Again: How Reputation Regulation Fails the Charitable Sector

“…Governments and foundations have also fixated on accountability for results and value for money, building detailed performance indicators into their grants and contracts (Bond 2012;Barnett 2016). The stress on success is compounded by a competitive funding and contracting environment, particularly when nonprofits are competing for large amounts from a few players of scale, as occurs in international aid (Barnett 2016;Berghmans, Simons, and Vandenabeele 2017;Bush 2015;Crack 2016). Designing gifts, grants and contracts with impact in mind is not inherently a bad thing if we want to achieve significant social change.…”

Institutional logics and the multiorganizational governance arrangements of humanitarian INGOs

“…There are competing notions about the most appropriate means for achieving these objectives (Korten, 1990; Stoddard, 2003). And there are many ways of demonstrating the effectiveness and integrity of an organization to stakeholders (Berghmans et al, 2017; Ebrahim, 2010; Mitchell, 2013).…”

“…Second, many humanitarian, development, and human rights objectives require simultaneous actions from multiple actors making the coordination of activities and the attribution of outcomes challenging. Third, with multiple stakeholders each having their own ideas about what these organizations should be, the way in which accountability and legitimacy are demonstrated varies (Berghmans et al, 2017).…”