The range of donor-recipient positions that exists
includes the following:
- Laissez-faire: Funded NGOs should be trusted
to do as they say, and not harassed by donors. This
view is possibly less common than in the past, and
can be seen as a rationalisation of the minimalist
position given below. Some church donors, seem to
take this position.
- Minimalist (defensive): Donor information
demands can distract and undermine the effectiveness
of NGOs in their work and therefore should be minimised.
This view seems relatively widespread, especially
amongst donor NGOs.
- Minimalist (self-interested): Donors are
overwhelmed with the practical tasks associated with
funding (identification, appraisal, approval, disbursement
and documentation) and do not have enough time to
read and make use of information about project activities
and impact so they do not bother asking for much more
than they already receive. This implicit rationale
seems to be very common.
- Apologetic/realist: Donors have obligations
to their own donors and thus must ask for information
from the NGOs they fund, though they feel/know that
this can be a burden on the funded NGO. Again this
seems to be fairly common rationale.
- Facilitator: Information is needed from funded
NGOs so that other NGOs can learn from their experiences.
A related rationale is the need to support development
education in the donors own country. This rationale,
especially the former, is not widely used.
- Interventionist: The process of requesting
information can have a positive impact on NGOs' institutional
development (defined as above in terms of increased
responsiveness). This is uncommon but a rationale
that needs much more attention.
- Hard-line: Funded NGOs have signed a contract
and therefore have an obligation to produce the goods,
which in this case is information.
|
