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
- 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.