Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Global connectedness of local NGOs: do different types of funding create barriers for cooperation?

  • Published:
Theory and Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How does international financial aid affect the cooperative behavior of local non-governmental organizations (NGOs)? Can NGOs, while turning global, preserve peer connections with local actors and be engaged in local issues? The civil society literature contains competing perspectives on and reports of how international financial aid may restructure local civic networks. Some scholars argue that international support comes at the expense of local integration as inclusion in global networks takes local NGOs out of the local context, while others find evidence that organizations do not have to face “a forced choice”, and may well be integrated both globally and locally. Drawing on this scholarship, we examine two hypotheses on how transnational funding influences cooperation patterns among NGOs. The hierarchy argument states that public entities tend to cooperate with internationally funded NGOs as external contact signals quality and trustworthiness. The segregation argument, on the contrary, suggests financial homophily according to which organizations are more likely to choose peers similar in sources of funding. To test these hypotheses, we apply Exponential Random Graph Models to the data on cooperation among 221 Kazakhstani NGOs. Results support the segregation hypothesis implying that NGOs are likely to have a bias towards similarly funded peers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We have skipped here the description of structural effects that we expect to have some bearing on cooperation (see however Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix 1 for an in-depth description of key structural effects).

  2. For details on the analytic approach handling non-respondents, see Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix 2.

  3. We have shortened the discussion on the analytical approach in this section, see however Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix 2 for more in-depth discussion on key details of ERGMs.

  4. We have skipped structural effects here (for more details see Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix 1).

  5. As we mentioned earlier, we have conflated “partner” and “friendship” relations in a single inter-organizational network. However, it makes sense to consider every network separately. Therefore, we present models and brief discussion on them in Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix 3. Also, we have skipped some models with control variables in the current section (for discussion see Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix 4). Finally, we include AIC and BIC along with the general model information in table 3 while collecting goodness-of-fit plots in Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix 5.

  6. In our defense, we should note the differences in relations with international partners among Hungarian and Kazakhstani NGOs. Our experience and observations has shown that Hungarian civic organizations have a much more diverse set of relations with international donors and/or partners. This is why we expect this bias to be rather limited in the case of Kazakhstani NGOs.

References

  • Ansell, C. (2003). Community embeddedness and collaborative governance in the San Francisco bay area environmental movement. In M. Diani & D. McAdam (Eds.), Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action (pp. 123–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baldassarri, D., & Diani, M. (2007). The integrative power of civic networks. American Journal of Sociology, 113(3), 735–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A.-L., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific American, 288, 60–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barman, E. (2002). Asserting difference: The strategic response of nonprofit organizations to competition. Social Forces, 80(4), 1191–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, P. (2015). Reciprocity, transitivity, and the mysterious three-cycle. Social Networks, 40, 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bob, C. (2005). The Marketing of Rebellion: Insurgents, media, and international activism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, P., Schofer, E., & Longhofer, W. (2020). Contentions over world culture: The rise of legal restrictions on foreign funding to NGOs, 1994-2015. Social Forces, 99(1), 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Bülow, M. (2010). Building transnational networks: Civil society and the politics of trade in the Americas. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Císař, O., & Navrátil, J. (2015). Promoting competition or cooperation? The impact of EU funding on Czech advocacy organizations. Democratization, 22(3), 536–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diani, M. (2015). The cement of civil society: Studying networks in localities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eliasoph, N. (2009). Top-down civic projects are not grassroots associations: How the differences matter in everyday life. Voluntas, 20(3), 291–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esparza, N., & Jeon, S. H. (2013). Interlocking boards of trustees and grant acquisition among homeless service organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(4), 637–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feld, S. L. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 1015–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J., Bielefeld, W., & Dowell, M. (2006). Networks and organizational growth: A study of community based nonprofits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 337–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, S. L. (2002). Selling civil society: Western aid and the nongovernmental organization sector in Russia. Comparative Political Studies, 35(2), 139–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillmann, H., & Aven, B. L. (2011). Fragmented networks and entrepreneurship in late Imperial Russia. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), 484–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of profesionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 268–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, P., & Roberts, P. W. (2000). Friendships among competitors in the Sydney hotel industry. American Journal of Sociology, 106(2), 387–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitts, J. A., Lomi, A., Mascia, D., Pallotti, F., & Quintane, E. (2017). Investigating the temporal dynamics of interorganizational exchange: Patient transfers among Italian hospitals. American Journal of Sociology, 123(3), 850–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koslinski, M. C., & Reis, E. P. (2009). Transnational and domestic relations of NGOs in Brazil. World Development, 37(3), 714–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kossinets, G. (2006). Effects of missing data in social networks. Social Networks, 28(3), 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomi, A., Lusher, D., Pattison, P. E., & Robins, G. (2014). The focused Organization of Advice Relations: A study in boundary crossing. Organization Science, 25(2), 438–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longhofer, W., Negro, G., & Roberts, P. W. (2019). The changing effectiveness of local civic action: The critical nexus of community and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 203–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luong, P. J., & Weinthal, E. (1999). The NGO paradox: Democratic goals and non-democratic outcomes in Kazakhstan. Europe-Asia Studies, 51(7), 1267–1284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusher, D., Koskinen, J., & Robins, G. (2012). Exponential random graph models for social networks theory, methods, and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J., & Suárez, D. (2014). The flow of management practices: An analysis of Ngo monitoring and evaluation dynamics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(6), 1033–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson, S. (2002). Conclusion: The power and limits of transnational democracy networks in Postcommunist societies. In S. Mendelson & J. Glenn (Eds.), The power and limits of NGOs : A critical look at building democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia (pp. 232–251). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson, S., & Glenn, J. (2002). The power and limits of NGOs: A critical look at building democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Murdie, A. (2014a). Scrambling for contact: The determinants of inter-NGO cooperation in non-Western countries. The Review of International Organizations, 9(3), 309–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdie, A. (2014b). The ties that bind: A network analysis of human rights international nongovernmental organizations. British Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nezhina, T. G., & Ibrayeva, A. R. (2013). Explaining the role of culture and traditions in functioning of civil society organizations in Kazakhstan. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(2), 335–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrova, T., & Tarrow, S. G. (2007). Transactional and Participatory Activism in the Emerging European Polity: The Puzzle of East-Central Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 40(1), 74–94.

  • Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civil traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, J. (2002). Evaluating Western Assistance to Russian Women’s Organizations. In S. Mendelson, & J. Glenn (Eds.), The Power and Limits of NGOs: A Critical Look at Building Democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia (pp. 54–90). New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Robins, G., Pattison, P., & Woolcock, J. (2004). Missing data in networks: Exponential random graph (P*) models for networks with non-respondents. Social Networks, 26(3), 257–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satyanath, S., Voigtländer, N., & Voth, H.-J. (2017). Bowling for fascism: Social capital and the rise of the Nazi Party. Journal of Political Economy, 125(2), 478–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(2), 143–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schofer, E., & Longhofer, W. (2011). The structural sources of association. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), 539–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, C. R. (2015). Multiplexity and strategic alliances: The relational embeddedness of coalitions in social movement organisational fields. Social Networks, 42, 42–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, C. R. (2016). Competition for foundation patronage and the differential effects of prestige on the grant market success of social movement organisations. Social Networks, 46, 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spires, A. J. (2011a). Contingent symbiosis and civil society in an authoritarian state: Understanding the survival of China’s grassroots NGOs. American Journal of Sociology, 117(1), 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spires, A. J. (2011b). Organizational homophily in international grantmaking: US-based foundations and their grantees in China. Journal of Civil Society, 7(3), 305–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, S., & Aksartova, S. (2001). The foundations of democracy: U.S. foundation support for civil society in South Africa, 1988-96. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 12(4), 373–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, D., Vedres, B., & Bruszt, L. (2006). Rooted transnational publics: Integrating foreign ties and civic activism. Theory and Society, 35(3), 323–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suárez, D., & Gugerty, M. K. (2016). Funding civil society? Bilateral government support for development NGOs. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(6), 2617–2640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suárez, D., & Marshall, J. H. (2014). Capacity in the NGO sector: Results from a national survey in Cambodia. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(1), 176–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M., & Doerfel, M. L. (2011). Evolving network roles in international aid efforts: Evidence from Croatia’s post war transition. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2), 311–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Agency for International Development. (2014). The 2014 CSO Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1863/EuropeEurasia_FY2014_CSOSI_Report.pdf [Accessed on 08/05/2020].

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. C. (2008). Identity and control: How social formations emerge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a friendship network documented on facebook. American Journal of Sociology, 116(2), 583–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Social Sciences, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, 6 Educational Building #4, Yanushkevich St., Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan, 010008

    Adil Rodionov & Kamilya Rodionova

  2. Department of Sociology and Anthropology School of Sciences and Humanities, Nazarbayev University, 53, Kabanbay batyr Ave., Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan, 010000

    Darkhan Medeuov

Authors
  1. Adil Rodionov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Darkhan Medeuov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kamilya Rodionova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adil Rodionov.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Doing this research, Adil Rodionov has received fellowships from the Open Society Foundation (“Global Faculty Grant Program”) and the University of Michigan (“Weiser Professional Development Program”).

Additional information

We are deeply indebted to Alina Khamatdinova and Andrey Yemelin, who collected the original data and generously shared it with us. Dinara Khairikenova assisted us at various stages of this research, and we are immensely grateful to her. We are also grateful to Alima Bissenova for organizing the discussion of this paper at the Nazarbayev University, Aigul Zabirova for organizing the workshop at Eurasian National University. Our thanks go out to Jan Fuhse, Mikhail Sokolov, Anna-Lena Hönig, and David Suárez, who provided fruitful and thorough critics of early versions of this text, and the Theory and Society editors and reviewers. Adil Rodionov also wishes to give thanks to the Weiser Professional Development Program and especially to Pauline Jones, and Global Faculty Grant Program initiated by the Open Society Foundation.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 306 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodionov, A., Medeuov, D. & Rodionova, K. Global connectedness of local NGOs: do different types of funding create barriers for cooperation?. Theor Soc 50, 393–416 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-021-09439-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-021-09439-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation