This paper examines, from a management accounting perspective, the efficacy of the dominant ‘restricted’ funding structure in the international development NGO sector in terms of overall sector effectiveness, and whether it is the most appropriate means of funding NGOs. The objective is to encourage theoretical debate around the tensions highlighted between external accountability for funding and overall value-for-money delivered by individual development NGOs and the wider international development sector. From unique access to three internationally recognised major NGOs, our case studies reveal management accounting as broadly homogenous, with some nuanced distinctions both within and between the cases; but the scope of management accounting emerges as relatively limited. This is despite the NGOs utilising complex accounting software, employing qualified accounting staff, and having a large annual income. Using the broad principles of systems theory to frame our approach, this paper suggests that due to the ‘restricted’ nature of funding awarded to NGOs by institutional donors, accounting is dominated by external accountability reporting to the detriment of management accounting. These relatively novel data on management accounting practices at international development NGOs help illustrate how, potentially, NGOs are missing opportunities to utilise, or even improve, value-for-money in terms of how various program themes, geographic areas or time periods are delivering better or worse discernible impact for the money spent.

Since third sector research emerged as a full-fledged interdisciplinary academic field during the late 1980s, a separation has usually been maintained—in common with many other social science disciplines—between communities of researchers who are primarily concerned with the study of the third sector in rich Western countries and those who work on the third sector in the so-called developing world. Whilst internationally focused researchers tend to use the language of ‘non-governmental organizations’, those in domestic settings usually prefer the terms ‘non-profit organization’ or ‘voluntary organization’, even though both subsectors share common principles and are equally internally diverse in terms of organisations and activities. Whilst there has long been common-sense logic to distinguishing between wealthier and poorer regions of the world based on differences in the scale of human need, the ‘developed’ versus ‘developing’ category can also be criticised as being rather simplistic and unhelpfully ideological. As the categories of ‘developing’ and ‘developed’ countries become less clear-cut, and global interconnectedness between third sectors and their ideas grows, this paper argues that we need to reconsider the value of maintaining these parallel worlds of research, and instead develop a more unified approach.

Crowdfunding and diaspora philanthropy are two emerging areas of research that are generating excitement in the field of philanthropic studies. However, little if any research examines the shared characteristics and advantages of these two phenomena, and if and how crowdfunding might serve to strengthen efforts in the practice of diaspora philanthropy. This article reviews relevant literature on crowdfunding and diaspora philanthropy, and then analyzes overlapping characteristics, strengths, and limitations of these practices. The article then considers the potential of crowdfunding to contribute toward diaspora philanthropy, giving particular attention to the contexts and challenges faced in philanthropy in the global South.

Faith-based development organizations (FBOs) have been argued to deliver more cost-efficient development projects than their secular counterparts through exclusive access to faith networks, which provide predictable decentralized funding, the recruitment of volunteers, low employee salaries, and less overhead and indirect costs. To date, however, comparative analyses of religious and secular organizations have relied on a case-by-case approach, limiting the generalizability of findings. This study addresses this methodological gap by analyzing Registered Charity Information Return filings and organizational websites of 844 Canadian development NGOs to determine the proportion of FBOs and their organizational distinctiveness. The results show that FBOs comprise 40% of the Canadian NGO sector in terms of the number of organizations and their expenditures in developing countries, and are significantly less reliant on federal funding (p < .1), pay employees lower salaries (p < .01), but do not exhibit a significant difference in their expenditures on overhead and indirect costs. Thus, Canadian FBOs participation in faith networks shapes their organizational modus operandi but does not result in a low overhead alternative to secular NGOs.

Nonprofit research and resulting theory have evolved in a limited context of North American and West European historical experience, culture, and political economy. Recognizing this fact, Estelle James proposes, among other things, a widening of the research arena. This response to her proposals argues that existing studies of nonprofits involved in international development already provide significant comparative evidence that can enrich existing theory. This body of work suggests complementary and alternative research priorities.

Despite the role that non-government organisations, including community development organisations, play in social transformation, their approach to managing projects has received little attention. Employing a processual approach and participatory methodology, this paper investigates how a small, distributed, community-based organisation negotiates the challenges associated with managing its geographically dispersed development projects. It examines lessons that this organisation’s project management approach offers for managing projects at a distance in ways that encourage community ownership, partnership with project beneficiaries and their maximum participation in the process. The paper underlines the need for positioning people’s participation in development projects as a key component of development, rather than as a tool for project implementation. It concludes by advocating a blend of participation and empowerment with technical assistance for recipient communities.

As NGOs have emerged as arguably the most prominent actors within the global development enterprise, their international activities and presence have grown to represent a key area of inquiry for development scholars. Existing literature on the geographic distribution of development NGOs leans heavily on quantitative analysis, which lends little insight into the deeper motivations behind the location-based decisions that these organizations make; this study uses a qualitative lens to fill this gap, shedding light on the question “Why do NGOs work where they do”? After interviewing representatives from 22 Canadian development NGOs, the research team determined several key catalysts, which shape the geography of these entities. These factors include existing relationships, personal visits, local requests, logistical ease, funder restrictions, documented need, and humanitarian crises. Furthermore, the decision-making framework related to project locations appears to evolve as organizations grow.

What motivates a political party to develop overseas development volunteering projects for members? How do such activities affect individual volunteers and the party, more broadly? To address these questions, this paper analyses the UK Conservative Party’s international development volunteering projects. Our data comprise 38 interviews with former volunteers and participant observation of one volunteering project in Rwanda in 2017 by one author. This predominantly self-reported data are supplemented with publicly available sources. We draw on employer-supported and state-supported volunteering literature to develop a framework for analysing drivers and effects of party-supported volunteering. We argue that political parties are under-researched sending communities, and that development volunteering constitutes a strategic resource that can be invoked to legitimise engagement with, and authority in, international development as part of the everyday political identity of Party members. As such, how volunteering is used to signal authority in a policy area warrants further research.

This paper examines issues of democratic accountability as they apply to faith-based organizations cooperating in international developmental efforts, with a specific focus on the freedom of expression rights of nonprofit organizations and the freedom of association rights of their clientele. Child welfare nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Romania are used as a case study for examining the issue. The paper begins with a discussion of NGO-government partnerships in service provision in international development, and examines the ethical concerns surrounding church-state separation as applied to nonprofits in the United States and in the context of foreign aid. The literature analysis is complimented by empirical evidence from the Romanian case, using data gathered in a qualitative study exploring the role of NGOs as social service providers and policy advocates. The paper concludes by discussing the particular role that bureaucratic discretion and power plays in protecting the freedom of association rights of clientele in Romania.

Modern monetary theory (MMT) argues that all governments that issue their own currency have the same fiscal and monetary policy space. This paper argues against this position. For MMT’s assumptions to be valid, MMT must abstract from the gravitational force of the US dollar that stems from it being backed by a mass of securities – an influence transmitted through international investment flows. Once the dollar’s gravitational force is recognised, it becomes clear that the huge size disparity separating the US financial market from those of other markets, and most notably those of the emerging market economies (EMEs), translates into an equally huge disparity regarding fiscal and monetary policy capacities. The strategic implications of recognising this disparity are that EME governments should, where possible, join their financial markets into regional blocs of sufficient size to give their regional currencies enough backing mass to allow them to resist the gravitational pull of the dollar. Only by pooling their currency sovereignty can EME governments retain some scope for pursuing macroeconomic policies independently of those pursued by the US government. Without doing so, if EME governments in countries with small financial markets follow MMT’s advice to retain their local currencies, this will condemn these currencies to entrapment in the dollar’s gravitational field and possibly outright dollar colonisation.

This paper reflects on the recent, rapid rise in the use of “people-centered justice” language in global policy and international cooperation contexts. People-centered justice has provided a valuable common language to achieve policy buy-in and structure discussions on achieving justice for all, and breakfree from path dependencies of earlier rule of law assistance, and donor support long dominated by top-down support to courts and formal institutions of the justice system. However, recent uses of people-centered justice—without additional clarity—gloss over crucial differences in how justice challenges are framed, which could risk undermining some of its initial progress, or repeating past challenges encountered with rule of law support. Experiences of the OECD, USAID and in the United Nations systems provide contrasting examples of charting new paths, or clinging to well-worn path dependencies. We conclude with several reflections to overcome concerns with current uses.

Global governance institutions have increasingly ‘opened up’ to non-state actors, leading to more formally inclusive governance arrangements. This has prompted inquiry into the extent and the drivers of this inclusivity, patterns of participation, and the consequences for the legitimacy and effectiveness of global governance. However, while the measurement of formal openness has expanded, the quality of inclusion remains underexplored. We therefore introduce a framework centred on the notion of ‘meaningful inclusion’, distinguishing between formal (de jure) structures and the perceived quality of actual (de facto) engagement. Drawing on extensive empirical data, we then examine the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation. This case exemplifies strong formal mechanisms for inclusion that are contrasted sharply by significant shortcomings in effective engagement. Our findings suggest that improvements in formal global governance structures alone cannot ensure meaningful inclusion. Instead, we highlight the centrality of power dynamics and vested interests in shaping inclusivity dynamics in practice.

In the past decade, the Vietnamese lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and other sexual orientations and gender identities (LGBT+) movement has succeeded in repositioning this population from the stigmatising label of “social evils” to a more positive social representation. Despite the limited space for civil society in this authoritarian environment, Vietnamese activists and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have effectively changed public attitudes, improved visibility, and gained legal recognition for this marginalised community. This study uses qualitative data from interviews with twelve activists and fieldwork observations to explain how activist strategies in this setting align with the “service delivery” function of civil society. By examining how activists have addressed healthcare and education deficits, I demonstrate that activism in authoritarian regimes can be effective when it assists instead of challenges the government. The findings contribute to scholarship on global queer activism by demonstrating how a service delivery approach can achieve social change, highlighting the role of NGOs and international development in this process. Additionally, the findings expose existing challenges that hinder these activists’ efforts, showing how funding dependency and inadequate legal recognition can significantly limit the creativity and autonomy of grassroots activist groups.