The Power and Limits of Principled Activism

Hans Peter Schmitz

Outline

Rationale Increasing visibility and power of transnational activism Limits of the current academic literature

Design Sampling and protocol and interview process Coding, data structure and data transformation

Preliminary findings Contributions to the academic literature Results relevant to practitioners

Future plans

Rationale: increased visibility

Quantitative growth of TNGO sector

At the United Nations (based on Global Policy Forum/UN Department on Economic and Social Affairs)

In the United States (number of organizations and revenue)

Global NGO Growth(based on: Yearbook of International Organizations, Vol. 1, 1997/98)

UN consultative status

Regional representation, 1996

Regional representation, 2007

Growth of US sector

Growth in international not-for-profits (transnational NGOs).

National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) Based on 990 forms (revenue exceeding $25,000 US-

Dollar)

Revenue base increased from $4.57bn (1997) to $32bn in 2007.

Number of organizations increased from 1,812 to 6,500. Snapshot 2003 (Kerlin/Thanasombat): 5,600 organizations

and revenue of $17.7bn.

Research motivation

Literature primarily focuses on large and successful organizations/campaigns.

Sectoral fragmentation.

Disciplinary fragmentation (IR, PA, sociology, etc.)

Organizational and leadership perspectives (“from the inside-out”) are rarely explored.

Research motivation, ctd.

Basic questions about TNGOs remain unanswered.

What are their goals and the obstacles faced? How do they define effectiveness and

accountability? To whom are they accountable? How do they view networks and partnerships?

Objectives defined

Study activism across major sectors;

Create data in a cross-disciplinary context, using quantitative as well as qualitative tools;

Add the perspective of TNGO leadership on their role in global governance;

Develop a research program integrated with teaching and practitioner engagement;

Design of study Selection

Charity Navigator database of international nonprofits (2005) with 501(c)(3) status in the US

Proportionate stratified random sampling based on size, sector and fiscal health

Data collection Confidential interviews with 152 TNGO leaders

across the US (average of 84 minutes) About 209 hours of interviews recorded and

transcribed

The claim of representativeness is limited to US-registered TNGOs, not global community of such orgs.

Any bias of Charity Navigator selection is reproduced in our study.

Limitations of the sample

Changes in organizational goals and governance structures

Effectiveness and its assessment Accountability Funding as related to effectiveness and

accountability Communication, collaboration, networks and

partnerships

Leadership characteristics and preparation

Interview protocol

68% response rate; 81% interviewed were top leaders (President/CEOs);

Researchers visited headquarters for interviews;

Interviews lasted an average of 84 minutes; total of about 209 hours;

Interview process

Professional transcriptions; Creation of a hierarchically organized

codebook implemented in ATLAS.ti; Designed to allow for both qualitative

retrieval and quantification; Intercoder agreement: 0.80.

Data transformation

Datasets created

Qualitative dataset Coded transcripts organized in ATLAS.ti for

efficient retrieval of quotations Frequency count report from ATLAS.ti exported

to Stata

Quantitative dataset Data transformed and labeled Primary and secondary data merged Dataset is 152 cases by about 400 variables

Advantages of method

Mixing qualitative and quantitative strengths

For the primary data, each is connected to the qualitative quotation from which it is derived

Statistics are easily contextualized and interpreted

Retention of qualitative nuance obtained from open-ended questioning

Emerging findings and working papers

Motives and goals

Effectiveness

Accountability

Leadership

Networking and partnerships

Monday Developments (InterAction) piece Limits of overhead-centered definition of

effectiveness used by many rating sites (CN). Move towards more impact-driven

measurements.

How do we best understand TNGOs? Principled and interest-driven views compete

in the current debates, in particular in IR.

Effectiveness

TNGO leaders primarily focus on three dimensions of accountability:

financial management, mandate, and transparency

TNGO leaders are less likely to mention the following dimensions of accountability:

responsiveness, evaluation, and participation

Accountability

““We are also interested in how organizations like We are also interested in how organizations like yours are structured. Would you please tell yours are structured. Would you please tell me a little bit about how your organization is me a little bit about how your organization is structured?”structured?”

UnitaryUnitary64%64%

FederationFederation29%29%

CoalitionCoalition7%7%

Governance structure

Sources of Sources of Accountability Accountability

PressuresPressures

UnitaryUnitary FederationFederation CoalitionCoalition Total Total (row)(row)

InternalInternal 41.0%41.0%(34)(34)

21.1%21.1%(8)(8)

25.0%25.0%(2)(2)

34.1%34.1%(44)(44)

ExternalExternal 21.7%21.7%(18)(18)

39.5%39.5%(15)(15)

37.5%37.5%(3)(3)

27.9%27.9%(36)(36)

BothBoth 37.4%37.4%(31)(31)

39.5%39.5%(15)(15)

37.5%37.5%(3)(3)

38.0%38.0%(49)(49)

TotalTotal(column)(column)

100.0%100.0%(83)(83)

100.0%100.0%(38)(38)

100.0%100.0%(8)(8)

100.0%100.0%(129)(129)

Governance & Accountability

Research collaboration Data sharing (Hauser Center) Other regions outside the United States

Practitioner engagement Summer Institute Consultancies (example: PLAN International)

Future plans