ngos in the globalized economy

Globalization quickens the advent of global institutions and international institutions seem ever more outdated. Nongovernment organizations are still a relatively unknown force. But they are reaping benefits from the loss of credibility of old institutions on issues that civil society cares about. So it is quite probable that their weight in the globalized economy will increase. Not long ago, ecology as systems thinking mystified most people. Now, nearly everybody agrees that reckless exploitation of natural resources and the environment anywhere weakens the integrity of Earth's life support system. Likewise, there is growing appreciation that societies function in coevolving realms and not along straight lines. That is why concern for shareholders needs to be augmented with concern for stakeholders. With the blessing of taxpayers, governments are devolving authority in a race to deregulate, downsize, and divest. (In the last few decades, many of them found it difficult to treat domestic concerns anyway, especially in developing countries.) But the passing of power away from nation-states summons other actors. What kinds of global institutions might emerge in the new world? To many observers, NGOs—not to forget international businesses—are a plausible powerful option. In the past ten years, NGOs have multiplied. (In 2000, the Union of International Associations numbered international NGOs at more than 26,000, up from 6,000 in 1990.) In addition, their agendas have expanded: one of their most astonishing accomplishments in the 1990s was the successful campaign to ban landmines. To the declining importance of geography, the faster speed of events, and shared awareness across many publics, communications technology lends a hand: when attention is turned to human rights and the environment, for instance, the media fans the flames lit by NGOs. NGOs are able to form close linkages and engender ownership and participation. Their consultative and participatory methods note and express stakeholder views that might otherwise not be entertained. This enables them to identify up-and-coming issues, respond rapidly to new circumstances, and experiment with innovative approaches. But they can have limited technical capacities, relatively small resource bases, constrained perspectives, and weak organization and management. In light of their voluntary nature, what is more, questions often arise about their motivations and objectives as well as the accountability they accept for the impact of the policies and positions that they promote. NGOs might be thought by civil society to be less bureaucratic and more inventive than governments or international institutions. But under-scrutinized groups can disappoint when they do not report to anyone. For this reason, as their weight in the globalized economy grows, NGOs would do well to rise up to their new roles. They should act more and more responsibly, produce information that the rest of the world—and not just their members—can have faith in, and cultivate knowledge of subjects that they sometimes know little about. And history will acknowledge their contribution to improving systems of social (and environmental) responsibility if they also gauge public opinion accurately and refrain from sensationalism. (July 2001) Copyright ©2002 Olivier Serrat