Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T17:59:57.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Strategic Orientations of US-Based NGOs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

George E. Mitchell
George E. Mitchell*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, The City College of New York, NAC 4/135, New York, NY 10031, USA
*
e-mail: gmitchell@ccny.cuny.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

International studies theorists have sought to characterize the role of transnational NGOs in world affairs from a variety of bottom-up, top-down, and critical perspectives. Since transnational NGOs employ such a wide range of strategies in the pursuit of their missions, scholars often find it necessary to differentiate between different types of organizations and to predicate theoretical analyses on informal typologies. However, when these typologies are implicit or speculative scholarship risks mischaracterization and invalid generalization. This article contributes to NGO theory by deriving a formal typology of the strategies that US-based transnational NGOs employ in the pursuit of their missions. This typology provides an empirical basis for future theorization specifically accounting for heterogeneity in the strategic orientations of NGOs. Findings are based on a mixed-method analysis of in-depth interviews with more than 150 leaders of US-based transnational NGOs spanning all major sectors of NGO activity.

Résumé

Résumé

Les théoriciens des études internationales ont cherché à caractériser le rôle des ONG transnationales dans les affaires mondiales à partir de différentes perspectives: ascendante, descendante et critique. Étant donné que les ONG transnationales emploient un grand nombre de stratégies pour poursuivre leurs missions, les universitaires jugent souvent nécessaire de différencier les différents types d’organisations et d’affirmer des analyses théoriques sur les typologies informelles. Toutefois, lorsque ces typologies sont implicites ou hypothétiques, les travaux académiques risquent de faire de mauvaises interprétations et des généralisations non-valides. Cet article participe à la théorie des ONG en déduisant une typologie formelle des stratégies que les ONG transnationales basées aux États-Unis emploient pour poursuivre leurs missions. Cette typologie fournit une base empirique pour une théorisation future, qui contribue en particulier à l’hétérogénéité des orientations stratégiques des ONG. Les conclusions reposent sur une analyse mixte d’entretiens approfondis auprès de plus de 150 dirigeants d’ONG transnationales basées aux États-Unis, qui recouvrent tous les principaux secteurs d’activité des ONG.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Theoretiker internationaler Studien haben versucht, die Rolle transnationaler nicht-staatlicher Organisationen in globalen Angelegenheiten aus verschiedenen Bottom-up-, Top-down- und kritischen Perspektiven zu charakterisieren. Da transnationale nicht-staatliche Organisationen vielzählige Strategien zur Verfolgung ihrer Missionen anwenden, erachten es Wissenschaftler häufig für notwendig, zwischen den Arten der Organisationen zu unterscheiden und theoretische Analysen auf informelle Typologien zu basieren. Wenn diese Typologien jedoch implizit oder spekulativ sind, riskieren die Wissenschaftler eine falsche Beschreibung und eine gegenstandslose Verallgemeinerung. Die vorliegende Abhandlung trägt zur Theorie über nicht-staatliche Organisationen bei, indem eine formale Typologie von den Strategien abgeleitet wird, die in den USA ansässige transnationale nicht-staatlichen Organisationen bei der Verfolgung ihrer Missionen anwenden. Diese Typologie begründet eine empirische Basis für eine zukünftige Theoretisierung und berücksichtigt insbesondere die Heterogenität in den strategischen Orientierungen nicht-staatlicher Organisationen. Die Ergebnisse beruhen auf einer Mixed-Method-Analyse eingehender Befragungen von über 150 Führungskräften von in den USA ansässigen transnationalen nicht-staatlichen Organisationen aus allen wesentlichen Bereichen, in denen diese Organisationen tätig sind.

Resumen

Resumen

Los teóricos en estudios internacionales han tratado de describir el papel de las ONG transnacionales en los asuntos mundiales desde una variedad de perspectivas de abajo-arriba, arriba-abajo y críticas. Dado que las ONG transnacionales emplean una gama tan amplia de estrategias en la consecución de sus misiones, los eruditos a menudo encuentran necesario diferenciar entre diferentes tipos de organizaciones y predicar análisis teóricos sobre tipologías informales. Sin embargo, cuando estas tipologías son implícitas o especulativas, los eruditos corren el riesgo de una mala caracterización y una generalización no válida. El presente artículo contribuye a la teoría de las ONG derivando una tipología formal de las estrategias que las ONG transnacionales con base en Estados Unidos emplean en la consecución de sus misiones. Esta tipología proporciona una base empírica para una futura teorización que dé cuenta específicamente de la heterogeneidad en las orientaciones estratégicas de las ONG. Los hallazgos se basan en un análisis de método combinado de entrevistas en profundidad con más de 150 dirigentes de ONG transnacionales con base en Estados Unidos que abarcan todos los sectores principales de actividad de las ONG.

摘要

摘要

国际研究的理论界试图从多个由下向上,由上向下和批判的视角,对于国际事务中跨国非盈利组织的作用进行特征化。因为跨国非盈利组织在实现他们目标的过程中使用了多种策略,学者们常常发现有必要对不同类别的组织进行区分,并基于非正式分类对其进行理论上分析。但是,当这些特征是模糊的或者推测时,结论就会有误导或者无效概括的风险。本文根据美国的国际非盈利组织所使用的策略的非正式分类,促进了非盈利组织理论的发展。此分类为未来非盈利组织的明确战略定位解释的理论化提供了经验基础。本文结果是基于对150名美国的跨越非营利组织活动所有主要方面的国际非盈利组织的领导人的深入采访和对获取资料的多方法分析所获得的。.

要約

要約

国際研究の理論家は、様々なボトムアップ、トップダウン、重要な視点から世界情勢におけるトランスナショナルなNGOの役割の特徴化を探究している。トランスナショナルなNGOが業務の追求において幅広い戦略を採用して以来、研究者は様々な種類の組織と非公式の類型に関する理論的解析を区別するため必要性を理解している。ただし、これらの類型学は研究方法のリスクと無効な一般化を暗黙もしくは推論する場合である。本論文は、業務追求のために米国を拠点とするトランスナショナルなNGOを採用する戦略における正式な類型を導くことによって、NGOの理論に貢献する。この類型学は特に、NGOの戦略的な方向の不均質性を説明する理論的かつ経験的基礎を提供する。調査結果は、米国を拠点とするトランスナショナルなNGOの活動における150名以上のリーガーによる綿密なインタビューの混合法解析に基づいている。.

ملخص

ملخص

قد سعى الباحثين في الجانب النظري للدراسات الدولية إلى توصيف دور المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGOs) في الشؤون العالمية من مجموعة متنوعة من أسفل إلى أعلى، من أعلى إلى أسفل، ووجهات نظر إنتقادية. حيث أن هذه المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGOs) عبر الوطنية توظف مجموعة واسعة من الإستراتيجيات في السعي لتحقيق مهامها ٬العلماء في كثير من الأحيان تجد أنه من الضروري التفريق بين أنواع مختلفة من المنظمات و تأكيد تحليلات النظرية على أنماط عارضة. مع ذلك، عندما تكون هذه الأنماط ضمنية أو مخاطر منحة معرضة للخسارة تعطي طابع مضلل و تعميم غير صحيح. تساهم هذه المقالة لنظرية المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGOs) عن طريق إشتقاق تصنيف رسمي لإستراتيجيات توظف المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGOs) عبر الوطنية ومقرها الولايات المتحدة في السعي لتحقيق مهامها. هذا التصنيف يوفر الأساس التجريبي لتشكيل نظرية في المستقبل في المحاسبة على وجه التحديد لعدم التجانس في التوجهات الإستراتيجية للمنظمات الغير حكومية (NGOs). تستند النتائج على تحليل مختلط لطريقة متعمقة لمقابلات مع أكثر من 150 من قادة مقرها الولايات المتحدة لمنظمات غير حكومية (NGOs)عبر الوطنية التي تغطي جميع القطاعات الرئيسية من نشاط المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGOs).

Keywords

Transnational NGOsUnited StatesMixed-methodElite interviewsTypologyStrategy

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , October 2015, pp. 1874 - 1893
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ahiquist, J. S., & Breunig, C. (2012). Model-based clustering and typologies in the social sciences. Political Analysis, 20(1), 92–112. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpr039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alam, S. M. N. (2011). Health Service Delivery: the State of Government-Non-Government Relations in Bangladesh. Public Administration and Development, 31, 273–281. doi: 10.1002/pad.608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anheier, H. K. (2007). Reflections on the concept and measurement of global civil society. Voluntas, 18(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s11266-007-9031-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batley, R. (2011). Structures and strategies in relationships between non-government service providers and governments. Public Administration and Development, 31, 306–319. doi: 10.1002/pad.606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batley, R., & Rose, P. (2011). Analysing collaboration between non-governmental service providers and governments. Public Administration and Development, 31, 230–239. doi: 10.1002/pad.613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1999). INGOs and the Organization of World Culture. In Boli, J. & Thomas, G. M. (Eds.), Constructing World Culture. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.10.1515/9781503617681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. M., Friedman, E. J., & Hochstetler, K. (1998). The sovereign limits of global civil society: a comparison of NGO participation in UN world conferences on the environment, human rights, and women. World Politics, 51(1), 1–35. doi: 10.1017/S0043887100007772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, D., LaPorte, J., & Seawright, J. (2012). Putting typologies to work: concept formation, measurement, and analytic rigor. Political Research Quarterly, 65(1), 217–232. doi: 10.1177/1065912912437162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooley, A., & Ron, J. (2002). The NGO scramble: organizational insecurity and the political economy of transnational action. International Security, 27(1), 5–39. doi: 10.1162/016228802320231217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, R. W. (1999). Civil society at the turn of the millennium: prospects for an alternative world order. Review of International Studies, 25, 3–28.Google Scholar
DeMars, W. E. (2005). NGOs and Transnational Networks. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Demirovic, A. (2003). Ngos, the state, and civil society: the transformation of hegemony. Rethinking Marxism, 15(2), 213–235. doi: 10.1080/0893569032000113541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. doi: 10.2307/2095101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrahim, A. (2005). NGOs and Organizational Change: Discourse, Reporting, and Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too Close for Comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961–973. doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(96)00019-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, C. (2005). Explanatory typologies in qualitative studies of international politics. International Organization, 59, 293–326. doi: 10.1017/S0020818305050101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feiock, R. C., & Jang, H. S. (2009). Nonprofits as local government service contractors. Public Administration Review, 69(4), 668–680. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02016.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, S. (1997). NGOs and civil society: (Un)stated contradictions. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 554(November), 46–65. doi: 10.1177/0002716297554001004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florini, A. (2004). Is Global Civil Society a Good Thing? (pp. 72–75). New Perspectives Quarterly: Spring.Google Scholar
Froelich, K. A. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 246–268. doi: 10.1177/0899764099283002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, S. (1995). Globalisation, market civilisation, and disciplinary neoliberalism. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 24(3), 399–423. doi: 10.1177/03058298950240030801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasius, M. (2002). Expertise in the Cause of Justice: Global Civil Society Influence on the Statute for an International Criminal Court. Glasius, M., Kaldor, M., & Anheier, H. K. (Eds.), Global Civil Society Yearbook. 137–168.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. (n.d.). Latent class analysis: the empirical study of latent types, latent variables, and latent structures, and some notes on the history of this subject. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Guo, C. (2007). When Government Becomes the Pricipal Philanthropist: the effects of public funding on patterns of nonprofit governance. Public Administration Review, 67, 458–473. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00729.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations: combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(3), 340–361. doi: 10.1177/0899764005275411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2008). Sticks and stones: naming and shaming the human rights enforcement problem. International Organization, 62(Fall), 689–716. doi: 10.1017/S0020818308080247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, F. (2001). The Romance of Non-state Actors. In Josselin, D. & Wallace, W. (Eds.), Non-state Actors in World Politics. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Hermann, M. G., Lecy, J. D., Mitchell, G. E., Pagé, C., Raggo, P., Schmitz, H. P., and Viñuela, L. (2010). The transnational NGO study: Rationale, sampling and research process. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2191090.Google Scholar
Hodge, M. M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2005). Funding source, board involvement techniques, and financial vulnerability in nonprofit organizations: a test of resource dependence. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(2), 171–190. doi: 10.1002/nml.99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudock, A. C. (1995). Sustaining southern NGOs in resource-dependent environments. Journal of International Development, 7(4), 653–667. doi: 10.1002/jid.3380070407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, H.-M. (2007). “Global Civil Society” and the political depoliticization of global governance. International Political Sociology, 1, 257–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-5687.2007.00017.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josselin, D., & Wallace, W. (2001a). Non-state Actors in World Politics: a Framework. In Josselin, D. & Wallace, W. (Eds.), Non-state Actors in World Politics. New York: Palgrave doi: 10.1057/9781403900906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josselin, D., & Wallace, W. (2001b). Non-state Actors in World Politics: the Lessons. In Josselin, D. & Wallace, W. (Eds.), Non-state Actors in World Politics. New York: Palgrave doi: 10.1057/9781403900906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaldor, M. (2003). Global Civil Society: An Answer to War. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Kamat, S. (2004). The privatization of public interest: theorizing NGO discourse in a neoliberal era. Review of International Political Economy, 11(1), 155–176. doi: 10.1080/0969229042000179794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international politics (Vol. 35). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Krishnan, R., Yetman, M. H., & Yetman, R. J. (2006). Expense misreporting in nonprofit organizations. The Accounting Review, 81(2), 399–420. doi: 10.2308/accr.2006.81.2.399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent Structure Analysis. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Lipschutz, R. D. (1992). Reconstructing world politics: the emergence of global civil society. Millennium, 21(3), 389–420. doi: 10.1177/03058298920210031001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipschutz, R. D. (2005a). Global civil society and global governmentality: or, the search for politics and the state amidst the capillaries of social power. In Barnett, M. & Duvall, R. (Eds.), Power in Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lipschutz, R. D. (2005b). Power politics and global civil society. Millennium, 33(3), 747–769. doi: 10.1177/03058298050330030401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2003). Latent Class Models. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc.Google Scholar
McCormick, J. (1999). The Role of Environmental NGOs in International Regimes. In Vig, N. J. & Axelrod, R. S. (Eds.), The Global Environment (pp. 52–71). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.Google Scholar
McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent Class Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781412984713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G. E. (2012). Strategic Responses to Resource Dependence Among Transnational NGOs Registered in the United States. Voluntas. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9329-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G. E., & Schmitz, H. P. (2013). Principled Instrumentalism: A Theory of NGO Behaviour. Review of International Studies, 1–18. doi: 10.1017/S0260210513000387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaers, N., Dewachter, S., & Dellepiane, S. (2011). Moving into the new aid approach, dilemmas for NGOs: the Belgian case. Public Administration and Development, 31, 188–204. doi: 10.1002/pad.600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nair, P. (2011). Evolution of the relationship between the state and non-government organizations: a south asian perspective. Public Administration and Development, 31, 252–261. doi: 10.1002/pad.610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, P. J., & Dorsey, E. (2003). At the nexus of human rights and development: new methods and strategies of global NGOs. World Development, 31(12), 2013–2026. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, P., & Dorsey, E. (2007). New rights advocacy in a global public domain. European Journal of International Relations, 13(2), 187–216. doi: 10.1177/1354066107076953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Prakash, A., & Gugerty, M. K. (2010). Advocacy Organizations and Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511762635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, R. (1998). Reversing the gun sights: transnational civil society targets land mines. International Organization, 52(3), 613–644. doi: 10.1162/002081898550671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauh, K. (2010). NGOs, foreign donors, and organizational processes: passive NGO recipients or strategic actors?. McGill Sociological Review, 1(January), 29–45.Google Scholar
Risse, T. (2006). Transnational Actors and World Politics. In Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T., & Simmons, B. A. (Eds.), Handbook of International Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Risse, T., Ropp, S. C., & Sikkink, K. (Eds.). (1999). The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, S. M., Jones, J. P. III, & Frohling, O. (2005). NGOs and the globalization of managerialism: a research framework. World Development, 33(11), 1845–1864. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, M. (1997). Privatising the voluntary sector: NGOs as public service contractors. In Hulme, D. & Edwards, M. (Eds.), NGOs, states and donors: Too close for comfort? (pp. 59–78). London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrschneider, R., & Dalton, R. J. (2002). A global network? Transnational cooperation among environmental groups. The Journal of Politics, 64(2), 510–533. doi: 10.1111/1468-2508.00137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ron, J., Ramos, H., & Rodgers, K. (2007). Transnational information politics: NGO human rights reporting, 1986–2000. International Studies Quarterly, 49, 557–587. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2005.00377.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saidel, J. R. (1991). Resource interdependence: the relationship between state agencies and nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 51(6), 543–553. doi: 10.2307/976605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sansom, K. (2011). Complementary roles? NGO-government relations for community-based sanitation in south asia. Public Administration and Development, 31, 282–293. doi: 10.1002/pad.609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuller, M. (2007). Seeing Like a “Failed” NGO: globalization’s impacts on state and civil society in haiti. Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 30(1), 67–89. doi: 10.1525/pol.2007.30.1.67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slim, H. (2000). Dissolving the difference between humanitarianism and development: the mixing of a rights-based solution. Development in Practice, 10(3&4), 491–494. doi: 10.1080/09614520050116631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511813245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrow, S. (2001). Transnational Politics: contention and institutions in international politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 1–20. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrow, S. (2005). The New Transnational Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
True, J., & Mintrom, M. (2001). Transnational networks and policy diffusion: the case of gender mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly, 45, 27–57. doi: 10.1111/0020-8833.00181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vakil, A. C. (1997). Confronting the classification problem: toward a taxonomy of NGOs. World Development, 25(12), 2057–2070. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00098-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbruggen, S., Christiaens, J., & Milis, K. (2011). Can resource dependence and coersive isomorphism explain nonprofit organizations’ compliance with reporting standards?. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 5–32. doi: 10.1177/0899764009355061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (n.d.). Factor analysis with categorical indicators: a comparison between traditional and latent class approaches.Google Scholar
Wapner, P. (1995). Politics beyond the state: environmental activism and world civic politics. World Politics, 47(April), 311–340. doi: 10.1017/S0043887100016415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wapner, P. (1996). Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Wapner, P. (2002). Horizontal politics: transnational environmental activism and global cultural change. Global Environmental Politics, 2(2), 37–62. doi: 10.1162/15263800260047826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warkentin, C. (2001). Reshaping World Politics. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar