Beneficiary accountability in NGOs: can it be better in donor funded projects as compared to non-donor funded projects?

Prior research on NGO accountability argued that in the process of upward accountability to donors NGOs’ accountability towards beneficiaries had been compromised. With a focus on beneficiary accountability this paper undertakes a comparative examination of a donor funded project and a non-donor funded project. The study has been carried out in the context of a large Bangladeshi NGO with international operations. While the above conclusion on NGO accountability generally holds our study shows a somewhat different picture. Drawing on a comprehensive set of empirical evidence from various sources such as documentary analysis, interviews, focus groups and observations we show that beneficiary accountability can be better in donor funded projects as compared to non-donor funded projects. We theorise the circumstances under which it can happen. This finding has significant implications for the policy makers and donors in the context of recent drive for the self-sustainability of NGOs and its impact on the crucial issue of beneficiary accountability.

Enabling and constraining features of donor accountability and its relationship to beneficiary accountability

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to theorise and empirically examine the views of various NGO stakeholders on the role of donors in facilitating beneficiary accountability.

Method: The paper adopts a case study design and draws primarily on semi-structured interviews with the officials of a large development NGO, donor representatives and regulators.

Findings: We find that donor accountability contains both enabling and constraining features in relation to beneficiary accountability. Our evidence shows that while legitimising their own actions, donors’ accountability requirements embed some enabling provisions of beneficiary accountability, such as participation, monitoring, evaluation and lessons learning, which facilitate beneficiary accountability (Ebrahim, 2003b). We argue that exerting the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency donors are in a position to realise their accountability claims (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997) and can hold funded NGOs to account. In the absence of beneficiaries’ power and the unwillingness of regulators to hold NGOs to account, donors’ accountability can play a complementary role in making an NGO accountable to its beneficiaries. Finally, we capture and illustrate some constraining features of donor accountability which limits the promotion of beneficiary accountability.

Research limitations/implications: The findings have significant implications for the policy makers and donors in the context of the current phenomenon of NGOs drive for self-sustainability via commercial activities which are actively encouraged by the donors.

Originality: This paper provides an alternative theorisation of donor accountability in a development NGO context. It draws on rare qualitative empirical data which incorporate the views of multiple groups (including donors which is hitherto rare in the NGO accountability literature) who are directly and/or indirectly involved in setting and negotiating NGO-donors accountability relationship. It enhances our understanding in terms providing a more nuanced portrayal of donor accountability.

Professional Negligence, Solicitors: Recent Case Law, 2014

In preparation for this talk I have reviewed cases of interest in the High Courts and Courts of Appeal of England and Wales and Northern Ireland from the past two years or so on professional negligence and liability and principally relating to solicitors.

There are six topics of interest: the general duty of care demanded of solicitors in the carrying out of their professional obligations; whether there is a specific duty on a solicitor to warn or advise a client of any implied risk in, say, a commercial transaction; what is the scope of the duty on a solicitor to explain the content of or clauses in a legal document; a recent case of interest applying the White v Jones principle to a disappointed beneficiary seeking to make a claim against a solicitor who negligently prepared a will; the practical, limitation issue of how to pinpoint in a professional negligence claim when the damage was first sustained by the claimant; and finally some case law here and in England and Wales on the (costs) implications for solicitors relating to any failure to adhere to case management protocols or related court directions.