Advertisement

Restricted Funding: Restricting Development?

  • Brendan ClerkinEmail author
  • Martin Quinn
Original Paper
  • 161 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Non-governmental organisation International development Charity Accounting Accountability Funding Systems theory 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Agyemang, G., O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J., & Awumbila, M. (2017). Seeking ‘conversations for accountability’: Mediating the impact of non-governmental organization (NGO) upward accountability processes. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,30(5), 1–30.Google Scholar
  2. Arya, A., & Mittendorf, B. (2015). Career concerns and accounting performance measures in nonprofit organizations. Accounting, Organizations and Society,40(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  3. Awio, G., Northcott, D., & Lawrence, S. (2011). Social capital and accountability in grass-roots NGOs: The case of the Ugandan community-led HIV/AIDS initiative. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,24(1), 63–92.Google Scholar
  4. Bakewell, O., & Garbutt, A. (2005). The use and abuse of the logical framework approach: A review of international development NGOs’ experiences. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Agency.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, D., & Moore, M. (2001). Accountability, strategy, and international non-governmental organisations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,28(4), 178–197.Google Scholar
  6. Burns, J., & Scapens, R. (2000). Conceptualising management accounting change: An institutional framework. Management Accounting Research,11(1), 3–25.Google Scholar
  7. Callen, J., Klein, A., & Tinkleman, D. (2003). Board composition, committees, and organisational effectiveness: The case of non-profits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,32(4), 493–520.Google Scholar
  8. Claeyé, F., & Jackson, T. (2012). The iron cage re-revisited: Institutional isomorphism in non-profit organisations in South Africa. Journal of International Development,24(5), 602–622.Google Scholar
  9. Connolly, C., Hyndman, N., & McConville, D. (2012). Research in charity accounting and reporting: A fertile field for exploration. Irish Accounting Review,1, 1–30.Google Scholar
  10. Connolly, C., Hyndman, N., & McConville, D. (2013). Conversion ratios, efficiency and obfuscation: A study of the impact of changed UK charity accounting requirements on external stakeholders. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,24(3), 785–804.Google Scholar
  11. Cordery, C., & Sinclair, R. (2013). Measuring performance in the third sector. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management,10(3/4), 196–212.Google Scholar
  12. Crowley, J., & Ryan, M. (2013). Building a better international development NGO: Greater than the sum of the parts. London: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  13. Development Cooperation Ireland. (2005). Evaluation of the Development Cooperation Ireland multi annual program scheme 2003–2005. Dublin: The Department of Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
  14. Dhanani, A., & Connolly, C. (2012). Discharging not-for-profit accountability: UK charities and public discourse. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,25(7), 1140–1169.Google Scholar
  15. Dhanani, A., & Connolly, C. (2015). Non-governmental organizational accountability: Talking the talk and walking the walk? Journal of Business Ethics,29(1), 613–637.Google Scholar
  16. Dolnicar, S., Irvine, H., & Lazarevski, K. (2008). Mission or money?: Competitive challenges facing public sector nonprofit organisations in an institutional environment. International Journal of NonProfit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,13(2), 107–117.Google Scholar
  17. Ebrahim, A. (2002). Information struggles: The role of information in the reproduction of NGO-funder relationships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,31(1), 84–114.Google Scholar
  18. Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organisational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,34(1), 56–87.Google Scholar
  19. Ebrahim, A. (2009). Placing the normative logics of accountability in “thick” perspective. American Behavioural Scientist,52(6), 885–904.Google Scholar
  20. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1995). Non-governmental organisations: Performance and accountability. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  21. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort?: The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organisations. World Development,24(6), 961–973.Google Scholar
  22. European Centre for Development Policy Management. (2009). Capacity change and performance: Policy management brief number 22. Maastricht: ECDPM.Google Scholar
  23. Everett, J., & Friesen, C. (2010). Humanitarian accountability and performance in the Theatre de l’Absurde. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,21(6), 468–485.Google Scholar
  24. Fama, E., & Jensen, M. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics,26(2), 301–326.Google Scholar
  25. Ferreira, S. (2014). Sociological observations of the third sector through systems theory: An analytical proposal. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,25, 1671–1693.Google Scholar
  26. Financial Reporting Council. (2014). Accounting and reporting by charities: Statement of recommended practice. London: Financial Reporting Council.Google Scholar
  27. Fowler, A. (1997). Striking a balance: A guide to enhancing the effectiveness of non-governmental organisations in international development. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  28. Gasper, D. (2000). Evaluating the ‘logical framework approach’ towards learning-orientated development evaluation. Public Administration and Development,20(1), 17–28.Google Scholar
  29. Goddard, A., & Assad, M. (2006). Accounting and navigating legitimacy in Tanzania NGOs. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,19(3), 377–404.Google Scholar
  30. Goddard, A., Assad, M., Issa, S., Malagila, J., & Mkasiwa, T. (2016). The two publics and institutional theory—A study of public sector accounting in Tanzania. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,41, 1–62.Google Scholar
  31. Gray, R. (1992). Accounting and environmentalism: An exploration of the challenge of gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability. Accounting, Organizations and Society,17(5), 399–425.Google Scholar
  32. Gray, R., Bebbington, J., & Collison, D. (2006). NGOs, civil society and accountability: Making the people accountable to capital. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,19(3), 405–427.Google Scholar
  33. Harris, M., Dobson, S., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2009). Strategic drift in international non-governmental development organisations—Putting strategy in the background of organisational change. Public Administration and Development,29(5), 415–428.Google Scholar
  34. Harsh, M., Mbatia, P., & Shrum, W. (2010). Accountability and inaction: NGOs and resource lodging in development. Development and Change,41(2), 253–278.Google Scholar
  35. Herman, R., & Renz, D. (2008). Advancing non-profit organisational effectiveness research and theory: Nine theses. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,18(4), 399–415.Google Scholar
  36. Hiebl, M. (2018). Management accounting as a political resource for enabling embedded agency. Management Accounting Research,38, 22–38.Google Scholar
  37. Hopper, T., & Bui, B. (2016). Has management accounting research been critical? Management Accounting Research,31, 10–30.Google Scholar
  38. Hopwood, A. (1987). The archaeology of accounting systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society,12(3), 207–234.Google Scholar
  39. Horngren, C., Selto, F., & Curry, D. (2007). Introduction to management accounting. In C. Horngren, G. Sundem, J. Schatzberg, & D. Burgstahler (Eds.), Introduction to management accounting. Gale: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Humphrey, C., & Scapens, R. (1996). Methodological themes, theories and case studies of organisational accounting practices: Limitation or liberation? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,9(4), 86–106.Google Scholar
  41. Hyndman, N., & McConville, D. (2016). Transparency in reporting on charities’ efficiency: A framework for analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,45(4), 844–865.Google Scholar
  42. Hyndman, N., & McDonnell, P. (2009). Governance and charities: An exploration of key themes and the development of a research agenda. Financial Accountability and Management,25(1), 5–31.Google Scholar
  43. Hyndman, N., & McMahon, D. (2010). The evolution of the UK charity statement of recommended practice: The influence of key stakeholders. European Management Journal,28(6), 255–266.Google Scholar
  44. International Council on Human Rights Policy. (2003). Deserving trust—Issues of accountability for human rights NGOs. Geneva: ICHRP.Google Scholar
  45. Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2001). Balance without profit. Financial Management,23(6), 23–26.Google Scholar
  46. Kast, R., & Rosenzweig, J. (1972). General systems theory: Applications for organisation and management. Academy of Management Journal,15(4), 447–465.Google Scholar
  47. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. Kovach, H., Neligan, C., & Burall, S. (2003). The global accountability report 2003: Power without accountability?. London: One World Trust.Google Scholar
  49. Kuteesa, F., Tumusiime-Mutebile, E., Whitworth, A., & Williamson, T. (2010). Uganda’s economic reforms: Insider accounts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Lecy, J., Schmitz, H., & Swedlund, H. (2012). Non-governmental and not-for-profit organisational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,23(2), 434–457.Google Scholar
  51. Letts, C., Ryan, W., & Grossman, P. (1998). High performance nonprofit organizations: Managing upstream for greater impact. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. Lewis, D., & Opoku-Mensa, P. (2006). Moving forward research agendas on international NGOs: Theory, agency and context. Journal of International Development,18(5), 665–675.Google Scholar
  53. Martinez, D., & Cooper, D. (2012). Transforming and mobilizing fluid accounting inscriptions: The logical framework in non-governmental organizations. Research Paper Number 2013-06, University of Alberta School of Business, Alberta.Google Scholar
  54. McEvoy, P. (2018). Cooperation, complexity and adaptation: Higher education capacity initiatives in international development assistance programmes in sub-Saharan Africa. Doctoral Thesis, Dublin City University, Dublin.Google Scholar
  55. McEvoy, P., Brady, M., & Munck, R. (2016). Capacity development through international projects: A complex adaptive systems perspective. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,9(3), 528–545.Google Scholar
  56. Modell, S. (2003). Goals versus institutions: The development of performance measurement in the Swedish university sector. Management Accounting Research,14(4), 333–359.Google Scholar
  57. Najam, A. (2002). Financial sustainable development: Crises of legitimacy. Progress in Development Studies,2(2), 153–160.Google Scholar
  58. Norwegian Agency for Development Co-Operation. (1990). The logical framework (LFA)—Handbook for objectives-orientated project planning. Oslo: NORAD.Google Scholar
  59. O’Dwyer, B., & Boomsma, R. (2015). The co-construction of NGO accountability: Aligning imposed and felt accountability in NGO-funder accountability relationships. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,28(1), 36–68.Google Scholar
  60. O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2006). Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,19(3), 349–376.Google Scholar
  61. O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2007). From functional to social accountability: Transforming the accountability relationship between funders and non-governmental development organisations. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,20(3), 446–471.Google Scholar
  62. O’Leary, S. (2017). Grassroots accountability promises in rights-based approaches to development: The role of transformative monitoring and evaluation in NGOs. Accounting, Organizations and Society,63, 21–41.Google Scholar
  63. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  64. Quinn, M. (2014). Stability and change in management accounting over time: A century or so of evidence from Guinness. Management Accounting Research,25, 76–92.Google Scholar
  65. Rahaman, A., Neu, D., & Everett, J. (2010). Accounting for social-purpose alliances: Confronting the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa. Contemporary Accounting Research,27(4), 1093–1129.Google Scholar
  66. Riddle, R. (1999). Evaluating NGO development interventions. In D. Lewis (Ed.), International perspectives on voluntary action: Reshaping the third sector. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  67. Roberts, J. (1990). Strategy and accounting in a UK conglomerate. Accounting, Organizations and Society,15(1/2), 107–126.Google Scholar
  68. Ryan, B., Scapens, R., & Theobald, M. (2003). Research methods and methodology in finance and accounting. London: Thompson Press.Google Scholar
  69. Saravanamuthu, K., & Tinker, T. (2003). Politics of managing: The dialectics of control. Accounting, Organizations and Society,28(1), 37–64.Google Scholar
  70. Scapens, R. (2004). Doing case study research. In C. Humphrey & B. Lee (Eds.), The real life guide to accounting research: A behind the scenes view of using qualitative research methods. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  71. Schneider, M., & Somers, M. (2006). Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of complexity theory for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly,17(4), 351–365.Google Scholar
  72. Sen, A. (2013). The ends and means of sustainability. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities,14(1), 6–20.Google Scholar
  73. Senge, P. (1993). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  74. Speckbacher, G. (2003). The economics of performance management in nonprofit organisations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,13(3), 267–287.Google Scholar
  75. Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its disconnects. London: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  76. Tassie, B., Murray, V., & Cutt, J. (1998). Evaluating social service agencies: Fussy pictures of organisational effectiveness. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,9(1), 59–79.Google Scholar
  77. Tinkelman, D., & Donabedian, B. (2007). Street lamps, alleys, ratio analysis, and non-profit organisations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,18(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
  78. Torres, L., & Pina, V. (2003). Accounting and accountability and management in NPOs: A comparative study of four countries: Canada, The United Kingdom, The USA, and Spain. Financial Accountability and Management,19(3), 265–285.Google Scholar
  79. Tucker, B. (2010). Through which lens?: Contingency and institutional approaches to conceptualising organisational performance in the not-for-profit sector. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research,8(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  80. Tucker, B., & Parker, L. (2013). Out of control?: Strategy in the NFP sector: The implications for management control. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,26(2), 234–266.Google Scholar
  81. United Nations Development Group. (2011). Results based management handbook: Harmonising RBM concepts and approaches for improved development results at country level. United Nations Development Group, New York. www.issuu.com/undevelopmentgroup/docs/undg-rbm-handbook. Accessed 22 Mar 2016.
  82. Valters, C., Cummings, C., & Nixon, H. (2016). Putting learning at the centreAdaptive development programming in practice. Overseas Development Institute, London. www.odi.org/publications/10367. Accessed 19 Feb 2018.
  83. Woolcock, M. (2013). Using case studies to explore the external validity of ‘complex’ development interventions. Evaluation,19(3), 229–248.Google Scholar
  84. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. California: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business SchoolDublin City UniversityDublin 9Ireland
  2. 2.Queen’s University Management SchoolBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations