Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Civil Society Partnerships: Power Imbalance and Mutual Dependence in NGO Partnerships

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the distinction between power imbalance and mutual dependence to better understand how NGOs manage resource dependencies in their relationships with civil society partners. The NGO leaders we interviewed emphasized mutual dependence in the relationships they developed with other NGOs regarding access to financial and information resources. In contrast, discourse about their relationships with IGOs focused on the acquisition of legitimacy and access, and was dominated by power imbalance. NGOs were largely accepting of both forms of dependence in pursuit of the community’s shared goals and for the greater good of constituents. Our finding that NGOs refrain from terminating suboptimal relationships also reflects the extent to which mutual dependence governs NGOs partnering strategies.

Résumé

La présente étude se penche sur la distinction entre le déséquilibre du pouvoir et l’interdépendance, pour mieux comprendre la façon dont les ONG gèrent leur dépendance aux ressources dans leurs relations avec des sociétés civiles partenaires. Les dirigeants d’ONG que nous avons interrogés ont mis l’accent sur l’interdépendance qui existe dans leurs relations avec d’autres ONG pour l’accès aux ressources financières et documentaires. Par opposition, le discours sur leurs relations avec les OIG accentuait l’acquisition de légitimité et d’accès et était dominé par le déséquilibre du pouvoir. Les ONG acceptent largement les deux formes de dépendance dans la poursuite des objectifs partagés de la communauté et pour le plus grand bien des électeurs. Nos résultats confirmant que les ONG évitent de mettre fin à des relations sous-optimales reflètent également la mesure dans laquelle l’interdépendance gouverne les stratégies de partenariat des ONG.

Zusammenfassung

Diese Studie untersucht den Unterschied zwischen Machtungleichgewicht und gegenseitiger Abhängigkeit, um zu einem besseren Verständnis dahingehend zu gelangen, wie nicht-staatliche Organisationen mit Ressourcenabhängigkeiten in ihren Beziehungen zu Partnern in der Bürgergesellschaft umgehen. Die von uns befragten Leiter nicht-staatlicher Organisationen betonten eine gegenseitige Abhängigkeit in den Beziehungen zu anderen nicht-staatlichen Organisationen mit Hinblick auf den Zugang zu Finanz- und Informationsressourcen. Bei ihren Beziehungen zu internationalen staatlichen Organisationen hingegen konzentrierten sie sich auf die Erzielung von Legitimität und Zugang, und die Beziehungen wurden von einer Machtungleichheit dominiert. Die nicht-staatlichen Organisationen akzeptierten weitgehend beide Arten der Abhängigkeit zugunsten der Ziele der Gemeinschaft und des allgemeinen Wohlergehens der Gemeindemitglieder. Unser Ergebnis, dass nicht-staatliche Organisationen von einer Beendigung suboptimaler Beziehungen absehen, spiegelt auch den Umfang wider, in dem die gegenseitige Abhängigkeit die Partnerstrategien nicht-staatlicher Organisationen bestimmt.

Resumen

El presente estudio examina la distinción entre desequilibrio de poder y dependencia mutua para comprender mejor cómo gestionan las ONG las dependencias de recursos en sus relaciones con socios de la sociedad civil. Los líderes de ONG que entrevistamos destacaron la dependencia mutua en las relaciones que desarrollaron con otras ONG con respecto al acceso a recursos financieros y de información. En cambio, el discurso sobre sus relaciones con Organizaciones Intergubernamentales (IGO, por sus siglas en inglés) se centró en la adquisición de legitimidad y acceso, y estuvo dominado por desequilibrio de poder. Las ONG aceptaban ampliamente ambas formas de dependencia en la búsqueda de objetivos compartidos de la comunidad y para el mayor beneficio de los componentes. Nuestro hallazgo de que las ONG se abstienen de terminar relaciones subóptimas refleja también la medida en que la dependencia mutua rige las estrategias de asociación de las ONG.

本研究对权力不平衡与相互依赖进行了探究,以更好的理解非政府组织是如何管理存在于他们与民间团体合作伙伴的关系中的资源依赖性的。我们所访问的非政府组织领导强调他们与其他非政府组织就获取资金与信息资源所建立发展的关系之中的相互依赖性。相反,关于他们与政府间组织(IGOs)关系的论述则着重取得合法性与进入权,为权力不平衡所主导。在追求社区共同目标以及为了选民更大利益的目的上,非政府组织大多能接受两种形式的依赖性。我们发现,非政府组织在结束未达最佳标准的关系时所保持的克制态度也反映了相互依赖性对非政府组织的合伙策略所具有的约束性的程度。.

تفحص هذه الدراسة التمييز بين إختلال ميزان القوة والإعتماد المتبادل على فهم أفضل لكيفية إدارة المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGO) لتبعيات المورد في علاقاتهم مع شركاء المجتمع المدني. قادة المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGO) الذين قابلناهم أكدوا الإعتماد المتبادل في العلاقات التي أقاموها مع المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGO) الأخرى فيما يتعلق بالموارد المالية والحصول على المعلومات. في المقابل، ركزت المناقشة حول علاقاتهم مع المنظمات الحكومية الدولية (IGO) لإكتساب الشرعية والحصول عليها، كان يسيطر عليها إختلال توازن القوى. أعربت المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGO) عن قبول كبير لكل أشكال التبعية في السعي لتحقيق الأهداف المشتركة للمجتمع وتحقيق الصالح العام للمكونات. وجدنا أن إمتناع المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGO) عن إنهاء العلاقات دون المستوى الأمثل يعكس أيضا” مدى تحكم الإعتماد المتبادل على إستراتيجيات مشاركة المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGO).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Ten percent of the data were coded by two authors. A Krippendorf’s Alpha score of .75 or higher was used as the benchmark to gauge intercoder reliability.

References

  • AbouAssi, K. (2013). Hands in the pockets of mercurial donors: NGO response to shifting funding priorities. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 584–602. doi:10.1177/0899764012439629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acosta, R. (2012). Advocacy networks through a multidisciplinary lens: Implications for research agendas. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(1), 156–181. doi:10.1007/s11266-011-9187-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. E. (2007). Sustainability through partnering: conceptualizing partnerships between businesses and NGOs. In P. Glasbergen, F. Bierman, & A. P. J. Moi (Eds.), Partnerships, Governance and Sustainable Development: Reflections on Theory and Practice (pp. 68–92). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baur, D. (2012). NGOs as legitimate partners of corporations: A political conceptualization. Issues in Business Ethics, 36(4), 167–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyzatis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code Development. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmin, J. (2003). Resources, opportunities and local environmental action in the democratic transition and early consolidation periods in the Czech Republic. Environmental Politics, 12(3), 42–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 167–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, C. J., Cheng, P., Kim, J., & Eldomiaty, T. I. (2005). Dual responsibilities of NGOs: Market and institutional responsibilities and ethics. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 17, 26–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., & Cobb, J. A. (2010). Resource dependence theory: Past and future. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 28, 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeMars, W. E. (2005). NGOs and transnational networks: Wild cards in world politics. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Hond, F., de Bakker, F. G., & Doh, J. (2015). What prompts companies to collaboration with NGOs? Recent evidence from the Netherlands. Business and Society, 54(2), 187–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drees, J. M., & Heugens, P. P. (2013). Synthesizing and extending resource dependence theory: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1666–1698. doi:10.1177/0149206312471391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2003). Making sense of accountability: Conceptual perspectives for northern and southern nonprofits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(2), 191–212.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, B., & McCarthy, J. D. (2004). Resources and social movement mobilization. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. P. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 116–152). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellstrand, A. E., Tihanyi, L., & Johnson, J. L. (2002). Board structure and international political risk. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 769–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, A., & Franklin, B. (1996). Growing pains: The developing children’s rights movement in the UK. In J. Pilcher & S. Wagg (Eds.), Thatcher’s children (pp. 94–113). London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazley, B., Bennett, T. A., & Littlepage, L. (2013). Achieving the partnership principle in experiential learning: The nonprofit perspective. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(3), 559–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 481–510.

  • Gray, B., & Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. (2007). Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer’s performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 32–69.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmig, B., Jegers, M., & Lapsley, I. (2004). Challenges in managing nonprofit organizations: A research overview. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(2), 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudock, A. C. (1995). Sustaining Southern NGOs in resource-dependent environments. Journal of International Development, 7(4), 653–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., Rosenberger, J. D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2008). Swimming with sharks: Technology ventures, defense mechanisms and corporate relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 295–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kegley, C. W., & Blanton, S. L. (2011). World politics: Trends and transformations. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khagram, S., Riker, J. V., & Sikkink, K. (2002). From Santiago to Seattle: Transnational advocacy groups restructuring work politics. In S. Khagram, J. V. Riker, & K. Sikkink (Eds.), Restructuring world politics: Transnational social movements, networks and norms (pp. 3–23). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khieng, S., & Dahles, H. (2015). Resource dependence and effects of funding diversification strategies among NGOs in Cambodia. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(4), 1412–1437. doi:10.1007/s11266-014-9485-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lister, S. (2000). Power in partnership? An analysis of an NGO’s relationships with its partners. Journal of International Development, 12(2), 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolin, D. B., Shen, C., Lee, S., Weber, M. S., Fulk, J., & Monge, P. (2012). Normative influences on network structure in the evolution of the children’s rights NGO network, 1977-2004. Communication Research, 20, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens, K. (2002). Mission impossible? Defining nongovernmental organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations, 13(3), 271–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, I., Bartsch, V., & Ebers, M. (2011). The value of intra-organizational social capital: How it fosters knowledge transfer, innovation performance, and growth. Organization Science, 32(2), 157–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, R. I. (2005). The United Nations as a membership organization. International Public Management, 8(1), 115–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, D. (1996). Nongovernmental organizations in the United Nations system: The emerging role of international civil society. Human Rights Quarterly, 18(1), 107–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks, T. (2008). The rise and fall of donor funding for advocacy NGOs: Understanding the impact. Development in Practice, 18(2), 213–222. doi:10.1080/09614520801899036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price-Cohen, C. P. (1990). Role of nongovernmental organizations in the drafting of the convention on the rights of the child. Human Rights Quarterly, 12, 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33(3), 479–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. (1997). Transnational social movements. New York: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J., Pagnucco, R., & Lopez, G. A. (1998). The work of transnational human rights NGOs in the 1990s. Human Rights Quarterly, 20, 379–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohl, M., & Stohl, C. (2005). Human rights, Nation states, and NGOs: Structural holes and the emergence of global regimes. Communication Monographs, 72(4), 442–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, D., & Barney, J. B. (1984). Perspectives in organizations: Resource dependence, efficiency, and population. Academy of Management Review, 9, 471–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2012). The UN and civil society. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/civilsociety/index.shtml

  • Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villanueva, J., Van de Ven, A. W., & Sapienza, H. J. (2012). Resource mobilization in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlaar, P. W. L., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Coping with problems of understanding in interorganizational relationships: Using formalization as a means to make sense. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1617–1638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the members of the Annenberg Networks Network for their assistance, feedback and support throughout this research project. We would also like to thank anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and recommendations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Management and Communication Studies—Simpson Tower 702, California State University Los Angeles, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA, 90032, USA

    Nina F. O’Brien

  2. Department of Communication, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, Pomona, CA, USA

    Sandra K. Evans

Authors
  1. Nina F. O’Brien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandra K. Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nina F. O’Brien.

Appendix: NGO Interview Protocol Excerpts

Appendix: NGO Interview Protocol Excerpts

Partnering

  1. (1)

    In general, when you think about organizations like your own, what kinds of partnerships between organizations are most common?

  2. (2)

    If you were to rate it on a scale from 1 to 10, how important is partnering with other organizations for achieving your organization’s goals? [1 = not important at all, 10 = extremely important.]

  3. (3)

    Think of the top 3 organizations with which you are working. For each organization, please tell me how you work with these folks.

  4. (4)

    What leads you to end a partnership with another organization?

Resources

  1. (5)

    What are the most important types of resources for a children’s rights organization, in general?

  2. (6)

    What are the kinds of organizations that your organization competes with for resources?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Brien, N.F., Evans, S.K. Civil Society Partnerships: Power Imbalance and Mutual Dependence in NGO Partnerships. Voluntas 28, 1399–1421 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9721-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9721-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation