Skip to main content

The Relationship Between Liberian CSOs and International Donor Funding: Boon or Bane?

This article has been updated

Abstract

The Liberian environment is characterized by enormous reliance on international aid, substantial amounts of which is channeled through civil society organizations (CSOs). These civil society organizations have played an important role in Liberia’s redevelopment since the end of the civil war in 2003, despite the fact that international aid to Liberia is increasingly characterized by unstable funding patterns and shifting donor priorities. This makes it vital to deepen our understanding of international aid funding to Liberian CSOs. This study uses mixed methodology to examine what impacts the ability of Liberian CSOs to attract aid funding, the nature of the donor–CSO relationship, and how this relationship impacts the capacity and behavior of CSOs. Results indicate CSO competence and efficiency are associated with ability to attract aid funding. Pressures and imbalance in the donor–CSO relationship contribute to high levels of environmental uncertainty for Liberian CSOs in the sample, leading to adaptive behaviors related to activities and funding streams.

Résumé

L’environnement libérien se caractérise par une énorme dépendance à l’aide internationale, dont d’imposants montants sont canalisés par des organismes de société civile (OSC). Tandis que l’aide internationale au Liberia se caractérise par des modèles de financement instables et la mutation des priorités des donateurs depuis la fin de la guerre civile en 2003, le secteur naissant de la société civile du pays a joué un rôle important dans sa reconstruction. Nous devons ainsi mieux comprendre le financement de l’aide internationale aux OSC libériens. La présente étude utilise une méthodologie mixte pour déterminer ce qui influence la capacité des OSC libériens à attirer de l’aide et évaluer la nature de la relation entre les donateurs et les OSC, et comment cette dernière influence la capacité et le comportement des OSC. Les résultats démontrent que la compétence et l’efficacité des OSC sont associées à leur capacité d’attirer du financement. La présence de pression et de déséquilibre dans la relation qui unit les donateurs aux OSC crée de grandes incertitudes environnementales pour les OSC de l’échantillon, ce qui entraîne conséquemment l’adoption de comportements adaptatifs associés aux activités et aux flux de financement.

Zusammenfassung

Das liberianische Umfeld zeichnet sich aus durch eine enorme Abhängigkeit von internationaler Hilfe, die zum großen Teil über Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen geleitet wird. Während die internationale Hilfe für Liberia durch instabile Finanzierungsmuster und wechselnde Prioritäten seitens der Spender gekennzeichnet ist, spielt der neue Bürgergesellschaftssektor des Landes seit Ende des Bürgerkrieges 2003 eine wichtige Rolle bei der Sanierung. Somit ist es äußerst wichtig, das Verständnis über internationale Hilfeleistungen für liberianische Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen zu vertiefen. Diese Studie wendet den Mixed-Methods-Ansatz an, um zu untersuchen, wodurch die Fähigkeit liberianischer Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen beinträchtigt wird, Hilfsgelder für sich zu gewinnen, wie sich die Beziehung zwischen Spender und Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen gestaltet und wie sich diese Beziehung auf die Fähigkeit und das Verhalten der Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen auswirkt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass es eine Verbindung gibt zwischen der Kompetenz und Effizienz einer Bürgergesellschaftsorganisation und ihrer Fähigkeit, Hilfsgelder für sich zu gewinnen. Spannungen und ein Ungleichgewicht in der Beziehung zwischen Spender und Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen tragen zur großen Unsicherheit im Umfeld der liberianischen Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen aus der Stichprobe bei, was in adaptiven Verhaltensweisen im Zusammenhang mit den Aktivitäten und Finanzierungsströmen resultiert.

Resumen

El entorno liberiano se caracteriza por una enorme dependencia de la ayuda internacional, importes sustanciales de la cual se canaliza a través de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil (CSO, por sus siglas en inglés). Mientras que la ayuda a Liberia se caracteriza por patrones de financiación inestables y prioridades de los donantes cambiantes, desde el final de la guerra civil en 2003, el naciente sector de la sociedad civil del país ha desempeñado un importante papel en el redesarrollo. Esto hace vital profundizar en la comprensión de la financiación de la ayuda internacional para las CSO liberianas. El presente estudio utiliza metodología mixta para examinar qué afecta a la capacidad de las CSO liberianas para atraer financiación de ayuda, la naturaleza de la relación CSO-donante, y cómo esta relación afecta a la capacidad y al comportamiento de las CSO. Los resultados indican que la competencia y la eficiencia de las CSO se asocia a la capacidad de atraer financiación de ayuda. Las presiones y el desequilibrio en la relación donante-CSO contribuyen a elevados niveles de incertidumbre ambiental para las CSO liberianas de la muestra, que llevan a comportamientos flexibles relacionados con las actividades y las corrientes de financiación.

摘要

利比里亚环境的特点是,严重依赖国际援助,其中的很大一部分都通过公民社会组织 (CSO)。尽管利比里亚国际援助的特点是,不稳定的资金模式和变换的捐赠优先级,但自2003年结束内战以来,该国的新兴公民社会领域在重新发展扮演了重要的角色。这使其对深入了解利比里亚CSO的国际援助资金非常重要。本研究使用混合方法检查了哪些因素会影响利比里亚CSO吸引援助资金的能力,捐赠人-CSO关系的性质和这一关系如何影响CSO的能力和行为。结果表明,CSO的能力和效率与吸引援助资金的能力关联。捐赠人-CSO关系的压力和不平衡使得利比里亚CSO的环境存在较高的不确定性,带来相对于活动和资金流的适应性行为。

要約

リベリアの環境は、市民社会組織(CSO)が提示する相当量の国際的援助の信頼性によって特徴づけられる。リベリアの国際的援助は、2003年の市民戦争終結から国内で発生した市民社会のセクターは再開発に重要な役割を果たしてきたために、不安定な資金と資金提供者の優先の変化によって特徴づけられる。これによって、リベリアのCSOには国際的援助設立に深い理解が必要不可欠である。本研究では混合方法論を用いて、リベリアのCSOの資金援助を誘致する可能性とCSOの資金提供の関係にどのような影響を与えるか、この関係がCSOの能力と行動にどのような影響を与えるかを調査する。結果から、CSOの能力と効率は、資金援助を誘致する可能性と関連することがわかった。CSOの資金提供者の関係における圧力とアンバランスは、リベリアのCSOにおける活動と資金の流れに関連する適応行動を導く例からすると、高いレベルの環境の不安定さに寄与する。

ملخص

تتميز بيئة ليبريا بالإعتماد الهائل على المعونة الدولية التي توجه مبالغ كبيرة منها عن طريق منظمات المجتمع المدني(CSOs). في حين تتسم المعونة الدولية المقدمة إلى ليبريا بأنماط التمويل الغير مستقر وأولويات المانحين المتغيرة، فإنه منذ نهاية الحرب الأهلية في عام 2003، لعب قطاع المجتمع المدني الوليد في البلد دور هام في إعادة التطوير. هذا يجعل من الضروري تعميق فهم تمويل المعونة الدولية لمنظمات المجتمع المدني في ليبيريا. تستخدم هذه الدراسة منهجية مختلطة لدراسة ما يؤثر على قدرة منظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs)في ليبريا إلى جذب تمويل المساعدات، طبيعة العلاقة بين المانحين ومنظمات المجتمع المدني(CSOs)، كيف تؤثر هذه العلاقة على قدرة وسلوك منظمات المجتمع المدني(CSOs). تشير النتائج إلى أن مهارة منظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs) وكفاءتها ترتبط بالقدرة على جذب تمويل المساعدات. تساهم الضغوط وعدم التوازن في العلاقة بين المانحين ومنظمات المجتمع المدني(CSOs) في إرتفاع مستويات عدم اليقين البيئي بالنسبة لمنظمات المجتمع المدني(CSOs) في ليبيريا في العينة، مما يؤدي إلى سلوكيات تكيفية تتعلق بالأنشطة وتدفق التمويل.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Change history

  • 10 May 2018

    The PDF version of this article was reformatted to a larger trim size.

Notes

  1. 1.

    This study purposely uses the terminology “civil society organizations” (CSOs) as defined by the 2007–2008 Advisory Group on CSOs and Aid Effectiveness and now adopted by the OECD DAC: “[CSOs] can be defined to include all non-market and non-state organizations outside of the family in which people organize themselves to pursue shared interests in the public domain. Examples include community-based organizations and village associations, environmental groups, women’s rights groups, farmers’ associations, faith-based organizations, labor unions, co-operatives, professional associations, chambers of commerce, independent research institutes and the not-for-profit media.”

  2. 2.

    ODA to the Government of Liberia (GoL) is documented in the 2015 Republic of Liberia Mid-Year Development Assistance Report, which provides details on the distribution of US$ 833,884,679 in FY 2014–2015, and US$ 785,215,100 in FY 2013–2014. Aid channeled to civil society includes programs such as USAID’s “Strengthening Civil Society” initiative, which documents US$ 17.8 million in program spending between 2011 and 2015.

  3. 3.

    ODA is defined as: “Flows of official financing administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as the main objective, and which are concessional in character and with a grant element of at least 25%. By convention, ODA flows comprise contributions of donor government agencies, at all levels, to developing countries (‘bilateral ODA’), and to multilateral institutions. ODA receipts comprise disbursements by bilateral and multilateral donors/institutions” (OECD, Glossary of Statistical Terms). ODA is a term used by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and it is widely used as an indicator of international aid flow (aid). The terms “ODA,” “international aid,” and “aid” are subsequently used interchangeably in this manuscript.

  4. 4.

    Overall, ODA has declined by 6.0% since 2010, the year it reached its peak (OECD 2013). The financial crisis and Euro zone turmoil has led governments to tighten their budgets, which has had a direct impact on development aid. Furthermore, ODA to the African continent as a whole fell by 9.9% to USD 28.9 billion in 2013, with bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa down 7.9% from 2011 to 2013.

  5. 5.

    Critics of this supposition point to the rent-seeking nature of some CSO operations (see, for example, Smith 2010). However, the purpose of this article is not to engage in a debate about the altruistic character of civil society, but to analyze whether or not the characteristic of altruism, as proxied in Fafchamps and Owens (2009) model, impacts the ability of Liberian CSOs to attract aid funding.

  6. 6.

    This decline in aid to Liberia from 2010 to 2013 reflects two larger trends in sub-Saharan Africa. First, overall net aid to sub-Saharan Africa is declining slightly, down 2.6% over the period 2011–2015 (OECD 2017). Second, a falling share of aid is going to the neediest sub-Saharan African countries, and this trend is likely to continue (OECD Observer No. 298, Q1. 2014). However, it is also clear that the Ebola crisis resulted in much larger amounts of aid to Liberia in 2014 (750 million USD) and 2015 (1094 million USD), reversing Liberia’s trend of declining aid.

  7. 7.

    65% of children in Liberia of primary school age (6–11) are out of school (Education Policy and Data Center 2014).

  8. 8.

    The GoL/CSO Partnership Policy includes a typology of four classifications for registered civil society organizations in Liberia. As noted, this study focuses on Type 1 CSOs, which are local, community-based, and grassroots organizations. The GOL/CSO Partnership Policy also describes Type 2 CSOs, which work at the national level and are also referred to as NGOs. Type 3 CSOs work at the county and district level (versus the individual community level). Type 4 CSOs are those that work in Liberia but are based outside the country. The Type 4 classification can be viewed as comparable to the term “INGO.” While this study focuses on registered, Type 1 Liberian CSOs, it should be noted that there are potentially a substantial number of unregistered CSOs operating in the country (2008 Republic of Liberia National Policy on Non-Governmental Organizations in Liberia) which are not captured in this sample.

  9. 9.

    While we know that CSOs in the urban county of Montserrado and adjacent county of Bong differ from CSOs in more remote urban locations (McKeown and Mulbah 2007), budgetary and logistical constraints made these two counties feasible locations for this study.

  10. 10.

    Focus groups and surveys were originally scheduled in May and June of 2014. The two focus groups were completed in May 2014, and as the survey was being piloted, the Ebola outbreak reached Monrovia and data collection had to be halted for over a year. The researcher returned to Liberia in October of 2015 to re-pilot the survey instrument and oversee survey data collection.

  11. 11.

    There were a total of five organizations that identified as INGOs, and one that identified as a branch of an INGO, in spite of the fact that all CSOs in the sampling frame were classified as Type I Liberian CSOs by the NEC. The Type I classification should indicate a CSO is not an INGO. This misclassification may reflect confusion among CSOs as to how they should register.

  12. 12.

    All but two organizations reported an organizational age of between 4 and 59 years. One CSO reported an age of 110 years, and a second reported an organizational age of 181 years. Leaving these two outliers out of the analyses did not significantly alter the results. Therefore, they are included in the analyses.

  13. 13.

    Four of the 52 surveys were obtained from CSOs outside the capital of Monrovia, in Bong County. Logistical and budgetary constraints prevented the researcher from surveying additional CSOs outside the capital.

References

  1. AbouAssi, K. (2012). Hands in the pockets of mercurial donors: NGO response to shifting funding priorities. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(3), 584–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Africa, S. (2013). Philippine NGOs: Defusing dissent, spurring change. In A. Choudry & D. Kapoor (Eds.), NGOization: Complicity, contradictions and prospects (pp. 118–143). London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Banks, N., Hulme, D., & Edwards, M. (2015). NGOs, states, and donors revisited: Still too close for comfort? World Development, 66, 707–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barr, A., & Fafchamps, M. (2006). A client-community assessment of the NGO Sector in Uganda. Journal of Development Studies, 42(4), 611–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barr, A., Fafchamps, M., & Owens, T. (2005). The governance of non-governmental organizations in Uganda. World Development, 33(4), 657–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bebbington, A. (2004). NGOs and uneven development: Geographies of development intervention. Progress in Human Geography, 28(6), 725–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bebbington, A. J., Hickey, S., & Mitlin, D. (2007). Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives. London: Zed Books, (Vauxhall).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brautigam, D., & Segarra, M. (2007). Difficult partnerships: The World Bank, states and NGOs. Latin American Politics and Society, 49(4), 149–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brouwer, I. (2000). Weak democracy and civil society promotion: The cases of Egypt and Palestine (pp. 21–48). Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brown, D. S., Brown, J. C., & Desposato, S. W. (2007). Who gives, who receives, and who wins? Transforming capital into political change through nongovernmental organizations. Comparative Political Studies, 41(1), 24–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organization Behavior Human Decision Process, 97, 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chahim, D., & Prakesh, A. (2014). NGOization, foreign funding, and the Nicaraguan civil society. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(2), 487–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. CIA World Fact Book. (2015). Retrieved on November 9, 2017 from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/li.html.

  14. CIVICUS. (2010). Civil Society Index Analytical Report for Liberia. Beyond numbers: An assessment of the Liberian civil society. A Report on the CIVCUS Civil Society Index 2010.

  15. Clarke, G. (1998). Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and politics in the developing world (pp. 36–52). XLVI: Political Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Degnbol-Martinussen, J., & Engberg-Pedersen, P. (2003). Aid: Understanding international development cooperation. London: Zed Books, (Vauxhall).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Doornbos, M. (2003). Good Governance: The metamorphosis of a policy metaphor. Journal of International Affairs, 57(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly., 34(1), 56–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Education Policy and Data Center. (2014). National education profile: Liberia. 2014 Update.

  21. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1995). NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world. Journal of International Development, 7(6), 849–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Edwards, M., Hulme, D., & Wallace, T. (1999). NGOs in a global future: Marrying local delivery to worldwide leverage. Public Administration and Development, 19(2), 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Elbers, W., & Arts, B. (2011). Keeping body and soul together: Southern NGOs’ strategic responses to donor constraints. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(4), 713–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Epstein, G. S., & Gang, I. N. (2006). Contests, NGOs, and decentralizing aid. Review of Development Economics, 10(2), 285–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fafchamps, M., & Owens, T. (2009). The determinants of funding to Ugandan nongovernmental organizations. The World Bank Economic Review, 23(2), 295–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fisher, W. F. (1997). Doing good? The politics and antipolitics of NGO practices. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 439–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fowler, A. (2000). Civil society, NGDOs and social development: Changing the rules of the game. Geneva Occasional Paper No. 1. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

  28. Fowler, A. (2000b). NGDO futures: Beyond aid: NGDO values and the fourth position. Third World Quarterly, 21(4), 589–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Froelich, K. A. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 246–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gill, L. (1997). Power lines: The political context of nongovernmental organization (NGO) activity in El Alto, Bolivia. Journal of Latin American Anthropology, 2(2), 144–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hanafi, S., & Tabar, L. (2003). The intifada and the aid industry: The impact of the new liberal agenda on Palestinian NGOs. Comparative Studies of South Asian, Africa, and the Middle East, 23, 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hughes, P., & Luksetich, W. (2004). Nonprofit arts organizations: Do funding sources influence spending patterns? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 203–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hulme, D., & Edwards, M. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kharas, H., & Gill, I. (2007). An East Asian renaissance: Ideas for economic growth (pp. 1–365). The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The World Bank.

  35. Khieng, S. (2014). Funding mobilization strategies of nongovernmental organizations in Cambodia. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(6), 1441–1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Khieng, S., & Dahles, H. (2015). Resource dependence and effects of funding diversification strategies among NGOs in Cambodia. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(4), 1412–1437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Koch, D. J., Dreher, A., Nunnenkamp, P., & Thiele, R. (2009). Keeping a low profile: What determines the allocation of aid by non-governmental organizations? World Development, 37(5), 902–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lindelow, M., Reinikka, R., & Svensson, V. (2003). Health care on the frontline: Survey evidence on public and private providers in Uganda. Africa Region Human Development Working Paper 38. World Bank.

  39. McKeown, M., & Mulbah, E. (2007). Civil society in Liberia: Towards a strategic framework for support. An overview of civil society in Liberia for search for common ground.

  40. Mohan, G. (2002). The disappointments of civil society: The politics of NGO intervention in Northern Ghana. Political Geography, 21, 125–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mueller-Hirth, N. (2012). “If you don’t Count, you don’t count: Monitoring and evaluation in South African NGOs”. Development & Change, 43(3), 649–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Reinikka, R., & Svensson, V. (2003). Survey techniques to measure and explain corruption. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3071.

  43. Republic of Liberia. (2013). Liberia National Elections Commission Civic and Voter Education Section. Civil Society Organizations Directory.

  44. Sanyal, P. (2006). Capacity building through partnerships: Intermediary nongovernmental organizations as local and global actors. Non-Profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 66–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Smith, D. J. (2010). Corruption, NGOs, and development in Nigeria. Third World Quarterly, 31(2), 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Smith, S., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013). Development Cooperation Directorate (DAC). Statistics retrieved August 15, 2016 from: http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/.

  48. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2014). Statistics retrieved August 15, 2016 from: http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/.

  49. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2017). Statistics retrieved April 12, 2017 from: http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/statisticsonresourceflowstodevelopingcountries.htm.

  50. The World Bank Group. (2014). Liberia country statistics retreived on November 9, 2017 from: https://data.worldbank.org/country/liberia.

  51. Thomas, A. (2008). Whatever happened to reciprocity? Implications on ‘voice’ and ‘impact’ as rationale for working with NGOs in development. In A. Bebbington, S. Hickey, & D. Mitlin (Eds.), Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives (pp. 90–110). London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Tvedt, T. (2006). The international aid system and the non-governmental organizations: A new research agenda. Journal of International Development, 18, 677–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. USAID CSO Sustainability Index for Sub-Saharan Africa. (2012). United States Agency for International Development. Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance. Center for Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance.

  54. Van Rooy, A. (1998). Civil society and the aid industry: The politics and promise. England: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Viravaidya, M., & Hayssen, J. (2001). Strategies to strengthen NGO capacity in resource mobilization through business activities. UNAIDS Best Practice Collection: PDA and UNAIDS Joint Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Weisbrod, B. A. (2000). To profit or not to profit: The commerical transformation of the nonprofit sector. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Weisbrod, B. A., & Dominguez, N. D. (1986). Demand for collective goods in private nonprofit markets: Can fundraising expenditures help overcome free-rider behavior? Journal of Public Economics, 30, 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the Auburn University Intermural Grants Program Seed Funding Award. (This award has no associated grant number.)

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly Krawczyk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krawczyk, K. The Relationship Between Liberian CSOs and International Donor Funding: Boon or Bane?. Voluntas 29, 296–309 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9922-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • International aid funding
  • CSOs
  • Liberia
  • Civil society