Advertisement

Ethical Behaviour in Non-government Organisations

  • Linda KellyEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy book series (LOET, volume 23)

Abstract

What does it mean for NGOs to behave ethically? Most NGOs operate from a value base and seek to promote those values more widely in the world. As organisations they do good work, they seek to help poor people and others who are marginalised in their society and generally try to make the world a more just and reasonable place. What does the consideration of ethics add to this value based work? In considering these questions I want to draw from case studies of different types of NGOs and examine what might be ethical about their behaviour. The case studies appear to illustrate two types of ethical considerations for NGOs. First that NGOs, which seek support from others on the basis of their good work ought to behave with integrity, that is they should do what they claim to do. Second and perhaps more importantly NGOs might be considered to be behaving ethically if they choose to undertake their interventions with people as effectively as possible.

Keywords

Ethical Behaviour Poor Country Learning Organisation Donor Agency Logical Framework 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. ACFOA. 2002. Research Report for the ACFOA Strategy on Quality, NGO Effectiveness Conference, July, Australian Council for Overseas Aid, Canberra.Google Scholar
  2. Adong, R. 2005. The current procedures and policies dominating the disbursement of aid: Are they building strong relationships and enabling NGOs to meet their stated aims? Research report funded by ESCOR and DIFD, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Brehm, V. 2004. Autonomy or dependence? North-South NGO partnerships, INTRAC Briefing Paper No. 6, Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Brinkerhoff, D.W. and J.M. Coston. 1999. International development management in a globalised world. Public Administration Review 59(4): 346–361, July/Aug.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Britton, B. 1998. The learning NGO, Occasional Papers Series, No. 17, INTRAC, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Chambers, R. 2005. Aid and administrative capacity. In Ideas for Development, ed. R. Chambers Oxford: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  7. Crooke, M. 1996. NGOs and official development assistance. In Australia’s Aid Program: Mixed Messages and Conflicting Agendas, ed. P. Kilby. Melbourne: Monash Asia Institute and Community Aid Abroad.Google Scholar
  8. DFID. 2003. Better Government for Poverty Reduction: More Effective Partnership for Change. Consultation document. London: Department for International Development.Google Scholar
  9. Easterly, W. 2006. Planners vs. Searchers in Foreign Aid. Asia Development Bank Distinguished Lecture Series. Manila: ADB.Google Scholar
  10. Eyben, R. 2005. Donors’ learning difficulties: Results, relationships and responsibilities. IDS Bulletin 36(3): 98–107, Sep.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fleshman, M. 2004. Africa pushes for better aid quality. Africa Recovery 17(4): 18, Jan.Google Scholar
  12. Fowler, A. 1997. Striking a Balance. London: Earthscan/INTRAC.Google Scholar
  13. Hailey, J. and M. Sorgenfrei. 2003. Measuring success: Issues in performance management. Keynote paper at the INTRAC 5th International Evaluation Conference, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  14. Hoffmann, C., L. Roberts, J. Shoham, and P. Harvey. 2004. Measuring the Impact of Humanitarian Aid. Humanitarian Policy Group. London: ODI.Google Scholar
  15. Interaction 2006. NGO impact initiative, synthesis report, Oct, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Kelly, L. and R. Chapman. 2003.Australian NGOs and AusAID—Partnerships for quality assurance and improving effectiveness. Presentation to the joint French and DAC working party on evaluation, workshop on partners in development evaluation—learning and accountability, 25—26 Mar, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  17. Kilby, P. 2006. Accountability for empowerment: Dilemmas facing Non-governmental organizations. World Development 34(6): 951–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lehtinen, T. 2002. Measuring the Performance of EC Development Cooperation: Lessons from the Experiences of International Development Agencies. London: DFID.Google Scholar
  19. Marsden, D. 2003. Rights, culture and contested modernities. Keynote paper for INTRAC, 5th International Evaluation Conference, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. Moore, M.H., L.D. Brown, and J.P. Honan. 2001. Towards a public value framework for accountability and performance management for international Non-Governmental Organizations. Paper presented at the Hauser Center/ Keio University Workshop on ‘Accountability for International Nongovernmental Organizations’, Nov, Harvard University, Harvard.Google Scholar
  21. Radelet, S. 2006. A primer on foreign aid, Centre for Global Development Working Paper 92, Centre for Global Development, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  22. Roche, C. and L. Kelly. 2005. Evaluating the performance of development agencies. In Evaluating Development Effectiveness, World Bank series on Evaluation and Development, eds. G. Pitman, O. Feistein and G. Ingram , vol. 7. Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Schön, D.A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  24. Scott, A. 2004. Assessing Multilateral Effectiveness. London: International Division, Department of International Development.Google Scholar
  25. Smillie, I. and J. Hailey. 2001. Managing for Change: Leadership, Strategy and Management in Asian NGOs. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  26. Sorgenfrei, M. and R. Wrigley. 2005. Building Analytical and Adaptive Capacities for Organizational Effectiveness. Praxis Paper No.7. Oxford: INTRAC.Google Scholar
  27. Stewart, F. 2003. Evaluating evaluation in a world of multiple goals, interests and models. paper presented at the fifth Biennial World Bank Conference on Evaluation and Development, ‘Evaluating Development Effectiveness: Challenge and Ways Forward’ July, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  28. UNDP. 2003. Development Effectiveness Report. New York: UNDP.Google Scholar
  29. Wenar, L. 2006. Accountability in international development aid. Ethics and International Affairs 20(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Praxis Consultants Pty LtdSuttonAustralia

Personalised recommendations