With the rise in prominence of NGOs in recent


decades, there has been much debate about their legitimacy. As many as eight different types of legitimacy have been theorized in NGO research, including recognition through maintaining a positive reputation; output by achieving demonstrable results, and moral by responding to an ethical, humanitarian imperative. NGO scholar Michael Edwards has proposed that we need “a new kind of legitimacy” for NGOs in our changing global sphere, one that is grounded in the voices of those with whom northern NGOs claim solidarity. Thus, participatory legitimacy, rooted in true expressions of democracy, is well-suited for small NGOs. Because of their focus on specific countries, targeting of strategic issues, operational versatility, and ability to permit a better balance of power, our best prospects for international co-operation may lie in the beauty of being small.


Small Is Beautiful Finds Common Ground


The argument that small NGOs offer promise in


an increasingly complex tapestry of global governance finds parallels in other domains. In the public sector, the small schools movement is founded on the democratic notion that more opportunities for student participation can be found in more modest education settings. Schumacher’s small-states argument holds that large, distantly-governed nation states construct a more stratified populace, where greater numbers of citizens are disenfranchised or feel out-of-touch with their governments. Interestingly, the world has not witnessed the consolidation of people into larger countries; rather, a Balkanization has distributed citizens among nearly three times the number of recognized countries since the Second World War. In the private sector too, a renaissance of smallness


is visible in ventures like the development of small- scale farming, and initiatives such as the 100-mile diet. Certainly the 2010 economic crash and bailout of massive corporations has stimulated a resistance towards corporations of immense power, profit, and size. And intriguingly, momentum for smaller enterprises and greater participation emerges from both poles of the political spectrum. In the US, for example, both the right-leaning Tea Party movement and Ralph Nader’s leftist consumer advocacy groups contest the lack of consumer voice in the market. Small businesses, they argue, would allow customers to be


in better touch with service providers, and clients to be better informed about the means of production. Small, Canadian NGOs, likewise, are well-suited


to represent their beneficiaries and negotiate with international partners. Yet the enabling of small NGOs in Canada is weakened by funding arrangements such as CIDA’s Partnership Modernization and Effectiveness Framework, in which CIDA partnerships with Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are determined through competitive bidding. With less ability to out-bid larger non- and for-profit organizations, “there is likely to be a significant reduction in the participation of Canadians through small and medium-sized CSOs in Canada”, writes CCIC president Gerry Barr in a November, 2010 letter to Minister of Co-operation Beverly Oda. Thus, rather than an international development


environment consisting of a handful of large NGOs– at risk of creating parallel or replacement social


Small and beautiful. Photo: Jia Lu


structures alongside those of the public systems in the countries in which they function – maybe we should envision a constellation of small NGOs, operating in collective solidarity. Nimble, similar in power to their partner organizations, targeted in terms of expertise and objectives and focused on participatory methods, perhaps the beauty of smallness is worth reconsidering for the case of the Canadian NGO?


Gary W.J. Pluim is a PhD Candidate and Initial Teacher


Education Instructor in the Comparative, International and Development Education Program Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto.


iAM March 2011 39


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43