IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accfor/v43y2019i1p113-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Donors’ influence strategies and beneficiary accountability: an NGO case study

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammed Mohi Uddin
  • Ataur Rahman Belal

Abstract

Previous research on NGO accountability have focused on the constraining features of NGOs’ accountability to donors. We argue that donor accountability of NGOs also has enabling features which can be mobilised to the advantage of beneficiaries. Drawing on a fieldwork-based case study design in this paper, we show that how powerful stakeholders like donors can influence NGOs, and in that process facilitate beneficiary accountability. We have found that donors have applied “direct usage” (influence NGOs directly by controlling critical resources) and “indirect usage” (influence NGOs indirectly via other stakeholders such as regulators) strategies in holding the case NGO to account.HIGHLIGHTS This paper is concerned with finding ways for the improvement of NGOs' accountability to beneficiaries. We have argued against the tendency to view donor accountability versus beneficiary accountability as dichotomous. While previous studies have focused on the constraining features of NGOs' accountability to donors we highlight in-built enabling features of NGOs' accountability to donors which can be mobilised to the enhancement of beneficiary accountability. Our results show that powerful NGO stakeholders like donors have applied various influence strategies in holding the case NGO to account for their beneficiaries.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammed Mohi Uddin & Ataur Rahman Belal, 2019. "Donors’ influence strategies and beneficiary accountability: an NGO case study," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 113-134, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:43:y:2019:i:1:p:113-134
    DOI: 10.1080/01559982.2019.1589905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01559982.2019.1589905
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01559982.2019.1589905?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Scobie, Matthew & Lee, Bill & Smyth, Stewart, 2023. "Grounded accountability and Indigenous self-determination," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. Alshurafa, Mohammed & Aboramadan, Mohammed & Haniffa, Roszaini, 2023. "Digital postcolonialism and NGO accountability during COVID-19: Evidence from the Gaza Strip," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(5).
    3. Girei, Emanuela, 2023. "Managerialisation, accountability and everyday resistance in the NGO sector: Whose interests matter?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. Cavicchi, Caterina & Vagnoni, Emidia, 2023. "Digital information systems in support of accountability: The case of a welfare provision non-governmental organisation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(5).
    5. Ahmed, Zahir Uddin & Hopper, Trevor & Wickramasinghe, Danture, 2023. "From Minnow to Mighty: A hegemonic analysis of social accountability in BRAC - the world’s largest development NGO," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    6. Dewi, Miranti Kartika & Manochin, Melina & Belal, Ataur, 2021. "Towards a conceptual framework of beneficiary accountability by NGOs: An Indonesian case study," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    7. Kingston, Kylie L. & Furneaux, Craig & de Zwaan, Laura & Alderman, Lyn, 2023. "Avoiding the accountability ‘sham-ritual’: An agonistic approach to beneficiaries’ participation in evaluation within nonprofit organisations," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    8. Ang, Soon Yong & Wickramasinghe, Danture, 2023. "Ethical disputes, coordinating acts and NGO accountability: Evidence from an NGO river-care programme in Malaysia," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    9. Adhikari, Pawan & Upadhaya, Bedanand & Wijethilake, Chaminda & Dhakal Adhikari, Shovita, 2023. "The sociomateriality of digitalisation in Nepalese NGOs," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(5).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:43:y:2019:i:1:p:113-134. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/racc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.