NGOs and INGOs have a perception of being ‘for the people, by the people’ which is apparent in “World Culture in the World Polity” by Boli and Thomas when they write “INGOs have explicit, rationalized goals…They seek, in a general sense, to spread “progress” throughout the world,” 309. What Boli and Thomas fail to mention is that NGOs have have very specific interests that usually do not affect the whole world. Bond’s “Backlash Against NGOs” accuses NGOs of not really speaking for the public, but for themselves instead for purposes of positive media and extended membership. Another issue mentioned is that some of the NGOs overlap and compete with each other which defeats the original grassroots model. One given example is Humane Society of the US vs the Worldwide Fund for Nature both of which fall under the environmental category of NGOs but have conflicting goals. This is problematic because of the common appearance of unification among “green-movement” even though there is none. Lastly, NGOs have accumulated trust and funds from the average citizens of the world but are not held as accountable as government organizations with the same amount of backing. NGOs are not accountable but have the fixings of any accountable, criticized organization.
The appeal of NGOs is real- people buy into the idea of government being corrupt and NGOs and INGOs being innocent, grassroot organizations but ultimately, the two types are more similar than most people believe.
