Cooperation, co-optation, competition, conflict: international bureaucracies and non-governmental organizations in an interdependent world

ABSTRACT

International bureaucrats employed in inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) have a stake in the solidification and expansion of traditional global governance structures. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) often are thought to be threats to IGOs. But international bureaucracies regularly seek cooperation with NGOs that can help in ‘cross-national layering’: the creation of formal or informal international institutions that overlay domestic institutions, seeking to replace or subsume them over time. This article develops a ‘4Cs taxonomy’ in which shared/unshared resource bases and shared/unshared values translate into cooperative, co-optative, competitive, or conflictual relations between NGOs and international bureaucracies. It then examines the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) over a 70-year period, showing how different mixes of resources and values help to explain why FAO bureaucrats have cycled through different relationships with NGOs. This exemplifies themes of the New Interdependence Approach: (1) the forces of globalization and interdependence create openings for transnational alliances among non-state actors; (2) continued globalization takes place not in a state of anarchy, but in an environment of overlapping responsibilities or principles; and (3) institutions go beyond being ‘rules of the game’ and can be drivers of power shifts in domestic and international affairs.

KEYWORDS:

• inter-governmental organization (IGO)
• non-governmental organization (NGO)
• bureaucracy
• cooperation
• conflict
• 4Cs taxonomy
• interdependence
• globalization
• governance
• Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For research assistance, the author thanks Sanjeev Dasgupta.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. An important distinction between IGOs and NGOs is that the latter ‘represent people acting of their own volition, rather than by some institutional fiat’ (Gordenker and Weiss 1996: 20). Particularly in recent years, some observers attempt to cover NGOs and other actors within the broader term ‘civil society’ (McKeon 2009: 8–16). Because this article takes a historical view rather than focusing only on recent years, the term ‘NGO’ is retained here.

2. Although neither international bureaucracies nor NGOs are unitary actors, in many situations, it is empirically tractable and theoretically reasonable to believe that individuals within an organization behave in some similar ways. They may disagree about detailed objectives yet still agree about the kinds of broad objectives discussed above. To the extent that disagreements about broad objectives persist, an organization's top management is in a position to adjudicate among differing views and shape the direction of the organization as a whole. Unless organizational leaders were recently imposed from the outside (rather than rising from the inside), they can be expected to care about organizational survival, etc. in the ways outlined above. And even leaders imposed from the outside to ‘shake up’ an IGO often pursue reforms by seeking expansions – for instance, the creation of new bodies to ‘coordinate’ the activities of pre-existing bodies.

3. There are parallels to debates within federal systems domestically. While federal officials tend to advocate for centralized and standardized policy-making at the national level, officials in sub-national governments are more likely to vary: some want policy-making to take place at the sub-national level, but others want policy-making to take place at the national level.

4. This assumes that a given international bureaucracy and relevant NGOs exist. In market terms: Table 1 operates when both the ‘demand side’ and ‘supply side’ are populated (Steffek 2013: 1000). With the proliferation of both the IGO and NGO populations throughout the twentieth century, this is a safe premise outside of early years or unusual policy areas.

5. To explain NGOs’ relationships with governments rather than with IGOs, Najam 2000 proposes a model that looks superficially similar to Table 1. But in addition to involving a different pair of actors, that model involves vaguer inputs (just ‘means’ or ‘ends’) and a different set of outcomes (omitting competitive relationships, for instance).

6. This is not to say that time periods are completely uncorrelated: for instance, a long history of cooperation may make two parties less likely to even entertain alternative values. Moreover, the characteristics of values or resource bases are not fully exogenous: for instance, successful cross-national layering may enhance two parties’ respective pools of resources, facilitating further cooperation. But still, IGO–NGO relations vary – not only across particular inter-governmental or non-governmental organizations, but also across time.

7. The nature of IGO–NGO relations is not the sole factor that can influence whether international institutions take over work from domestic institutions. For instance, moves for cross-national layering also are influenced by an international bureaucracy's relationship with states, or how it has performed its existing set of tasks. But note that cooperative non-governmental organizations can facilitate cross-national layering through many of these other channels too – for example, by lobbying government officials or helping international bureaucrats with program implementation.

8. From reports on FAO Conferences, available at: http://www.fao.org/publications/search/en/

9. In addition, by looking at a single organizational family, we can spot not only bureaucratic expansion but also harder-to-identify stasis (such as bureaucratic initiatives that were sought but never achieved) or contractions (such as initiatives that later unraveled). Variation in the FAO's regular budget suggests that the bureaucracy has experienced highs and lows in overall operations over time: (a) stasis in the 1950s, 1980s, and 2000s, (b) expansions in the 1960s and into the 1970s, and (c) contractions in the 1990s (Author's calculations (with standardization in 2015 US dollars to account for inflation), based on FAO reports available at: http://www.fao.org/publications/search/en/). Such variation is useful, dampening connections to factors (such as the number of FAO member-states) that only increase with time.

10. The historical scope of the inquiry undermines the feasibility of interviewing, since key individuals have passed away. But the article incorporates many other primary sources: FAO or United Nations reports, documents and oral histories from US Government archives, newspaper articles, accounts written by international bureaucrats, and papers published by NGOs (e.g., Blau et al. 1985; Capron 1964; Dinham 1991; FAO 1946, 1959, 2007; Hildyard 1991; Industrial Cooperative Program 1973; McGovern 1964; McKeon 2009; Orr 1945, 1960; Philips 1981; Sen 1961, 1963, 1982; Weitz 1999). In addition, the qualitative approach synthesizes and triangulates some secondary sources, such as scholarly or commissioned histories of food policy.

11. Note that some of the NGOs whose anti-hunger activities are well known today were not prominent at this point in history. For instance, Bread for the World, ActionAid, and Action against Hunger did not work on hunger amelioration until the 1970s or later (Jurkovich 2016: 4).

12. The NGOs were: Associated Country Women of the World; Catholic International Union for Social Services; Committee of Churches on International Affairs; Confédération Européenne de l'Agriculture; Commission Internationale du Génie Rural; International Conference of Catholic Charities; International Confederation of Christian Trade Unions; International Confederation of Free Trade Unions; International Confederation of Technical Agriculturalists; International Cooperative Alliance; International Council of Women; International Dairy Federation; International Federation of Agricultural Producers; International Federation of Business and Professional Women; International Landworkers Federation; League of Red Cross Societies; Mouvement International de la Jeunesse Agricole et Rurale Catholique; Union Internationale des Sciences Biologiques; Union Mondiale des Organizations Féminines Catholiques; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; World Assembly of Youth; World Council of Churches; World Federation of Trade Unions; World Federation of United Nations Associations; World Veterinary Association; World Young Women's Christian Association.

13. Founded in 1945 as the ‘Cooperative for American Remittances to Europe’ to send food and supplies to a specific war-torn region, CARE rapidly became a major transnational NGO dealing with development aid around the world. By the mid-1950s, it changed its name to ‘Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere’ to reflect its expanding operations.

14. To be sure, IGO–NGO cooperation is not the only possible reason for this particular victory in cross-national layering. Other factors (such as the Kennedy administration's growing concern with agricultural surpluses) also could matter – for a more detailed discussion, see Johnson 2014. Note, however, that the creation and survival of the World Food Program cannot be explained by looking at powerful states alone. Some observers simplistically credit the USA's representative George McGovern for launching the WFP – but in interviews, McGovern himself offered a more nuanced explanation. He noted that the World Food Program would ‘not have gotten off the ground as soon as it did’ without President Kennedy's swift authorization of US food and cash to implement the institutional design proposal from Sen (McGovern 1964: 27, 29, emphasis added). The World Food Program was not the idea of the US Government, and even after it was operating, important US Government officials opposed expanding it and making it permanent (Capron 1964).

15. From reports on FAO Conferences, available at: http://www.fao.org/publications/search/en/

16. Author's calculations (with standardization in 2015 U.S. dollars to account for inflation), based on FAO reports available at: http://www.fao.org/publications/search/en/

17. Food and Agriculture Organization (2016) ‘Cooperation with Civil Society: How To Become a Partner’ Available at: http://www.fao.org/tc/ngo/work_with_us_en.asp

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Tana Johnson

Tana Johnson is assistant professor of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke University. Her work appears in outlets such as International Organization, Journal of Politics, Review of International Organizations, and Review of International Political Economy. Her book Organizational Progeny (Oxford University Press, 2014) won the International Studies Association's Chadwick F. Alger Prize for the best book on international organization and multilateralism.