NGO Role - Suarez - Marshall - Cambodia

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/257672513
Capacity in the NGO Sector: Results from a National Survey in Cambodia
Article in International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations · February 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s11266-012-9331-8
CITATIONS READS
12 365
2 authors:
David Suarez Jeffery H. Marshall

University of Washington Seattle EdCaminos
25 PUBLICATIONS 647 CITATIONS 26 PUBLICATIONS 523 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by David Suarez on 19 February 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200
DOI 10.1007/s11266-012-9331-8
Capacity in the NGO Sector: Results from a National

Survey in Cambodia
David Suárez • Jeffery H. Marshall
Published online: 11 September 2012

Ó International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2012
Abstract Capacity has become a prominent theme in the literature on nongov-

ernmental organizations (NGOs) in the last few decades, due in part to the
increasingly global role these organizations play in development. We analyze data
obtained from a national sample of local and international NGOs operating in
Cambodia, documenting capacity differences between these two groups as well as
highlighting overall levels of capacity in the sector. The analysis covers a number of
different organizational dimensions that have been associated with capacity,
including structural characteristics and concrete management practices. Results
suggest that international NGOs generally have greater capacity, but overall levels
of capacity are relatively low for a variety of measures. We conclude with an
exploratory cluster analysis that identifies four distinctive groups of NGOs based on
capacity, providing additional insights into diversity within the sector. These find-
ings will be useful for comparative NGO research and for capacity-building pro-
grams, in addition to helping establish an agenda for future research to monitor
progress.
Résumé La notion de capacité est devenue, au cours des dernières décennies, un

des thèmes principaux des recherches sur les Organisations Non Gouvernementales
(ONG), en partie en raison du rôle international grandissant que jouent ces organ-
isations dans le domaine du développement. Dans cet article, nous examinons des
données provenant d’un échantillon national d’ONG locales et internationales
opérant au Cambodge. Ces données portent sur les différences de capacité entre ces
D. Suárez (&)
Sol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA, USA
e-mail: dsuarez@usc.edu
J. H. Marshall
San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
e-mail: jhm_1969@yahoo.com
123
Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200 177
deux groupes et mettent également en lumière les niveaux globaux de capacité dans
ce secteur. L’analyse prend en compte une variété de dimensions organisationelles
liées à la capacité, telles que les caractéristiques structurelles et les pratiques con-
crètes de gestion. Les résultats suggèrent que les ONG internationales (ONGI)
possèdent généralement une capacité supérieure, mais que les niveaux globaux de
capacité sont relativement bas selon une variété de mesures. En conclusion, nous
présentons une analyse exploratoire de clusters qui identifie quatre groupes distincts
de NGO en fonction de leur capacité, offrant ainsi une image plus détaillée de la
diversité au sein de ce secteur. Ces résultats serviront non seulement pour établir un
agenda de recherches futures sur les progrès accomplis dans ce secteur, mais seront
aussi utiles aux études comparées d’ONG et aux programmes de développement de
capacité.
Zusammenfassung Die Kapazität ist in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten zu einem

wichtigen Thema in der Literatur zu nicht-staatlichen Organisationen geworden. Ein
Grund dafür ist die vermehrt globale Rolle, die diese Organisationen im Entwick-
lungsbereich spielen. Wir untersuchen Daten aus einer landesweiten Stichprobe von
lokalen und internationalen nicht-staatlichen Organisationen in Kambodscha, die
sowohl die Kapazitätsunterschiede zwischen diesen beiden Gruppen dokumentieren
als auch das Kapazitätsmaß insgesamt in diesem Sektor hervorheben. Die Analyse
erstreckt sich auf eine Reihe verschiedener organisatorischer Bereiche, die mit der
Kapazität in Verbindung gebracht werden, einschließlich struktureller Merkmale
und konkreter Managementpraktiken. Die Ergebnisse weisen darauf hin, dass
internationale nicht-staatliche Organisationen im Allgemeinen zwar über größere
Kapazitäten verfügen; doch ist das Kapazitätsmaß insgesamt in verschiedenen
bewerteten Bereichen relativ gering. Der Beitrag schließt mit einer explorativen
Clusteranalyse, die im Hinblick auf die Kapazität vier unterschiedliche Gruppen
von nicht-staatlichen Organisationen herausstellt und weitere Einblicke in die
Diversität des Sektors gewährt. Die Ergebnisse sind für komparative Studien über
nicht-staatliche Organisationen sowie für kapazitätsbildende Programme von Nut-
zen und sind bei der Erstellung eines Plans für zukünftige Forschungen zur
Überwachung des Fortschritts hilfreich.
Resumen La capacidad se ha convertido en un tema destacado en el material

publicado sobre organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG) en las últimas décadas,
debido en parte al creciente papel mundial que estas organizaciones desempeñan en
el desarrollo. Investigamos los datos obtenidos de una muestra nacional de ONG
locales e internacionales que operan en Camboya, documentando las diferencias de
capacidad entre estos dos grupos, y destacando también los niveles globales de
capacidad en el sector. El análisis cubre una serie de dimensiones organizativas
diferentes que han sido asociadas a la capacidad, incluidas las caracterı́sticas
estructurales y las prácticas de gestión concretas. Los resultados sugieren que las
ONG internacionales (ONGI) tienen generalmente mayor capacidad, pero los niv-
eles globales de capacidad son relativamente bajos para una serie de medidas.
Concluimos con un análisis exploratorio de conglomerados o cluster que identifica
cuatro grupos distintivos de ONG basados en la capacidad, proporcionando
123
178 Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200
percepciones adicionales sobre la diversidad dentro del sector. Estos hallazgos serán
útiles para la investigación comparativa de ONG y para los programas de creación
de capacidad, además de ayudar a establecer una agenda para que las futuras
investigaciones monitoricen el progreso.
Keywords Capacity Development NGOs Management
Introduction
Organizational capacity has become a prominent theme in the literature on

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the last few decades (Franks 1999;
Edwards and Fowler 2002; Lewis 2007). The changing relationship between NGOs
and governments provides one explanation for the growing interest in the topic.
Many governments during the 1980s began to emphasize devolution and
decentralization, resulting in contracting and new opportunities for NGOs (Smith
and Lipsky 1993; Milward and Provan 2000). Public agencies simultaneously
became more attuned to transaction costs and the need to monitor and evaluate their
relationships, leading to a focus on capacity (Cairns et al. 2005; Smith and
Gronbjerg, 2006). Moreover, many intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and
bilateral development agencies revised their approaches to foreign aid during this
period (Brinkerhoff 2008; Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff 2010). NGOs presented an
alternative to supporting weak or corrupt governments while also offering potential
for expanding civic engagement, and capacity emerged as a criterion for multilateral
funding (Edwards and Hulme 1992; Lewis and Wallace 2000).
As important as governments are in driving the attention to NGO capacity, the
issue is relevant for other NGO stakeholders as well. For example, in the past many
foundations were content to provide grants based on the mission of an NGO and its
dedication to a cause, yet these institutional donors increasingly want evidence that
their grantees can achieve specific outcomes (DeVita and Fleming 2001; Wing
2004; Frumkin 2006). NGO rating agencies also have developed a major presence,
claiming to provide objective organizational criteria for individuals to utilize as a
basis for making donations. Viewed in tandem with the growth of donor-designated
funding, these trends highlight the extent to which individual donors have become
attuned to capacity (Lowell et al. 2005; Ostrander 2007; Sloan 2009). Finally,
capacity is discussed within the NGO sector itself, and not just because of pressure
from donors. Like general management programs, the number of NGO management
programs continues to expand, and NGOs are working to develop capacity by
becoming more professionalized (Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall 2002; Helmig
et al. 2004; Hwang and Powell, 2009; Suárez 2010).
Even though diverse forces contribute to the focus on NGO capacity, systematic
surveys of organizations remain quite uncommon, especially when considered at the
national level or in developing country contexts (Ebrahim 2005; Leiter 2008; Burger
and Owens 2010). For instance, while many foundations, development agencies,
and consulting firms assess capacity, their work usually addresses specific groups
(like grantees) or fields (like education or health), and results are not widely
123
Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200 179
disseminated. Moreover, cross-national comparative work has emphasized aggre-

gated data about the NGO sector in different countries, with little research exploring
organizational management structures (Salamon and Anheier 1996, 1998; Salamon
et al. 1999; Anheier and Salamon 2006). As a result, there are very few studies that
provide data on NGO capacity that can be compared across countries (Barr et al.
2005; Burger and Owens 2010).
This research gap is consequential given (a) the increasing role played by NGOs
in addressing a range of development problems throughout the world and (b) the
potential linkages between organizational capacity and service outcomes (Clark
1991; Boli and Thomas 1999). The lack of national-level studies on capacity also
presents a challenge for understanding the relevance and success of NGO self-
regulation initiatives (Gugerty 2008; Bies 2010; Sidel 2011). NGOs in many
countries have attempted to formalize their roles by establishing intermediary
organizations and advocating for ‘‘best practices’’ in the sector (Civicus 2012; One
World Trust 2012). The majority of these initiatives are framed in the context of
accountability and transparency, leading to the emergence of codes of conduct and
standards for certification. But without any sense of capacity in the NGO sector,
self-regulation initiatives have no baseline for assessing progress or targeting
training programs.
In this study, we analyze data obtained from a wide-ranging survey of NGO
leaders drawn from a national sample of local and international NGOs operating in
Cambodia. Our study is intended to expand the breadth and depth of the literature on
NGOs and organizational capacity, with two specific contributions. First, our
representative sample makes it possible to understand the range of abilities and
backgrounds in the Cambodian NGO sector as a whole. The descriptive results—
together with an exploratory typology we establish—will be useful for comparative
research as well as for capacity-building programs in Cambodia and beyond.
Second, while some literature exists on the management of humanitarian or
development NGOs, this work generally has not looked at these organizations in
relation to their local counterparts (Fowler 1997; Edwards and Fowler 2002; Lewis
2007; Lee 2010). By comparing international NGOs to ‘‘indigenous’’ or local NGOs
operating in Cambodia, we are able to highlight the extent to which capacity in the
local NGO sector aligns with professionalization in the international NGO sector.
To explore these themes, we begin with a broad discussion of NGOs and
capacity, emphasizing research relevant to development and nonprofit studies. We
then discuss the Cambodian context and present our methods for designing and
implementing the study. That section is followed by a review of the data we
collected and a discussion of our findings in relation to several different dimensions
of capacity. From there we utilize cluster analysis to identify four distinctive groups
or segments of NGOs based on capacity, establishing an agenda for future research.
NGOs and Capacity
Much of the literature on capacity building in the international context discusses the
policies of multilateral donor agencies, emphasizing changing perceptions of how to
123
180 Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200
achieve development. For example, the World Bank and other large multilateral
agencies originally stressed direct lending to nation-states as an attempt to increase
institutional capacity (Fox and Brown 1998; Franks 1999; Kuhl 2009). Over time
this policy gave way to broader technical training approaches and a focus on human
resource development, reflected in efforts to transfer knowledge from the developed
world to the developing world and build local human capital. These policies have
extended to capacity-building programs for NGO development partners, organiza-
tions that can interface between local communities and public agencies. But
measuring and even defining capacity in organizations has proven to be quite
challenging (Brinkerhoff 2008; Kuhl 2009).
As the author of one of the first practical books on the management of
international development NGOs clarifies: ‘‘Improving capacity is a common aid
objective. Like other development concepts, there is little agreement on the
characteristics of organizational capacity or how to increase it’’ (Fowler 1997,
p. 187). Difficulties in defining and measuring NGO capacity are not limited to
international contexts or to development, with many studies of nonprofits (NGOs) in
the United States and England struggling to explain the term (Letts et al. 1999;
Kendall and Knapp 2000; Cairns et al. 2005). At the most basic level, capacity
refers to ‘‘a set of attributes that help or enable an organization to fulfill its
missions’’ (Eisinger 2002, p. 117). Nevertheless, applying this concrete and sensible
definition to organizations becomes problematic in practice because capacity has
multiple dimensions.
To begin with, in many instances capacity captures potential, or latent aspects of
organizations that presumably enable them to expand their repertoire of activities.
Characteristics of the staff, leadership, and the board fit into this category, where
more educated staff and engaged board members with diverse skills supposedly
translate into capacity. Rather than capturing actual activities of organizations, these
types of measures are treated as resources that can be mobilized when necessary.
Other aspects of NGOs define or characterize the infrastructure of an organization,
but these features still identify potential rather than activity. For instance, the size of
an organization could be relevant to capacity if larger organizations are presumed to
have more available resources for getting work done. Similarly, the age of an
organization might influence capacity, especially if younger organizations confront
the ‘‘liability of newness’’ and the need to overcome initial operational challenges
(Korten 1987).
Besides looking at the characteristics of an organization and its staff, leadership,
and board, a complementary approach to investigating capacity emphasizes the
activities of the NGO. To begin with, formalization (organizational definition) refers
to many of the basic operational practices that separate NGOs from informal civil
society groups and social movement organizations (Roberts et al. 2005). NGOs that
develop a formal mission statement, create a board of directors, and develop
standard operating procedures are more formalized than NGOs that operate with
looser controls, and formalization could imply capacity. In addition, rationalization
refers to the adoption of modern management practices like strategic planning, the
creation of annual reports, and practices related to monitoring and evaluation
(Carman 2009; Hwang and Powell 2009; Carman and Fredericks 2010). These
123
Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200 181
activities move beyond simple formalization to ‘‘best practices’’ for management,

presenting an additional dimension or aspect of capacity.
Yet another set of practices is associated with external relations, or the
interaction between NGOs and their environment (Fowler 1997; Lewis 2007;
Christensen and Gazley 2008). Some NGOs are much more involved in professional
associations and networks of service providers than others. Involvement in these
activities could influence ‘‘collaborative capacity’’ and the ability of NGOs to
manage complex, overlapping environments (Huxham and Vangen 2003; Vangen
and Huxham 2003). These aspects of relational embeddedness apply to relationships
with government as well. NGOs that lobby or have positive interactions with public
agencies may have greater ability to work across sectors. Finally, even the funding
model in an NGO can be viewed as a dimension of capacity (Fowler 1997; Pfeffer
and Salancik 1977). If the diversity of funding sources is treated as an aspect of an
NGO’s interaction with its environment, then having a variety of funding sources
ostensibly demonstrates a capacity to procure funding from multiple stakeholders.
Taken together, measures of potential and measures of actions provide a great deal
of information about organizations, and NGOs can be compared along multiple
dimensions.
It is important to restate that no universal standards exist for measuring,
assessing, or even defining NGO capacity. The framework presented here stresses
organizational characteristics and organizational practices, drawing attention to
infrastructure, human resources and governance, formalization and rationalization,
and external relationships. While every effort has been made to include the core
concepts identified in the literature, some alternative rubrics cover additional
dimensions of organizations (like culture), and others certainly arrange indicators
differently. Moreover, some surveys integrate discussions of NGOs into a broader
analysis of civil society, such as the Civicus Civil Society Index (Civicus 2012).1 At
some point, the literature may converge on several key indicators and metrics for
capacity, building on insights from research and practice.
Cambodia and the Role of NGOs in Development
Cambodia once was the center of the Khmer Empire, an empire that reached its
zenith between the ninth and the thirteenth century and then declined slowly
(Chandler 2008). After a period as a French Protectorate, Cambodia became a
sovereign nation-state in 1953, and in 1975 a communist group led by Pol Pot took
control of the country. The Khmer Rouge, as the insurgents were called,
implemented an extremely repressive regime whose agrarian policies also caused
famine, leading to the deaths of as many as 2 million people during their short reign
(Kiernan 2002; Gottesman 2004). In fact, nearly one quarter of the Cambodian
population died during the roughly 4 years the Khmer Rouge were in power,
1
The Civicus survey discusses the institutional environment for NGOs (the political and regulatory
context) while also integrating measures of individual participation in organizations, value orientations
toward participation in civil society, and indicators of NGO capacity. We thank an anonymous reviewer
for drawing our attention to this tool.
123
182 Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200
including 80 % of teachers and 95 % of doctors, decimating all aspects of human

capital in the nation (Brinkley 2011). In 1979, Vietnam invaded Cambodia to
overthrow the Khmer Rouge, and after the Vietnamese withdrawal approximately a
decade later, the international community became very involved in the country’s
post-conflict transition.
In 1991, the Paris Peace Accords were signed, and the United Nations
subsequently occupied Cambodia, deploying 16,000 troops and 5,000 civil
administrators (Brinkley 2011). The United Nations essentially ran the country in
1992–1993, spending $3 billion, creating a constitution, and overseeing democratic
elections. The UN and other international agencies have had a major role in
Cambodia since that time, with official development assistance (ODA) comprising
9 % of Gross Domestic Product in 2009 (RGC 2010b). Cambodia is one of the most
aid dependent countries in Asia, and besides their reliance on aid, Cambodia deals
with many of the challenges of aid fragmentation. The country receives aid from
many countries, all of which have their own priorities, projects, and goals.
According to a recent study, aid fragmentation in Cambodia is much higher than the
average for all aid recipient countries, comparable to levels in the most dependent
countries like Mozambique and Ethiopia (Sato et al. 2011).
To coordinate all of the development aid, the Cambodian Rehabilitation and
Development Board of the Council for the Development of Cambodia (CRDB/
CDC) was formed in 1994. NGOs are an integral component of the aid system in
Cambodia, with a government analysis stating that NGOs ‘‘provide or manage
approximately 20 percent of all aid to Cambodia.’’ (RGC 2010b, p. 14). The number
of international NGOs exploded in the 1990 s and continues to rise, reflecting their
growing development role in the country (Chanboreth and Hach 2008; Rasmussen
2010; RBMG 2010; RGC 2010b). Besides implementing projects established and
funded by international aid donors, NGOs have additional priorities which are
supported with funding from foundations, individuals, and earned income from
social entrepreneurship. Far from being a minor or trivial portion of their resources,
NGO core funds (resources not directly attributable to development partners)
slightly exceeded the funding they received to implement foreign aid projects (RGC
2010b).
As NGOs in Cambodia have grown in size, visibility, and importance, capacity
has become a central theme, and local umbrella organizations increasingly are
playing a visible role in the institutionalization of the sector. The two largest
umbrella organizations are the Cooperation Committee for Cambodia (CCC) and
the NGO Forum. Both organizations were involved in creating the ‘‘Code of Ethics
for Social Development Nongovernmental Organizations and People’s Organiza-
tions in Cambodia’’ in 1997, and more than 150 NGO representatives signed the
document. In addition, the CCC manages the NGO Voluntary Certification System,
an NGO-led initiative to create standards for accountability and transparency. At the
end of 2009, 38 NGOs had applied to participate and 16 had received their
certification (RGC 2010a; Sidel 2011).
As this brief discussion of Cambodia demonstrates, NGOs in the country are
becoming more prominent, they manage a large proportion of official development
aid, they bring their own resources for programs, and they are organizing to develop
123
Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200 183
a sector-wide identity with a common regulatory framework. The Cambodian case

is important for these reasons, but also because of the total amount of aid going to
the country, the fragmentation of the aid, and the large role international agencies
like the United Nations have played in post-conflict transition. With our
representative survey of NGOs in Cambodia, we offer new quantitative measures
for discussing capacity and the range of activities NGOs undertake in developing
countries, also providing a point of reference for comparative work.
Data and Methods
In order to analyze issues such as capacity across the entire NGO sector in
Cambodia, it was necessary to create a nationally representative sample. There are
roughly 3,000 NGOs in the official registration lists maintained by the Ministry of
Interior (for local NGOs) and Council of Ministers (for international NGOs). In
theory these lists define the total NGO population in Cambodia, but a more realistic
population corresponds to the NGO directory maintained by another government
agency, the Council for the Development of Cambodia (CDC). As of August 2010,
there were 1,240 NGOs listed in this directory.2 The CDC directory is easily
accessed through an online search function (www.cdc.khmer.biz), and membership
is more regularly updated compared with the Ministry of Interior and Council of
Ministers lists.
The sample was created in August 2010 based on the CDC online directory. A
total of 230 NGOs were chosen randomly, divided evenly between international and
local NGO categories.3 The intended sample of 230 was reduced to 180
organizations that we could actually verify as being active.4 After initial contact
these 180 NGOs received a formal letter of invitation to participate in the survey.
The letter was then followed up by phone calls, emails and, in some cases,
re-sending the letter of invitation. Of the 180 organizations we attempted to
interview we were successful in 135 cases. This gives a survey response rate of
135/180, or 75 %. These did vary somewhat significantly by NGO type: 83 % of
local NGOs were interviewed versus 67 % of international NGOs (p = 0.01).
We use weights to address the potential bias introduced by non-response and
non-proportional sampling across local and international NGO categories. For
2
We chose to use the CDC list because the larger lists from the Council of Ministers and the Ministry of
Interior are not updated regularly and are missing a great deal of data on how to contact the NGOs (i.e.,
phone numbers, addresses, emails). Admittedly our approach could overlook some of the very smallest
organizations that are operational yet do not end up on the CDC list.
3
We sampled INGOs and NGOs evenly because we were concerned about potential non-response
problems, especially in relation to our overall sample size. There are many more NGOs than INGOs, and
by oversampling the INGOs we increased the likelihood of having a sufficient number of each for valid
statistical analysis.
4
This process involved phone calls, emails, website, and phone directory searches, and actual visits to
offices.
123
184 Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200
non-response, we modeled the probability of responding to our survey in the

updated intended sample of 180 organizations. The detailed results for this
modeling are available upon request, and show that a handful of variables predict
participating in our survey. The response weight was created by dividing the
predicted probability of participation into one, a straightforward approach for
addressing potential bias. The final weight was created by multiplying the response
weight by a constant that adjusts the sample to reflect the overall breakdown of local
and international NGOs in the CDC directory (about 63 % are local NGOs). All
quantitative summaries (means, frequencies, and statistical analysis) presented in
this study are based on weighted data.
The data collection process itself began with an initial proposal and survey
instrument that was shared with a small group of Khmers and foreign consultants
who work in the nongovernmental organization field.5 We also contracted a local
Khmer consulting firm to help us develop the instrument and carry out the data
collection. Based on comments from these various individuals we prepared a final
draft instrument in both English and Khmer. This was then piloted in four NGOs in
Phnom Penh. From this initial experience we made some final changes and
adjustments to both language versions. The actual interviews took place in NGO
offices or, in a few cases, in local cafes. The interviewee was allowed to choose the
language of the interview (English or Khmer). To help with the consistency in the
interview across languages, the interviewers carried out approximately 15
interviews together at the beginning of the data collection period. The interviews
were completed between October 2010 and June 2011, and on average the interview
took about 75 min to complete. Seventy-five percent of the interviewed organiza-
tions are based in Phnom Penh, with the remaining 25 % located in provinces,
mainly in the northwestern (Battambang) and northern (Siem Reap) regions.
In the following section, we present the descriptive results for capacity. Given the
importance of the comparisons between local and international NGO characteristics,
all presented variables are accompanied by p values denoting the level of
significance for the differences; these were obtained through a range of statistical
techniques using the weighted data. We also incorporate an exploratory cluster
analysis that assists in establishing ‘‘capacity profiles’’ (Schuh and Leviton 2006).
Because we have a mix of continuous and dichotomous or ordinal variables, we
used a hierarchical agglomerative approach for determining clusters. Several
alternatives for the clustering algorithm are available (e.g., single, average,
complete), but no conclusive statistical tests exist for assessing the best fit. We
compared and assessed the results from several algorithms, ultimately deciding that
the complete link algorithm produced the most comprehensible clusters. At that
point, we used dendrograms and qualitative comparisons to help determine the
appropriate number of clusters, settling on four distinctive capacity groups (Carman
and Fredericks 2010).
5
We also are grateful to several scholars who conducted research on Ugandan NGOs and provided us
with a copy of their survey.
123
Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200 185
Dimensions of Capacity in the NGO Sector
Potential differences between international NGOs and local NGOs were an

important motivation for our sampling framework. As a result, we organize our
results as a series of contrasts between these types of organizations while also
providing averages for the sample as a whole. In some instances, the differences
between international NGOs (INGOs) and NGOs are quite meaningful, but the
overall (sample-wide) percentages for different measures provide essential data
about general levels of capacity in the sector. Before turning to specific dimensions
of capacity, some basic characteristics of NGOs operating in Cambodia merit
discussion. For instance, we found a great deal of diversity in terms of the fields and
activities represented in the sector. When we asked leaders to describe their primary
area of work, the most common responses, in percentages, were education (21.3),
health and water (21.0), community development (16.2), and human rights (15.7).6
We also collected information on the countries represented by INGOs, and
religious affiliation. The largest percentage of foreign NGOs is incorporated in the
United States (32.8), followed by Japan (9.8), the United Kingdom (9.8), France (8.2),
and Australia (6.6). Many additional countries are represented as well, including
Thailand, Malaysia, and most European nations. For religion, only 7 % of local NGOs
had some sort of religious affiliation, while 27 % of INGOs identified themselves as
having a religious mission. The most common religion was Christianity, although
there were some Muslim and Buddhist NGOs in the sample as well.
Moving to the dimensions of capacity we elaborated earlier, we present two
different tables for organizational potential, or characteristics of an NGO that may
have some bearing on capacity but do not constitute concrete actions. Table 1
emphasizes infrastructure and features like the size and age of an NGO, as well as some
direct measures of perceived organizational constraints. With respect to age,
international NGOs have operated significantly longer in Cambodia than their local
counterparts. Many INGOs entered Cambodia during the United Nations period in the
early 1990s, while others returned after extended absences. The local NGO sector was
less established historically, but also took longer to recover after an extended period of
conflict (Brinkley 2011). Perhaps not surprisingly, there are important distinctions in
terms of organizational size and perceived constraints as well. Over 30 % of INGOs
operating in Cambodia indicate having yearly expenditures greater than $1 million
U.S. dollars (USD), but only 4 % of local NGOs are in that size category, and local
NGOs generally are more constrained than international NGOs.
Table 2 extends the analysis to human resources and governance, treated here as
additional measures of potential because they do not capture direct actions or practices
in NGOs. Beginning with leadership, only about 5 % of INGO leaders have no college
experience, compared to approximately 27 % for NGOs, and INGOs also are more
likely to have leaders with postgraduate degrees. We also asked leaders about their
work experience. Several studies indicate that business backgrounds among leaders
6
Other fields represented in the sector include environment, governance, and arts and culture. In general,
we did not find major capacity differences by field, but the small sample size for some of the fields makes
statistical comparison problematic.
123
186 Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200
Table 1 Indicators of capacity based on infrastructure

All Local INGO p value
Infrastructure
Age category .000***
1–5 years 15.8 14.0 18.6 –
6–10 years 29.2 25.8 35.0 –
11–20 years 48.5 60.2 28.8 –
20? years 6.6 0.0 17.8 –
Age (mean, years) 12.6 11.6 14.4 .104
Size category .001***
Less than $10,000 USD 8.4 13.2 0.0 –
$10,000–$25,000 14.6 20.5 4.4 –
$25,000–$50,000 8.5 9.9 6.2 –
$50,000–$100,000 18.6 20.6 15.0 –
$100,000–$250,000 12.6 13.7 10.5 –
$250,000–$500,000 13.7 11.3 17.9 –
$500,000–$1 million 9.7 6.8 14.8 –
More than $1 million 14.0 4.0 31.2 –
Size (mean, 1–8 scale) 4.6 3.8 6.0 .000***
No financial constraints 19.1 11.0 33.0 .003**
No equipment constraints 54.7 43.4 73.9 .001***
No transport constraints 50.7 35.7 76.3 .000***
Note Unless otherwise stated, all numbers are percentages. –, not applicable
Significant at *** p \ .001, ** p \ .01, * p \ .05
influence a variety of outcomes, and we find that INGO leaders have significantly more
business experience than NGO leaders (Hwang and Powell 2009; Leroux and Wright
2010).7 Unlike many of the indicators for leadership, the measures for staff training
and needs do not reveal statistically significant differences in professionalization
between INGOs and NGOs (Cumming 2008).
Table 2 also contains our results for governance in NGOs. Almost all
organizations in our sample have a board of directors (88 % of local NGOs and
93 % of INGOs). Most boards are quite small, with an average of six members, and
boards meet approximately three times a year. Differences between INGOs and
NGOs are statistically significant for these measures, with boards of INGOs
involving more members and meeting more regularly.8 The relative infrequency of
meetings suggests weak NGO-board ties, and 20 % of leaders did not know how
7
Our survey did not ask about the value orientations of leaders, indicators that would have been useful
for capturing the organizational culture of an NGO. While we have some data on the characteristics of
leaders (gender, race, age), we do not present that information as part of capacity. We thank an
anonymous reviewer for drawing our attention to these issues.
8
For INGOs *70 % report having boards that meet in other countries (i.e., the home country). Another
15 % have boards that are established in Cambodia, while about 8 % of INGOs have boards that meet
both locally and in another country.
123
Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200 187
Table 2 Indicators of capacity based on human resources and governance

Human resources: leadership

Education .003**
No college 19.1 27.4 4.8 -
Undergraduate degree 28.3 28.1 28.8 -
Postgraduate degree 52.6 44.4 66.4 -
Tenure .020*
1 year or less 12.1 9.7 16.2 -
1–5 years 38.7 29.9 53.3 -
6-10 years 23.5 27.3 17.4 -
More than 10 years 25.7 33.3 13.1 -
Prior experience
For-profit 28.3 19.8 43.1 .012*
Government 43.9 45.6 41.1 .618
International NGO 56.3 52.0 63.6 .200
National NGO 41.5 50.0 37.0 .156
Human resources: staff
Staff attend trainings 79.6 77.6 82.8 .491
Staff training participation .288
A few 42.3 37.8 49.4 -
About half 20.5 24.0 15.1 -
Almost all 30.5 33.5 25.6 -
All staff 6.7 4.7 9.9 -
No staff training constraints 25.3 23.1 28.9 .478
Governance characteristics
Board of governors 90.3 88.7 93.2 .379
Board size (mean) 6.3 5.1 9.8 .000***
Board meetings (mean) 3.0 2.8 3.6 .043*
Board meetings category .017*
Less than quarterly 62.4 72.4 48.3 -
Quarterly 27.0 23.2 34.3 -
Between quarterly and monthly 5.6 1.4 13.7 -
Monthly 3.3 3.0 3.7 -
*** Significant at p \ .001, ** p \ .01, * p \ .05
many members were on their board or how frequently the board met. If these
responses are additional indicators of the relationship between the board and the
leadership in an NGO, then governance may be one of the larger capacity challenges
in the sector.
Moving from our measures of potential to our measures of actions in NGOs,
Table 3 discusses formalization and rationalization. Formalization refers to basic
123
188 Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200
Table 3 Indicators of capacity based on formalization and rationalization

Formalization
Mission statement 84.7 84.5 84.9 .959
Manual of procedures (SOPs) 94.4 96.0 91.6 .290
Written a grant proposal 88.5 91.8 83.0 .132
Produces an annual budget 91.1 87.3 97.3 .028*
Produces financial reports .354
Never 4.4 6.2 1.3 –
Annually 28.6 29.1 27.9 –
Twice per year 10.6 11.9 8.4 –
Quarterly 21.8 17.3 29.4 –
Monthly 34.6 35.6 33.0 –
Compares planned to actual expenses .158
Never 6.8 10.7 0.0 –
Annually 12.5 13.9 10.0 –
Twice per year 8.6 7.3 10.9 –
Quarterly 16.7 14.6 20.2 –
Monthly 55.5 53.4 58.9 –
Rationalization
Independent financial audit 59.8 53.7 69.8 .080?
Strategic planning 76.1 70.5 85.5 .061?
Annual reports 88.7 84.8 95.3 .069?
Hires consultants 40.1 33.7 51.0 .056?
Maintains active website 67.0 50.2 95.1 .000***
Sets program targets 76.7 72.6 83.5 .165
Quantitative needs assessments 52.1 51.1 53.6 .786
Formal needs model (i.e., PRA) 14.6 18.2 8.4 .095?
Program evaluations 87.7 83.5 94.5 .077?
Quantitative program evaluations 31.7 24.8 43.2 .028*
?
Significant at *** p \ .001, ** p \ .01, * p \ .05, p\.10
activities that separate NGOs from more informal civil society organizations, and
rationalization captures the extent to which NGOs adopt and embrace management
practices. Starting with formalization, *85 % or more of NGOs develop a mission
statement, create a manual of standard operating procedures, write grant proposals,
and produce annual reports. The only major difference between INGOs and NGOs
is with respect to producing annual budgets, where 87 % of local NGOs produce
those documents compared to 97 % of international NGOs. In order to get a better
sense of how NGOs use financial data, we also asked about financial reports and
comparisons of actual expenditures to planned expenditures. The majority of NGOs
and INGOs compare planned to actual expenditures on a monthly basis, and most
organizations produce financial reports quarterly or more frequently.
123
Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200 189
In looking at rationalization, almost all organizations produce annual reports and

conduct program evaluations, and the large majority establishes service targets. We
investigated how NGOs evaluate their work and identify the needs of the
communities they serve. As expected, far fewer NGOs utilize quantitative
approaches for program evaluations, with just 25 % of NGOs and 43 % of
international NGOs reporting these techniques. Moreover, although slightly more
than half of NGOs assess community needs with quantitative approaches, only
about 15 % utilize a formal needs model like a participatory rural appraisal. The
survey also inquired about audits, strategic planning, and the use of consultants.
Strategic planning was the most common, occurring in 76 % of NGOs, but 60 %
commission audits and 40 % have hired consultants. Finally, we checked for NGO
websites, finding that INGOs are much more likely to have an active website than
local NGOs.
Table 4 summarizes external relations, divided into funding sources and, in the
bottom part, relational embeddedness and linkages to networks. Starting with
resources, there are eight different types of funding that NGOs use to support their
mission. NGOs maintain two sources of funding, on average. The most common
source is grants and contracts from international NGOs, with nearly 60 % of
Table 4 Indicators of capacity based on external relationships

Financial resources
Funding sources (mean, 1–8 scale) 2.3 2.3 2.3 .987
International NGO 59.4 58.8 60.5 .843
National NGO 10.6 16.9 0 .002**
United Nations 3.5 3.5 3.4 .972
Governments 30.3 22.3 43.7 .012*
Multilateral donors 16.7 19.8 11.4 .177
Foundations 22.8 20.8 26.2 .466
Individual donations 56.9 55.5 59.3 .670
Earned income (PSR) 29.4 32.1 24.8 .380
Relational embeddedness
Belongs to professional networks 80.5 85.3 72.8 .128
Network memberships (mean) 2.2 2.3 2.1 .731
Voluntary certification awareness 43.1 39.6 49.1 .288
Positive government relations 57.1 52.3 64.9 .158
Training for government 53.0 47.7 61.8 .126
Lobby government 32.6 30.2 36.6 .450
Express community complaints 40.0 43.2 29.2 .099?
Consults community about needs 22.2 20.1 25.9 .458
Consults partners about needs 23.9 20.8 29.3 .305
Note Unless otherwise stated, all numbers are percentages

?
Significant at *** p \ .001, ** p \ .01, * p \ .05, p \ .10
123
190 Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200
organizations receiving funding from these organizations. A main difference

between INGOs and NGOs is funding from local NGOs. Some Cambodian NGOs
provide grants or contracts for other local NGOs, but there were no instances where
a local NGO funded an international NGO. Interestingly, the main statistically
significant difference in funding for NGOs and INGOs involves governments. Over
40 % of INGOs have bilateral (non-Cambodian) government funding through
foreign aid, compared to just 22 % of national NGOs.9
How NGOs procure resources provides an important insight into their
interactions with the external environment, and relational embeddedness offers an
additional perspective on the issue. Networks of professional practice are important
in Cambodia, with organizations like the Cooperation Committee for Cambodia
(CCC) and the NGO Forum offering memberships to organizations in all fields, and
many additional organizations offer membership to NGOs dedicated to specific
fields like education and health. Memberships are a signal of involvement in the
wider community, and 80 % of NGOs belong to a network (on average NGOs have
two memberships). Because networks are so important in the country we asked
about the benefits of membership, and leaders provided many details. Almost all
respondents felt that networks helped to make contacts, 67 % said they received
training through networks, and 74 % said that membership in networks improved
capacity.
Relational embeddedness also refers to specific interactions with the service
community as well as linkages to government and civil society. For instance, the
Cambodia Cooperation Committee (CCC) maintains a voluntary certification
program for NGO self-regulation, and 43 % of NGOs are aware of the program.
Moreover, 57 % of NGOs in our sample have positive relations with government,
with almost the same number providing training for government employees. These
types of measures reveal the extent to which NGOs are enmeshed in cross-sector
relationships and clarify (or highlight) the breadth of ties, with advocacy serving as
another type of contact. Slightly more than 30 % of NGOs lobby government, and
40 % share community complaints with the government. We also asked leaders
about the role of partners and local communities in needs assessments. Approx-
imately, 24 % communicated with partners to discuss needs and 22 % communi-
cated directly with their stakeholders, providing a final perspective on social
embeddedness.
In summary, the four tables we have presented capture distinctive aspects of
capacity: infrastructure, human resources and governance, formalization and
rationalization, and external relationships. Though the analysis has revealed
differences between international and local NGOs while also clarifying levels of
capacity in the sector as a whole, some organizations may be stronger in certain
areas than others. In order to address this issue, we utilized cluster analysis to
discern an exploratory typology of capacity in the NGO sector.
9
No organizations have funding from the Cambodian government.
123
Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200 191
An Exploratory Typology of Capacity in the NGO Sector
Few studies have attempted to create typologies of capacity in the nonprofit sector,
and cluster analysis provides a useful statistical tool for defining categories of
organizations. In our case, we considered two possible outcomes from the cluster
analysis of our 135 sampled organizations. The first was a fairly straightforward
ordering of capacity along a low-to-high scale, as in Carman and Fredericks’ (2010)
analysis of outcome measurement capacity. However, we also anticipated results
where NGO groups would cluster by ‘‘latent’’ capacity (infrastructure, human
resources, governance) and concrete actions (formalization, rationalization, external
relationships), aligning with our conceptual frame. Based on the actual results we
find a combination of these alternatives, with two high-capacity groups that differ
primarily by the extent to which they emphasize external relations. A third cluster is
a medium capacity group with moderately high scores for formalization and
rationalization, and the fourth group is low for all dimensions of capacity. In the
following paragraphs we briefly describe these four groups (using the output
summarized in Table 5), which we term networkers, translators, aspirants, and
laggards.
Networkers
Networkers represent the first of two high-capacity groups in Table 5. This group of
NGOs is the smallest of the clusters, with 14 organizations (or roughly 10 % of the
sample), and the group is dominated by local organizations with substantial
resources. Because many studies emphasize the importance of building the local
NGO sector in developing countries, rather than relying entirely on international
NGOs, this cluster demonstrates that an important group of professionalized local
NGOs are operating in Cambodia (Lewis 2007; Brinkerhoff 2008). These
organizations on average have slightly more than $500,000 in revenue (annual),
and they have adopted the large majority of ‘‘best practices’’ in NGO management.
For instance, all of the organizations in this cluster engage in strategic planning,
produce annual reports, and commission independent audits. But the aspect of NGO
management that most distinguishes this group from other clusters is the extent to
which they emphasize external relations. All of the organizations in this cluster
participate in networks, and they average far more memberships than organizations
in other clusters. These NGOs are especially linked to government, with over 60 %
of leaders having government experience. Moreover, these NGOs are the most
likely to have (foreign) government funding, they are the most likely to train
government staff, and the most likely to lobby and advocate on behalf of local
communities. In many respects, these organizations resemble quasi-NGOs (QUAN-
GOs), organizations with dense ties to government, yet the NGOs in our sample
receive no funding from the Cambodian government.10
10
The authors thank an anonymous reviewer for mentioning similarities to QUANGOs.
123
192 Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200
Table 5 Cluster analysis of capacity, hierarchical agglomeration (complete link)

Variable Sample average Cluster
Translators Networkers Aspirants Laggards
Age 12.58 15.19** 13.21 10.15** 11.32

Funding (Org size) 4.89 6.47*** 6.28** 3.41*** 3.37***
Leader education 5.28 5.81*** 4.86 5.59* 3.79***
Leader tenure 6.79 5.44* 7.61 6.59 9.58**
Leader business Exp. 0.25 .33 0 .28 .21
Leader Gov’t Exp. 0.41 .40 .64* .36 .37
Leader NGO Exp. 0.40 .50 .14* .36 .47
Staff training 0.82 .95* .93 .74 .63*
Governing board 0.90 .93 1 .92 .74*
Mission statement 0.84 .93* 1 .79 .63**
Annual budget 0.92 .98 1 .90 .79*
Financial reports 3.57 4.36*** 3.21 3.25* 2.73**
Plan/actual reports 4.01 4.21 3.93 4.15 3.32*
Audit 0.64 .83** 1 .38** .47
Strategic plan 0.79 .90* 1 .77 .42***
Annual reports 0.91 .90 1 .97 .74**
Hires consultants 0.39 .55* .64* .26* .16*
Active website 0.68 .90*** .71 .62 .26***
Sets targets 0.82 .93* .93 .77 .58**
Quant needs models 0.54 .60 .71 .51 .32*
Formal needs models 0.16 .19 .43** .05* .11
Program evaluation 0.91 1 .93 .87 .79*
Total funding sources 2.23 2.40 3.64*** 2.02 1.26***
INGO funding 0.60 .62 1 .54 .37*
Government funding 0.30 .43* .71*** .15* .00
Foundation funding 0.23 .31 .29 .21 .05*
Earned income 0.28 .21 .36 .38* .16
Belongs to networks 0.82 .88 1 .79 .63*
Network member 2.28 2.86** 3.71*** 1.43*** 1.68
Voluntary Cert. 0.46 .69*** .57 .31* .21*
Trains government 0.61 .73* .86* .46* .42*
Lobbying 0.38 .33 .57 .41 .26
Advocacy 0.43 .45 .71* .41 .21*
Consults partners 0.22 .29 .07 .23 .16
INGO 0.45 .71*** .14* .36 .26*
Religious 0.14 .12 0 .21 .16
Province 0.25 .10** .21 .36* .37
123
Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200 193
Table 5 continued
Variable Sample average Cluster
Translators Networkers Aspirants Laggards
Sample size 114 42 14 39 19
Note Several variables from earlier tables are not included in this table because they do not help to clarify
cluster membership (means are similar across clusters). The sample size does not reach the total of 135
due to missing data
Significant at *** p \ .01, ** p \ .05, * p \ .10
Translators
Translators are the second high-capacity group in our study. The 42 organizations in
this cluster are labeled as translators for three reasons. First, the group is dominated
by international NGOs, or organizations that specialize in humanitarian and
development work. Over 70 % of the NGOs in this cluster are international, well
above the mean for the sample as a whole. Prior research suggests that INGOs are
‘‘carriers’’ of modern practices, acting as translators between global and local
contexts (Boli and Thomas 1999; Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall 2002; Drori et al.
2006). Second, the organizations in this cluster are active in training government
employees, indicating that they do in fact play a direct role in building capacity.
Third, in related research we find that local NGOs with funding from international
NGOs are much more likely to monitor and evaluate their work, suggesting that
INGOs also have an indirect role in spreading ideas about appropriate management
practices (Marshall and Suárez 2012).
The organizations in this cluster are larger than organizations in other clusters,
with an average of *$500,000 in revenues, and they are the most firmly established
(the oldest). NGOs in this group also have similar levels of formalization and
rationalization as the networkers. For example, the leaders in this group are the most
educated of the leaders in the four clusters, and at least 90 % of the organizations in
this group develop strategic plans, create annual reports, and actively maintain their
websites. The only major difference between translators and networkers has to do
with the extensiveness of social ties, or linkages to the broader environment.
Translators are professionalized nonprofits, and they are more embedded in
networks than NGOs in the remaining two clusters, but they are characterized more
by financial monitoring and controls than by memberships in associations.
Aspirants
The aspirants are a unique group in our study because they are substantially lower in
their adoption of standard management practices than networkers and translators,
yet they can be characterized as having mid-range capacity for the large majority of
formalization and rationalization measures. For instance, over 90 % of the
organizations in this cluster have governing boards and produce annual budgets,
but less than 80 % have a mission statement or have produced a strategic plan.
123
194 Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200
Moreover, the NGOs in this group are much less likely than the two high-capacity
groups to commission independent audits or hire consultants, and they are less
involved in developing needs assessment models for their programs. Nevertheless,
these organizations monitor their finances as regularly as the networkers, and they
seem to be quite aware of management trends.
Besides the formalization and rationalization characteristics that differentiate
them from the other clusters, the aspirants also tend to be much smaller and more
likely to be based in the provinces (rather than the capital, Phnom Penh). As an
indicator of capacity, in this instance size appears to be quite relevant, as these
NGOs are much smaller than those in the high-capacity clusters. Finally, in
comparison to the translators and the networkers, the aspirants are not very involved
in developing external relations. Though the translators can be distinguished from
the networkers by their lower reliance on external relations, it is important to
reiterate that the translators are much more active in networks than aspirants.
Laggards
The fourth and final group of NGOs in our study is the laggards. The laggards are
labeled as such because they are nearly identical to the aspirants with respect to size,
age, and concentration in the provinces, but they are lower than the aspirants on
virtually every measure of capacity. Compared to the other clusters, these
organizations have leaders with the least education and who have served their
organizations the longest, and they also have the least educated staff who have
attended trainings the least frequently. The organizations in this cluster are not
necessarily resisters to professionalization, but the lack of human resources may
pose challenges for adopting common management practices.
Viewed in this manner, it might not be entirely surprising that these organizations
are substantially less likely than NGOs in other clusters to have a website, to
develop strategic plans or annual reports, or even to have annual budgets and
mission statements. At the same time, the organizations are laggards in the sense
that they are not newcomers to the development scene, having an average of more
than 11 years in operation. The organizations are not particularly active in external
relations either, with just over 60 % belonging to networks. In fact, the laggards are
the most isolated of all the clusters, perhaps reducing their likelihood of exposure to
new practices and contacts that could help to implement those management
practices.
Discussion
The number of NGOs continues to expand globally, and in many countries NGOs
are an important economic force and driver of development (Boli and Thomas 1999;
Roberts et al. 2005; Anheier and Salamon 2006). NGOs are a powerful social force
at the local and international level too, bringing communities together for civic
events and influencing policy through advocacy campaigns. Despite the growing
role of NGOs in service provision and advocacy at both the global and local levels,
123
Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200 195
very few studies have presented systematic data on the characteristics and
management structures of these organizations (Edwards and Fowler 2002; Barr et al.
2005; Barr and Fafchamps 2006; Lewis 2007).
We contribute to the extant literature by addressing capacity in local and
international NGOs in Cambodia, a country where NGOs play a pivotal
development role. Using data derived from a nationally representative stratified
random sample of NGOs, the results highlight important differences between local
and international NGOs as well as variability in many of our measures of capacity.
The variability in the measures for capacity suggests differences that go beyond the
local-international dichotomy, and a cluster analysis indeed revealed four distinct
NGO groups. The four clusters suggest that it might be possible to target
interventions to strengthen capacity, offering several implications for our study and
potential areas for future research.
The formal networks that exist in Cambodia provide diverse trainings for
members, and our interviews clarify that those trainings are relevant for improving
capacity in the sector. Given that the two lowest capacity groups in our sample are
the groups with the fewest network memberships, improving the reach of
intermediary network organizations could produce substantial capacity improve-
ments in the NGO sector overall. Simultaneously, NGOs could be encouraged to
consider the importance of extending beyond the boundaries of their organizations.
A growing body of literature in public and nonprofit management stresses the
growing interdependence of organizations and the relevance of collaboration
(Fowler 1997; Vangen and Huxham 2003; Suárez 2011). Building networks might
be useful for increasing capacity as well as for creating new collaborative
opportunities.
Besides drawing attention to the relevance of intermediary organizations, our
results offer alternatives for how to approach capacity-building initiatives. On the
one hand, capacity-building programs could target the low capacity organizations
that potentially have the most to gain from assistance. On the other hand, the middle
capacity organizations already have adopted a variety of important management
practices and may be very amenable to additional training. These organizations
might be the most eager to learn and implement new ideas. Capacity-building
initiatives could consider targeting organizations in rural areas as well, using high-
capacity organizations to assist in training other organizations. If foundations and
government donor agencies were to integrate funding for collaborative training into
their current initiatives, they may be able to avoid some of the common pitfalls of
the past (Wing 2004).
Extending this idea, the group of NGOs we identified as ‘‘translators’’ in our
statistical analysis could be especially useful for collaborative training initiatives.
The organizations in this cluster are active in training government employees and
they belong to a variety of intermediary organizations, but they could become more
engaged at the community level. The large majority of the translators are INGOs
based in Phnom Penh. To extend their reach they could partner with local NGOs in
the provinces and integrate capacity building into their programming, or translators
could work more directly with intermediary organizations that already provide
trainings in the provinces. Though most INGOs make significant contributions to
123
196 Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200
development, in some instances they have been viewed as opportunistic and quick
to follow resources (Dichter 2003). Since the organizations in the translator cluster
have operated in the country longer than organizations in any other cluster, they
appear to be quite committed to Cambodia, and collaborations could be a way to
leverage their resources.
While our study has a variety of practical implications, future research can
extend this work in several directions. First, our study builds from other academic
work on NGO capacity, yet no definitive methods or metrics exist for assessing
capacity. Moreover, many different NGOs, development agencies, foundations and
consulting groups have their own legitimate approaches to capacity measurement
and capacity building (Bond 2012; Interaction 2012; McKinsey and Company 2012;
TCC Group 2012). To encourage greater exchange among practitioners and
academics, we attempt to be as transparent about our measures as possible, both in
our tables and in our descriptive results. New studies can extend or challenge the
framework we have created here by distributing capacity surveys to a broad
audience, sharing empirical results, and debating measurement issues.
Second, capacity is not a straightforward, unambiguous synonym for organiza-
tional effectiveness (Fowler 1997; Sowa et al. 2004; Schuh and Leviton 2006;
Christensen and Gazley 2008). Sociological institutionalism suggests that organi-
zations adopt management practices to appear modern, not simply because of
evidence that given practices produce clear benefits (Drori et al. 2006; Hwang and
Powell 2009). The implication is that many management practices are ‘‘rationalized
myths’’ that provide legitimacy for organizations without necessarily improving
their ability to achieve mission (Staw and Epstein 2000). In order to assess this
argument for NGOs, future research should identify the linkages between capacity
and effectiveness, a very challenging task.
Depending on the service being provided or the particular NGO field (i.e., human
rights, health), the relevant aspects of capacity that contribute to effectiveness may
be very specific (Herman 1990; Edwards and Hulme 1996; Dart 2010). In addition,
it is not entirely clear that a sum total of capacity measures can be used to ‘‘pick
winners’’ and isolate the most effective organizations. Though some relationship or
correlation likely exists between capacity and effectiveness, the association does not
have to be linear, and understanding performance requires a deep knowledge of why
NGOs build capacity and how NGOs enact that capacity (Herman and Renz 1999;
Sowa et al. 2004; Millesen et al. 2010). Complicating the issue even further, some
empirical studies find that a specific dimension of capacity can be relevant for an
outcome in one situation and not necessarily in another. Taken together, prior
research dramatizes the importance of context when considering the relationship
between capacity and performance (Eisinger 2002; Leroux and Wright 2010).
Finally, beyond exploring how capacity influences organizational effectiveness,
future research also should study potential tradeoffs to capacity building. Some
studies of NGOs in the United States find that professionalization leads to decreases
in community involvement, indicating that capacity building programs are not a
panacea for strengthening civil society (Staggenborg 1988; Skocpol 2003). While a
great deal of faith exists in the potential for NGOs to build social capital and
contribute to democratic governance in countries throughout the world,
123
Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200 197
strengthening capacity paradoxically could contribute to mission drift or weaken

commitment to civic engagement. This is a critical issue that has received limited
attention, a topic with the potential to bridge research on the social and economic
roles of NGOs. Understanding the diverse effects of capacity building on NGOs
requires extensive new work, but our study constitutes one step in an important
research agenda, adding to the extant literature by developing a typology of NGO
capacity and by establishing a baseline for comparative work.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank Bunly Seng and his research team for helping us to
implement the survey.
References
Anheier, H., & Salamon, L. (2006). The nonprofit sector in comparative perspective. In W. Powell &
R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 89–114). Yale: Yale
University Press.
Barr, A., & Fafchamps, M. (2006). A client-community assessment of the NGO sector in Uganda. Journal
of Development Studies, 42, 611–639.
Barr, A., Fafchamps, M., & Owens, T. (2005). The governance of non-governmental organizations in
Uganda. World Development, 33, 657–679.
Bies, A. (2010). Evolution of nonprofit self-regulation in Europe. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 39, 1057–1086.
Boli, J., & Thomas, G. (1999). Constructing world culture: International nongovernmental organizations
since 1875. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bond. (2012). Bond for international development. http://www.bond.org.uk/. Retrieved 30 Aug 2012.
Brinkerhoff, D. (2008). The state and international development management: Shifting tides, changing
boundaries, and future directions. Public Administration Review, 68, 985–1001.
Brinkerhoff, J., & Brinkerhoff, D. (2010). International development management: A northern
perspective. Public Administration and Development, 30, 102–115.
Brinkley, J. (2011). Cambodia’s curse: The modern history of a troubled land. Philadelphia: Public
Affairs.
Burger, R., & Owens, T. (2010). Promoting transparency in the NGO sector: Examining the availability
and reliability of self-reported data. World Development, 38(9), 1263–1277.
Cairns, B., Harris, M., & Young, P. (2005). Building the capacity of the voluntary nonprofit sector:
Challenges of theory and practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 869–885.
Carman, J. (2009). Nonprofits, funders, and evaluation: Accountability in action. American Review of
Public Administration, 39(4), 374–390.
Carman, J., & Fredericks, K. (2010). Evaluation capacity and nonprofit organizations. American Journal
of Evaluation, 31(1), 84–104.
Chanboreth, E., & Hach, S. (2008). Aid effectiveness in Cambodia. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
Chandler, D. (2008). A history of Cambodia (4th ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Christensen, R., & Gazley, B. (2008). Capacity for public administration: Analysis of meaning and
measurement. Public Administration and Development, 28, 265–279.
Civicus. (2012). Civicus civil society index. http://csi.civicus.org. Retrieved 30 Aug 2012.
Clark, J. (1991). Democratizing development: The role of voluntary agencies. London: Earthscan.
Cumming, G. (2008). French NGOs in the global era: Professionalization without borders‘? VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19, 372–394.
Dart, R. (2010). A grounded qualitative study of the meanings of effectiveness in Canadian ‘results-
focused’ environmental organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and
Nonprofit Organizations, 21, 202–219.
DeVita, C., & Fleming, C. (Eds.). (2001). Capacity in nonprofit organizations. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.
Dichter, T. (2003). Despite good intentions: Why development assistance to the third world has failed.
Boston: University of Massachusetts Press.
123
198 Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200
Drori, G., Meyer, J., & Hwang, H. (Eds.). (2006). Globalization and organization. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ebrahim, A. (2005). NGOs and organizational change: Discourse, reporting, and learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, M., & Fowler, A. (2002). Earthscan reader in NGO management. London: Earthscan.
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (Eds.). (1992). Making a difference: NGOs and development in a changing
world. London: Earthscan.
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (Eds.). (1996). Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and
accountability in the post-Cold War world. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.
Eisinger, P. (2002). Organizational capacity and organizational effectiveness among street-level food
assistance programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 115–130.
Fowler, A. (1997). Striking a balance: A guide to enhancing the effectiveness of non-governmental
organisations in international development. London: Earthscan.
Fox, J., & Brown, L. D. (Eds.). (1998). The struggle for accountability: The World Bank, NGOs, and
grassroots movements. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Franks, T. (1999). Capacity building and institutional development: Reflections on water. Public
Administration and Development, 19, 51–61.
Frumkin, P. (2006). Strategic giving: The art and science of philanthropy. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Gottesman, E. (2004). Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge: Inside the politics of nation building. Yale: Yale
University Press.
Gugerty, M. (2008). The effectiveness of NGO self-regulation: Theory and evidence from Africa. Public
Administration and Development, 28, 105–118.
Helmig, B., Jegers, M., & Lapsley, I. (2004). Challenges in managing nonprofit organizations: A research
overview. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15,
101–116.
Herman, R. (1990). Methodological issues in studying the effectiveness of nongovernmental and
nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 19, 293–306.
Herman, R., & Renz, D. (1999). Theses on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 107–126.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2003). Nurturing collaborative relations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 39, 5–31.
Hwang, H., & Powell, W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the
nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 268–298.
Interaction. (2012). Interaction: A united voice for global change. http://www.interaction.org/. Retrieved
30 Aug 2012.
Kendall, J., & Knapp, M. (2000). Measuring the performance of voluntary organizations. Public
Management, 2, 105–132.
Kiernan, B. (2002). Race, power, and genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975–1979 (2nd
ed.). Yale: Yale University Press.
Korten, D. (1987). Third generation NGO strategies: A key to people-centered development. World
Development, 15(s), 145–159.
Kuhl, S. (2009). Capacity development as the model for development aid organizations. Development and
Change, 40, 551–577.
Lee, T. (2010). The rise of international nongovernmental organizations: A top-down or bottom-up
explanation? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21,
393–416.
Leiter, J. (2008). Nonprofit isomorphism: An Australia–United States comparison. VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19, 67–91.
Leroux, K., & Wright, N. (2010). Does performance measurement improve strategic decision making?
Findings from a national survey of nonprofit social service agencies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 39, 571–587.
Letts, C., Ryan, W., & Grossman, A. (1999). High performance nonprofit organizations. New York:
Wiley.
Lewis, D. (2007). The management of non-governmental development organizations. New York:
Routledge.
Lewis, D., & Wallace, T. (Eds.). (2000). New roles and relevance: Development NGOs and the challenge
of change. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
123
Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200 199
Lowell, S., Trelstad, B., & Meehan, B. (2005). The ratings game. Stanford Social Innovation Review,
Summer, 39–45.
Marshall, J. H., & Suárez, D. F. (2012). The flow of management practices: Monitoring and evaluation in
NGOs. Working paper, University of Southern California.
McKinsey & Company. (2012). Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT). http://ocat.mckinse
yonsociety.com/. Retrieved 30 Aug 2012.
Millesen, J., Carman, J., & Bies, A. (2010). Why engage? Understanding the incentive to build nonprofit
capacity. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 21, 5–20.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 10(2), 359–380.
One World Trust. 2012. A database of civil society self-regulatory initiatives. www.oneworldtrust.
org/csoproject/. Retrieved 30 Aug 2012.
Ostrander, S. (2007). The growth of donor control: Revisiting the social relations of philanthropy.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 356–372.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1977). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence
perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Rasmussen, K. (2010). NGO contributions to Cambodia’s development, 2004–2009: A rapid assessment.
Working paper.
RBMG (Results Based Management Group). (2010). Draft report, Cambodia country evaluation: Phase 2
evaluation of the Paris Declaration. Phnom Penh: RBMG.
RGC (Royal Government of Cambodia). (2010a). The Cambodia NGO database. http://cdc.khmer.biz/.
Retrieved 30 Aug 2012.
RGC (Royal Government of Cambodia). (2010b). The Cambodia aid effectiveness report. Phnom Penh:
RGC.
Roberts, S., Jones, J., & Frohling, O. (2005). NGOs and the globalization of managerialism: A research
framework. World Development, 33, 1845–1864.
Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Engwall, L. (Eds.). (2002). The expansion of management knowledge. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Salamon, L., & Anheier, H. (1996). Defining the nonprofit sector: A cross-national analysis. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Salamon, L., & Anheier, H. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-
nationally. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9,
213–248.
Salamon, L., et al. (1999). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.
Sato, J., Shiga, H., Kobayashi, T., & Kondoh, H. (2011). ‘Emerging donors’ from a recipient perspective:
An institutional analysis of foreign aid in Cambodia. World Development, 39(12), 2091–2104.
Schuh, R., & Leviton, L. (2006). A framework to assess the development and capacity of non-profit
agencies. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29, 171–179.
Sidel, M. (2011). The promise and limits of collective action for nonprofit self-regulation: Evidence from
Asia. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 1039–1056.
Skocpol, Theda. (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic
life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Sloan, M. (2009). The effects of nonprofit accountability ratings on donor behavior. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 220–236.
Smith, S., & Gronbjerg, K. (2006). Scope and theory of government-nonprofit relations. In W. Powell &
R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector (2nd ed., pp. 221–242). Yale: Yale University Press.
Smith, S., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Harvard:
Harvard University Press.
Sowa, J., Selden, S., & Sandfort, J. (2004). No longer unmeasureable? A multidimensional integrated
model of nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33,
711–728.
Staggenborg, S. (1988). The consequences of professionalization and formalization in the pro-choice
movement. American Sociological Review, 53, 585–605.
Staw, B., & Epstein, L. (2000). What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on
corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 523–556.
Suárez, D. (2010). Street credibility and management credentials: Careers of nonprofit executives in an
evolving sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 696–716.
123
200 Voluntas (2014) 25:176–200
Suárez, D. (2011). Collaboration and professionalization: The contours of public sector funding for
nonprofits. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 307–326.
TCC Group. (2012). How do you know if a nonprofit organization is effective? www.tcccat.com.
Retrieved 30 Aug 2012.
Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage: Dilemmas of
ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers. British Journal of Management,
14, 61–76.
Wing, K. (2004). Assessing the effectiveness of capacity-building initiatives: Seven issues for the field.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 153–160.
123
View publication stats

NGO Role - Suarez - Marshall - Cambodia

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

NGO Role - Suarez - Marshall - Cambodia

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Capacity in the NGO Sector: Results from a National Survey in Cambodia

Article in International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations · February 2014

David Suarez Jeffery H. Marshall

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Capacity in the NGO Sector: Results from a National

David Suárez • Jeffery H. Marshall

Published online: 11 September 2012

Abstract Capacity has become a prominent theme in the literature on nongov-

Résumé La notion de capacité est devenue, au cours des dernières décennies, un

Zusammenfassung Die Kapazität ist in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten zu einem

Resumen La capacidad se ha convertido en un tema destacado en el material

Keywords Capacity Development NGOs Management

Organizational capacity has become a prominent theme in the literature on

disseminated. Moreover, cross-national comparative work has emphasized aggre-

NGOs and Capacity

activities move beyond simple formalization to ‘‘best practices’’ for management,

Cambodia and the Role of NGOs in Development

including 80 % of teachers and 95 % of doctors, decimating all aspects of human

a sector-wide identity with a common regulatory framework. The Cambodian case

Data and Methods

non-response, we modeled the probability of responding to our survey in the

Dimensions of Capacity in the NGO Sector

Potential differences between international NGOs and local NGOs were an

Table 1 Indicators of capacity based on infrastructure

Table 2 Indicators of capacity based on human resources and governance

Human resources: leadership

Table 3 Indicators of capacity based on formalization and rationalization

In looking at rationalization, almost all organizations produce annual reports and

Table 4 Indicators of capacity based on external relationships

Note Unless otherwise stated, all numbers are percentages

organizations receiving funding from these organizations. A main difference

An Exploratory Typology of Capacity in the NGO Sector

Table 5 Cluster analysis of capacity, hierarchical agglomeration (complete link)

Translators Networkers Aspirants Laggards

Age 12.58 15.19** 13.21 10.15** 11.32

Variable Sample average Cluster

Translators Networkers Aspirants Laggards

Sample size 114 42 14 39 19

strengthening capacity paradoxically could contribute to mission drift or weaken

S-ar putea să vă placă și

Age 12.58 15.19 13.21 10.15 11.32