organisational environment and structure in mexico and ... · organisational structure 8 3. ... for...

Organisational environment and NGO structure in Mexico and Portugal:... 1

Documentos de discusión sobre el Tercer Sector, Núm. 4, 2000.

Nuno Themudo

Organisational environment and NGO

structure in Mexico and Portugal: whatdoes the literature tell us?

4

*E-mail: [email protected]

La colección Documentos de discusión sobre el Tercer Sector difunde los avances de trabajo realizados por investigadores delPrograma Interdisciplinario de Estudios del Tercer Sector de El Colegio Mexiquense, A.C., con la idea de que los autoresreciban comentarios antes de la publicación definitiva de sus textos. Se agradecerá que los comentarios se hagan llegardirectamente al (los) autor(es). Los editores han mantenido fielmente el texto original del presente documento, por lo quetanto el contenido como el estilo y la redacción son responsabilidad exclusiva del (de los) autor(es). D.R. © El Colegio Mexiquense,A.C., Ex hacienda Santa Cruz de los Patos, Zinacantepec, México. Teléfonos: (7) 218-01-00 y 218-00-56; fax: 218-03-58; E-mail: [email protected]. Correspondencia: Apartado postal 48-D, Toluca 50120, México.

2000

Programa Interdisciplinariode Estudios del Tercer Sector

Nuno Themudo 2




CONTENIDO

Pág.

1. Introducción 7

2. Organisational Structure 8

3. The Structure of NGOs 9

4. Organisational Theory 13

1. Environment and structure are uncorrelated 142. Environment (explanatory variable) determines structure (dependent variable) 143. Structure determines environment 15

5. Organisational Theory and NGOs 16

6. The Country Contexts: Mexican NGOs 16

6.1 NGO sector 176.2 Environmental NGOs 186.3 ENGO structure 196.4 ENGO environment 20

7. The Country Contexts: Portuguese NGOs 22

7.1 NGO sector 227.2 Environmental NGOs 237.3 ENGO structure 247.4 ENGO environmental 24

8. Conclusión 24

Nuno Themudo 4




�MANAGERS AS ARCHITECTS DESIGN work processes, create work groups, and specify hierarchy andprocedure. They configure and structure organisations, combining available resources to achieve eco-nomically and socially desirable objectives. Then, as builders, they implement designs in organisatio-ns. Managers of nonprofit organisations engage in organisational design and construction by crea-ting and filling positions, and combining paid staff with volunteers. They may concentrate decisionmaking for key areas of strategy in small groups or diffuse it widely.[�] Organisational design anddesign implementation are core management responsibilities in any organisation because they canhave enormous consequences for organisational effectiveness. That is, how well an organisation is�put together� can affect its performance� (Kushner and Poole, 1996:119)

Nuno Themudo 6




1. INTRODUCTION1

In this paper I review relevant NGO, nonprofitand organisational theory literature. These literatures contain insights into the research problem - the relation between organisational

structure and environment in NGOs. The review ofthe existing literature revealed three main types ofdeficiencies. The first is a lack of empirical resear-ch on the relation between organisational environ-ment and structure in NGOs. There has been exten-sive research on this topic in the generalorganisational literature, but very little has beensaid about NGOs in particular. The second deficiencyin the literature refers to weaknesses in studiespreviously carried out in the area. This study triesto build on them contributing new insights to theresearch area. The third is a general lack of des-criptive material on NGOs when compared to othertypes of organisations, particularly in countries ofintermediary development. Together these deficien-cies in the literature provide the basis for the re-search objectives and a justification for this study.

Both the NGO and the nonprofit literaturesare reviewed here because of (a) the general lackof academic research on the management of NGOswhen compared to nonprofits and (b) the oftenartificial division in the literature between NGOs and

nonprofits (Lewis, 1999). Traditionally, the litera-ture on NGO management has been considered asubset within the wider literature on nonprofitmanagement. It has been argued, I believe correc-tly, that the management of NGOs shares much incommon with the management of nonprofitsworking outside the development field (Billis andMacKeith, 1993; Fowler, 1989). The comparisonbetween NGOs in an aid recipient (Mexico) and aidgiving country (Portugal) called for a review of theliterature of third sector organisations in both theSouth and the North. Mexico and Portugal esca-pe easy slotting between North and South. Thus,NGOs working in these countries do not fall easilyinto definitions of NGOs or nonprofits based onwork in developing vs. developed countries respec-tively (e.g., Billis and MacKeith�s (1993) definitio-ns).

The paper is divided into two main areas ofliterature review. The first relates to the analyticalcomponent of the research problem, that is, therelation between environment and structure inorganisations. The second relates to the empiricalcontext for the study � Mexico and Portugal. Thepaper begins by reviewing the literature on NGOstructure. Given the general lack of research in thisarea, the following section reviews organisationaltheory in search for hypotheses about NGO struc-ture. Next, from organisational theory ResourceDependency Perspective (RDP) is selected and des-cribed as providing a good conceptual frameworkto analyse the research topic. Two studies, whichapplied RDP to understand NGOs (Hudock, 1997;

1 Nuno Themudo is a PhD candidate working at the Centre forVoluntary Organisation, London School of Economics and visitingresearcher at the Programa Interdisciplinario de Estudios del TercerSector, Colegio Mexiquense. He is sponsored by the Programa PraxisXXI, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Lisbon.

Nuno Themudo 8


Natal, 1999), are described and provide the basisfor an understanding of the research topic. Thesestudies did not however apply RDP to understandNGO structure. That is the aim of the present stu-dy. The second part of the paper reviews the exis-ting literature on NGOs and nonprofits in Mexicoand Portugal. Very little empirical research has beenundertaken in this area. One study in particularlooked at environmental NGOs in Mexico (Kurzin-ger et al., 1991). This study was described exten-sively providing the basis for some hypotheses,which were tested against empirical data.

2. ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

This section examines questions around NGO struc-ture through a review and discussion of selectedprevious research on the topic. Organisationalstructure is a fundamental concept in understan-ding organisation and management. According toan organisational theorist,

�All organisations have to make provisionfor continuing activities directed towardthe achievement of given aims.Regularities in activities such as taskallocation, coordination and supervisionare established which constitute theorganisation�s structure� (Pugh, 1990:1)

The study of organisational structure is at theheart of organisational theory. Again Pugh arguesthat (1990:ix)

�organisation theory can be defined as thestudy of the structure, functioning andperformance of organisations, and thebehaviour of groups and individualswithin them.�

One of the most relevant questions for ourpresent research around the determination of struc-ture is whether it can be chosen. This question isrelated to the problem of management discretion,organisational autonomy and accountability (res-ponsibility). Is structure determined by manage-ment or is it determined by external control (of

many different constituencies)? Or to what extentcan management be made responsible for thestructure of NGOs? To what extent can manage-ment be made accountable to the internal �regu-larities� (structure), which impact organisationalperformance?

The issue of the influence of environmentalvariables on management practice is very relevantin a time when NGO accountability is at the fore-front of academic and policy discussion (Brett,1993; Edwards and Hulme, 1995; Fry, 1995; Leat,1998). To the extent that NGO management isdetermined by external influences responsibility forNGO performance must also rest with those influen-ces as well as on internal members. The poor per-formance of NGOs can (and perhaps should) belargely passed on to the �external controllers� of theorganisation. This is particularly true in organisatio-ns, which are very dependent on their environmentfor resources. That is the case of most NGOs (e.g.,Fowler, 1997, Hudock, 1995). If NGOs are stron-gly controlled by external factors, financial accoun-tability (and responsibility) is still possible. Strate-gic accountability on the other hand, can be onlytentative because ultimate responsibility for dys-functional structure and poor performance may lieoutside the NGO. Pfeffer and Salanick (1978) men-tioned this problem when they stated that we aremore used to attribute responsibility to individualrather than situational factors. In the real world ishowever situational factors may be just as impor-tant as individual ones. NGOs and their managerscould be made responsible for issues in which theyhad little impact or control.

The external control of organisations is aserious and unexplored issue in NGO managementliterature (Hudock, 1997). Much of the legitima-cy of NGOs rests with their claim to being �non-go-vernmental� and �non profit making� constitutinga third sector of activity often being called the �in-dependent sector�. The extreme implication of the�external control� of NGOs is a third sector, whichis not independent, used to serve the purposes ofthe public and commercial sectors.

On the other hand the external control oforganisations has serious implications for NGOmanagement practice. Seeking (or building) a fa-



vourable environment may be the single mostimportant contribution of NGO managers to theeffective running of the organisation. This is con-sistent with recent calls for (NGO) managers to be�enablers� rather than controllers. We have had littletheoretical advancement in this area since De Graaf(1987) alerted to the importance of monitoring theenvironment. In practice, however, some of theNGOs I researched already understand this. Theirmanagers spend most of their time dealing withexternal issues. The dependence of NGOs on theirenvironment has been recognised in the literatu-re. However, little systematic research has beenundertaken in this area (Hudock, 1997).

3. THE STRUCTURE OF NGOS

Despite a rapid growth in the academic literatureon NGOs and NGO management the organisatio-nal structure of NGOs remains largely unexplored.Research on NGO management has looked, withrare exceptions, only indirectly into structure.

MacKeith (1993) undertook a review of NGOmanagement literature. Research on NGO structuredid not feature prominently in her review. She iden-tified four major themes and issues in the NGOmanagement literature. The first theme is thestrengths and weaknesses of NGOs and the impli-cations for their role in development. The secondtheme is NGO organisational problems and thenature of NGO management. The relationship bet-ween NGOs and governmental agencies is the thirdtheme. Finally, the fourth theme is the relations-hip between Northern NGOs and Southern NGOs.It is within the general theme of organisationalproblems and the nature of NGO management thatreference to organisational structure can be found.The references identified by MacKeith (1993) centrearound the question of the centralised vs. decen-tralised structure, the adequacy of a bureaucraticstructure, and the pressures for a participatorystructure. [expand especially to include the excep-tions]

Underlying the theme of organisational pro-blems and the nature of NGO management, thereis an important discussion in the NGO and nonprofit

management literature concerning the distinctive-ness of these organisations vis-à-vis state and for-profit organisations (Billis and MacKeith, 1993). Onthe one hand some authors (e.g., Ditcher, 1989)believe NGOs are essentially like any other organi-sation. They should apply �nut and bolt� manage-ment theory to their organisation before they evenconsider any distinctiveness. On the other hand,other authors (e.g., Billis and MacKeith, 1992,1993) have warned against the indiscriminateadoption of other, mainly private, sectors intononprofits and NGOs. This debate is very relevantbecause, as it will be shown later in this paper, thereis a lack of theoretical development around themanagement of NGOs. This lack led me to searchfor relevant theories in the generic organisationalliterature looking for theories, which could helpunderstand NGO reality. To the extent that NGOs aredistinctive theories developed by researching othertypes of organisations will be less useful. To theextent that NGOs are similar to other organisatio-ns, general organisational literature will be moreuseful. Assessing NGO distinctiveness is thereforean unavoidable aspect of this research.

There is an underlying theme in the litera-ture around the legitimisation of decentralisedstructures for NGOs. Young (1992) described thetension between centralisation and decentralisationin international advocacy NGOs. He presents themodel of federal organisational structure as themost adequate organisational form to accommo-date the demands of national diversity and inter-national coordination. Hudson and Bielefeld (1997)also looked into international NGOs. They conclu-ded that their most likely structure is umbrella-likeand that unitary hierarchical corporate structuresare not likely to be found in international NGOs.Brown and Covey (1987 in MacKeith, 1993) arguethat the bureaucratic structure may be inappropria-te for the work and internal constitution of NGOs.Instead a multiple bridge structure of connected,smaller, more informal modules may be more sui-table. Similar explorations of the relation betweencentral offices and local affiliates can be found inthe nonprofit literature (e.g., Bailey, 1992).

In terms of participatory structure, Sheehan(1998) argued that NGO management (and struc-

Nuno Themudo 10


ture) is often claimed to be participatory, but littlehas been written on it. This is even more surpri-sing since there is a large number of references toparticipatory development. Much has been writ-ten on the external aspect of participatory deve-lopment, but not much on the, internal, organi-sational factors which may be related toparticipatory development. [why?] He relates a par-ticipatory structure to the nature of NGOs� partici-patory development work

��participatory management� mayrepresent a conscious effort to exercisemanagement authority in ways that areconsistent with the broader social valuesof the NGO. In particular, it may be seen asan attempt to address the managementchallenges that the task of promotingcommunity participation imposes on anorganisation� (p. 25)

Various studies on NGO management cha-llenges indicated the expectations of staff to par-ticipate in all levels of decision making (e.g., Billisand MacKeith, 1993), i.e., their desire for a parti-cipatory structure. Contrasting with the previousviews, De Graff (1987) argued that NGOs shouldnot necessarily adopt a participatory managementstyle (or structure) just because developmentshould be participatory.

In the nonprofit literature, structure andperformance have been shown to be correlated.Kushner and Poole (1996) examined 19 nonpro-fits and concluded that dysfunctions in structureare associated with organisational failure. They alsoobserved that a variety of structures are associa-ted with good performance.

Bordt (1997) represents one of the fewworks in the literature that directly researchednonprofit structure. She undertook a study on thestructure of women�s nonprofit organisations inNew York. She began by reviewing previous stu-dies on women�s nonprofits, which described adivision of organisational structures around twoideal types: bureaucracies and collectivities. Shethen tested the main factors affecting structure(derived from a literature review): ideology, tasks,environment, size, and age as predictors of struc-

ture (p. 55). She found that age was the mostimportant predictor of structure. This finding isconsistent with the organisational life-cycle litera-ture (e.g., Perkins, Nieva and Lawler, 1983). It con-tradicts however Stinchombe�s (1965:143) claimthat there is a �correlation between the time inhistory that a particular type of organisation wasinvented and the social structure of organisationsof that type which exist at the present time�. Or-ganisations that are born during the same era willlook alike and will carry that structural �imprint� forthe duration of their lives (Bordt, 1997). If Stichom-be (1965) were correct the older women�s orga-nisations should have been collectivist in structu-re because they were inprinted as such during theearly years of the women�s movement. Bordt(1997) found the opposite is true. Older organi-sations were more bureaucratic which is consistentwith the �life-cycle� literature (Perkins, Nieva andLawler, 1983).

Bordt (1997) also found that ideology andtasks were strong predictors of structure. Organi-sations with routine tasks are more likely to adoptbureaucratic structure than organisations with non-routine tasks. This finding is consistent with con-tingency theory (e.g., Perrow, 1967). In terms ofideology, more explicitly feminist groups tendedto be collectivities. This finding is consitent with alarge literature which claims that NGOs (nonpro-fits) are value driven (e.g., Brown and Covey, 1989;Handy, 1988; Mason, 1996).

More controversial is Bordt�s (1997) findingthat the environment (state funding and relationwith other organisations) and organisational sizewere not very important factors influencing struc-ture. This finding conflicts with a classic study fromthe general organisational literature. The AstonGroup (Pugh et al., 1976, 1977, 1981) analysedpurpose, ownership, technology, size, and depen-dence on formal structure. This study collectedextensive data from organisations in a variety offields. They concluded that finding that both sizeand environment were important predictors ofstructure. The larger the size the more structuredthe organisation is. This finding contradicts Bordt�sconclusions. Also contrary to Bordt�s findings,environment is another important influence on



structure. The more dependent on external orga-nisations the less autonomy and the more centra-lised the decision making.

This conflict between the findings of Bordtand the Aston Group is very important for ourpurpose of understanding NGO structure. On theone hand the Aston Group�s evidence is muchstronger than that of Bordt. Bordt (1997) collec-ted her data on 26 nonprofits. She estimated thatthe population of women�s nonprofits in New Yorkis 200. Her sample of 26 organisations is too smallfor conclusive conclusions to be drawn. In contrast,the Aston Group�s experiment is held out as a clas-sic study on organisational structure (Pugh, 1990).Unfortunately, Bordt�s (1997) study did not com-ment enough on this conflict. She referred to pre-vious studies on women�s nonprofits (Mattews,1994; Martin, 1990; Reinelt, 1994) which

�question the inevitability of the impact[of state funding on structure], leavingopen the possibility that women�sorganisations can resist bureaucraticpressure or even affect governmentstructures and practices themselves�(Bordt, 1997:59)

to support the idea that it is uncertain whe-ther the environment has an impact on structure.But Bordt�s findings run counter to the growingrecognition of the importance of the environmenton organisational structure. This view shared by avariety of contemporary theoretical perspectives(e.g., population ecology, resource dependence,new institutionalism) is that structures are createdto deal with environmental pressures and that thesepressures vary among environments (Meyer, 1992).

Bordt�s research focuses on NGOs (nonpro-fits) and as such her findings may be defended onthe grounds that NGO management is distinctiveof that of other sectors of organisation, i.e., fromgeneral organisational theory. Most of organisatio-nal theory ideas have been generated studyinglarge companies (Meyer, 1992). They may inappro-priate for understanding NGOs (Billis and MacKei-th, 1993).

There are two main flaws with this argu-ment. First, the idea that NGOs are distinctive has

been used more as a warning about, than a ruleagainst, applying general organisational theory toNGOs or nonprofits. The need for �nuts and bolts�management theory (Dichter, 1989) has domina-ted both practice and research on NGOs. It has notled to distinctive theory building or to the rejec-tion of any particular theory from the generic or-ganisational literature. Instead, it has suggested theneed to expand some of the existing theories toinclude some particularities of NGO organisation.We should, thus, question Bordt�s findings in thelight that they run counter to much of organisatio-nal theory, but we cannot instantly reject thembecause it may be that the environment has someinfluence but in NGOs that influence is too smallto show.

Second, a closer look at arguments for thedistinctiveness of NGOs shows that Bordt�s studyis not controversial in relation to �distinctive� issues.NGOs have been said to be distinctive because of,for instance, their ownership (Hansmann, 1996),the motivation of members (Etzioni, 1961), andtype of activity (public good provision without statepower) (Anheier, 1990). Bordt�s controversial fin-dings were about size and environment. Not muchhas been said about the distinctiveness of theenvironment NGOs are immersed in as a cause oforganisational distinctiveness. Could NGOs face adifferent organisational environment from otherorganisations and be distinctive organisations asa result? Perhaps an initial answer to this problemrevolves around the recognition of multiple cons-tituencies that NGOs face. Contingency theory(Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) defended that diffe-rent parts of organisational environment will in-fluence differently different parts of structure. Assuch the structure will reflect the many differentsub-environments facing the organisation. In theNGO literature, some authors have alluded to theimpact of these multiple constituencies in chan-ging NGO structure (e.g., Brown and Covey, 1989).

Bordt (1997) found that receiving state fundsdid not have an important influence on the struc-ture of the nonprofits she studied. This finding goesagainst much descriptive data on NGOs andnonprofits. There is an important body of litera-ture on the �contract culture�, which contradicts

Nuno Themudo 12


Bordt�s finding that the environment does not havemuch influence on structure. The argument is that,basically, as nonprofits receive more income fromthe state in a contract form they become increa-singly bureaucratised (see Billis and Harris, 1996).A similar literature exist on NGOs about their de-pendence on resource providers on their environ-ment, such as official agencies (Edwards and Hul-me, 1997) or Northern NGOs (Hudock, 1997).

Researchers on NGOs are increasingly recog-nising the importance of the organisation�s envi-ronment. Although the environment has not yetbeen directly tested as a predictor of structure,references to its impact are common (e.g., Carro-ll, 1992; Edwards and Hulme, 1992; Hudock, 1995,1997; Natal, 1999). An important theme in NGOmanagement research is the relation with the state(MacKeith, 1993). There are many references to thepossibility of formalisation or institutionalisationwhen NGOs become too close to the state. Onepossible consequence is a change from a partici-patory structure to a bureaucratic one (Natal,1999). A similar thesis is put forward in nonprofitresearch and its analysis of the �contract culture�(see Billis and Harris, 1996). In their research onNGOs Brown and Covey (1989) found that NGOshave multiple internal realities reflecting differentexternal constituencies. They argued for an exter-nal as well as internal perspective in the diagnosisof organisational problems. It is often in the ex-ternal environment that internal problems origina-te.

The influence of the environment on NGOsgoes beyond the problem of resource dependen-cy. It has also been observed that NGOs (nonpro-fits) are highly institutionalised organisations (Etzio-ni, 1961). Although Scott and Meyer (1991) didnot consider NGOs in particular I would expect NGOsto resemble mental health clinics, schools, legalagencies, and churches as organisations with stron-ger institutional environments and weak technicalenvironments (technology).

Despite the importance of the institutionalenvironment to NGOs very little research has analy-sed this relation. Hudock (1997) is a notable ex-ception, providing the most detailed analysis of theimpact of the institutional environment on NGOs.

She developed and applied a conceptual fra-mework to analyse the relation between Southernand Northern NGOs. Her framework was based onResource Dependency Perspective (Pfeffer andSalancik, 1978). She argued that the quantity andquality of relations to resource providers are criti-cal to the resource dependency of a NGO. The moreresource providers a NGO has the less resourcedependent it is but the more resources it has tospend maintaining those relations. Her work pro-vides asteping stone for the application of RDP toNGOs, which will also provide the basis for thisstudy. Her work will be described in more detailbellow.

Hudock�s (1997) conceptual frameworkhowever was developed to understand relationsbetween organisations and not organisationalstructure. Thus it is not suitable to the objectivesof this study concerned with organisational struc-ture. The original approach used by Hudock wasalso developed to explain organisational structu-re (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978:chapter 9). Very fewworks have used RDP to understand nonprofits (inMay/1999 according to the Social Science CitationIndex around 1910 academic publications citedPfeffer and Salancik� (1978) RDP, but only 10 tit-les were about nonprofits, none of which wasconcerned with structure!).

This is an unresolved debate needing moreempirical investigation. In particular, the relationbetween the environment and structure must bespecifically addressed. On the one hand, mostwritings on NGO management ignore the influen-ce of the environment (Hudock, 1997). Even des-pite the widespread acceptance in the non-mana-gement literature that the environment has animportant influence on NGOs. Bordt�s (1997) stu-dy provides a strong reinforcement of this positionafter establishing a very weak correlation betweenenvironment and structure.

Fundamental to the understanding of therelation between environment and structure is theconcept of slack (March and Cyert, 1963). Slackpermits to buffer the influence of the environmentallowing time for adaptation and learning. Slackalso permits the loose coupling of (formal) struc-ture and activities. Formal structure can then res-



pond to the environmental demands made on theorganisation, while activities can respond to effec-tiveness imperatives (Meyer and Rowan, 1991).Slack is extremely important if effectiveness is tobe achieved in strongly institutionalised environ-ments, where organisations have to devote a lar-ge part of their resources to maintaining a struc-ture which gives the organisation legitimacy.Despite the relevance of the concept there hasnever been a study of slack in NGOs or nonprofits.

4. ORGANISATIONAL THEORY

Until now I have argued that the literature on NGOsand nonprofits does not provide an adequate andthorough examination of NGO structure. Organi-sational structure has been a perennial researchobject of organisational theory (Pugh et al., 1990)Looking into this literature would seem like a va-luable step toward understanding NGO structure.It seems appropriate to apply the ideas developedin this field to the emerging academic field of NGOmanagement. Organisational theory has oftenbeen usefully applied to understand NGO mana-gement (e.g., Billis and MacKeith, 1993; Harris,1995; Hudock, 1997).

The application of organisational theoryideas to NGOs must however be done carefully.Most of its ideas have been generated studyinglarge companies in the US (Meyer, 1992). They maywholly inappropriate for understanding and explai-ning NGOs (Knoke and Prensky, 1984) and cannotthus be readily applicable to NGOs. While someauthors have emphasised the similarities betweengeneric management and NGO management (Di-chter, 1989) the NGO literature indicates manypotentially distinctive aspects of NGO management.Given that organisational theory has thus far es-sentially concentrated organisations other thanNGOs, bringing in a new type of organisations mayyield interesting test to its theories and models. Thisis one of the objectives in this study. Testing orga-nisational theory models in new settings as well astesting the idea of NGO distinctiveness from the NGOmanagement literature. Also, adding research onNGOs to organisational theorists� databank on or-

ganisations, in and of itself, is another importantcontribution.

Academic interest on organisational struc-ture is very old. Among the first ideas developedwere Weber�s concept of bureaucracy and Taylor�sscientific management. Weber (1947, original in1924) outlined bureaucracy as the ideal rationalstructure for administration. Taylor (1912) empha-sised the technical requirements of production asthe imperative for structure. Later human motiva-tions of those working in an organisation was re-cognised as a main drive for organisational struc-ture (e.g., Mayo, 1949; McGregor, 1960).

It was only much later that ideas about theinfluence of environment on structure originatedwith contingency theory. The influence of the en-vironment was first understood as technicalenvironment (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Thomp-son, 1967). Later theories dedicated focused theirattention on the institutional environment. Thesetheories include resource dependency, resourcemobilisation, new institutionalism, and new insti-tutional economics. Resource Dependency Perspec-tive (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978) emphasised orga-nisation needs for resources from the environmentand the consequent claims for control of the or-ganisation by resource providers. Resource Mobi-lisation Theory (McCarthy and Zald, 1973) lookedat social movement organisations. It emphasisesthe need for organisational resources by socialmovement organisations. New Institutionalism(Meyer and Scott, 1983; Powell and Dimaggio,1991) looks at the processes of institutionalisation(structuration) of organisation. New InstitutionalEconomics (North, 1990; Williamson, 1985) focu-sed on transaction costs to explain organisations.Different institutional settings can affect the costof transacting and thus affect the choice of orga-nisational forms used.

At it was mentioned above the understan-ding of what determines organisational structurehas been a major field of inquire in organisationaltheory. Not surprisingly the answer to this problemis controversial. There is a long standing debateover the possible relation between organisationalenvironment and structure. There are three broadpositions in this debate. The first states that envi-

Nuno Themudo 14


ronment and structure are uncorrelated. Structu-re is determined by other factors, normally inter-nal ones such as motivation or ownership. The se-cond defends that environment (explanatoryvariable) determines structure (dependent variable).

1. Environment and structure are uncorrela-ted

Some authors have explained organisational struc-ture ignoring environment. Weber (1947), for ins-tance, emphasised one particular structural formas more efficient, due to rationalisation principles,regardless of context. Bureaucracy would be a moreefficient, more rational, structure. McGregor (1966)is another example. A motivational approach(Theory Y, i.e., participatory management) deter-mines the ideal structure applicable to all organi-sations in all environments.

Other authors, did not address the issue ofstructure specifically, but a reading of their argu-ments seem to indicate that they included struc-ture when they referred to organisation in gene-ral. Chester Barnard (1948) has a functionalist viewof organisation (and consequently its structure). Heargued that organisations exist to fulfil a purpo-se. The strucure, thus, is dependent on the purposeof the organisation. It will only be correlated toorganisational context when purpose is dependenton context. The main influence on structure ishowever from purpose. Etzinoni (1961), has a si-milar view on organisations. He understands or-ganisations as instruments. Thus, their emphasison performance. The structure, is dependent onthe coordinating the kind of power used with thekind of individual involvement in the organisation.Thus a structure based on normative power will besuited for a moral involvement. Tannenbaum(1968), on the other hand, argues that organisatio-ns are systems of control of individuals. The struc-ture, this view would imply, serves the purpose ofcontrol rather than adaptation to the organisationalenvironment.

2. Environment (explanatory variable) deter-mines structure (dependent variable)

Population models of organisation (e.g., Hannanand Freeman, 1989) are the most radical propo-nents of the subordination of structure to environ-ment. Based on a biological model of organisationsthey claim that in an environment of limited resour-ces where different organisations compete forthem only organisations with an appropriate struc-ture will survive. Death is the cost of having aninadequate, not adapted, structure. The mecha-nism is the survival of fittest or most adapted. In-adequate structures will not survive in the compe-titive environment.

Some authors have emphasised the impor-tance of technology in determining structure (Wo-odward, 1965; Thompson, 1967). Other authorshave emphasised the uncertainty, instability, anddiversity of the context in determining structure.For Burns and Stalker (1966) the mechanistic struc-ture is adapted to stable conditions and the �or-ganic� structure to unstable conditions. For Lawren-ce and Lorsch (1967) the integration anddifferentiation (two opposing principles) in orga-nisational structure depends on uncertainty anddiversity of environment. For Emery and Trist (1969)the structure should be designed according toenvironmental complexity and turbulence.

For Chandler (1977) the evolutions in trans-portation and integration of markets, which leadto a growth of potential market, have determinedthe evolution of structures. Thus, the functionalstructure was succeeded by the multi-divisionalstructure to deal with the complexities arising frommarket expansion.

The Aston group (Pugh et al., 1976, 1977,1981) analysed the impact of purpose, ownership,technology, size and dependence on formal struc-ture (which they defined as the structuring of ac-tivities and concentration of authority). The influen-ce of ownership and technology was not verysignificant. The higher size the more structured.The more dependent on external organisations theless autonomy and the more centralised the deci-sion-making.



Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) developed theResource Dependency Approach. In essence, thestructure satisfies external demands (stakeholdersor constituencies). External demands are a func-tion of munificence, scarcity, and competition.Structure result of negotiation between externaldemands and the search for autonomy of internalmembers.

For New Institutionalism authors (e.g., Powelland DiMaggio, 1991) the institutional demands forlegitimacy determine (formal) structure. Missionand efficiency determine informal structure. Slackpermits this difference between formal and infor-mal structure.

It is important to note that although theinfluence of the environment on structure is notas questionable today as it was in the past, thereis still a debate around the relative importance ofinternal and external determinants of structure.Also, �Historically, organisational analysis [includingNGOs] has focused attention on internal rather thanexternal aspects of organisations� (Hudock,1997:chapter one, p.30). This fact leads to a biasin the literature toward internal explanations ofstructure.

3. Structure determines environment

Is the reverse relation possible? That is, can thestructure determine the environment?

Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) believe this is apossibility. Organisations can chose and influencetheir environments. A department may even exist(in the structure), which is responsible for doingthat. By undertaking successful lobbying, for ins-tance, organisations may influence their environ-ment, making it acceptable for structure ratherthan the other way round.

On the other hand, it has also been said thatdifferent parts of the organisation face differentenvironments (or sub-environments, Lawrence andLorsch, 1967). The structure, different combina-tion of sub-parts in the organisation, will thus de-termine which sub-environments is the overall en-vironment made of.

These authors have also referred to the im-portance of environment in determining structu-

re. So what they are drawing our attention for isthat structure and context have a mutually depen-dent relation, in a cyclical process. �The cycle ofcontextual effect, organisational response, and newcontexts must be examined more fully in the fu-ture to describe adequately the external control oforganisations.� (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978:conclu-ding sentence)

Lindblom (1959) mentions an aspect, whi-ch is important not to understand the relationbetween the organisational environment and struc-ture but between structure and mission. He arguesthat very often the structure (means) will determinethe mission (ends).

Some more radical approaches have alertedto the fundamental importance of the environmentin understanding organisations (contingencytheory, population models). Other approaches haveenriched the picture of the relation between or-ganisations and their environment by also stres-sing the ability of organisations to influence theirenvironment (RDP, New Intitutionalism, New Ins-titutional Economics). NGOs are not thus just theproduct of their environment but they also produceit.

Miles and Snow (1984) offered a concilia-tory position on the debate between internal vs.external factors affecting organisational structure.They used the concept of organisational strategyas a link between internal and external factors. Theyargue that there should be a close fit betweenstructure (internal) and environment (external) foreffective performance. Strategy should ensure thisfit. Since I am interested on the relation betweenenvironment and structure, the internal response(strategy) is fundamental to understand this rela-tion. The idea of strategy does not however redu-ce the need to look into the relation between struc-ture and environment. The idea of �fit� as a desirableorganisational strategy to improve performance isnot however unproblematic.

There is a conflict between the idea of fitproposed by Miles and Snow (1984) and the con-cept of loose coupling advanced by Meyer andRowan (1991) in the New Institutionalism school.In heavily institutionalised environments (such asin industrialised societies) loose coupling of with

Nuno Themudo 16


the environment may be the best option to opti-mise efficient performance. Organisations have aloose coupling with their environment when theyshape formal structure according to institutionaldemands (to comply with institutional �myths�) butshape their actual activities (informal structure)according to performance needs. What wouldappear then to be a �misfit� between structure (in-formal) and environment is an optimising strate-gy.

5. ORGANISATIONAL THEORY ANDNGOS

As we saw earlier an important research on thestructure of NGOs, Bordt (1997), found that theenvironment was not a very good predictor ofstructure in the NGOs observed. This finding con-tradicts many organisational theorists claims thatthe environment is a fundamental influence onstructure. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, Bordt�s(1997) findings contradict a growing recognitionamong researchers on NGOs about the importan-ce of the environment in influencing NGOs. Thisconflict suggests a need for more empirical researchin this area.

To gain more understanding about the re-lation between structure and environment in NGOsan appropriate theoretical framework is needed.There are a number of possible theoretical fra-meworks in organisational theory. They were brieflyreviewed above. This research tries to be relevantto real life issues and is problem based (followingthe tradition at the CVO for a straight relation bet-ween NGO theory and practice). Resource depen-dency is a widely recognised problem for NGOs(Fowler, 1997; Hudock, 1997; Natal, 1999). In theirstudy of Mexican environmental NGOs, Kurzingeret al. (1991) showed that in a self evaluation oftheir work, financial dependency was the onlyproblem where the majority of NGOs gave a nega-tive evaluation of their work (see section 6.2 Envi-ronmental NGOs).

RDP and its focus on resources, environment,and structure appeared thus as the most indica-ted approach to look into these issues. RDP has beenusefully applied to the study of nonprofits and most

importantly NGOs (Hudock, 1997; Natal, 1999).This study then adds to previous research on usingRDP to look into NGOs. It also expands it by lookinginto a problem, which had not been looked at pre-viously � the impact of the environment on NGOstructure.

Hudock (1997) was the first researcher toapply RDP into the study of NGOs. RDP had beenpreviously applied to the study of nonprofits toresearch executive leadership (Heimovics et al.,1993) and the relation between the state andnonprofits (Saidel, 1991). Hudock (1997) howe-ver took the approach developed in a Northern set-ting and showed that it helped explain NGOs inSierra Leone and The Gambia. She focused on therelation between NNGOs and sNGOs. nNGOs cons-tituted the main source of resources in the sNGOsinstitutional environment. She also looked intocapacity building efforts made by nNGOs on theirSouthern counterparts.

Natal (1999) used RDP to inquire into whe-ther receiving funding from the state increased ordecreased NGO ability to foster beneficiary parti-cipation. He looked into a regional governmentscheme to fund local environmental NGOs. Hefound that in the cases that he looked at receivingfunding from the state did not reduce NGO abilityto promote participation. On the contrary he po-ints to a number of positive influences that statefunding had on NGOs which translated into hig-her participation promotion. State funding, forinstance, gave an incentive for NGOs to improvetheir management and organisation. NGOs werethen more capable of motivating and involvingbeneficiaries in their projects.

Having reviewed the relevant literature onNGOs, nonprofits and organisational theory I willnow review relevant literature about the specificcountry contexts for this study: Mexico and Portu-gal.

6. THE COUNTRY CONTEXTS:MEXICAN NGOS

There is very little academic work on NGOs ornonprofits in Mexico and even less in Portugal. Thisis an area lacking in systematic empirical resear-



ch. In this section the existing academic work onthe NGOs in Mexico is reviewed so as to providean initial picture of the sector. In the followingsection, work on Portuguese NGOs is reviewed. Thelack of research on NGOs in these two countrycontexts is an important justification for this stu-dy. In particular, only one study has been under-taken on environmental NGOs in Mexico and noneon environmental NGOs in Portugal. Moreover, thisstudy intends to compare the two countries asintermediary development countries, that is, coun-tries which do not fit easily definitions of �North�or �South�, but instead lay somewhere at their edge(Santos, 199?). Both Mexico and Portugal belongto the �South� of �Northern� trading blocks, NAFTAand EU respectively. To date, there has been nospecific research the NGO sector of intermediarydevelopment countries. Although not directly con-cerned with this issue, this study generated inter-esting hypotheses to be tested by future researchon the NGO sector in intermediary developmentcountries.

6.1 NGO sector

There is very little academic work on the MexicanNGO sector. I draw on findings from Bebbingtonand Farrington (1993) and Carroll (1992) on La-tin America and Landim (1998) for Brazil, in thesearch for additional clues to help understandingthe Mexican NGO sector. Looking at the Brazilianexperience can be helpful in understanding Mexi-co because �Brazil exemplifies the complex set offorces which has given the Latin American nonpro-fit sector its distinctive flavour� (Anheier and Sa-lamon, 1998:24).

There are three main denominations forNGOs. NGOs could be either �civil associations� (as-sociaciones civiles), �private institutions for so-cial assistance� (instituiciones privadas de assistenciasocial), or numerous types of popular organisations(organizaciones populares) that could come underthe group of grassroots membership NGOs, suchas cooperatives or neighbourhood associations. Thedifferent legal denominations reflect differences inaims, activities, type of constitution, and tax regi-me.

The history of NGOs is Mexico is yet to bewritten (CEMEFI, 1991). Bebbington and Farring-ton (1993b:201) identified three generations ofNGO formation in Latin America: (1) the oldest NGOsemerged out of the charitable work of the Chur-ch, (2) later NGOs have their roots in liberationtheology, community development and Freire�work, (3) the youngest type of NGOs appeared inthe mid-1980s and could be denominated �tech-nocratic� NGOs, which are concerned with imple-mentation and not with politics. Today all gene-rations exist alongside each other, but to a largeextent they remain tied to the original motivatio-ns. There are interesting parallels between Bebbing-ton and Farrington (1993) account and Korten�s(1987) generations (relief and welfare, local deve-lopment, and sustainable systems development).It is not clear however if Mexico will develop a �four-th� generation of �advocacy networks� as predic-ted by Korten (1990).

In the Mexican context NGO activity proba-bly started in the XIX century and it was restrictedessentially to church related NGOs. After the socialistrevolution (1910-20) the Mexican state took onsocial responsibilities of looking after the needs ofthe poor. Since to a large extent the state wassuccessful in doing so and most social interestswhere represented in the state civil society neverbecame very strong. There was a general attitudein society that the state should take care of socialmatters (CEMEFI, 1991).

Mexico City�s 1985 earthquake was a turningpoint in the organisation of civil society. The emer-gency and the scale of the urgent need in a citywith a population of around 20 million peoplepushed the state�s capacity to a limit and civil so-ciety was invaluable in its co-operation. Manygroups formed to tackle the social problems pro-voked (or aggravated) by the earthquake, such ashomelessness, extreme poverty, poor health con-ditions. These organisations outlived the immediaterelief action, often becoming formal NGOs dedica-ted to welfare provision (Natal and Themudo,1996).

Landim (1998) shows that nonprofit law inBrazil reflects the historical tension between thecentralised, often autocratic, state and the volun-

Nuno Themudo 18


tary associations. Under these laws and regulationsorganisations classified as �public interest utilities�by the state received favourable benefits that wentbeyond tax exemption. While any nonprofit orga-nisation can be designated as a public interest entityonly a fraction of the entire sector has been ableto win this designation, which in practice has of-ten been handed out as a political favour. As a resultthe application of the law became politicised andwas used by the state to channel resources to alliedgroups and organisations. Only since 1990, withthe process of democratisation, have legal andadministrative changes been put in place to makethe law both less restrictive and less political.

Mexico has many NGOs working in its terri-tory, both nNGOs and domestic NGOs. NGOs inMexico are in general welcome by the state andseen as fundamental partners in development (Kur-zinger et al, 1991). The Mexican government hasat all administrative levels put much emphasis oncivil society participating in the country�s develo-pment process. In these conditions we find someNGOs which depend on public funds for about halfof their total income (Natal and Themudo, 1996).Those are however exceptions, normally workingin welfare services, providing public services onstate contracts or grants. As Landim (1998) putsabout the nonprofit sector in Brazil it must be seenin the context of a strong state and a weak civilsociety.

In Latin America, grassroots support NGOs(Carroll, 1992) tend to be staffed by middle class,non-Indian, professionals and are administered bybureaucratic procedures. Grassroots organisatio-ns on the other hand tend to be composed of therural poor, often Indian, and administered throughless formal procedures (Bebbington and Farring-ton, 1993).

The most comprehensive database on Mexi-can NGOs was elaborated by the Mexican Centrefor Philanthropy �CEMEFI (Centro Mexicano para laFilantropia)� and it contains records on 4,400 NGOs(September/1996). This database was compiled bycombining the most important scattered state andprivate databases on NGOs. As elsewhere, NGOs inMexico are on a clear ascending evolution in ter-ms of number, influence, resources, size (CEMEFI,

1991). This trend appears to be rooted both in therelation between NGOs and the state, the increa-sing support by foreign donors (mainly US) andbetween NGOs and other members of civil societyboth domestic and international. Unfortunately,not enough data has yet been compiled about theimpact of Mexico�s entry to NAFTA on the NGO sec-tor.

CEMEFI�s database shows that (in 1996) 78%of Mexican NGOs are located in Mexico City, thecapital and large metropolis, which contains only25% of the country�s total population. Moreover,it would be fair to say that at least another 10%of the NGOs are also located in large urban areas.This tells much about the urban, educated, cha-racter of most Mexican NGOs. In terms of areas ofactivity the study found out that welfare (27.8%)is the most common activity. Education follows(21.2%), health (20.3%), development (13.2%),research (8.2%), environment (3.9%), arts (3.9%),and human rights (1.5%).

Johns Hopkins study on nonprofit sector inMexico

6.2 Environmental NGOs

In the early 1970s the first environmental NGOswere formed. These were essentially associatedwith professionals, educated urban citizens, con-cerned with the large infrastructure developmentpath at the time being pursued by the Mexicanstate. They emerged as a social movement reflec-ting similar evolution in other countries such as theUS during the 1960s. In the first half of the 1980swhen Mexico received more information aboutenvironmental movements and the green partiesof the industrialised countries the formation of newenvironmental NGOs intensified (Kurzinger et al.,1991:91).

The first National Meeting of Environmen-talists, in 1985, provides a landmark in the historyof the environmental NGO sector in Mexico. Thegrowth in number of NGOs further accelerated.Opposition against nuclear power was a strongincentive for the formation of NGOs around thistime (Kurzinger et al., 1991). Around this time thethreat of the construction of a nuclear power plant



in a very important ecological site, Laguna Verde,aroused the opposition of a number of groupswhich united against the state project.

The discussion around the entrance of Mexi-co to the NAFTA, in the late -1980s, appears to havedivided the environmental NGOs between thosewho opposed it and others who saw it as a newopportunity for Mexico�s economy and environ-mental protection. Those NGOs that were againstMexico�s joining NAFTA argued against the indus-trialisation path that would follow. Those in favo-ur of NAFTA believed it was inevitable in thecountry�s development and it would bring newopportunities to tap on the US and Canada�s of-ten very strict environmental legislation bringingnew environmental awareness to Mexico.

Simon (1997:244) commented about theenvironmental NGO sector in Mexico

�The part of Mexico that is highlydeveloped, the first world Mexico,supports a small but highly influentialgroup of environmentalists who areconcerned about air pollution and urbantransportation, but who also worry aboutglobal issues like climate change and lossof biodiversity. [�] There is a smallacademic community that is less publicbut highly influential in formulating policy.[�] But there is no mass membershiporganisation or political movementassociated with environmentalism inMexico; by and large it remains an eliteissue�

One study, Kurzinger et al. (1991), providesa comprehensive description of the environmen-tal NGO sector in Mexico. Their study generatedextensive information about the organisation andthe activities of the NGOs and the general Mexicancontext within which they operate. It constitutes,to date, the only systematic empirical effort to un-derstand Mexican environmental NGOs. As such thisstudy will be extensively described here.

Kurzinger et al. (1991) should be treated asa fundamental introduction to the environmentalNGO sector in Mexico. They should also howeverbe treated with caution for three main reasons.

First, the sample base for the study was very sma-ll. They collected data from 42 environmental NGOs.Second, the sample was selected trying to cover awide range of organisations on the basis of theindication of two individuals directly related to NGOwork. But, �it was not possible to obtain a repre-sentative sample in the quantitative sense� (p. 24).So it is impossible to determine the statistical con-fidence of the results. They justified this methodo-logy on the grounds that no universe frame exis-ted on all environmental NGOs (p. 24). Third, asKurzinger et al. (1991) have found, environmen-tal NGOs during the 1980s NGOs were being for-med at an increasing rate. This trend probablycontinued and even accelerated during the 1990s,if it followed a similar pattern to that of most NGOsin Mexico (Chalmers and Piester, undated). Almosta decade has passed since Kurzinger et al. (1991)collected their data and the sector may now be verydifferent from what it was like then. One of themain objectives of this study is thus to collect moredescriptive data on Mexican environmental NGOsto fill this important gap in academic knowledge.

6.3 ENGO structure

Kurzinger et al. (1991) analysed NGO structure. Themajority of NGOs has constituted themselves as �civilassociations� (associaciones civiles) (p. 92). Theytend to be small both in terms of workers (paid orunpaid) and members. Only 5 NGOs had more than10 workers. Only 7 NGOs had more than 50 mem-bers (pp. 91-92). It is notable that, with the excep-tion of three NGOs, all workers were graduates.There is a strong tendency for these graduates tohave a natural sciences degree instead of socialsciences (p. 92). The majority of NGOs has physi-cal premises, with phone and typing machine orcomputer. In 14 of 20 cases where the equipmentbelonged to the NGO, they had international finan-cing. On the other hand none of the 15 NGOs whichhad equipment belonging to their members recei-ved international funding.

The decision making structure of was care-fully examined. The dominant form of organisation(in 19 cases of 40) was a �horizontal [structure]that combines the democratic participation of

Nuno Themudo 20


members with a collective leadership� (p. 92). Ahorizontal structure also combined with individualleadership (4 cases). A vertical structure, with va-rious hierarchical levels was present both with acollective leadership (5 cases) as individual leader-ship (3 cases). In other 8 cases one leader domi-nated a little differentiated organisation (p. 92).The last organisation had a little differentiated or-ganisation with horizontal structure. If we rearran-ge the information presented by Kurzinger et al.(1991) we can see that 24 cases had a horizontalstructure. Vertical structure was present in 8 ca-ses. The remaining 8 cases had a undifferentiatedstructure. Decision making was collective in 24cases and individual in 16 cases. These findingswould lend support to the thesis that the structu-re of environmental NGOs like women�s nonpro-fits (Bordt, 1997) can be divided into bureaucra-cies and collectivities. According to Kurzinger et al.(1991) collectivities would be the dominant struc-ture (more than half the cases), with bureaucra-cies representing about one quarter of all NGOs andundifferentiated structures being the other quar-ter.

This tendency toward a collectivity structu-re conflicts with Bebbington and Farrington�s(1993) description of grassroots support NGOs asbeing staffed by professionals and administered bybureaucratic procedures. According to Kurzingeret al. (1991) environmental NGOs in Mexico tendto be staffed by professionals but administered byparticipatory, collective, procedures. How can weaccount for this conflict?

6.4 ENGO environment

Funding is a fundamental aspect of the relationbetween NGO and its environment. Kurzinger et al.(1991) state that 75% of the cases they looked athad some form of self financing (p. 92-93). Stran-gely, they say, financing through regular dues frommembers is very unusual in Mexico (11 cases).Selling of products is an important source of re-sources (12 cases) as well as consultancy jobs (8cases). In relation to donations. �Less than onequarter of all cases receive donations (9 cases). That

is due, partially, to the difficulty in being recogni-sed as a public utility organisation� (p. 92).

About half of the NGOs (20) receives fundsfrom Northern NGOs. Official agencies providefunds to 8 NGOs. The smaller support from officialagencies is in great part explained by the fact that(at the time of the study) most official agenciespreferred cooperation nNGO-sNGO, giving funds tothe nNGO which then gave them to a Mexican NGO.The state gives funding to 12 cases, generally su-pporting specific projects. In five cases however thissupport implies financial dependency since thestate is the single funding provider.

In terms of relations with other (Mexican)NGOs, 75% (29) of the cases cooperate sporadi-cally with other Mexican NGOs; 40% (16) coope-rates on a permanent basis with other NGOs (pp.95-96). Kurzinger et al. (1991) conclude that as awhole the level of exchange among Mexican NGOsis not high. The main benefit of cooperation wasinformation exchange (mentioned in 24 cases). Lessimportant were �strengthening of negotiationpower� (16), �undertaking of concrete actions�(15), �moral support� (15), and �personal andinfrastructure support� (13). Forty percent of thecases did not belong to any national networks. Nonetwork can claim to represent the environmen-tal movement in Mexico as a whole (p. 95).

Seventy-five percent (29) of the NGOs haslinks with foreign NGOs. The majority of the cases(20) receive financial support from the foreign NGO,7 receive consultancy support and 2 get lobbyingsupport (pp. 96-97). The geographical origin of theforeign NGOs is split between European (20) andUS (19). Contact with Canadian or Latin AmericanNGOs is very small. It is important to note that fi-nance, consultancy and interest support comesexclusively from the relation with NGOs from Nor-thern, or �industrialised�, countries. The relationwith Latin American NGOs is restricted to informa-tion exchange.

Kurzinger et al. (1991:97) noted some criti-cisms of Mexican NGOs toward their foreign coun-terparts. In particular their was a disapproval of thetendency of some foreign NGOs to �impose thepolicies and development themes of the moment�and the general paternalistic behaviour (4 cases).



The short term financing was another complaint(4 cases). There was also specific complaints thatsome NGOs required too detailed and perfectionistaccounts given the small amount involved, whichlimits the time for actual work. There was also alack of �institutional� support, that is, only projectswould be supported, but not the minimal infras-tructure and organisation of the Mexican NGO.

Surprisingly more than 75% of the NGOs (34cases) has links with the state, mainly at federal butalso state and local level. Thirty percent (12) of allNGOs interviewed receive financial support from thestate. Moreover, the fact that 27.5% (11) work asconsultants to the state and 22.5% (9) undertakesprojects with the state �allows us to conclude thatthere exists a surprisingly close web of relationsbetween NGOs and the state� (p. 98). Many NGOs22.5% (9), however, had no relation with the sta-te. Despite the closeness in the relation NGOs-sta-te, there is much scepticism. In 17 cases there werecriticisms as to the lack of executive capacity of thestate. In 15 cases there were complaints about theexcessive bureaucracy of the state. Other com-plaints were the lack of interest in NGO work (12cases), repeated efforts to coopt NGO members(10). NGOs were able to mention more than onecriticism. Unfortunately, Kurzinger et al. (1991) donot tell us whether the same NGOs made all thecriticisms or whether all NGOs were equally criti-cal. Kurzinger el al. (1991) emphasise that onequarter of all NGOs had to face some form of sta-te repression. In 4 cases the repressive actions werespecifically directed at the NGO and its members.In a number of cases public demonstrations hadbeen violently dissolved by the police and indirectthreats probably done by public officers (p. 98).An issue not explored by Kurzinger et al. (1991) ishow do we account for the coexistance of a �sur-prisingly close web of relations� with the state ofthe sector and the actual threat of a repressive state.Is the repression directed at specific NGOs, leavingmost NGOs unaffected? Or does the threat of re-pression permeate all relations, so that NGOs knowphysical force may be used against them?

About half of the NGOs (45%) has contactswith international official agencies. Twenty percentreceives financial support and 10% give consultan-

cy to such organisations. Most NGOs (35 of 40) haslinks with universities, mainly as information ex-change. Half of the NGOs (21) have links with theprivate sector. Twenty percent (8) received dona-tions (financial or in kind). Nine NGOs had relatio-ns with the church, normally as intermediary bet-ween the NGOs and beneficiary groups. The relationwith labour unions is almost non-existent.

Almost half of the NGOs had some link withpolitical parties. These links were however mainlyat personal or informal level. The main cause forthe lack of official links is the protection of theirpolitical independence, avoiding arousing suspi-cions of political/party dependency (p. 99). Mo-reover the links with opposition parties could maketheir work more difficult.

In terms of organisational challenges, finan-cing organisation and activities is clearly the lea-der (30 of 39 cases). Management and organi-sation is the next (20). Technical capacity is not alarge problem for these NGOs (5 cases mentionedit). Cooptation intents (5) and repression to the NGO(4), repression to the beneficiaries (3) are impor-tant obstacles to their work. The lack of time (3)(i.e., lack of labour resources) and the lack of taxdeductibility (3) were also important problems.Thus, most NGOs (26) said they required financialsupport for their management, 22 mentioned theyneeded financing for projects, 15 mentioned (in-formation) exchange, 11 consultancy and 10 lo-bbying (p. 146).

One of the most interesting findings of Kur-zinger et al.�s (1991) study relates to NGOs�s selfevaluation. Organisations were asked to evaluatetheir own (organisational) work. The results arereproduced in the following table:

Nuno Themudo 22


Financial independence was the only themewhere NGOs gave an overall negative evaluation ofthemselves. The NGOs were essentially satisfiedenough with other aspects of their work so as togive them an overall positive evaluation. However,in terms of financial independence, the negativeevaluations more than doubled in number thepositive ones. It could them be argued that by andlarge there is a strong sense of financial dependen-ce in the environmental NGO sector in Mexico. Thisis perceived by the NGOs themselves.

7. THE COUNTRY CONTEXTS:PORTUGUESE NGOS

This section explores the Portuguese environmen-tal NGO sector. There is no systematic empiricalstudy of the environmental NGO sector in Portugal.This is an important gap in academic knowledge,which this study tries to address. I will draw on awider literature on NGOs and nonprofits in gene-ral to get an initial picture of the sector, whichprovides us with hypotheses for empirical testing.

7.1 NGO sector

The legal denomination for Portuguese NGOs andvoluntary organisations is very complex. In termsof social welfare and development third sectororganisations can be called �social solidarity asso-ciations� (associações de solidariedade social), so-cial solidarity foundations (fundações de solidarie-

dade social), and mutual aid associations (asso-ciações de socorros mútuos). The �social solidarityassociations� is the most commonly used denomi-nation. In terms of environmental work a differentdenomination is used: �environmental protectionassociations� (associações de defesa do ambiente).

Before the socialist revolution in 1974, civilsociety organisations were largely limited to soli-darity organisations run by the Catholic Church. Theoldest and most important of these organisationswere founded in the early XVI century, at the timewhen men joining the discovery effort left womenand families in need. These organisations werespecially oriented to health care provision. After therevolution, however, the Portuguese state took onthe �universalist� and centralised approach to theprovision of welfare and took control over thehealth work done by the church charities. Thesecharities united against an unfavourable post re-volution environment and entered the provision ofnew social activities mainly concerned with assis-ting children and the elderly. Today, they have pro-ven to be very flexible organisations providing a veryvaluable service in those new areas of activity (Ca-tarino, 1991).

After the socialist revolution a number ofrural grassroots associations became formalised.The state strongly supported this associativismmovement. Recently, from the mid-1980s, a num-ber of new civil society organisations have sprungup. Aware of the limitations of the state in fulfi-lling the revolutionary promises and under a favo-urable democratic environment these organisationswere formed essentially to complement the statetrying to reduce its limitations in developmentaland welfare work. Many of this generation of or-ganisations were concerned with environmentalmatters.

The Portuguese state is very keen on co-operating with NGOs, which translates, for instance,into a large proportion of the NGOs funds havinga public origin (Ribeiro, 1995). The European Unionis another important source of funding for Portu-guese NGOs working in regional development.Under the convergence funds many programmeshave been implemented with and through NGOs.Ribeiro (1995:91) found, that for many of projects

Theme Positive evaluation Negative evaluation(number of NGOs) (number of NGOs)

Conscientisation 26 2Concrete projects 24 8Self evaluation 21 2Collection and processingof information 21 3Public profile 20 1Cooperation 19 3Political weight 16 1Technical capacity 16 7Access to target group 15 9Stopping of harmful projects 13 6Methodological advances 13 1Organisational capacity 12 8Survival as a group 11 2Financial independence 7 15

Source: Kurzinger et al. (1991:146, emphasis added)



of development NGOs, EU funding may amount forabout half of total funding (55%), often with thePortuguese government providing another impor-tant share, in his study about 25%, private fundingbeing only 20%. There appears to be therefore alarge reliance in foreign and public funding beinga potential source of larger impact but also ofgreater dependency. From 1993, the state gave civilsociety organisations representatives a voice in theSocial Consortia Council, where together with re-presentatives of the state, of industrialists, and oflabour unions they discuss societal matters (Ferreira,1993). This is based mainly on the recognition thatNGOs can be an important vehicle for citizen par-ticipation. By being close to citizens NGOs are bet-ter able to express their need and involve them indevelopment (Ferreira, 1993).

Portuguese civil society organisations areseen as responsible to supplement the scarce sta-te resources, to ensure greater popular participa-tion in the response to their needs, and to intro-duce flexibility and innovation in the welfare anddevelopment work (Fernandes et al., 1993). Mo-reover, civil society organisations greatly contributeto the strengthening of participatory democracy(Laureano Santos, 1991).

Fernandes et al. (1993) conducted a resear-ch on 29 Portuguese nonprofits, with activities inLisbon. They had a number of interesting conclu-sions: the majority of the organisations had acti-vities in one sector only; there is a dependency onstate funds and consequently the organisations aremanaged according to public administration prin-ciples. Portuguese civil society organisations appearto be very professionalised. Fernandes et al. (1993)found in their research that only half of the orga-nisations interviewed (N=29) had any volunteers.This excludes volunteer members of the boardwhich is legally mandatory in Portugal (Fernandeset al., 1993). The greatest problems from the or-ganisations� perspective is the insufficiency of fi-nancial resources, and the consequent dependencyon state funding, allied to the shortage of adequatehuman resources (Fernandes et al., 1993).

7.2 Environmental NGOs

As for other NGOs in Portugal, the first period ofenvironmental NGOs was before 1974 (the Socia-list revolution). At that time the environmental mo-vement was almost non-existent in Portugal. Tworeasons are given for that. The first is that theauthoritarian regime effectively eliminated anyassociativism, which were openly independent orconfrontational. Second, at the time the Portugue-se society was relatively closed: there was censor-ship, information flows were limited, the educa-tional level low, so that environmental concernswhich appeared in other countries had no echo inPortugal. Third, environmental problems at thetime were relatively small, given the weak urbani-sation and industrialisation of the country (Melloand Pimenta, 1993:147).

The second period is 1974-85. After 1974,associativism boomed in Portugal. Partly due to thelack of associative tradition, many associationsduring this time had no consistent organisation,so that environmental NGOs appeared and disap-peared at a high rate. In 1977 there was an attemptby the government to build a nuclear power plant.Opposing this action represented the single pointof convergence between Portuguese environmen-talists. Once the government gave up the project(for economical reasons) the environmental mo-vement again atomised between internal differen-ces. The first attempt at unifying and coordinatingthe environmental movement took place at theNational Meeting of Environmentalists (1984). Asa result the NGOs involved in environmental workgot to know each other (Mello and Pimenta.1993:147-150).

The third period is between 1986 and 1988.During these years, the environmental NGO sectoremerged as an important presence in Portuguesesociety. As the political-economic system stabilised,people were more open to environmental concer-ns. At the same time the entry into the EU and theopening to exterior gave those concerns, commonin Europe, a new momentum. In 1987/88 theEuropean Year for the Environment took place. ThisEU action made possible a large consicientisationcampaign about the environment and the funding

Nuno Themudo 24


of many environmental NGOs. This initiative wasfundamental for the consolidation of many localgroups.

Between 1989 and 1992 the environmen-tal sector consolidated itself. More National Mee-tings of the environmental NGOs led to the crea-tion of the Portuguese Confederation ofEnvironmental NGOs (Confederacao Portuguesa dasAssociacoes de Defesa do Ambiente), which uni-tes more than half the total NGOs. The two largestNGOs, however, did not join the confederation.Mello and Pimenta (1993:155) think that

�Although still weak and small, byEuropean standards, there is no doubtthat the environmental movement in Por-tugal has reached its adulthood, if not itsfull maturity�

Today, there are about 200 organisationsconcerned with environmental protection (IPAMB,1996).

7.3 ENGO structure

There is no academic work on the structure ofenvironmental or any type of NGOs in Portugal. Thisis a gap in the literature in pressing need for sys-tematically collected descriptive data.

7.4 ENGO environment

General information about the NGO environmenthas been described above, such as the state ge-neral attitude toward the sector. This data howe-ver is product of many different writings, whichdid not have the objective of describing NGO envi-ronment. These studies therefore do not constitutea systematic look into this topic, only providingsome crude hypotheses for further empirical tes-ting.

8. CONCLUSION

The aim of this paper was to demonstrate thatsome there are some important unaddressed gapsin the literature around the research topic. These

gaps revolve around (1) a lack of systematic des-criptive data on the environmental NGO sectors ofMexico and Portugal and (2) analytical research onthe relation between NGO structure and environ-ment. In particular, despite the widely recognisedimportance attributed to the institutional environ-ment and resource dependency in NGOs there islittle empirical research on their effects on NGOorganisation and the consequent responses ofNGOs. Moreover, our understanding of NGO envi-ronment has been essentially descriptive with litt-le analytical development (see Natal, forthcoming).



REFERENCES (TO BE REVIEWED):

Anheier, H.K. and Seibel, W. (1990, Eds) The ThirdSector: Comparative Studies of NonprofitOrganisations, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Bacalhau and Bruneau (1994) Atitudes, Opinioese Comportamentos Politicos dosPortugueses:1973-1993, Lisbon: MTD, Lda.

Billis, D. and MacKeith, J. (1992) : �Growth andChange in NGOs: Concepts and ComparativeExperience� in M. Edwards and D. Hulme(eds) Making a Difference: NGOs andDevelopment in a Changing World, London:Earthscan.

�� (1993) Organising NGOs: Challenges andTrends in the Management of Overseas Aid,Centre for Voluntary Organisation, LondonSchool of Economics.

Brett, E. (1993) �Voluntary Agencies asDevelopment Organisations: Theorizing theProblem of Efficiency and Accountability� inDevelopment and Change, Developmentand Public Administration, Vol. 16., No. 1,pp. 167-185.

�� (1994) Participation as Accountability inDevelopment Administration, Institute ofDevelopment Studies, London School ofEconomics, mimeo.

Campbell, P. (1987) Management Developmentand Development Management forVoluntary Organisations, Occasional PaperNo. 3, Geneva: International Council ofVoluntary Agencies.

�� (1988) Relations between Southern andNorthern NGOs in the Context ofSustainability, Participation and Partnershipin Development, Geneva: InternationalCouncil of Voluntary Agencies.

Catarino, A (1991) � IPSS: Limitacoes eVirtualidades�, in Primeiras JornadasNacionais de Accao Social, Lisbon: DireccaoGeral da Accao Social.

CEMEFI, Centro Mexicano para la Filantropia (1991)La Filantropia Mexicana: Diagnostico yPropuestas, Mexico, D.F.: CEMEFI.

Cyert, Richard M. and March, James G. (1963) Abehavioural theory of the firm, EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice Hall.

De Graaf, M. (1987) �Context, Constraint orControl? Zimbabwean NGOs and TheirEnvironment�, Development Policy Review,5, pp. 277-301.

Dichter, T. W. (1989a)� Development Management:Plain or Fancy? Sorting Out Some Muddles�Public Administration and Development, 9,pp. 381-393.

Edwards, M. And Hulme, D. (eds.) (1995) Non-Governmental Organisations- Performanceand Accountability: Beyond the MagicBullet, London: Earthscan.

Ferreira, J. (1993) �A Practica do Assistente Socialnuma Intervencao nao Directiva�,Intervencao Social, Ano 3, No. 8, pp. 93-114.

Fowler, A. (1986) Development Management:Essential Concepts and Principles, OccasionalPaper No. 1, Geneva: International Councilfor Voluntary Agencies.

�� (1987) Picking up the Other End of the Stickor What has to Be Managed inDevelopment?, Mimeo

Fowler, Alan (1997) Striking a balance: a guide toenhancing the effectiveness of NGOs ininternational development, London:Earthscan.

Nuno Themudo 26


Freeman, Jo (1978) Resource mobilization andstrategy: a model for analysing socialmovement organization actions, in Zald,Mayer N. and McCarthy John D. (eds.) Thedynamics of social movements: resourcemobilisation, social control and tactics,Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop Pub.

Garrocho, J. and Sobrino, C. (1995) Pobreza,Politica Social y Participacion Ciudadana,Toluca, Mexico: El Colegio Mexiquense.

Handy, C. (1988) Understanding VoluntaryOrganisations, London: Penguin.

Hatch, M.J. (1997) Organisation Theory: Modern,Symbolic and Post Modern Perspectives,Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hayes, T. (1993) Management, Control andAccountability in Irish VoluntaryOrganisations: An Exploratory Study, PhDthesis, London School of Economics.

Pugh, D. (1971) Organisation Theory,Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin

Hespanha, P. and Alves, A.I. (1995) �A Habitacaoem Meio Rural: Um Dominio da Sociedade-Previdencia�, Revista Critica de CienciasSociais, No. 42, pp. 125-154.

Hodson, M. (1995), Managing without Profit: TheArt of Managing Third Sector Organizations,London: Penguin Books.

Hudock, A. (1995) �Sustaining Southern NGOs inResource-Dependent Environments�, Journalof International Development, Vol 7, No. 4,pp. 653-667.

Hudock, Ann C. (1997) Institutional interdependence:NGOs and capacity-enhancing initiatives inSierra Leone and The Gambia, D.Phil.,Sussex, 46-12553.

Hudson, M. (1995) Managing Without Profit: TheArt of Managing Third-sector Organisations,London: Penguin Business.

IPAMB, Instituto Portugues para o Ambiente, (1996)Associacoes de Defesa do Ambiente Inscritasno IPAMB, mimeo.

Kurzinger, E., Hess, F., Lange, J., Lingnau, H.,Mercker, H., and Vermehren, A. (1991)Political Ambiental en Mexico: El Papel delas Organizaciones No Gubenamentales,Berlin: German Development Institute.

Laureano Santo, M.J. (1991) Associacoes eIniciativas Nao Governamentais na Area daAccao Social, Delegacao de Lisboa: Uniaodas IPSS.

Lewis, David J. (Ed.) (1999) Internationalperspectives on voluntary action: reshapingthe third sector, London : Earthscan.

Mason, David E. (1996) Leading and managingthe expressive dimension: harnessing thehidden power source of the nonprofit sector,San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Natal, A. and Themudo, N. (1996) �Las ONGs, UnMundo de Diversidad: diferencias endesafios organizacionales�, Convergencia,Vol. 3, No. 10, pp. 241-270.

Natal, A. (forthcoming) � The relation betweenNGOs and the state�, paper produced duringthe MacNamara fellowship program of theWorld Bank.

Paton, R. and Cornforth, C. (1991) �What�sDifferent about Managing in Voluntary andNon-Profit Organisations?� in Batsleer, J.Cornforth, C. and Paton, R. (eds) Issues inVoluntary and Non-Profit Management,Open University.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Salancik, Gerald R. (1978) Theexternal control of organisations: a resource



dependence perspective, New York, London:Harper and Row.

Powell, W.W. (1987, ed) The NOnprofit Sector: AResearch Handbook, New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

Pugh, D.S. and Hickson, D.J. (1989) Writers onOrganisations, London: Penguin Business.

Ribeiro, M.L. (1995) O Potencial das OrganizacoesNao-Governamentais Portuguesas deDezenvolvimento (ONGD), Lisbon: Centro deInformacao e Documentacao AmilcarCabral.

Salamon, L. and Anheier, H. (1992) In Search ofthe Nonprofit Sector: The Question ofDefinitions, Nonprofit OrganisationsWorking Paper No. 2, John HopkinsUniversity.

Salamon, L. and Anheier, H. (1997) Defining thenon profit sector: a cross-national analysis.New York : Manchester University Press.

Santos, B.S. (1994) Pela Mao de Alice: O Social eo Politico na Pos-Modernidade, Oporto:Edicoes Afrontamento.

Sheehan, J. (1996) NGOs and ParticipatoryManagement Styles: A Case Study ofCONCERN Mozambique, MSc DissertationThesis, Department of Social Policy andAdministration, London School ofEconomics.

Smillie, I. (1995) The Alms Bazaar: Altruism underFire - Non-profit Organisations andInternational Development, London:Intermediate Technology Publications.

Stark Biddle, C. (1984) The Management Needsof Private Voluntary Organisations,Washington DC: USAID.

Tendler, J. (1982) Turning Private VoluntaryOrganisations into Development Agencies:Questions for Evaluation, USAID ProgramEvaluation Discussion Paper No. 12,Washington DC: USAID.

organisational environment and structure in mexico and ... · organisational structure 8 3. ... for...

Documents