1. The Power and Limits of Principled Activism Hans Peter Schmitz

2. Outline  Rationale  Increasing visibility and power of transnational activism  Limits of the current academic literature  Design  Sampling and protocol and interview process  Coding, data structure and data transformation  Preliminary findings  Contributions to the academic literature  Results relevant to practitioners  Future plans

3. Rationale: increased visibility  Quantitative growth of TNGO sector  At the United Nations (based on Global Policy Forum/UN Department on Economic and Social Affairs)  In the United States (number of organizations and revenue)

4. Global NGO Growth (based on: Yearbook of International Organizations, Vol. 1, 1997/98)

5. UN consultative status

6. Regional representation, 1996

7. Regional representation, 2007

8. Growth of US sector  Growth in international not-for-profits (transnational NGOs).  National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS)  Based on 990 forms (revenue exceeding $25,000 US-Dollar)  Revenue base increased from $4.57bn (1997) to $32bn in 2007.  Number of organizations increased from 1,812 to 6,500.  Snapshot 2003 (Kerlin/Thanasombat): 5,600 organizations and revenue of $17.7bn.

9. Research motivation  Literature primarily focuses on large and successful organizations/campaigns.  Sectoral fragmentation.  Disciplinary fragmentation (IR, PA, sociology, etc.)  Organizational and leadership perspectives (“from the inside-out”) are rarely explored.

10. Research motivation, ctd.  Basic questions about TNGOs remain unanswered.  What are their goals and the obstacles faced?  How do they define effectiveness and accountability?  To whom are they accountable?  How do they view networks and partnerships?

11. Objectives defined  Study activism across major sectors;  Create data in a cross-disciplinary context, using quantitative as well as qualitative tools;  Add the perspective of TNGO leadership on their role in global governance;  Develop a research program integrated with teaching and practitioner engagement;

12. Design of study  Selection  Charity Navigator database of international nonprofits (2005) with 501(c)(3) status in the US  Proportionate stratified random sampling based on size, sector and fiscal health  Data collection  Confidential interviews with 152 TNGO leaders across the US (average of 84 minutes)  About 209 hours of interviews recorded and transcribed

16.  The claim of representativeness is limited to US-registered TNGOs, not global community of such orgs.  Any bias of Charity Navigator selection is reproduced in our study. Limitations of the sample

17.  Changes in organizational goals and governance structures  Effectiveness and its assessment  Accountability  Funding as related to effectiveness and accountability  Communication, collaboration, networks and partnerships  Leadership characteristics and preparation Interview protocol

18.  68% response rate; 81% interviewed were top leaders (President/CEOs);  Researchers visited headquarters for interviews;  Interviews lasted an average of 84 minutes; total of about 209 hours; Interview process

19.  Professional transcriptions;  Creation of a hierarchically organized codebook implemented in ATLAS.ti ;  Designed to allow for both qualitative retrieval and quantification;  Intercoder agreement: 0.80. Data transformation

20. Datasets created  Qualitative dataset  Coded transcripts organized in ATLAS.ti for efficient retrieval of quotations  Frequency count report from ATLAS.ti exported to Stata  Quantitative dataset  Data transformed and labeled  Primary and secondary data merged  Dataset is 152 cases by about 400 variables

21. Advantages of method  Mixing qualitative and quantitative strengths  For the primary data, each is connected to the qualitative quotation from which it is derived  Statistics are easily contextualized and interpreted  Retention of qualitative nuance obtained from open- ended questioning

22. Emerging findings and working papers  Motives and goals  Effectiveness  Accountability  Leadership  Networking and partnerships

23.  Monday Developments (InterAction) piece  Limits of overhead-centered definition of effectiveness used by many rating sites (CN).  Move towards more impact-driven measurements.  How do we best understand TNGOs?  Principled and interest-driven views compete in the current debates, in particular in IR. Effectiveness

24.  TNGO leaders primarily focus on three dimensions of accountability:  financial management,  mandate, and  transparency  TNGO leaders are less likely to mention the following dimensions of accountability:  responsiveness,  evaluation, and  participation Accountability

25. “We are also interested in how organizations like yours are structured. Would you please tell me a little bit about how your organization is structured?” Governance structure

26. Sources of Accountability PressuresUnitaryFederationCoalitionTotal(row) Internal41.0%(34)21.1%(8)25.0%(2)34.1%(44) External21.7%(18)39.5%(15)37.5%(3)27.9%(36) Both37.4%(31)39.5%(15)37.5%(3)38.0%(49) Total(column)100.0%(83)100.0%(38)100.0%(8)100.0%(129) Governance & Accountability

27.  Research collaboration  Data sharing (Hauser Center)  Other regions outside the United States  Practitioner engagement  Summer Institute  Consultancies (example: PLAN International) Future plans