Content uploaded by Vincent Charles Keating
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vincent Charles Keating on Sep 25, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Syddansk Universitet
NGOs, Trust, and the Accountability Agenda
Keating, Vincent; Thrandardottir, Erla
Published in:
British Journal of Politics and International Relations
DOI:
10.1177/1369148116682655
Publication date:
2017
Document version
Early version, also known as pre-print
Document license
CC BY-NC-SA
Citation for pulished version (APA):
Keating, V. C., & Thrandardottir, E. (2017). NGOs, Trust, and the Accountability Agenda. British Journal of
Politics and International Relations, 19(1), 134-151. DOI: 10.1177/1369148116682655
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
Download date: 25. sep.. 2017
1
NGOs, Trust, and the Accountability Agenda
Dr. Vincent Charles Keating
Assistant Professor in International Relations
Center for War Studies, University of Southern Denmark
Dr. Erla Thrandardottir
Visiting Research Fellow
Department of International Politics, City University London
This is the pre-print version of the article: Vincent Charles Keating and Erla Thrandardottir (2016),
‘NGOs, Trust, and the Accountability Agenda', British Journal of Politics and International Relations,
1-18, which is published at https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148116682655.
Abstract
NGOs are undergoing an alleged crisis of trustworthiness. The past decades have seen an increase in
both academic and practitioner skepticism, particularly given the transformations many NGOs have
undergone in size, professionalism, and political importance. The accountability agenda, which
stresses transparency and external oversight, has gained a significant amount of traction as a means
to solve this crisis. But the causal link between the implementation of these recommendations and
increased trustworthiness among donors has never been considered. This paper bridges this gap by
drawing on theoretical innovations in trust research to put forward three arguments. First, the
proponents of the accountability agenda are implicitly working with a rational model of trust.
Second, this model does not reflect important social characteristics of trust between donors and
NGOs. Third, this mismatch means that the accountability agenda might do more to harm trust in
NGOs than to help it.
Introduction
In 2015, the tragic suicide of a British pensioner who was allegedly overwhelmed with cold calls and
requests from charities led to a public outcry in the United Kingdom over NGO fundraising practices
(BBC News 2015). Though this tragedy could have generated any number of responses from the
public in their expression of disappointment or outrage, the discussions and debate that followed
were largely framed in terms of trust and trustworthiness. UK broadsheets argued variously that
“there is a great deal to do to win back the trust of the public after this summer of scandals,”
(Slawson 2015) that “Charities must themselves shoulder the burden of maintaining public trust,”
(2015) or pointed out that “the readiness of the public to believe that charities are behaving badly
reflects a serious decline in trust.” (Baggini 2015) In exploring the relationship between NGOs,
donors, and the public more widely, trust was front and central.
This focus on a problem of trust was echoed in the UK government, which set up a review team to
look into the sector’s fundraising practices. The results were published in a report entitled
Regulating Fundraising for the Future: Trust in Charities, Confidence in Fundraising Regulations
which, as the title suggests, framed the tragedy as a problem of NGO trustworthiness. The report’s
concluded that the regulatory shortcomings of the sector needed to be dealt with ‘swiftly and
effectively to restore public trust’ (Sir Stuart Etherington et al. 2015, 4). Under pressure from the
2
Etherington review, and in the wake of exposed malpractices in the sector, many NGO bodies
responded by announcing steps to tighten-up guidance rules “to retain public trust in the sector.”
(Meade 2015)
The framing of Mrs. Cooke’s death as a crisis in NGO trustworthiness must be understood within
broader trends in government, civil society, and academia. Issues of NGO trustworthiness came into
renewed focus in the 1990s with several publications that questioned whether NGOs were the
saviors they claimed to be (Edwards and Hulme 1996a; Edwards and Hulme 1996b; Gibelman and
Gelman 2001; Smillie 1997; Sogge 1996). This work started an academic debate about the place of
NGOs in the wider political system, scrutinizing several dimensions of their organization such as their
legitimacy, accountability, representativeness, and trustworthiness (Feldman 2003; Holmén and
Jirström 2009; Hudson 2002; Montanaro 2012).
The issue of trust is exceptionally important for NGOs. This is particularly the case in the relationship
between NGOs and their donors,
a
since most NGOs are highly dependent on them for labor and
financial help. An increase in the public’s perception of NGO untrustworthiness can lead donors to
take their resources elsewhere, with potentially devastating consequences. Most of the solutions to
this problem have involved the introduction of, or renewed emphasis on, accountability measures –
such as those put forward by the Etherington Report. However, the popularity of this accountability
agenda among NGOs and government regulators has not been met with a sustained consideration of
whether the accountability agenda is likely to increase trustworthiness. At most, the current
scholarship implicitly accepts or merely asserts that trustworthiness is a positive outcome of the
accountability agenda. This lack of critical engagement is notable given that there is a large
multidisciplinary literature on trust that NGO scholars could draw on to consider this issue. Given the
importance of maintaining the trusting relationship between NGOs and their donors, and in light of
significant implementation costs that come with the accountability agenda, it is important to assess
whether accountability is an appropriate strategy for NGOs to maintain public trust.
This paper argues that by examining the accountability agenda through the lens of trust theory,
serious questions arise. The accountability agenda makes implicit rationalist assumptions about the
nature of trust that, at best, tell only part of the story and, at worst, may be totally out-of-sync with
how some donors trust NGOs. Furthermore, there are good reasons to believe that the
implementation of the accountability agenda might produce the exact opposite effect than intended
– to increase individual donor distrust in NGOs by eroding the social base of trust that NGOs
currently benefit from. This could paradoxically create the conditions that make the accountability
agenda impossible to eliminate, leaving NGOs with permanent fixed costs that were previously
unnecessary. In making this argument, we hope to open up a new strand of theoretically-informed
empirical research on NGO trustworthiness that will inform academics and practitioners alike of the
complexity of generating and sustaining trusting relationships across multiple donors types; one that
we believe has been lacking in the NGO literature to date.
The paper makes this argument in five steps. First, it explains why the accountability agenda exists in
the first place to highlight its purpose and goals. Second, it demonstrates how supporters of the
accountability agenda operate through an underlying rationalist understanding of trust that stresses
transparency to maximize information and the provision of external oversight that can levy penalties
for non-compliance. Third, it argues that this rationalist understanding ignores how trust between
3
donors and NGOs is likely to have a strong social component that requires a consideration of social
trust theory. Fourth, using social trust theory and the results of experimental social psychology, it
argues that the accountability agenda is likely not as effective as its proponents suggest at sustaining
or increasing trust and, at worst, may have the exact opposite effect. Lastly, it considers these
results in light of the different types of NGO donors and suggests that although corporate and
government donors might be institutionally predisposed to rational models of trust, this less likely
with individual donors. Though certain elements of the accountability agenda might be unavoidable
in relationships with corporate and government donors, NGOs should not conflate the demands
from specific donors with the needs of all donors – particularly given the potentially negative
consequences of the accountability agenda that we identify.
The Accountability Agenda and its Critics
The loss of perceived trustworthiness with donors can be a major problem for NGOs.
Trustworthiness, despite some contestation over its exact definition, revolves around whether one
party has positive expectations that another party will fulfil agreements where there is the
possibility of a loss to the first party if the second party defects (Coleman 1990; Hoffman 2002, 20;
Kydd 2005, 3; Larson 1997, 12). In the case of trustworthy NGOs, donors have positive expectations
that their time and money will be used wisely in the service of the NGO’s cause. Donors’
perceptions of trustworthiness will cut across several distinct domains, based on their expectations
about efficiency, commitment to norms, and time and resource management. Perceptions of high
NGO trustworthiness will attract donors since they will want to dedicate resources to NGOs that are
likely to fulfil these expectations, while perceptions of low trustworthiness will lead donors to take
their resources elsewhere. In a competitive environment where donors have multiple options,
maintaining positive perceptions of trustworthiness can prove decisive for NGOs, not only for the
existence of any individual NGO but also for the sector as a whole.
Given these problems, many scholars and practitioners have argued that the accountability agenda
can provide the necessary checks and balances to prevent potential abuse of power or other
malfeasance, whether intended or unintended. Many of these frameworks are market driven, based
on principal-agent models, and are favored because they are seen as contract based and apolitical
(Thrandardottir 2015, 109). Accountability measures under the principal-agent market model focus
heavily on measuring how NGOs (the agent) are achieving the goals set out in their contract with the
donor (the principal). This often involves managing NGOs’ agendas and detecting possible conflicts
of interest or misinformation. The accountability criteria used for monitoring and evaluation involve
benchmarking and auditing performance, often to respond to issues of supply and demand in
relation to service delivery (Frumkin 2002). Although the accountability agenda also relies on other
models that are normative or representative in nature to test the legitimacy of NGOs, the market
model is by far most common because it facilitates a contractual relationship between donors and
NGOs with safeguards to ensure trust.
The recent proposals within the Etherington Report reflect a steady increase in institutionalized
versions of the accountability agenda across the English-speaking world, including GuideStar (1994),
the Sphere framework (1997), the Charity Navigator (2001), Statements of Recommended Practice
(2005), and the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (2003) and its successor the Core
4
Humanitarian Standard (2014). There is also an international version of the accountability agenda
found in the INGO Accountability Charter (2008). Although these frameworks may differ in their
functions and mission – some are focused on helping donors to benchmark charities, some on
accountancy practices, or auditing, and others on internal codes of voluntary commitments – most
of these schemes present themselves as ways to maintain or increase perceptions of trustworthiness
in NGOs.
This emphasis on trust can be seen in the selling of workshops to the sector as “valuable in helping
to build trust with your donors,” (The Sphere Project 2015) or, in a sales pitch to donors, arguing that
“charities that are accountable and transparent are more likely to act with integrity and learn from
their mistakes because they want donors to know that they're trustworthy.” (Charity Navigator
2016) Such references to trust are also visible in policy documents from the International NGO
Training and Research Centre, which argues that adopting accountability codes of conduct is a way
to gain ‘greater public trust’ (Heap 1997). Similarly, when explaining why organizations should join
the INGO Accountability Charter, they argue that joining “improves trust in the organization”
because “CSOs demanding high standards of accountability from governments and the corporate
sector are only credible if they can evidence compliance with the same standards.” (INGO
Accountability Charter 2016) The extent of this assumption, that accountability will help with NGO
trustworthiness, is such that in 2009 INTRAC worried that any “coverage of non-compliance [with
accountability measures] could serve to undermine public confidence in the NGO sector,” (Harris-
Curtis 2009) implying that non-complying organizations would likely be seen as de facto
untrustworthy by donors. “a proactive means of ensuring … trust.” (Lloyd 2005, 6)
This assumption that accountability leads to perceptions of trustworthiness is also found in
practitioner and academic commentary on the issue (Lee 2004, 7; Marschall, 1566; Sloan 2009, 220).
For instance, Hugo Slim argues that NGOs need to act positively on potential trust problems through
accountability (Slim 2002), an argument echoed by Robert Lloyd who argued that implementing
accountability measures are “a proactive means of ensuring … trust.” (Lloyd 2005, 6) Goddard
supports the accountability agenda by arguing that, “governance structures such as regulatory
regimes for NGOs work well and are perceived to be legitimate because they are important in
sustaining trust among stakeholders. A weak and outdated regulatory regime for NGOs eroded this
dimension of trust.” (Goddard and Assad 2005, 393-394) Finally, state regulatory institutions, such
as the Charity Commission of England and Wales or the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits
Commission, are tasked with inspiring “public trust and confidence in charities”, “[enhancing] the
accountability of charities to donors, beneficiaries and the general public” (Frumkin 2002; The
Charity Commission 2013, 1), with the ability to use “a number of enforcement tools” (Nehme 2014,
25) should expectations not be met. As a result of this consistent message coming from scholars,
practitioners, and organizations, empirical studies suggest that leaders of transnational NGOs have
by and large been socialized into the necessity of financial accountability to donors through these
measures (Schmitz et al. 2012, 1177).
Though growing in influence, the accountability agenda has not been universally accepted. On the
contrary, it has been criticized from a number of different angles. Lisa Jordan argued that with
respect to accountability measures that, “ ... in [some] circumstances they are inadequate, they do
not address the needs of the NGOs, they are divorced from missions, they do not address moral
5
obligations, they prioritize some relationships over others, they are quite often punitive and
controlling in application, they are built upon some pretty powerful faulty assumptions, and often
fail to recognize the context within which NGOs operate.” (Jordan 2007, 153) Accountability
schemes increase pressure on NGOs to professionalize and bureaucratize their organizations, which
comes at real financial and human resource costs (Courville 2006, 299) and at the expense of
flexibility and informality, which is seen by some as a competitive advantage for NGOs (Sikkink 2002,
315). Some scholars have raised concerns about how the accountability agenda might prevent NGOs
from reporting freely about the problems they encounter in their work in fear of donor retribution
or defunding (Bebbington 2005; Williams 2010). Others have raised concerns about how these
schemes tilt the power balance in favor of large donors to the exclusion of other important NGO
stakeholders such as members and beneficiaries (Crack 2013, 294; Murtaza 2012). Finally, some
scholars worry that the accountability agenda has the potential to co-opt the NGOs’ agendas (Baur
and Schmitz 2012, 15-16) through what some scholars have called the “reputation trap,” whereby
NGOs focus on the most easily-achievable goals in order to demonstrate a pattern of success that
are not consistent with their long-term goals (Gent et al. 2015, 427).
Despite all of these arguments for and against the accountability agenda within the scholarly
literature, no scholars or practitioners have explicitly engaged with one of the central claims of the
accountability agenda: that it increases perceptions of NGO trustworthiness. This is remarkable
given the amount of theoretical and empirical work on trust across several disciplines that can help
us to assess why this connection between accountability and trust is being made and, importantly,
whether or not it is sensible. The one critique of the accountability agenda that explicitly questions
the link between accountability to trustworthiness argues that the ‘audit culture’ of the
accountability agenda might ultimately erode trust through the creation of perverse incentives,
particularly by leading NGO staff to make either arbitrary or unprofessional choices (Lewis 2007,
145). But outside of this one work, no scholar or practitioner has explicitly considered the link
between the accountability agenda and trustworthiness in a sustained and theoretically-informed
manner.
By drawing on trust scholarship, we intend to demonstrate that the assumed link is at odds with
much of the literature. In order to make this argument, we first will show how supporters of the
accountability agenda, who believe it to promote NGO trustworthiness, are working under implicit
rational assumptions about the nature of trust between NGOs and donors.
Accountability and Rationalist Trust
This section argues that the central ideas of the accountability agenda fit squarely within a model of
rational trust.
b
In a nutshell, the rationalist model puts forward the idea that trusting NGOs, like any
other person or institution, is a function of 1) the amount of information that donors have about the
character and interests of an NGO and 2) the ability to structure these interests through the threat
of external penalties. In other words, the increased availability of information about an NGO
increases the likelihood of donors correctly identifying trustworthy NGOs to support or to work with.
The existence of external sanctions, should NGOs fail to live up to their obligations, also increases
their trustworthiness as a sector, because NGOs will be less likely to defect from their commitments
6
with the threat of a penalty and donors will take these positive incentives into consideration when
assessing trustworthiness.
As with any grouping of scholars, those who study rational trust are not uniform in their thinking.
But what sets them apart is their insistence that trust is primarily, if not solely, a calculative exercise
involving observations of other actors that yields a prediction about their future behavior. James
Coleman, one of the leading proponents of this view, argues that trust must involve a type of risk
category, specifically, a decision by one actor to engage in an action where the outcome depends on
the performance of another actor (Coleman 1990, 91). Trust, for the actor involved, occurs “if the
chance of winning, relative to the chance of losing, is greater than the amount that would be lost (if
he loses), relative to the amount that would be won (if he wins).” (Coleman 1990, 99)
c
In other
words, if placing the bet in the performance of the other actor results in a positive expected value,
then trust is conferred. If it results in a negative expected value, then trust is not conferred. Even in
other variants of rational trust, to say that an actor trusts another “is to say nothing more than that I
know or believe certain things about you - generally things about your incentives or other reasons to
live up to my trust” (Hardin 2002, 10). In short, trust is reducible to knowledge of the other.
Under rational trust, donors trust NGOs only through making these estimates of cooperation or
defection that feed into a calculation of an expected value. From the perspective of donors, there
are 1) particular positive payoffs to the donor associated with the NGO doing what is expected of it,
2) a series of direct and opportunity costs involved in engaging with the NGO, and 3) a probability for
the NGO to defect on these expectations leaving the donors in a worse state. The donors will act
using the information at hand to place a bet on the future behavior of the NGO to ensure their
expected value is positive, given their understanding of the values across these three variables.
But how can donors gain the information that allows them to make these judgements? Since it is
important to be as accurate as possible in each category, gathering new information is central to the
decision to trust (Coleman 1990, 104). One of the most basic sources of information comes from
interacting with the NGO. This raw information gained through interaction is often operationalized
through a Bayesian process where actors initially make a rough estimate of the trustworthiness of
the potential trustee. As new information comes in, this estimate is then updated and corrected,
moving the probability in an upwards or downwards direction (Hardin 2002, 113). While it is always
possible to misplace trust in this framework, that is, for donors to misidentify an NGO as trustworthy
when they are actually untrustworthy, in the long run “convergence on correct beliefs is more likely
than convergence on incorrect beliefs.” (Kydd 2005, 19)
However, there are two problems associated with using iterative interactions to calculate
trustworthiness. First, donors might not have sufficient previous experience with an NGO that would
allow them to trust a trustworthy NGO. Second, the lack of experience might also lead donors to
miscalculate from time to time, trusting an untrustworthy NGO who then defects on their
commitments. So what might help donors to identify NGO trustworthiness? Given Hardin’s
acknowledgement that “what is sensible for a given individual to expect depends heavily on what
that individual knows about both the past and the future of the person or the other party to be
trusted,” (Hardin 2002, 130) the first answer is to have other sources of information about the NGO.
If information can be gleaned outside of interaction then actors can more easily make decisions over
whether the NGO was trustworthy or not, even before interactions take place. The second answer is
7
to impose costs on NGO defection through external inducements (Hardin 2002, 28-29). The presence
of cost-imposing institutions makes it more likely that NGOs that might otherwise defect will meet
the expectations set for them. Both strategies, extra information and external inducements, increase
the probability that donors will correctly choose to interact with trustworthy NGOs.
We argue this is the fundamental and, up to this point, implicit logic that underpins the claims that
the accountability agenda helps to improve trustworthiness. Not only do all forms of the
accountability agenda stress the need for transparency and external oversight to create conditions
of trustworthiness, but scholars and practitioners writing in support of the accountability agenda
directly make this link (Burger and Seabe 2014, 6; Farrell and Knight 2003, 542; Grant and Keohane
2005, 30; Havrda and Kutílek 2010, 165; Philiips 2012, 811-812; Prakash and Gugerty 2010, 24;
Prideaux 2015, 385; Sir Stuart Etherington et al. 2015, 35; Steffek and Hahn 2010, 13; Szper and
Prakash 2011, 115; Weisband and Ebrahim 2007, 5), without explicitly referring to theories of
rational trust. Other scholars have focused on the importance of external sanctioning institutions to
support expectations of likely compliance and promote transparency and accountability (Avant et al.
2010, 361; Etzione and Senden 2011; Grant and Keohane 2005, 29; Hyndman and McDonnell 2009,
14; Sir Stuart Etherington et al. 2015, 51; Weisband and Ebrahim 2007, 5), again in line with the
rationalist logics of trust.
There is thus an implicit use of a rationalist model of trust in the structure of and support for the
accountability agenda. This is evident not only in the particular prescriptions of the accountability
agenda, transparency and external oversight, but also in the way that the scholarly and practitioner
literatures defend these prescriptions – linking them to increased perceptions of trustworthiness.
Accountability enables perceptions of trustworthiness because it 1) provides information about the
actor that allows donors and beneficiaries to judge trustworthiness before interacting, and 2)
because it provides punishment mechanisms that push NGOs towards compliance, further increasing
the expectation of trustworthiness.
This link between rational theories of trust and arguments supporting the accountability agenda has,
however, never been suggested in the academic literature. This is important because, having
identified a theoretical position that underpins the accountability agenda and the literature
supporting it, we can then start to ask whether it is an appropriate model for donor trust in NGOs.
The next section therefore takes this as its primary task, arguing that although rational calculation is
certainly an element of donor’s perceptions of NGO trustworthiness, unto itself the rational model is
flawed in this context. In order to understand why this is the case, we argue that a different model
of trust, social trust, is needed to fill the gap.
Social Trust and NGOs
Social trust theories start not by dismissing the rational element of trusting relationships, but by
pointing out that trust is not simply a mechanism through which we place a bet on the behavior of
others when we believe the expected values are positive. In addition to the rational and
observational component, trust is a social phenomenon that is affected by other types of social
conditions and relations. These social conditions and relations can take many forms and interact
with rational prediction (Möllering 2006, 360; Parsons 1969, 336-337). As Lewis and Weigert put it,
8
“Trusting behavior may be motivated primarily by strong positive affect for the object of trust ... or
by “good rational reasons” why the object of trust merits trust ... or, more usually, some
combination of both.” (Lewis and Weigert 1985, 972) For example, Mayer et al. note that
perceptions of benevolence and integrity are equally as important in imparting trust as are
perceptions of ability (Mayer et al. 1995, 717-720), suggesting both rational and social components
of trust.
So if trust is based on something more than just expectation of prior experience or public
information, what factors might be involved? One of the most relevant causal factors put forward by
scholars across disciplines are shared identity and solidarity such as common values, group
membership, and the feeling of working towards common goals (Hurley 2011, 30; Luhmann 1984,
179; Parsons 1969, 336-337; Rousseau et al. 1998, 399). Though these factors will vary somewhat
across NGO types, most donors will give their resources to NGOs on the basis that they feel a
connection with the cause put forward by the NGO, be it for environmental protection, support of
disadvantaged groups, or gun rights. These commonalities are important because they generate a
familiarity in the trusted actor without direct experience (Luhmann 1979, 19). When we see others
as familiar, we believe them more likely to engage in reciprocity (Hurley 2011, 57), which increases
our perceptions of their positive intentions and therein, trustworthiness (Rousseau et al. 1998, 400).
Instead of needing a great deal of information, as suggested by the rational model, familiarity can be
gained in the shorthand form of similar identity and political solidarity. Where donors feel an
ideological or solidarity connection with the NGO, they are likely to consider the NGO to be more
trustworthy, absent any other information to the contrary, at an earlier stage than would otherwise
be expected.
This link between ideology, solidarity, and perceived trustworthiness put forward by social trust
theorists could explain why NGOs are consistently seen to be highly trustworthy, sometimes the
most trustworthy organizations in society, in survey after survey (Edelman Berland 2015; House of
Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee 2016, 10; Logister 2007, 168;
Paul 2000; Philiips 2012, 817; SustainAbility 2003, 9, 37; The Charity Commission 2013, 2), even in
places where public trust in other institutions is low (Marinova 2011, 161), and despite the lack of
full transparency and oversight in the ways the accountability agenda suggests. SustainAbility, for
instance, suggested in a report that “While NGOs have no monopoly on values, this dimension of
their positioning accounts for much of the public trust in which they are held.” (SustainAbility 2003,
37), reinforcing the link between shared values and perceptions of trustworthiness.
So how do these social factors increase trustworthiness? Luhmann suggests that trust allows us to
replace the complicated objective world that we observe with a less-complex cognitive system that
draws selectively upon our experiences and, importantly, ‘overdraw[s] on the information which it
possesses.’ (Luhmann 1979, 32). So instead of being rationally calculative, trust makes us certain
where we should not be because it overemphasizes the positiveness of the little information
present. As such, trust cognitively reduces our perceptions of the real risk of defection (Keating and
Ruzicka 2014, 755; Luhmann 1979, 15). This allows us to “take for granted the relevant motivations
and behaviours of others.” (Anheier and Kendall 2002, 349) At its maximum point, trust can ensure
that ‘most of the contingently possible future events are thought of as zero for all practical purposes
... because to trust is to live as if certain rationally possible futures will not occur.” (Lewis and
9
Weigert 1985, 969) In the rational Bayesian model, iterative information gathering can increase the
perceived probability of trustworthiness, but this can never reach one hundred percent because
uncertainty is inescapable. Social trust, alternatively, theoretically opens the space for risk being
habitually conceived as non-existent. While not all relationships will be habitualized such that there
is no cognitive expectation of defection, the importance of trust from a social perspective is that it
leads us to act as if the possibility of defection were greatly less than it actually is.
There are thus two major differences between rational and social trust theories that have
implications for understanding the relationships between donors and NGOs. First, the social trust
assumes that common identities and solidarities will provide higher perceptions of trustworthiness,
barring blatant contrary evidence, while rational trust presupposes mistrust and assumes only
information can affect whether a donor will trust an NGO. Second, whereas trust for rational
scholars is a means through which risk and uncertainty are managed, for social scholars trust allows
an actor to reduce or escape feelings of risk and/or vulnerability, to the point of habitually ignoring
the possibility of defection.
Trust and the Accountability Agenda
So how does our understanding of the accountability agenda differ if we consider it from a social
trust perspective rather than a rational trust perspective? First of all, rational and social theories of
trust will disagree about purpose of the accountability agenda. From the perspective of rational
trust, the focus on transparency and external accountability increases perceptions of NGOs
trustworthiness. Transparency ensures that donors can detect an untrustworthy NGO from their
prior behavior instead of having to discover this by interacting with them. External accountability
provides the stick that adjusts the cost/benefit analysis of potentially defecting NGOs towards
cooperation, again increasing perceptions of trustworthiness.
From a social trust perspective, however, the accountability agenda is more problematic. Instead of
being indicators of trustworthiness, transparency and external accountability are exactly the
opposite – they are indicators of perceived untrustworthiness. This is because both transparency
and external accountability are hedges against potential defection - they are costs taken in the
present that are meant to mitigate or prevent potential losses of future defection. As hedging
strategies, transparency and external accountability are only necessary amidst prevailing distrust. If
donors truly trusted NGOs, their perception of potential defection would be greatly reduced, if not
zero, and there would be little to no need to implement them (Keating and Ruzicka 2014). So the
purpose of the accountability agenda diverges greatly depending on whether you take a rational or
social trust perspective. For rational trust theorists, it promotes trustworthiness. For social trust
theorists, it is actually an open sign of distrust in NGOs.
Second, rational and social theories of trust disagree about the expected outcomes of the
accountability agenda. From a social trust perspective it is possible for trust to become habitual and
taken-for-granted. Habitual trusting, however, can be disrupted. One obvious way would be for a
defection to occur, which leads to the open assessment of the original habitual beliefs because when
it creates a suspicion that this disruption of expectations might become generalized (Zucker 1986,
102). Depending on the case, such a disruption can lead to either renewed trust or a decrease in
10
perceived trustworthiness. But the habitual nature of social trust can similarly be disrupted by the
open questioning of the relationship. As Luhmann argues, this is because:
A very precise articulation of reasons and views ... can quite easily even become a
disrupting factor or may, even more, arouse distrust. To offer detailed factual
information and specialized arguments is to deny the very function and manner of
trust ... the accumulation of arguments betrays an uncertainty which can lead to
the withdrawal of trust. (Luhmann 1979, 29-30)
Though speaking to the articulation of why a relationship should be specifically trustworthy, the
larger point is that trustworthiness can be disrupted by the open articulation and consideration of
the relationship. Through articulation, the habitual is moved into the considered, leading to the
introduction of suspicion and doubt that previously did not exist. Luhmann argues that this occurs
because questioning the nature of the trusting relationship opens up a ‘gulf of unfamiliarity,’ pushing
the analysis in a rationalist direction (Luhmann 1979, 33). This idea is also reflected in the works of K
E Løgstrup, who argued that raising suspicions can destroy trust because it causes us to actively
calculate the character and disposition of the other in a way we do not when we trust (Løgstrup
1997, 13). The suspicion moves us from a state where we act with respect to our situation and
relationships with others, where trust can be a stable feature, to a state where we “trying to make
sense of a particular person or situation by interpreting, analyzing and doubting.” (Frederiksen 2016,
54) For both Luhman and Løgstrup, “trust emerges as a spontaneous unguardedness within the
present(s) if nothing unsettles the situation and prompts one to consider alternatives and potential
regret.” (Frederiksen 2016, 59) By constantly focusing on the potential untrustworthiness of NGOs
by openly declaring the need for transparency and external punishment for wrongdoers, the
accountability agenda can unsettle habitual relationships of trust, opening up a gulf of unfamiliarity
that moves the relationship from habitual trust to a considered rational form. In other words, from
a social trust perspective the accountability agenda can destroy the very relationships it claims to be
building.
This is not simply a theoretical proposition - scholars working with experimental social psychology
have suggested that rational trust measures, particularly oversight and institutional checks, do not
function to build perceptions of trustworthiness between individuals. In fact, the experimental
evidence suggests that where there are external guarantees to cooperative behavior, such as an
enforceable contract, parties who cooperate become less trusting of each other in the subsequent
round. Alternatively, where cooperation occurs absent these external guarantees, parties become
more trusting of each other (Bohnet et al. 2001, 141; Molm et al. 2000, 1422). Some scholars
additionally suggest that individuals who cooperate under binding contracts see each other as less
trustworthy than individuals with no history of cooperation (Malhorta and Murnighan 2002, 547).
This is because even where cooperation has taken place, the parties involved see the external
guarantees as the key to success, not the innate trustworthiness of the other party. As Mark
Granovetter put it, institutional arrangements “do not produce trust, but instead are a functional
substitute for it.” (Granovetter 1985, 489)
To make things worse, Alexander Cooley has recently argued that this effect occurs even when
contracts are introduced in cooperative relationships previously based on informal ties (Cooley 2010,
246-247), a situation similar to the relationships between many donors and NGOs. Once instituted,
11
several scholars have argued that these sanctioning systems can create their own dependence, that
is, that the introduction of a sanctioning system creates a distrust that then feeds back into the need
for the sanctioning system (Mulder et al. 2006, 160; Mulder et al. 2005; Yamagishi 1988). In sum,
there is a good deal of evidence from experimental social psychology that reflects many of the
theoretical propositions found within social trust theory. External sanctions, like those promoted by
the accountability agenda do not promote conceptions of trustworthiness, but instead serve to
erode them. These can disrupt relationships where there are already high perceptions of
trustworthiness, promoting distrust instead of trust. Finally, once these measures are instituted, the
can permanently change the nature of the relationship that then drives their own demand.
This final point needs further consideration, particularly given that the institutionalization of the
accountability agenda does not come for free. One of the key benefits of trust is that it prevents
actors from hedging against the risk (Keating and Ruzicka 2014), in this case, saving the resources
that would otherwise go into implementing these programs. Several authors have previously
complained about the cumbersome bureaucratic nature of the accountability agenda that creates
costs for NGOs (Bowman 2010, 79; Hudson 2002). Others have attempted to defend the cost by
claiming that any regulation should not be greater than is necessary to achieve its aim (Cordery
2013, 834; Hind 2011, 201). However, the costs of the twin hedges of transparency measures and
external monitoring are put in an even more problematic position if they have the potential to erode
donor trust in NGOs than to increase it. Given both the theoretical and experimental literature,
there is cause to worry that, in its institution, the accountability agenda not only creates
unnecessary costs for NGOs who enjoy unrecognized social sources of trust, but additionally create
the conditions for these sources to be eroded, making costs of the accountability agenda both
necessary and permanent.
Implications of Social Trust for NGOs
We have thus far argued that the accountability agenda is implicitly based on rational trust theory,
that social trust theory can provide a better explanation of why donors trust NGOs, and finally that
the accountability agenda faces serious problems when social trust is introduced to the analysis. But
at the same time, social trust theory does not dismiss that there can be a calculative element to
perceptions of trustworthiness, only that there are social variables missing from their understanding
that better explain why it is that trust is conferred. But where are these social variables most likely to
have an effect? Up to this point we have been treating donors as one homogeneous group.
However, the picture on the ground is more complex, since NGO funding comes from several
sources, such as the government, corporations, and civil society (Bendell and Cox, 109). In our final
step, we argue that these actors will have different propensities to engage with NGOs in terms of
rational versus social trust, but that pressures from one group should not be conflated with the
needs of all groups.
Previous scholars have argued that trusting at an organization or a system level leads to more
impersonal and rational forms of trusting judgement, so that predictability and capability are
foregrounded and social similarities become less important (Hurley 2011, 33). Where thick
interpersonal trust based on familiarity and strong interpersonal ties is unavailable between
members of the organizations, and in many donor-NGO interactions we would expect this to be the
12
case, institutions will move to thin interpersonal trust by using guardians of trust or other
intermediaries (Khodyakov 2007, 120-123; Näslund 2016, 89). This is why in interorganizational
relationships, many scholars have focused on rational elements, such as monitoring, legal bonds,
external accreditation, repetitive transactions, and access to previous feedback, as the primary
elements of trust building (Granovetter 1985, 440; Pavlou 2002; Shapiro 1987; Zucker 1986) So
organizational donors, or corporate and government donors, are more likely to act in ways
suggested by the rational model of trust. This does not completely rule out the possibility of social
elements in these relationships, but it does suggest that these effects will be minimized with respect
to other types of donors. Consequently, it will be more necessary for NGOs to comply with
particular accountability agenda measures to access these funds than with other actors – a result
that has been growing in practice (Baur and Schmitz 2012, 9; Jepson 2005, 517-518; O'Dwyer and
Unerman 2008, 810; Schmitz et al. 2012, 1175-1176)
The individual donors, on the other hand, are not faced with the same institutional effects and are
therefore more likely to be affected by social trust. Individuals give to NGOs that they see as like-
minded and, according to social trust theory, they presume trustworthiness through sharing this
identity and common purpose without needing a great deal of positive evidence. When approached
on the high street for a small donation by a favored NGO, most people do not stop to consider the
possibility of defection before putting money in the box. Similarly, most individual donors are happy
to continue giving their monthly contribution without consciously thinking every month whether
their money will be used appropriately. While the potential habitually of these relationships is a
boon to NGOs, these relationships are also those that can be disrupted by the accountability agenda.
NGOs thus face slightly competing models of trustworthiness from different types of donors.
Corporate and government donors will tend to behave with respect to the model of rational trust,
while individual donors are more likely to behave with respect to social trust. We argue that the
primarily problem with the accountability agenda is that it conflates the demand for accountability
from one source, certain corporate and public donors, with a demand from all donors. As a result of
the message that NGOs receive from practitioners and scholars alike, that the accountability agenda
will increase trustworthiness overall, NGOs’ are increasingly signing up to voluntary accountability
agenda measures outside of the requirements of specific corporate or public donors. This, we
believe, is not a decision that should be lightly made in light of the theoretical claims put forward in
this paper without further scholarly consideration. As we have suggested, this type of self-regulation
comes at a cost to NGOs in terms of time and resources, like all hedging behaviors. These measures,
furthermore, can also undermine the trusting relationships with a set of donors that, at worst, can
create their own demand and leave the NGO with permanent costs where none were previously
necessary.
Thus, although there is no escaping accountability measures from certain types of donors due to the
systemic organizational effects that pushes them in the direction of rational trust, this research
opens serious questions over whether the recent popularity of self-accountability measures should
be sustained given its potential effects on the social trust between certain groups of donors and
NGOs. While NGOs will need to comply with the regulatory frameworks of certain larger private and
public donors, it does not follow that the same frameworks will be necessary for all donors. Indeed,
13
social trust theory suggests that it may be exactly the opposite. As such, NGOs should proceed down
the self-regulation path with caution.
Conclusion
The former chief executive of the Charity Commission for England and Wales, Andrew Hind, in
reflecting on his tenure at the organization, argued that:
Charities are not banks, newspapers or utility providers and they should not be
regulated as such. ... The hundreds of thousands of people who act as charity
trustees do so because they are fired with a passion ... they are there because
they want to make the world a better place … This is too often overlooked in
discussions about charity efficiency and effectiveness ... What this meant in
practice was that when things went wrong in a charity - and given the nature of
charities things go wrong on a regular basis - we assumed it was the result of an
honest mistake, unless proved otherwise. Instead of having a fundamental
mistrust of the sector we were regulating, which is the implicit stance of some
statutory regulators, I was keen that our staff had a fundamental belief in it. (Hind
2011, 202)
These sentiments reflect the underlying advantages of social trust that NGOs possess that go
unrecognized by those who push for the accountability agenda. NGOs are not perceived to be the
same as other types of non-state institutions. As the social trust scholarship suggests and Hind
argues, we are more apt to see them as trustworthy, even when things sometimes go wrong. This is
reflected in what we have argued in this paper, which grounds Hind’s observation in a theoretical
framework that suggests that interactions between donors and NGOs likely involve elements of
social trust based on identity and working for a common purpose that help to make donors perceive
NGOs as trustworthy.
Though the accountability agenda has been a popular mechanism to increase the perceived
trustworthiness in NGOs, we suggest that the implicit rationalist model of trust embedded within it,
which does not take these perceptions into account, can lead to leads to serious long-term problems
for NGOs and the sector as a whole. We argue that it is not only incorrect in its understanding of why
many donors trust NGOs, but tragically might do the opposite of what it intends to do among
individual donors. Instead of creating greater donor trust in NGOs, it might create and sustain
greater distrust by promoting a gulf of unfamiliarity that will make these costly practices permanent.
This is an important argument because, unlike other criticisms of the accountability agenda that
examine the side-effects of its implementation, our argument puts into doubt one it its central
purposes.
Given the controversies over NGO trustworthiness that have been raised by the government, in the
media, and the wider public, this paper serves as red flag to an outright pursuit of accountability
measures to solve issues of trustworthiness. This is not to say that they have no place in NGO
governance and, certainly, it is likely that it will remain the preferred regulatory tool of large donors
and governments. Rather, it means that when these measures are being considered and
implemented, they must be considered within a framework that takes into consideration the
potential effects of not just rational trust, but also social trust. As we stated from the outset, the
14
purpose of this paper is to open up a new strand of theoretically-informed empirical research on
NGO trustworthiness that puts these complications front and center. The potential for the agenda to
have the adverse consequences brought up in this paper and future research must be considered in
the construction and implementation of existing and future codes of conduct. This is particularly the
case with NGOs, as the actors with the most at stake in the preservation of their trustworthy image
among donors, who should carefully consider any decision to promote the accountability agenda
themselves.
a
Donors can vary greatly, from individuals, corporations or funds, to governmental bodies. Donors, for the
purposes of this paper, is anyone who dedicates resources to an NGO without monetary compensation. It thus
includes not only financial donors, but also volunteers. We use the term donors to refer collectively to all these
groups.
b
Our categorization of rational and social theories of trust is based off of Ruzicka, J. & Keating, V.C. (2015)
'Going Global: Trust Research and International Relations', Journal of Trust Research, 5:1, 8-26.
c
Other rational trust scholars are in agreement with Coleman’s formulation. Gambetta Gambetta, D. (1988),
'Can We Trust Trust?,' in D. Gambetta, (ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell). understands it as a range between 0 (complete distrust) and 1 (complete trust) and Gambetta, D.
(1988), 'Can We Trust Trust?,' in D. Gambetta, (ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations.
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell). where he links this probability to potential payoffs. Andrew Kydd similarly defines
the level of trust as the probability that one actor believes the other to be trustworthy - that they are likely to
fulfil the expectation. If this level of trust exceeds a minimum threshold given the payoffs to cooperation and
defection then cooperation is possible Kydd, A. (2005), Trust and Mistrust in International Relations (Princeton:
Princeton University Press).
Bibliography
(2015) 'Charitable Trust', The Times, 1 August, 23
Anheier, H.K. & Kendall, J. (2002) 'Interpersonal Trust and Voluntary Associations: Examining Three
Approaches', British Journal of Sociology, 53:3, 343-362.
Avant, D.D., Finnemore, M. & Sell, S.K. (2010), 'Conclusion: Authority, Legitimacy, and Accountability
in Global Politics,' in D.D. Avant, M. Finnemore & S.K. Sell, (eds.), Who Governs the Globe?
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Baggini, J. (2015) 'Charities Risk Losing Our Goodwill with Aggressive Fundraising Tactics', The
Guardian, 10 June,
Baur, D. & Schmitz, H.P. (2012) 'Corporations and NGOs: When Accountability Leads to Co-Optation',
Journal of Business Ethics, 106:1, 9-21.
BBC News (2015) 'Poppy Collector Olive Cooke 'Exhausted by Charity Requests'', 15 May,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-32748923
Bebbington, A. (2005) 'Donor-NGO Relations and Representations of Livelihood in Nongovernmental
Aid Chains', World Development, 33:6, 937-950.
Bendell, J. & Cox, P. (2006), 'The Donor Accountability Agenda,' in L. Jordan & P. Van Tuijl, (eds.),
NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations.
Bohnet, I., Frey, B.S. & Huck, S. (2001) 'More Order with Less Law: On Contract Enforcement, Trust,
and Crowding', The American Political Science Review, 95:1, 131-144.
Bowman, W. (2010), 'Trends and Patterns in Third-Party Accreditation Clubs,' in M.K. Gugerty & A.
Prakash, (eds.), Voluntary Regulation of NGOs and Nonprofits: An Accountability Club
Framework. (Cambridge University Press).
2
Burger, R. & Seabe, D. (2014), 'NGO Accountability in Africa,' in E. Obadare, (ed.), The Handbook of
Civil Society in Africa. (London: Springer).
Charity Navigator (2016) 'How Do We Rate Charities' Accountability and Transparency?',
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=1093
Coleman, J. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press).
Cooley, A. (2010), 'Outsourcing Authority: How Project Contracts Transform Global Governance
Networks,' in D.D. Avant, M. Finnemore & S.K. Sell, (eds.), Who Governs the Globe?
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Cordery, C. (2013) 'Regulating Small and Medium Charities: Does It Improve Transparency and
Accountability?', Voluntas, 24:4, 831-851.
Courville, S. (2006), 'Understanding NGO-Based Social and Environmental Regulatory Systems: Why
We Need New Models of Accountability,' in M.W. Dowdle, (ed.), Public Accountability:
Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Crack, A. (2013) 'Ingo Accountability Deficits: The Imperatives for Further Reform', Globalizations,
10:2, 293-308.
Edelman Berland (2015), 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer.
Edwards, M. & Hulme, D. (1996a), 'Beyond the Magic Bullet? Lessons and Conclusions,' in M.
Edwards & D. Hulme, (eds.), Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountability
in the Post–Cold War World. (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner).
Edwards, M. & Hulme, D. (1996b), 'NGO Peformance and Accountability,' in M. Edwards & D. Hulme,
(eds.), Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountability in the Post–Cold War
World. (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner).
Etzione, C.D. & Senden, L. (2011) 'Public Accountability of Transnational Private Regulation: Chimera
or Reality?', Journal of Law and Society, 38:1, 163-188.
Farrell, H. & Knight, J. (2003) 'Trust, Institutions, and Institutional Change: Industrial Districts and the
Social Capital Hypothesis', Politics & Society, 31:4, 537-566.
Feldman, S. (2003) 'Paradoxes of Institutionalisation: The Depoliticisation of Bangladeshi NGOs',
Development in Practice, 13:1, 5-26.
Frederiksen, M. (2016), 'Divided Uncertainty: A Phenomenology of Trust, Risk, and Confidence,' in S.
Jagd & L. Fuglsang, (eds.), Trust, Organizations and Social Interaction: Studying Trust as
Process within and between Organizations. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Frumkin, P. (2002), On Being Nonprofit: A Conceptual Policy Primer (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press).
Gambetta, D. (1988), 'Can We Trust Trust?,' in D. Gambetta, (ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking
Cooperative Relations. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Gent, S.E., Crescenzi, M.J.C., Menninga, E.J. & Reid, L. (2015) 'The Reputation Trap of NGO
Accountability', International Theory, 7:3, 426-469.
Gibelman, M. & Gelman, S.R. (2001) 'Very Public Scandals: Nongovernmental Organizations in
Trouble', Voluntas, 12:1, 49-66.
Goddard, A. & Assad, M.J. (2005) 'Accounting and Navigating Legitimacy in Tanzanian NGOs',
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19:3, 377-404.
Granovetter, M. (1985) 'Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness',
American Journal of Sociology, 91:3, 481-510.
Grant, R.W. & Keohane, R.O. (2005) 'Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics', American
Political Science Review, 99:1, 29-43.
Hardin, R. (2002), Trust and Trustworthiness (New York: Russell Sage Foundation).
Harris-Curtis, E. (2009), NGO Codes of Conduct: An Exploration of the Current Debate (Oxford:
INTRAC).
Havrda, M. & Kutílek, P. (2010), 'Accountability 2.0 – in Search for a New Approach to International
Non-Governmental Organisations’ Accountability,' in J. Steffek & K. Hahn, (eds.), Evaluating
3
Transnational NGOs: Legitimacy, Accountability, Representation. (Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan).
Heap, S. (1997) 'Building Trust in NGOs', ONTRAC, 7, 17.
Hind, A. (2011) 'New Development: Increasing Public Trust and Confidence in Charities: On the Side
of the Angels', Public Money & Management, 31:3, 201-205.
Hoffman, A.M. (2002) 'A Conceptualization of Trust in International Relations', European Journal of
International Relations, 8:3, 375-401.
Holmén, H. & Jirström, M. (2009) 'Look Who's Talking! Second Thoughts About NGOs as
Representing Civil Society', Journal of Asian and African Studies, 44:4, 429-448.
House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (2016), The 2015
Charity Fundraising Controversy: Lessons for Trustees, the Charity Commission, and
Regulators. (London: The Stationery Office Limited).
Hudson, A. (2002) 'Advocacy by Uk-Based Development NGOs', Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 31:3, 402-418.
Hurley, R.F. (2011), Decision to Trust: How Leaders Create High-Trust Organizations (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass).
Hyndman, N. & Mcdonnell, P. (2009) 'Governance and Charities: An Exploration of Key Themes and
the Development of a Research Agenda', Financial Accountability & Management, 25:1, 5-
31.
Ingo Accountability Charter (2016) 'Why Join the Charter?',
http://www.ingoaccountabilitycharter.org/why-join-the-charter/
Jepson, P. (2005) 'Governance and Accountability of Environmental NGOs', Environmental & Science
Policy, 8:5, 515-524.
Jordan, L. (2007), 'A Rights-Based Approach to Accountability,' in A. Ebrahim & E. Weisband, (eds.),
Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Keating, V.C. & Ruzicka, J. (2014) 'Trusting Relationships in International Politics: No Need to Hedge',
Review of International Studies, 40:4, 753-770.
Khodyakov, D. (2007) 'Trust as a Process: A Three-Dimensional Approach', Sociology, 41:1, 115-132.
Kydd, A. (2005), Trust and Mistrust in International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Larson, D.W. (1997), Anatomy of Mistrust: U.S.-Soviet Relations During the Cold War (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press).
Lee, J. (2004) 'NGO Accountability: Rights and Responsibilities', Programme on NGOs and Civil
Society, 19 October, http://www.icomfloripa.org.br/transparencia/wp-
content/uploads/2009/06/ngo_accountability_rights_and_responsibilities.pdf
Lewis, D. (2007), 'Values and Accountability in a Bangladeshi NGO,' in A. Ebrahim & E. Weisband,
(eds.), Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Lewis, J.D. & Weigert, A. (1985) 'Trust as a Social Reality', Social Forces, 63:4, 967-985.
Lloyd, R. (2005), The Role of NGO Self-Regulation in Increasing Stakeholder Accountability. (London:
One World Trust).
Logister, L. (2007) 'Global Governance and Civil Society. Some Reflections on NGO Legitimacy',
Journal of Global Ethics, 3:2, 165-179.
Luhmann, N. (1979), Trust and Power (New York: John Wiley & Sons).
Luhmann, N. (1984), Soziale Systeme. Grundriß Einer Allgemeinen Theorie (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).
Løgstrup, K.E. (1997), The Ethical Demand (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).
Malhorta, D. & Murnighan, J.K. (2002) 'The Effects of Contracts on Interpersonal Trust',
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47:3, 534-559.
Marinova, D.M. (2011) 'When Government Fails Us: Trust in Post-Socialist Civil Organizations',
Democratization, 18:1, 160-183.
4
Marschall, M. (2010), 'Transparency,' in H.K. Anheier & S. Toepler, (eds.), International Encyclopedia
of Civil Society. (New York: Springer US).
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995) 'An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust', The
Academy of Management Review, 20:3, 709-734.
Meade, A. (2015) 'Fundraising Regulator Draws up Tough New Rules for Charities', The Guardian, 11
June,
Molm, L.D., Takahashi, N. & Peterson, G. (2000) 'Risk and Trust in Social Exchange: An Experiemental
Test of a Classical Proposition', The American Journal of Sociology, 105:5, 1396-1427.
Montanaro, L. (2012) 'The Democratic Legitimacy of Self-Appointed Representatives', The Journal of
Politics, 74:4, 1094-1107.
Mulder, L.B., Van Dijk, E., De Cremer, D. & Wilke, H.a.M. (2006) 'Undermining Trust and Cooperation:
The Paradox of Sanctioning Systems in Social Dilemmas ', Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 42:2, 147-162.
Mulder, L.B., Van Dijk, E., Wilke, H.a.M. & De Cremer, D. (2005) 'The Effect of Feedback on Support
for a Sanctioning System in a Social Dilemma: The Difference between Installing and
Maintaining the Sanction', Journal of Economic Psychology, 26:3, 443-458.
Murtaza, N. (2012) 'Putting the Lasts First: The Case for Community-Focused and Peer-Managed
NGO Accountability Mechanisms', Voluntas, 23:1, 109-125.
Möllering, G. (2006), 'Trust, Institutions, Agency: Towards a Neoinstitutional Theory of Trust,' in R.
Bachmann & A. Zaheer, (eds.), Handbook of Trust Research. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Nehme, M. (2014) 'Regulation of the Not-for-Profit Sector: Is Another Change Really Needed?',
Alternative Law Journal, 39:1, 24-26.
Näslund, L. (2016), 'Playing by Ear: Trust Creation as Improvisation and Sensemaking,' in S. Jagd & L.
Fuglsang, (eds.), Trust, Organizations and Social Interaction: Studying Trust as Process within
and between Organizations. (Cheltemham: Edward Elgar).
O'dwyer, B. & Unerman, J. (2008) 'The Paradox of Greater NGO Accountability: A Case Study of
Amnesty Ireland', Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33:7-8, 801-824.
Parsons, T. (1969) 'Research with Human Subjects and the "Professional Complex"', Daedalus, 98:2,
325-360.
Paul, J.A. (2000) 'NGOs and Global Policy-Making', https://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/31611-
ngos-and-global-policy-making.html
Pavlou, P.A. (2002) 'Institution-Based Trust in Interorganizational Exchange Relationships: The Role
of Online B2b Marketplaces on Trust Formation', Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
11:3-4, 215-243.
Philiips, S.D. (2012) 'Canadian Leapfrog: From Regulating Charitable Fundraising to Co-Regulating
Good Governance', Voluntas, 23:3, 808-829.
Prakash, A. & Gugerty, M.K. (2010) 'Trust but Verify? Voluntary Regulation Programs in the Nonprofit
Sector', Regulation & Governance, 4:1, 22-47.
Prideaux, M. (2015) 'Wildlife NGOs: From Adversaries to Collaborators', Global Policy, 6:4, 379-388.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. & Colin, C. (1998) 'Introduction to Special Topic Forum: Not So
Different after All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust ', The Academy of Management Review,
23:3, 393-404.
Ruzicka, J. & Keating, V.C. (2015) 'Going Global: Trust Research and International Relations', Journal
of Trust Research, 5:1, 8-26.
Schmitz, H.P., Raggo, P. & Tosca, B.-V.V. (2012) 'Accountability of Transnational NGOs: Aspirations
vs. Practice', Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41:6, 1175-1194.
Shapiro, S.P. (1987) 'The Social Control of Impersonal Trust', American Journal of Sociology, 93:3,
623-658.
Sikkink, K. (2002), 'Restructuring World Politics: The Limits and Asymmetries of Soft Power,' in S.
Khagram, J.V. Riker & K. Sikkink, (eds.), Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social
Movements, Networks, and Norms. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
5
Sir Stuart Etherington, Lord Leigh of Hurley, Baroness Pitkeathley & Lord Wallace of Saltaire (2015),
Regulating Fundraising for the Future: Trust in Charties, Confidence in Fundraising Regulation
(London: The National Council for Voluntary Organisations).
Slawson, N. (2015) 'How Charities Can Win Back Public Trust', The Guardian, 17 September,
Slim, H. (2002), By What Authority? The Legitimacy and Accountability of Non-Governmental
Organisations. International Meeting on Global Trends and Human Rights — Before and after
September 11. (Geneva: The International Council on Human Rights Policy).
Sloan, M.F. (2009) 'The Effects of Nonprofit Accountability Ratings on Donor Behavior', Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38:2, 220-236.
Smillie, I. (1997) 'NGOs and Development Assistance: A Change in Mind-Set?', Third World Quarterly,
18:3, 563-577.
Sogge, D., ed. (1996), Compassion and Calculation: The Business of Private Foreign Aid (London,
Pluto Press).
Steffek, J. & Hahn, K. (2010), 'Introduction: Transnational NGOs and Legitimacy, Accountability,
Representation,' in J. Steffek & K. Hahn, (eds.), Evaluating Transnational NGOs: Legitimacy,
Accountability, Representation. (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan).
Sustainability (2003), The 21st Century NGO: In the Market for Change.
Szper, R. & Prakash, A. (2011) 'Charity Watchdogs and the Limits of Information-Based Regulation',
Voluntas, 22:1, 112-141.
The Charity Commission (2013), Risk Framework (London).
The Sphere Project (2015) 'Grant Management Training Workshop',
http://www.sphereproject.org/community/calendar/Grant-Management-Training-
Workshop/
Thrandardottir, E. (2015) 'NGO Legitimacy: Four Models', Representation, 51:1, 107-123.
Weisband, E. & Ebrahim, A. (2007), 'Introduction: Forging Global Communities,' in E. Weisband & A.
Ebrahim, (eds.), Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Williams, S.A. (2010) 'Intersections of Accountability: Measuring the Effectiveness of International
Development NGOs', Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 54, 27-58.
Yamagishi, T. (1988) 'The Provision of a Sanctioning System in the United States and Japan ', Social
Psychology Quarterly, 51:3, 265-271.
Zucker, L.G. (1986) 'Production of Trust: Institutional Sources of Economic Structure, 1840-1920.',
Research in Organizational Behaviour, 8:1, 53-111.
