Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mr. Dipendra K C & Dr. Buapun Promphakping
Governance of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in Thailand:
Preliminary Survey Findings
ASEAN Studies at the Crossroads | August 3 - 5, 2015 | Chulalongkorn University
1. How the CSOs can hold the state
mechanisms accountable (Bozzini & Enjolras, 2012; Rhodes, 1997;
Steen-Johnsen, Eynaud, & Wijkström, 2011)
2. Organizational or “internal” governance of
the CSOs focusing more on the role of the
board (Steen-Johnsen et al., 2011; Stone & Ostrower, 2007)
Introduction
Governance Research
2
Established beyond the state, family & the
market, formal structures - with regular
meetings & agendas, non-profit making in
nature, practice independent self-
governance
boards have a key role to perform in ensuring the
governance. “ultimate accountability” of
organization action lies on the boards of the
nonprofit (Carver, 2011)
Governance. Why ?
“internal governance” of the organization has a
profound impact on actions and positions of the
CSO on the “external governance” (Steen-Johnsen et al., 2011)
What is the nature of internal
organizational governance as in
practice in the CSOs of Thailand ?
Sampling Frame: List of CSOs by NGO COD (2003) +
list of CSOs listed in CSNM, KKU database
Sample Size: All organizations in the sampling frame
Methodology
Self-administrated Electronically fillable questionnaire
Sent via Email
Data Collection & Analysis: May – June, 2015
315
148
167
54
113
32.34% - RESPONSE RATE
Findings
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Community Development
Education
Gender
Environment
Youth
Health
Agriculture
Umbrella Organizations
Disability
Human Rights & Democracy and…
Faith-Based
Children
Credit & Finance
Refugee
Others
Percentage
Sect
or
Sector of Work
30.19
37.74
18.87
13.21
Age of CSOs (in years)
Less than 10 10 – 20 20 – 30 Greater than 30
Findings
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Multilateral Donors
Membership Fees
United Nations Organizations
Bilateral Donors
Earned Income (buy/sell,…
Thai NGOs
Thai Government
Foundations
International NGOs
Individual Voluntary Donations
Percentage
Sou
rce
s
Budget Sources
0 5 10 15 20 25
More than 1 million
500,000 - 1 million
250,000 - 500,000
100,000 - 250,000
50,000 - 100,000
25,000 - 50,000
10,000 - 25,000
Less than 10,000
Percentage
Bu
dge
t R
ange
Budget (USD - $)
Findings
0
20
40
60
80
100
membership DemocraticBoard
Selection
Board OfDirectors(BoD)
Distinct Mgmt& Board
Evaluate Staffs Evaluate BoD BOD ensurefinancialcontrol
RegularMeetings
Perc
enta
ge
Governance Overview
Yes
No
0
20
40
60
80
100
Donors Members/Benificiaries Government
Reporting Overview
Thai CSOs (92%) are relatively stronger than their
counterparts in Bangladesh (50%), Cambodia
(90%) and Uganda (77%) in terms of having board
of directors (BOD) (Barr et al., 2005; Gauri & Galef, 2005; Marshall, Suárez, & Consult, 2011)
Discussion
Each organization secured funding from more than
two sources which was identical to the findings of
previous study carried out by Suárez and Marshall
(2012) in Cambodia.
Thai CSOs are not open to membership like CSOs in
Uganda - Result: three-quarter of the CSOs did not
follow any democratic process to elect the board
members (Barr et al., 2005)
Lack of membership base
+ No Democratic Process inside the organization
+ No evaluation mechanisms for BOD
+ Less answerable to members and beneficiaries
= “UNDEMOCRATIC” nature of CSOs
Discussion
CSOs prefer reporting donors rather than their
members/beneficiaries and government.
More than 1/3 did not respond about budget – May be - lack
of interest, expertise, fear of public scrutiny
Formula used by the state apparatus to attack CSOs
and question their legitimacy (Leon & Weiss, 1995)
Therefore, the board of directors should carry out their
activities and channelize funds transparently.
This can be ensured creating pressure jointly from
donors, government and the beneficiaries.
Conclusion
CSOs are service organizations where they receive
funds to provide service, hence, those who control
funds are very different than who receive the benefit
• Barr, A., Fafchamps, M., & Owens, T. (2005). The governance of non-governmental organizations in Uganda. World Development, 33(4), 657-679. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.09.010
• Bozzini, E., & Enjolras, B. (2012). Governing Ambiguities: New Forms of Local Governance and Civil Society: Nomos.
• Carver, J. (2011). Boards that make a difference: A new design for leadership in nonprofit and public organizations (Vol. 6): John Wiley & Sons.
• Gauri, V., & Galef, J. (2005). NGOs in Bangladesh: Activities, resources, and governance. World Development, 33(12), 2045-2065. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.05.009
• Leon, G., & Weiss, T. G. (1997). Devolving Responsibilities: A Framework for Analysing NGOs and Services. Third World Quarterly, 18(3), 443-455. doi: 10.2307/3993262
• Marshall, J. H., Suárez, D., & Consult, B. (2011). The Challenges of Capacity-Building in the NGO Sector in Cambodia: Results from a National Survey. Phnom Penh.
• Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity, and accountability: Open University Press.
• Steen-Johnsen, K., Eynaud, P., & Wijkström, F. (2011). On Civil Society Governance: An Emergent Research Field. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(4), 555-565. doi: 10.1007/s11266-011-9211-7
• Stone, M. M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the Public Interest? Another Look at Research on Nonprofit Governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 416-438. doi: 10.1177/0899764006296049
• Suárez, D., & Marshall, J. H. (2012). Capacity in the NGO Sector: Results from a National Survey in Cambodia. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(1), 176-200. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9331-8
• Icons made by GraphicsBay from www.flaticon.com are licensed under CC BY 3.0
Bibliography
