Defining and Researching NGOs >> Defining an NGO

For the purposes of the DANGO project, our working definition of an NGO was the following:

"An NGO is non-violent organisation that is both independent of government and not serving an immediate economic interest, with at least some interest in having socio-political influence."

Essentially, we were aiming at the Third or Voluntary Sector, as distinct from the Private and Public/Governing Sectors. We were, however, going beyond that very broad category. The origin of the term NGO, still more common in the international sphere, was as a means of identification for those groups who would be awarded consultative status at the United Nations. Voice, consultation, influence: these have been characteristics of NGOs since the term was first conceived. NGOs belong to the third sector, yes, but they are not synonymous with it. Instead, they are its players, and that is why they should all be of such interest to socio-political historians.

With limited resources, we also need to set ourselves priorities. As the aim of the DANGO project was to focus the attention of historical research towards the socio-political role played by NGOs, we are prioritising the larger, more high-profile, and more influential bodies, and particularly those who seek to play a socially or politically influential role on the national and/or international stage. We are also trying to avoid reinventing the wheel, and are thus steering clear, for now, of organisations that have already attracted a great deal of historical attention, such as trade unions, or churches. This is not to say we consider such organisations to be unimportant, but merely that they have not been as neglected by historians as other examples of voluntary association.

Therefore, in simple terms, we are not prioritising: major political parties; government departments and the public services; trade unions; the business world; purely recreational, cultural or research organisations; religious bodies (Church of England, Catholic Church); benevolent associations for specific trades/areas. Our policy is explained in greater detail below, in our Guidance Notes (see below) .

Guidance Notes:

Clearly, our definition of an NGO covers many thousands of organisations. Therefore the following is intended to offer some guidance about the organisations that we are currently prioritising.

1. In general terms, DANGO follows the approach that society can be conceptualised as three spheres: governmental; economic; voluntary. It is the third sphere we are particularly interested in.
2. Included in the first sphere are all government departments and agencies, be they local, national or international. Political parties present an interesting case. The three major parties at Westminster are excluded from the database, on the grounds that these more properly belong to the governmental sphere. Pressure groups that happen to contest elections, or do so not with the aim of winning power, but to publicise their cause (such as the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, or the Islamic Party of Britain), should be included. Between these two extremes, priority should be given to those parties that are more expressive than instrumental, but in practice, this group forms a low proportion of the bodies we'll be looking at, and can be considered on a case-by-case basis. A further interesting case are those party groups that are not concerned with the running of the party itself, but rather with a wider social issue, such as Torche (Tory Campaign for Homosexual Equality). We will try and embrace as many of these groups as possible.
3. Included in the economic sphere (and therefore currently excluded from our attention) are businesses (including social enterprises), industry bodies, producer groups, and professional bodies. It is debatable whether trade unions should be considered part of this group, and it depends to a certain extent upon whether one defines the group as the economic sphere, or the private sector. Nevertheless, the labour movement has attracted a great deal of historical attention, and is not currently a priority for the project.
4. Amongst the voluntary sector, we are prioritising those who seek to play an influential role on the national and/or international stage. Purely recreational bodies are therefore not currently a priority, nor are purely cultural or learned institutions. Similarly, some organizations provide support to charities and NGOs, such as advice on IT or legal issues, whereas others provide training. Such groups, which can perhaps best be conceived as service providers to NGOs, are not currently a priority.
5. Only national (UK, or England, Scotland, Wales; also Northern Ireland) bodies are currently prioritised, for practical reasons. Exceptions are made for those local bodies with a national profile, for example London homelessness charity Centrepoint.
6. Similarly, those groups that have a highly specific focus, and lack a wider agenda for national/international influence, such as benevolent bodies for particular trades or professions, are not currently prioritised.
7. Religious history is an already well-covered field (see for example the Mundus database), and as such not the sort of area DANGO is designed to focus on. Religious bodies with a wider agenda (Christian Aid, CAFOD or Tearfund being obvious examples) are a priority, however.
8. Support groups should be included, for example for specific diseases.
9. Campaigns and Coalitions: it can be hard to tell the difference between formal, permanent organisations, which have an independent existence, and more transient campaigns, set up by a body for a particular, possibly short-term purpose. This is especially true when one considers the ease with which websites can be set up. As a rule of thumb, a formal coalition of individual groups, such as Make Poverty History in 2005 (in this example, it would seem sensible that the fact that MPH was so prominent should make up for the fact that it was also transient), should be treated as an organisation in its own right, whereas a campaign set up by a body to further one of its goals, for example the RSPCA's Freedom Food scheme, should not. Unfortunately, it is likely that many examples will fall into a grey area, and judgement as to whether something should be treated as independent or subsidiary will need to be applied.
10. Unless it is clear that a group it not a priority for the project, as set out above, we will endeavour to record them on our database.
11. We will also include groups that no longer exist, and for which we have been unable to locate archival details. This is in order to at least provide a paper trail for subsequent researchers.

>> Further definitions of NGOs, Charities, and Social Movements

| Back to Home | Back to Page Top |