Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T06:20:25.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Global accountability communities: NGO self-regulation in the humanitarian sector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2016

Maryam Zarnegar Deloffre
Maryam Zarnegar Deloffre*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Political Science, Arcadia University
*
*Correspondence to: Maryam Z. Deloffre, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Department of Historical and Political Studies, Arcadia University, 450 S. Easton Rd, Glenside, PA 19038, USA. Author’s email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How do humanitarian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) define and institutionalise global accountability standards? This article process-traces the case of the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership-International (HAP-I), a voluntary, self-regulatory collective accountability initiative, to investigate the processes through which NGOs define collective rules, standards, and practices for accountability. This article shows the limitations of traditional representative and principal-agent models of NGO accountability when applied to the global inter-organisational realm and argues that mutual accountability better conceptualises these relationships. In this important case, the article finds that transnational coordination of NGO accountability practices results from social learning that generates a global accountability community (GAC) constituted by mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire of practices. Data from the process tracing shows a collaborative not hierarchical or coercive relationship between NGOs and states, where salient donors changed their understandings and practices of accountability during the process of developing the HAP-I benchmarks. Thus, GACs both regulate the behaviour of members and constitute their social identities, interests, and practices.

Keywords

Transnational NGO AccountabilitySelf-RegulationParticipatory Global GovernanceSocial LearningTransnational Communities
Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 724 - 747
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Feathersone, Andy, ‘United we stand? Collective accountability in the humanitarian sector’, Humanitarian Exchange (2011), pp. 4–6 Google Scholar.

2 A Database of Civil Society Self-Regulatory Initiatives, One World Trust, available at: {http://www.oneworldtrust.org/csoproject/} accessed 3 January 2015; Angela M. Crack, ‘Reversing the telescope: Evaluating NGO peer regulation initiatives’, Journal of International Development, June (2014).

3 Scholte, Jan Aart, ‘Global governance, accountability and civil society’, in Jan Aart Scholte (ed.), Building Global Democracy? Civil Society and Accountable Global Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 8–41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Grant, Ruth W. and Keohane, Robert O., ‘Accountability and abuses of power in world politics’, American Political Science Review, 99:1 (2005), pp. 29–43 Google Scholar; Green, Jessica F., Rethinking Private Authority (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014)Google Scholar.

5 Gugerty, Mary Kay and Prakash, Aseem, ‘Nonprofit accountability clubs: an introduction’, in Mary Kay Gugerty and Aseem Prakash (eds), Nonprofit Accountability Clubs: Voluntary Regulation of Nonprofit and Nongovernmental Organizations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Brown, L. David, ‘Multiparty social action and mutual accountability’, in Alnoor Ebrahim and Edward Weisband (eds), Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Brown, L. David, Creating Credibility: Legitimacy and Accountability for Transnational Civil Society (Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

7 Edwards, Michael and Hulme, David, Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountability in the Post-Cold War World (West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

8 Grant and Keohane, ‘Accountability and abuses of power in world politics’, p. 29.

9 Kovach, Hetty, ‘Addressing accountability at the global level: the challenges facing international NGOs’, in Lisa Jordan and Peter Van Tuijl (eds), NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles & Innovations (London: Earthscan, 2006)Google Scholar; Balboa, Cristina M., ‘The legitimacy and accountability of INGOs’, in William. E. DeMars and Dennis Dijkzeul (eds), The NGO Challenge to International Relations Theory (New York City, NY: Routledge, 2015)Google Scholar; Ebrahim, Alnoor, ‘Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs’, World Development, 31:5 (2003), pp. 813–829 Google Scholar.

10 Brown, Creating Credibility; Brinkerhoff, Derick W., ‘Accountability and health systems: Toward conceptual clarity and policy relevance’, Health Policy and Planning, 19:6 (2004), pp. 371–379 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

11 Scholte, ‘Global governance, accountability and civil society’.

12 Ebrahim, ‘Accountability in practice’; Strathern, Marilyn, ‘New accountabilities: Anthropological studies in audit, ethics and the academy’, in Marilyn Strathern (ed.), Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy (London: Routledge, 2000)Google Scholar; Brinkerhoff, Jennifer M. and Brinkerhoff, Derick W., ‘Government-nonprofit relations in comparative perspective: Evolution, themes, and new directions’, Public Administration and Development, 22 (2002), pp. 3–18 Google Scholar.

13 Young, Dennis R., ‘Alternative models of government-nonprofit sector relations: Theoretical and international perspectives’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29:1 (2000), pp. 149–172 Google Scholar; Gazley, Beth and Brudney, Jeffrey L., ‘The purpose (and perils) of government-nonprofit partnership’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36:3 (2007), pp. 389–415 Google Scholar.

14 Brown, Creating Credibility; Grant and Keohane, ‘Accountability and abuses of power’.

15 Deloffre, Maryam Z., ‘NGO accountability clubs in the humanitarian sector: Social dimensions of club emergence and design’, in Mary Kay Gugerty and Aseem Prakash (eds), Voluntary Regulation of NGOs and Nonprofits: An Accountability Club Framework (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 169–200 Google Scholar; Barnett, Michael, ‘Humanitarianism transformed’, Perspectives on Politics, 3:4 (2005), pp. 723–740 Google Scholar; Crack, ‘Reversing the telescope’.

16 Balboa, ‘The legitimacy and accountability of INGOs’.

17 Brown, ‘Multiparty social action and mutual accountability’; Ebrahim, A., ‘Towards a reflective accountability in NGOs’, in Alnoor Ebrahim and Edward Weisband (eds), Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Rubenstein, Jennifer, ‘Accountability in an unequal world’, The Journal of Politics, 69:3 (2007), pp. 616–632 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Balboa, ‘The legitimacy and accountability of INGOs’; Deloffre, ‘NGO accountability clubs’; Brown, Creating Credibility; Ebrahim, Alnoor and Weisband, Edward, Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism and Public Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Featherstone, , ‘United we stand?’; Gwyn Lewis and Brian Lander, ‘Only as strong as our weakest link: Can the humanitarian system be collectively accountable to affected populations?’, Humanitarian Exchange (2011), pp. 8–10 Google Scholar.

20 Brown, , ‘Multiparty social action and mutual accountability’, p. 95 Google Scholar.

21 Brown, Creating Credibility, p. 41.

22 Brown, ‘Multiparty social action and mutual accountability’.

23 Fry, Ronald E., ‘Accountability in organizational life: Problem or opportunity for nonprofits?’, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6:2 (1995), pp. 181–195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Brown, ‘Multiparty social action and mutual accountability’.

25 Stein, Janice Gross, ‘Humanitarian organizations: Accountable –why, to whom, for what, and how?’, in Michael Barnett and Thomas G. Weiss (eds), Humanitarianism in Question: Politics, Power, Ethics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008), pp. 124–142 Google Scholar; Ebrahim, and Weisband, , Global Accountabilities Google Scholar; Jordan, Lisa and Van Tuijl, Peter, NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles & Innovations (London: Earthscan, 2006)Google Scholar; Robert Lloyd, ‘The Role of NGO Self-Regulation in Increasing Stakeholder Accountability’, One World Trust (2005); Gugerty and Prakash, ‘Nonprofit accountability clubs: an introduction’.

26 Ebrahim, ‘Accountability in practice’; Ebrahim, Alnoor, NGOs and Organizational Change: Discourse, Reporting and Learning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Edwards and Hulme, Beyond the Magic Bullet; Gugerty and Prakash, ‘Nonprofit accountability clubs: an introduction’.

27 Barnett, ‘Humanitarianism transformed’; Barnett, Michael and Weiss, Thomas G., Humanitarianism in Question: Politics, Power, Ethics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 2008)Google Scholar.

28 De Waal, Alex, Evil Days: Thirty Years of War and Famine in Ethiopia (New York, NY: Human Rights Watch, 1991)Google Scholar; Macrae, Joanna, and Zwi, Anthony, War and Hunger: Rethinking International Responses to Complex Emergencies (London: Zed Books, 1994)Google Scholar; Terry, Fiona, The Paradox of Humanitarian Action: Condemned to Repeat? (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Barnett, ‘Humanitarianism transformed’; Barnett, Michael, ‘Humanitarian governance’, Annual Review of Political Science, 16 (2013), pp. 379–398 Google Scholar; Deloffre, ‘NGO accountability clubs’.

29 Gugerty, Mary Kay, ‘The emergence of nonprofit self-regulation in Africa’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39:6 (2010), pp. 1087–1112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Hamm, Brigitte I., ‘A human rights approach to development’, Human Rights Quarterly, 23:4 (2001), pp. 1005–1031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Hamm, ‘A human rights approach to development’; Kindornay, Shannon, Ron, James, and Carpenter, Charli, ‘Rights-based approaches to development: Implications for NGOs’, Human Rights Quarterly, 34:2 (2012), pp. 472–506 Google Scholar; Darrow, Mac and Tomas, Amparo, ‘Power, capture, and conflict: a call for human rights accountability in development cooperation’, Human Rights Quarterly, 27:2 (2005), pp. 471–538 Google Scholar.

32 Kindornay et al., ‘Rights-based approaches to development’.

33 Darrow and Tomas, ‘Power, capture, and conflict’; Cornwall, Andrea and Nyamu-Musembi, Celestine, ‘Putting the “rights-based approach” to development into perspective’, Third World Quarterly, 25:8 (2004), pp. 1415–1437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Cornwall and Nyamu-Musembi, ‘Putting the “rights-based approach” to development into perspective’; Bradshaw, Sarah, ‘Is the rights focus the right focus? Nicaraguan responses to the rights agenda’, Third World Quarterly, 27:7 (2006), pp. 1329–1341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Ebrahim, , ‘Towards a reflective accountability in NGOs’, pp. 196–197 Google Scholar.

36 Gugerty, and Prakash, , ‘Nonprofit accountability clubs: an introduction’, p. 16 Google Scholar.

37 Gugerty and Prakash distinguish between strong and weak accountability clubs and it is important to note this continuum. Strong accountability clubs are expected to have maximum impact on correcting agency slippage, which is the primary problem they propose clubs intend to resolve. Weak clubs have lenient standards that require marginal effort above legal and donor requirements; and weak sanctions, that is, simply pledging adherence to a code with little verification. Gugerty, and Prakash, , ‘Nonprofit accountability clubs: an introduction’, pp. 20–21 Google Scholar; Vogel, D., ‘Private global business regulation’, American Review of Political Science, 11 (2008), pp. 261–282 Google Scholar.

38 Adler, Emanuel, ‘The spread of security communities: Communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO’s post-Cold War transformation’, European Journal of International Relations, 14:2 (2008), pp. 195–230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 By contrast epistemic communities are formed by experts with formalised knowledge, training, and educations who share ‘a belief in a common set of cause-and-effect relationships as well as common values to which policies governing these relationships will be applied’. Haas, Peter M., ‘Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control’, International Organization, 43:3 (1989), pp. 377–403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Adler, , ‘The spread of security communities’, p. 196 Google Scholar; Wenger, Etienne, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Wenger, Etienne C. and Snyder, William M., ‘Communities of practice: the organizational frontier’, Harvard Business Review, January–February (2000), pp. 139–145 Google Scholar.

41 Wenger, Communities of Practice, p. 152; Gilson, Julie, ‘Learning to learn and building communities of practice: Non-governmental organisations and examples from mine action in Southeast Asia’, Global Society, 23:3 (2009), pp. 269–293 Google Scholar; Kennedy, Dennis, ‘Advancing the normative frame: a community approach to humanitarian practices of neutrality’, Journal of Global Change and Governance, 3:1 (2009), pp. 1–22 Google Scholar.

42 Wenger, , Communities of Practice, pp. 73 Google Scholar, 77–8.

43 Ibid., p. 78.

44 Wenger and Snyder, ‘Communities of practice: the organizational frontier’.

45 See also Bernstein, Steven and Cashore, Benjamin, ‘Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework’, Regulation and Governance, 1:4 (2007), pp. 347–371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Adler, Emanuel and Barnett, Michael N., Security Communities (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Wenger, Etienne, ‘Communities of practice and social learning systems’, Organization, 7:2 (2000), pp. 225–246 Google Scholar; Gilson, ‘Learning to learn’.

47 Argyris, Chris and Schön, Donald A., Organizational Learning, Volume II (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. 1978)Google Scholar; Ebrahim, NGOs and Organizational Change; Ebrahim, ‘Towards a reflective accountability in NGOs’.

48 Hearn, Simon and White, Nancy, ‘Communities of practice: Linking knowledge, policy and practice’, Background Note, November (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2009)Google Scholar.

49 Hearn and White, ‘Communities of practice: Linking knowledge’; Wenger, ‘Communities of practice and social learning systems’; Gilson, ‘Learning to learn’.

50 Brown, ‘Multiparty social action and mutual accountability’, p. 107.

51 Grant and Keohane, ‘Accountability and abuses of power’; Gugerty and Pakash, ‘Nonprofit accountability clubs: an introduction’.

52 Terry, Fiona, ‘The humanitarian impulse: Imperatives versus consequences’, in Howard Adelman and Govind C. Rao (eds), War and Peace in Zaire-Congo: Analyzing and Evaluating Intervention 1996–1997 (Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press Inc., 2004), p. 214 Google Scholar.

53 Terry, The Paradox of Humanitarian Action, pp. 155, 200–1; Rieff, David, A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2003), pp. 166–167 Google Scholar; Vidal, John, ‘Rwanda: One year later: Genocide has turned humanitarian aid into a circus of self-interest, abuse and incompetence’, The Guardian (8 April 1995)Google Scholar.

54 Chief Executive Officer, Australian NGO, 21 May 2008.

55 Director, Child Protection & Emergency Response Unit, US NGO, 13 June 2008.

56 Borton, John, Brusset, Emery, and Hallam, Alistair, The International Response to Conflict and Genocide: Lessons from the Rwanda Experience: Study 3 Humanitarian Aid and Effects (Denmark: Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), 1996)Google Scholar; Power, Samantha, ‘Bystanders to a genocide: Why the United States let the Rwanda tragedy happen’, The Atlantic Monthly (September 2001)Google Scholar; Prunier, Gérard, The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

57 Anderson, Mary B., Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace-or War (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1999), p. 145 Google Scholar; Dallaire, Romeo, ‘The end of innocence: Rwanda 1994’, in Jonathan Moore (ed.), Hard Choices: Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention (NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 1998), pp. 82–83 Google Scholar.

58 Disaster Management Team Leader, US NGO, 8 December 2009.

59 Disaster Management Team Leader, US NGO, 8 December 2009; Michael Bryans, Bruce D. Jones, and Janice Gross Stein, ‘Mean times: Humanitarian action in complex political emergencies – stark choices, cruel dilemmas’, Report of the NGOs in Complex Emergencies Project, Coming to Terms, 1:3 (Center for International Studies, University of Toronto, 1999).

60 Terry, The Paradox of Humanitarian Action, p. 2.

61 Head of Strategic Policy, French NGO, 9 June 2008, trans. by author.

62 Johan Scharr, ‘The birth of good humanitarian donorship’, The Humanitarian Response Index (DARA, 2007), ch. 2, pp. 37–44.

63 Senior Director Humanitarian and Emergency Affairs, US NGO, 11 June 2008, emphasis added.

64 Manager, Programme Effectiveness, Australian NGO, 27 April 2008; Senior Programme Officer, Programme Design, Monitoring and Evaluation, US NGO, 9 May 2008.

65 Ebrahim, NGOs and Organizational Change.

66 Senior Director Humanitarian and Emergency Affairs, US NGO, 11 June 2008; Davis, Austen, Concerning Accountability of Humanitarian Action (London: Humanitarian Practice Network at the Overseas Development Institute, 2007)Google Scholar; Deloffre, ‘NGO accountability clubs’.

67 Dabelstein, Niels, ‘Evaluating the international humanitarian system: Rationale, process and management of the joint evaluation of the international response to the Rwanda Genocide’, Disasters, 20:4 (1996), pp. 287–294 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

68 Official Aid Agency Programme Evaluator, 10 January 2010; Senior Director Humanitarian and Emergency Affairs, US NGO, 11 June 2008; Programme Evaluator, 13 January 2010.

69 Official Aid Agency Programme Evaluator, 10 January 2010.

70 Official Aid Agency Programme Evaluator, 10 January 2010.

71 Senior Director for Humanitarian and Emergency Affairs, US NGO, 11 June 2008.

72 Borton et al., The International Response to Conflict and Genocide, pp. 210–11.

73 Official Aid Agency Programme Evaluator, 6 January 2010; Programme Evaluator, 13 January 2010; Borton, John and Eriksson, John, Lessons from Rwanda- Lessons for Today: Assessment of the Impact and Influence of the Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda (Denmark: Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004), p. 80 Google Scholar; Majorie Buchanan-Smith, ‘How the Sphere Project Came into Being: A Case Study of Policy-Making in the Humanitarian Aid Sector and the Relative Influence of Research’ (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2003), p. 7; Lowrie, Sean, ‘Sphere at the end of phase II’, Humanitarian Exchange, October (2000), pp. 11–14 Google Scholar.

74 Klasing, Amanda M., Moses, Scott P., and Satterthwaite, Margaret L., ‘Measuring the way forward in Haiti: Grounding disaster relief in the legal framework of human rights’, Health and Human Rights: An International Journal, 13:1 (2011), pp. 1–21 Google Scholar; Mitchell, John, ‘The Ombudsman Project: Pilot project to investigate the concept of an Ombudsman for humanitarian assistance’, Relief and Rehabilitation Network Newsletter, 9 (1997), p. 17 Google Scholar.

75 Mitchell, ‘The Ombudsman Project’; Christoplos, Ian, ‘Humanitarianism, pluralism and ombudsmen: Do the pieces fit?’, Disasters, 23:2 (1999), pp. 125–138 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

76 Davis, Concerning Accountability of Humanitarian Action, p. 8.

77 Doane, Deborah, ‘An Ombudsman for humanitarian assistance?’, Relief and Rehabilitation Network Newsletter (London: Overseas Development Institute 1998), pp. 11–12 Google Scholar; Christoplos, ‘Humanitarianism, pluralism and ombudsmen’.

78 Doane, ‘An Ombudsman for humanitarian assistance?’

79 Christoplos, ‘Humanitarianism, pluralism and ombudsmen.’

80 van Brabant, Koenraad, ‘Regaining perspective: the debate over quality assurance and accountability’, Humanitarian Exchange (2000), pp. 22–25 Google Scholar.

81 Groupe URD staff, personal communication, 20 July 2006; Grünewald, François, Pirotte, Claire, and de Geoffroy, Véronique, ‘Debating accountability’, Humanitarian Exchange (2001), pp. 35–36 Google Scholar.

82 Executive Director, French NGO, 20 June 2008, trans. by author.

83 Christoplos, ‘Humanitarianism, pluralism and ombudsmen’; Deloffre, ‘NGO accountability clubs’.

84 Tong, Jacqui, ‘Questionable accountability: MSF and Sphere in 2003’, Disasters, 28:2 (2004), pp. 176–189 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

85 Executive Director, French NGO, 20 June 2008, trans. by author.

86 Grünewald et al., ‘Debating accountability’.

87 Deborah Doane, ‘Outcome & Next Steps: Humanitarian Ombudsman Project Meeting 16 March 2000 Geneva’ (2000), available at: {http://www.icva.ch.} accessed 10 January 2013; Deborah Doane, ‘The Humanitarian Accountability Project: a voice for people affected by disaster and conflict’, Humanitarian Exchange, 17 (2000).

88 Field Operations Project Specialist, US NGO, 18 April 2008; CEO Australian NGO, 21 May 2008; Country Representative Sierra Leone and Guinea, US NGO, 3 June 2008; Doane, ‘Outcome & Next Steps’; Doane, ‘The Humanitarian Accountability Project; van Brabant, ‘Regaining perspective’.

89 Official Aid Agency Programme Evaluator, 10 January 2010.

90 HAP was renamed HAP-I in 2003.

91 Davis, Concerning Accountability of Humanitarian Action; Jordan, Lisa, ‘A rights-based approach to accountability’, in Alnoor Ebrahim and Edward Weisband (eds), Forging Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism and Public Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 151–167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 The 13 members included: CARE International, Caritas International, Danida, DFID, DRC, Fundemo, IFRC, OFADEC, Oxfam International, Sierra Leone Association of NGOs (SLANGO), SSRC, UNHCR, and World Vision International (Jordan 2007), fn. 5; Doane, ‘The Humanitarian Accountability Project’; Jordan, ‘A rights-based approach to accountability’, p. 160.

93 Davis, Concerning Accountability of Humanitarian Action; Jordan, ‘A rights-based approach to accountability’.

94 Manager, Programme Effectiveness, Australian NGO, 27 April 2008; Jordan, ‘A rights-based approach to accountability’, p. 162.

95 Chief Executive Officer, Australian NGO, 26 November 2009.

96 (1) Commitment to humanitarian standards and rights; (2) Setting standards and building capacity; (3) Communication; (4) Participation in programs; (5) Monitoring and reporting on compliance; (6) Addressing complaints; (7) Implementing partners. Standards, available at: {http://hapinternational.org/standards.aspx} accessed 10 January 2013.

97 HAP-I, ‘Drafting the Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management Standards Manual: Information for the Reference Group. 1–5 (Geneva, Switzerland: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership-International (n.d.)), emphasis in original.

98 Humanitarian Accountability Partnership, available at: {http://www.hapinternational.org/} accessed 2 April 2011.

99 HAP-I, ‘Drafing the Humanitarian Accountability’,

100 HAP-I, ‘The Humanitarian Accountability Report 2005’ (Geneva, Switzerland: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership-International 2005).

101 HAP-I, ‘Progress Update January. 1,’ (Geneva, Switzerland: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership-International 2006); HAP-I, ‘Drafing the Humanitarian Accountability’.

102 HAP-I, ‘Drafing the Humanitarian Accountability’.

103 HAP-I, ‘Drafing the Humanitarian Accountability’; HAP-I, ‘The Humanitarian Accountability Report 2005’.

104 HAP-I, ‘Progress Update January. 1.’

105 HAP-I, ‘Progress Update February to March. 1’ (Geneva, Switzerland: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership-International, 2006); HAP-I, ‘Progress Update April to July. 1–3’ (Geneva, Switzerland: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership-International, 2006).

106 Jennifer Birdsall and Monica Oliver, ‘HAP Standards Development Process Field Assessment Phase Results: Short Report’ (Geneva, Switzerland: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership-International, 2006), pp. 1–22.

107 Standards, available at: {http://hapinternational.org/standards.aspx} accessed 10 January 2013.

108 Members, available at: {http://www.hapinternational.org/membership/members.aspx} accessed 9 January 2015.

109 Includes contributions to consolidated appeals, natural disasters response, bilateral aid, and all other reported humanitarian funding.

110 Siméant, Johanna, ‘What is going global? The internationalization of French NGOs without borders’, Review of International Political Economy, 12:5 (2005), pp. 851–883 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111 DEC raises funds from the public on behalf of its members following a major emergency. Of DEC’s fourteen members, five (CAFOD, CARE, Oxfam, Tearfund, and WVI) are major NGO donors to HAP-I.

112 Devonport, Annie and Roe, Cait Turvey, ‘Accountability: the DEC’s experience’, Humanitarian Exchange (2011), pp. 23–26 Google Scholar.

113 Devonport and Roe, ‘Accountability: the DEC’s experience’.

114 Scharr, ‘The birth of good humanitarian donorship’, p. 39.

115 Meeting Conclusions, International Meeting on Good Humanitarian Donorship, Stockholm, 16–17 June 2003.

116 Humanitarian Policy Group, ‘Roundtable on the Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative: Ten years on’, Overseas Development Institute offices London, 29 November 2012.

117 Kreidler, Corinna, ‘The role of donors in enhancing quality and accountability in humanitarian aid’, Humanitarian Exchange (2011), pp. 21–23 Google Scholar.

118 Kreidler, ‘The role of donors’; Graves, Susan and Wheeler, Victoria, ‘Good Humanitarian Donorship: Overcoming Obstacles to Improved Collective Donor Performance’ (London: Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute, 2006)Google Scholar.

119 Ebrahim, ‘Towards a reflective accountability in NGOs’.

120 Djelic, Marie-Laure and Sahlin, Kerstin, ‘Reordering the world: Transnational regulatory governance and its challenges’, in David Levi-Faur (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 745–758 Google Scholar.

121 Vogel, ‘Private global business regulation’; Haufler, Virginia, A Public Role for the Private Sector (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2001)Google Scholar.