Comprehensive INGO Accountability to Strengthen Perceived Program Effectiveness: A Logical Thing?

Abstract

The accountability of international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) has come under closer public and academic scrutiny. Critics call for a more comprehensive approach to accountability—one that addresses a wider set of stakeholders, and beneficiaries in particular. There is an increase in empirical evidence suggesting that comprehensive accountability has positive implications for the organizational performance. This article develops a framework for comprehensive INGO accountability and tests its implications on program effectiveness. The framework describes three accountability meta-logics: the resource logic, outcome assessment logic, and discursive logic. Applying partial least squares structural equation modeling, the impact of these meta-logics on perceived program effectiveness as well as their drivers is tested. The analysis is based on a unique data set from an international survey among 201 INGO leaders from 21 countries. The findings suggest that comprehensive accountability indeed strengthens the perceived program effectiveness. The study emphasizes the managerial argument that implementing comprehensive accountability, not only is the “right thing” to do, but also has the strategic advantage of strengthening perceived mission achievement.