most interestingly, that they are forming transnational networks among each other--indeed many NGOs today are transna-
tional networks. Further, the larger context within which NGOs are operating has changed significantly: there is today a
whole discourse about NGOs which has exploded onto the scene and has given the notion of NGOs (often more so than the
actual NGOs) much greater visibility. Further, there is today a massive interest by Western governments in NGOs and the
large western private funders are putting enormous resources into some NGOs. In fact, some NGOs function as subcon-
tractors to governments: for instance, the U.S. Wildlife Fund gets over half of its budget from USAID, to do work that a gov-
ernment could do. Finally, many governments are now “mandated” to consult with NGOs, and so are the World Bank and the
IME.

One issue that has emerged forcefully in recent years is that of NGO influence on states. In his research, Pter Uven has
found that it is only a small minority of mostly the very large western NGOs that lobby states. Some of the lobbying has a
global circuit: to get back to one's state a NGO may go through various organisations in different countries, e.g. influence
international organisations so that these put pressure on the home state of an NGO. Further, we also see innovative strate-
gies for influencing governments that go beyond western style lobbying. For instance, one large Indian NGO delegated part
of its staff to the Indian gov't and tried to change the government position on specific issues from the inside. Finally, we
are also seeing joint venturing with state agencies, which is another way of shaping a government's agenda on specific is-
sues. These cases also represent the increasginly ambiguous distinction private/public discussed above.

The evidence does show that NGOs can effect power redistribution even though they do so slowly and often at micro
scales: e.g. micro-credit extended to women has done more to empower them than government legislation and Bureaus of
Women's Affairs. More generally, today NGOs often directly engage questions of democracy, empowerment and redistribu-
tion in a way that they did not in the past.

There is an emergent hyper-critique of NGOs today, focused particularly on the large western NGOs that are well financed,
operate globally and have basically technocratic organizational standards. According to james Ron, they are basically de-
politicising the motivations and objectives of NGO activists and, more broadly, depoliticizing international political move-
ments. The large, well-funded NGOs have developed multiple standards that they implement in their work and expect com-
pliance with on the part of workers and beneficiary communities all over the world and embedded in specific cultures.
They have the effect of westernizing what they get engaged with; they do so through the implementation of organizational
standards and codes across borders and through imposition on people who may have a very different experience or per-
spective on an event or notion of politics. This leads to the formation of an elite stratum of NGOs that become the favorites
of large Western funders and set the standards for other NGOs if they are to be funded. They then emerge as the “good
NGOs."

Further this world of NGOs is seen as a part of the West's hegemonic project: by instituting standards and aiming at
strengthening western style liberal democracy they have the effect of making places safe for western-style capitalism.
These elite NGOs often by-pass national governments in developing countries arguing that they want to institute standards
and western style democracy in places where the national and local governments are not oriented this way. James Ron
finds this to be especially the case in Africa. At the same time, Peter Uven notes that many NGOs act the western, neutral
role while dealing with funders --mostly from the west-- but when that Phase is over and they have the funds they re-enter
their society and can turn out to be very political.

A lot of NGOs may have started in opposition to the state, but have become mutually constitutive with it (Lipschutz 1996).
Today they wind up augmenting the capacities of states, providing the equivalent of welfare services, generally subcon-
tracting “state work." This is not always bad. On the Contrary, as the case of ISO-14000 (the environmental protection se-
ries of standards in the International Satandards Organisation) illustrates. In the US, it deploys more inspectors going from
factory to factory checking on compliance with standards than the EPA (the government's Environmental Protection
Agency). But one question is whether there is Capture of national environmental agendas by specific interests, notably cor-
porate interests embedded in the state. By acting as enforcer of national law, ISO does not function as a critic, potentially
in opposition to the state, but merely as an entity augmenting the inspection capacities of the state (Lipschutz 1996).
In sum, some of the depoliticisation of NGOs evident in the above series of examples is emblematic of a broader pattern of

GAAREARARR®M