The big idea: NGOs and wider civil society deliver aid, run projects and pressure governments. They can reach the poorest where states fail — but they are also unelected and depend on donors, so their role in development is debated.
- Deliver aid & services — food, clean water, health and schooling, often reaching remote or neglected areas.
- Run development projects — from microfinance to farming and women's empowerment.
- Advocate & pressure — campaign for debt relief, fair trade, human rights and better policies.
- Hold power to account — expose corruption and give voice to the poor and marginalised.
Strength and weakness in one: NGOs' great strength is that they are close to the ground and driven by a mission, not profit or votes. But that same independence is a weakness. This tension runs through every debate about their role.
The strength
- They can reach people states and companies ignore.
The weakness
- They are unelected.
- They are accountable to donors, not to the people they serve.
- They depend on funding that can pull them toward donors' priorities.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
NGOs can achieve remarkable things — but they are not a substitute for a working state, and critics ask whether they truly empower the poor or create dependence and answer to the wrong people.
Why NGOs are valuable for development
They deliver aid and services fast and flexibly, reach the poorest and most remote where governments cannot or will not, bring expertise and innovation, give voice to the marginalised, and pressure governments and companies toward fairer policies — filling gaps that states and markets leave.
The criticisms of NGOs
They are unelected and accountable to donors rather than to the people they serve, can bypass and weaken local governments, may impose outside priorities, compete for funding, and can create dependence — so critics argue they are no substitute for a capable, accountable state.
Case study — NGOs filling the gap where the state is weak: In places where the government cannot or will not provide basic services, NGOs often step in — running clinics, schools, clean-water projects and emergency relief that reach the poorest. This saves lives and improves millions of livelihoods.
But it raises hard questions
- NGOs answer to foreign donors, not local voters.
- By providing services, they can let weak governments off the hook rather than building state capacity.
- Their priorities can reflect donor fashions more than local needs.
The lesson: NGOs are vital where the state fails, but lasting development still needs a capable, accountable state — NGOs complement it, they do not replace it.
The key point: NGOs and civil society are valuable development actors — delivering aid, running projects, advocating and holding power to account, especially where states fail. But they are unelected and donor-dependent, so they complement rather than replace a capable, accountable state.
Learn what examiners really want
See exactly what to write to score full marks. Our AI shows you model answers and the key phrases examiners look for.
Are NGOs a force for good in development or do they undermine states and local control? And should development be led by NGOs or by governments? Recurring debates. Weigh them.
The accountability problem
Governments can be voted out; NGOs cannot. They answer to their donors and boards, not to the communities they serve, so critics ask whether they are truly accountable — even when their work is excellent.
Why NGOs complement, not replace, the state
Lasting development needs a state that can tax, plan, provide services at scale and be held accountable by its people; NGOs can fill gaps, innovate and pressure, but development led only by NGOs cannot build that capable, accountable state — so the best role is partnership.
One view: NGOs are essential
- They reach the poorest where states fail
- They hold power to account where states fail
Another view: unelected and donor-driven
- They are unelected and donor-driven
- They can weaken local states
Two perspectives — weigh them: Strong essays judge that NGOs do vital, often superb work, but cannot replace a capable, accountable state. So the best model is NGOs and states working in partnership, with NGOs building state capacity rather than substituting for it.
How NGOs and civil society come up in Paper 2: A Paper 2 essay might ask whether NGOs are effective development actors, or whether they undermine states. Weigh their reach and advocacy against their accountability limits, then judge — usually partnership, not replacement.
The 15-mark markband (what moves you up)
Bands 1–6
Mostly descriptive; perspectives not identified.
avoid
Bands 7–9
Clear knowledge, but perspectives identified, not explored.
7–9
Bands 10–12
Well-supported argument; perspectives explored.
10–12
Bands 13–15
Balanced, compelling; perspectives explored AND evaluated.
13–15
Evaluate the effectiveness of NGOs as actors in development.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Treating NGOs as flawless heroes or useless meddlers. Weigh both.
2. Ignoring accountability. Unelected, donor-dependent is central.
3. Forgetting the state. NGOs complement, not replace it.
4. Listing what NGOs do. Judge where they add what states cannot — and where they don't.
5. No judgement. Conclude — usually partnership.