A blog post of the Notes from the Field series on the Aid Watch blog was written by a "veteran NGO leader" from Nepal, Scott MacLennan, decrying the absentee management and outright deceptions of large NGOs, arguing that "Only small NGOs it seems are able to actually get out in the field and get their hands dirty making things happen."

An opposing argument is that only competent, well-run NGOs are able to make things happen, and those factors are unrelated to size. It comes down to the skills and qualities of the people running the NGO. An organization can influence this by the way it selects people. This is wholly unrelated to size.

Here is a list of the pros and cons of small and large NGOs:

Large NGOs[edit | edit source]


  1. Have a certain base level of competence because of their broader experience.
  2. They can more easily expand or supplicate successful projects.
  3. They usually have enough staff that if a country director in Nepal leaves they can pull someone from, say, Sri Lanka rather than leave the post vacant while they hire.
  4. They are used to the requirements and mechanics of donor bureaucracy, and that lets them get started more quickly and not be bogged down in paperwork.
  5. They generally have more experience with financial controls and are usually better at it.
  6. They may have enough different projects to leverage their presence. For example, I once threatened a local official that we'd cancel laboratory skills trainings if they didn't allow a child health campaign.


  1. They can be inflexible.
  2. They can have a lot of bureaucracy that stifles change.
  3. They may lose their personal touch - it's just work to them.
  4. They generally have a higher percentage of funding from government donoirs, which limits their programmatic options.

Small NGOs[edit | edit source]


  1. They tend to be more flexible and able to change directions quickly.
  2. They tend to be emotionally committed to their work.
  3. They are generally funded by small private donors, which means they have many more choices of how to use their money.
  4. They are often very connected to the communities they serve.
  5. They can be more innovative.


  1. May be short on technical background, or have more good intentions than useful knowledge.
  2. They may not have enough experience to realize they are reinventing the wheel, or worse yet, reinventing a flat tire.
  3. May not have dedicated finance and administrative staff, which means financial accountability is weaker.
  4. If a staff member leaves, they have to advertise and hire to replace them - no pool of people to draw on.

That list makes it pretty clear that it's not the size of the NGO that matters. Different kinds of organizations have different strengths, and what matters is how an organization uses those strengths and overcomes its weaknesses. Size, by itself, doesn't matter.

External links[edit | edit source]

  • For more reading on small, community-based organizations, see: Are we overlooking the capacities of local NGOs?. How-matters.org argues that rather than being the lowest common denominator of international assistance, indigenous organizations should be regarded as the fundamental unit of effective development aid.
FA info icon.svg Angle down icon.svg Page data
Authors Alanna Shaikh, Chriswaterguy
License CC-BY-SA-3.0
Ported from http://bloodandmilk.org/?p=1322 (original)
Language English (en)
Related 0 subpages, 1 pages link here
Impact 1,922 page views
Created January 30, 2010 by Chris Watkins
Modified April 14, 2023 by Felipe Schenone
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.