Navigating the third sector

In this modern world driven by rapid sociocultural changes, international conflicts and manmade and natural disasters, the socio-economic and political organisation of human society – citizens of a nation-state – is divided into three sectors: the public (governmental or state owned and managed), the private (commercial and corporate), and the non-governmental, non-commercial sector now recognised as the ‘third sector’.

Third sector organisation (TSOs) is a term used to describe the range of organisations that are neither public sector nor private sector. Alongside the first two sectors, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have been recognised as a significant and influential entity.

The term ‘non-governmental organisation’ was first used by the United Nations in its charter in 1950, and since then, it has gained widespread recognition, even among uneducated individuals in our parts of the world who colloquially refer to them as ‘injoos’ with a usual negative connotation attached to NGOs by certain factions and governmental agencies.

Many common people in Pakistan mistakenly categorise governmental and UN agencies such as USAID, SDC, DFID, SIDA, CIDA, UNHCR, WHO, Unesco and Unicef as NGOs, despite these institutions being funded and operated by the governments of the US, Switzerland, the UK, Sweden, Canada, and the UN.

NGOs encompass all non-governmental institutions and groups that work for humanitarian welfare, particularly during crises or conflicts. They can generally be classified into three broad categories: charitable, non-profit organisations that operate independently of the government and directly engage with communities, including associations, community groups and movements.

In his paper ‘The Emergence and Role of Nongovernmental Organizations’ in The Palgrave Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility published in 2021, Lowel lJ Gretebeck divided the emergence and growth of third-sector organisations into three phases: until 1900, from 1914 to 1945, and from 1945 onwards.

First, the emergence of large-scale voluntary services was driven by religious missionary activities. During this period, the NGO sector was closely linked to religious revivalism. Early organisations aimed not only at proselytisation but also at humanitarian assistance, including establishing schools and hospitals. The Philippines was among the first locations where relief efforts were initiated, as it was the first US colony acquired from Spain in the early 20th century. Major organisations such as the American Red Cross were founded in 1887.

In the second phase, the growth of the non-profit sector in the US aligned with economic development patterns. This period witnessed the rise of both religious and secular groups providing international disaster relief. For instance, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) was founded in 1917 to deliver medical services to civilian victims during and after World War I. Similarly, America’s Save the Children was established, shifting the aid paradigm from mere charity to long-term child and family welfare.

The defining characteristic of the third phase has been a shift from emergency relief to long-term sustainable development programs. After World War II, religious and ecclesiastical programs introduced secular relief initiatives focusing on humanitarian services without religious proselytisation. Notable organisations established during this period include Catholic Relief Services, Church World Service, and Lutheran World Relief.

Another key feature of this era has been the emphasis on capacity-building among local partners, providing training and technical assistance. Closer ties with the US government also became a crucial aspect of this evolutionary stage.

The NGO sector has never been above criticism. This criticism often spans over certain segments of a society. The debate has also dragged NGOs into the discussion, with critics emerging from three distinct ideological perspectives:

First comes the leftist perspective which would primarily include a communist/socialist critique: This perspective argues that the US government utilised USAID and the CIA to undermine the Soviet Union globally. According to them, these agencies mobilised resources to finance right-wing capitalist and religious groups against Soviet influence. This phenomenon was particularly evident in the Soviet Afghan war in this region, where religious groups and parties in Pakistan were extensively utilised by aligning them with the military counter-interventions in Afghanistan.

Then comes critique by far-right religious segments. This group critiques the NGO sector from a moral standpoint, believing that it promotes ‘Western values’. While the term ‘Western values’ remains ambiguous, for these critics, it broadly implies ‘immorality’. Though there are legitimate critiques of international NGOs from a post-colonial and neo-imperialist perspective, this group often disregards historical context. Ironically, these religious organisations played a pivotal role as frontline allies of the CIA in the war against the erstwhile Soviet Union.

Last but not least is internal critique. Though meager, there is still some internal criticism too. Critics from within NGOS think that these organisations, instead of providing services, should hold governments accountable, ensuring that states fulfill their responsibilities in providing public services, freedoms, and development. They argue that NGOs often undertake responsibilities that should be managed by the state, leading to governmental complacency. Instead, NGOs should empower local populations to demand their rights from their respective governments.

Following US President Trump’s decision to curtail USAID, a new debate has emerged. While some welcomed the dissolution of USAID, others within the US have criticised the move.

In response to Trump’s USAID policies, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof commented in his column, ‘The World’s Richest Men Take On the World’s Poorest Children’ on February 5 that Elon Musk proudly claimed that he had dismantled USAID, an agency that has saved the lives of the world’s poorest children. USAID has been instrumental in global health, education, and economic improvements. However, funding cuts and foreign aid suspensions by the Trump administration have hampered disease surveillance, particularly for bird flu and Ebola.

John F Kennedy supported the agency’s establishment in 1961, warning that reducing aid could be ‘disastrous and costly’. Trump’s policies have been labeled cruel and short-sighted, exacerbating difficulties for the world’s most vulnerable populations. USAID employees have played a crucial role in saving millions of lives worldwide, particularly in maternal health, malaria eradication, AIDS relief and educational advancements.

Attacking USAID is, as this argument goes, an attack on the world’s poorest and most defenseless communities. This is not just a political issue but a matter of life and death for millions of children and families.

The NGO sector has evolved significantly over time. While NGOs play a crucial role in humanitarian relief and development, they are also subject to political, ideological and ethical critiques. Understanding these perspectives is essential for assessing the true impact and future direction of NGOs in a rapidly changing global landscape.

There is plenty of research which concludes that NGOs have a comparative positive advantage over government-led initiatives which are often regarded as bureaucratically inefficient, inadequate in research; and limited in scope.