Principle: DiMaggio & Powell (1983), Meyer & Rowan (1977) – Organizations operate in “organizational fields” where they are subject to pressures (coercive, mimetic, normative) to adopt structures, practices and discourses considered legitimate by their environment (State, donors, peers, professions). This conformity (isomorphism) aims to ensure survival and access to resources, but can be at the expense of technical efficiency or real autonomy.
APPLICATION TO AFRICAN NGOs: #
- The heavy dependence of African NGOs on international donors pushes them to adopt management models, tools (logical framework, standardized reporting), structures (modern board of directors) and even thematic priorities defined by the dominant standards of the “North”.
- This pressure for “professionalization” and standardization, while potentially improving some aspects, risks stifling local innovation, distancing NGOs from their community bases, and limiting their ability to define their own strategies based on real needs and the local context. The search for external legitimacy sometimes takes precedence over local relevance.
Concrete case / Evidence: Studies (for example, in the work of D. Lewis, A. Fowler, or other sector analysts) show the almost universal diffusion of certain project management tools (such as the logical framework) imposed by donors, even when their local relevance is questionable. We also observe waves of “mimicry” where NGOs adopt fashionable themes (microfinance, then gender, then climate…) to attract funding.
Critique / African Nuance: Institutional theory may underestimate the capacity of local actors to negotiate, adapt, or “hybridize” external norms with local logics (sometimes referred to as “glocalization”). Legitimacy is not only sought from donors; it is also sought (and sometimes in conflicting ways) from local communities, traditional authorities, or the state, creating complex institutional games and navigation strategies specific to the African context.
