Does the literature highlight significant variations in approaches, challenges or successes in strategic autonomy depending on the size of the organization, the sector of intervention, the geographic region (e.g., French-speaking vs. English-speaking Africa) or the national context?
The literature highlights notable disparities in the approaches, obstacles encountered and successes observed in terms of strategic autonomy of African NGOs and CSOs, according to various contextual factors, the first of which are the geographical region and the national framework in which they operate.
Regarding the geographical region, the source indicates an underperformance of developing countries, particularly those in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, in terms of the number of NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC relative to the population. For example, the index of the number of NGOs per million inhabitants is 0.41 for the MENA region, compared to 1.35 for Europe. Moreover, the quantitative participation of NGOs from the MENA region in ECOSOC meetings and conferences from 2001 to 2008 was dominated by a small number of North African countries (Morocco, Egypt, and Iran), representing 51% of the total. The source emphasizes that restrictions in the legal and political system are a major obstacle to the participation of NGOs from the MENA region in UN activities. The source highlights the role of the national political, economic and social context in the effectiveness of civil society, suggesting that more favorable contexts would allow NGOs to clarify their vision, strategies and obtain better support from the populations.
Although the source focuses on African NGOs in general, it does not explicitly distinguish between the Francophone and Anglophone regions in terms of strategic autonomy. However, the example of the Bourse Régionale des Valeurs Mobilières (BRVM) in Côte d’Ivoire, which is the only fully integrated regional financial market in Africa and covers eight Francophone West African countries, suggests that regional integration initiatives in Francophone countries could offer specific opportunities to strengthen financial autonomy through regional capital markets.
Regarding the national context, the source emphasizes that an NGO must be sufficiently autonomous and independent of direct government control to be recognized as a non-profit organization. The source also mentions that the prevalence of weak states and declining markets in Africa has led to the proliferation of NGOs as the only alternative to promote grassroots development. The source highlights the key role of a nation’s political, economic, and social context in the effectiveness of its civil society, which indirectly influences their ability to achieve strategic autonomy. Restrictions in legal and political systems are cited as obstacles to NGO participation in international activities, which can limit their ability to diversify their partnerships and funding sources.
Organizational size and sector of intervention are not explicitly addressed in terms of strategic autonomy in the sources provided. However, one could infer that larger organizations might have more resources to diversify their funding and explore new business models. Similarly, the sector of intervention could influence the types of funding available (for example, health NGOs might have access to specific health funding). However, these aspects are not directly supported by the texts.
In summary, the literature highlights significant variations in strategic autonomy mainly depending on the geographical region (notably the MENA region), where specific challenges related to the political and legal context are highlighted, and the national context, which influences the environment in which NGOs operate and their ability to be autonomous from the government and to mobilize resources.
