REPORT ON THE CONDITIONS FOR FINANCIAL AUTONOMY OF AFRICAN NSOs AND CSOs ACCORDING TO THE RESOURCE DEPENDENCE THEORY (RDT)

Introduction #

Context and Problems

Financial autonomy is a fundamental issue for the credibility, operational efficiency and sustainability of institutions in Africa, particularly for National Statistical Offices (NSOs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). For NSOs, guarantors of the production of reliable data necessary for development planning and good governance, autonomy is synonymous with professional independence and the ability to resist political influences. For CSOs, essential actors in democracy, advocacy and service delivery, financial autonomy conditions their ability to pursue their mission without compromise and to respond to the needs of their beneficiaries rather than solely to the demands of funders.

However, both NSOs and CSOs in Africa face a structural tension: their critical need for external resources (government funding, international aid, private donations) frequently conflicts with the need to preserve their operational, financial, and strategic independence. This tension is exacerbated by the African context, which is often marked by severe economic constraints, latent political instability, sometimes restrictive regulatory frameworks, and a historical legacy of aid dependency. Overreliance on external funding can lead to increased vulnerability, mission drift, and upward accountability toward donors rather than toward citizens or beneficiaries.

Purpose of the Report

This report aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the conditions necessary for the financial autonomy of African NSOs and CSOs by mobilizing the analytical framework of Resource Dependency Theory (RDT), initially developed by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Gerald Salancik. The main objective is to identify the specific dynamics of resource dependence that characterize these two types of organizations on the continent, and to deduce, from the postulates of RDT, concrete strategies aimed at reducing these dependencies and strengthening their financial and strategic room for maneuver.

Theoretical Framework: Resource Dependence Theory (RDT)

The choice of Resource Dependency Theory (RDT) as the primary analytical framework is justified by its particular relevance for studying resource relationships between organizations and their external environment. RDT posits that organizations, not being self-sufficient, must interact with their environment to acquire the resources necessary for their survival and functioning. This inherent dependence confers power to the external entities that control these critical resources. RDT thus focuses on how organizations actively manage these dependency and power relationships to reduce uncertainty and increase their autonomy. It offers a “catalogue” of strategies (alliances, diversification, integration, political action, etc.) that organizations can deploy to navigate their environment and secure their access to resources while preserving their decision-making capacity. This perspective, which emphasizes strategic action in the face of external constraints, is particularly suited to analyzing the challenges and opportunities faced by African NSOs and CSOs in their quest for financial autonomy.

Structure of the Report

The report is structured around six main sections. Section 1 outlines the foundations of RDT and its implications for organizational autonomy. Sections 2 and 3 specifically apply RDT to African NSOs and CSOs, analyzing their respective dependencies, impacts on their autonomy, and potential strategies suggested by the theory. Section 4 examines the political, economic, structural, and capacity challenges specific to the African context that hinder the pursuit of autonomy. Section 5 offers a comparative analysis of dependency dynamics and pathways to autonomy for NSOs versus CSOs. Finally, Section 6 synthesizes the key conditions emerging from the RDT analysis and makes differentiated recommendations for strengthening the financial autonomy of NSOs and CSOs in Africa. A General Conclusion summarizes the contributions and limitations of the analysis.

Section 1: Resource Dependence Theory (RDT): Foundations and Implications for Self-Reliance #

This section details the fundamental principles of Resource Dependence Theory (RDT) and explores how dependence on external resources influences the autonomy of organizations.

Fundamental Principles of RTD (Pfeffer & Salancik)

• Definition and Origin: RDT, primarily articulated by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Gerald Salancik in their seminal 1978 work, “The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective,” offers a framework for understanding how organizations’ behavior and decisions are shaped by their need to acquire external resources. Emerging in the 1970s, RDT is part of the open systems perspective, viewing organizations as interdependent on their environment, as opposed to earlier theories that emphasized internal factors (goals, leadership, culture). The theory seeks to explain how organizations manage these interdependencies to ensure their survival and functioning.
• Resource Dependence: The central premise of RTD is that no organization is self-sufficient. All depend on external resources—raw materials, funding, information, technology, skilled personnel, legitimacy—that come from their environment. This environment is largely made up of other organizations that own or control these resources. The degree of dependence of one organization (A) on another (B) that controls a resource is determined by three main factors:

1. The importance of the resource for the functioning and survival of A.
2. The degree of control (discretion) that B exercises over the allocation of and access to this resource.
3. The availability of alternatives or substitutes for that resource. The more crucial a resource is, the more concentrated its control, and the fewer alternatives there are, the greater the dependence.

• Power and Interdependence: Dependence is intrinsically linked to power. According to RDT, B’s power over A is directly proportional to A’s dependence on the resources controlled by B. Power is not a fixed quantity (a zero-sum game) but is relational (it exists between specific organizations), situational (it depends on context and timing), and potentially mutual (two organizations can be dependent on each other, creating interdependence). This interdependence can be symmetrical or asymmetrical, where one organization is significantly more dependent than the other, creating power imbalances. Organizations often seek to minimize their own dependence while maximizing the dependence of others on them.
• External Control and Uncertainty: Dependence on external resources exposes the organization to uncertainty and potential control by external actors who hold these resources. This uncertainty concerns the availability, cost, or conditions of access to resources, threatening the stability and predictability needed by the organization. Organizations are therefore motivated to actively manage their environment to reduce this uncertainty and minimize external control.
• Role of Management: From the RDT perspective, the primary role of managers is not only to manage internal operations, but also to manage the organization’s external dependencies. Managers must identify critical dependencies, assess sources of power in the environment, and implement strategies to secure the necessary resource flows, ensure the organization’s survival, and increase its autonomy.

The Influence of Dependence on Organizational Autonomy

• Definition of Autonomy: Autonomy is a central concept in RDT. It is defined as the freedom for an organization to make decisions regarding the allocation and use of its internal resources without being subject to the influence or dictates of external actors. Achieving and maintaining autonomy is a major objective for organizations facing resource dependence, as it is seen as essential to the survival and pursuit of the organization’s own objectives.
• Negative Impact of Dependence: Heavy reliance on external resources inherently limits an organization’s autonomy. It constrains strategic choices, as the organization must consider the demands and expectations of resource providers. In extreme cases, dependence can lead to “goal displacement,” where the organization alters its activities or priorities to satisfy the interests of the stakeholders on which it depends, to the detriment of its original mission or the needs of its primary beneficiaries. Dependence can also require changes in internal processes, structures, or operating rules to comply with the requirements of funders or suppliers. This loss of autonomy generates uncertainty about the organization’s ability to achieve its own objectives and ensure its sustainability.
• RDT Strategies and Autonomy: RDT is not only a theory of constraint, but also a theory of strategic action. It posits that organizations are not passive victims of their environment, but actively seek to manage and shape it to reduce their dependence and increase their autonomy. To do this, they deploy various strategies, often in the form of interorganizational relationships (IORs). These include:

• Diversification of resource sources to avoid excessive dependence on a single actor.
• Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) to internalize a critical resource or eliminate a source of dependency (e.g., vertical integration).
• Strategic alliances and joint ventures (JVs) to share resources, risks or access new markets.
• Co-optation, for example by integrating representatives of key external organizations onto the board of directors to gain their support or privileged access to resources.
• Political action and lobbying to influence the legal or regulatory environment in one’s favor.
• Developing internal resources to reduce the need to rely on external sources.

It is crucial to note that the quest for autonomy through these strategies does not necessarily lead to autarky. The goal is not isolation, but rather to obtain greater strategic room for maneuver. Indeed, several of these strategies, such as alliances or joint ventures, create new forms of interdependence, albeit potentially more balanced or better managed. RDT suggests that organizations tend to choose the least restrictive strategy possible that allows them to effectively manage dependence. It is therefore a constant trade-off between securing necessary resources and preserving flexibility and decision-making control. Some strategies, such as contractual alliances or networks (“interlocks”), can stabilize access to resources without excessively sacrificing autonomy, as they can often be dissolved more easily than mergers. Autonomy, from the RDT perspective, is therefore a relative notion, a dynamic equilibrium to be sought rather than an absolute state of independence.

Section 2: RDT Applied to African National Statistical Offices (NSOs) #

This section analyzes the specific dependencies of NSOs in Africa and their consequences on autonomy, before proposing RDT-based strategies to strengthen the latter.

Critical Dependencies of ONS

African NSOs, as organizations, operate in a complex environment where they depend on multiple actors for essential resources. The RDT helps identify several critical dependencies:

• Government Funding: The most structural dependence is on the national budget allocated by the government. However, this funding is often insufficient to cover all needs (current operations, surveys, censuses, technological investments), unstable due to economic fluctuations or changing political priorities, and subject to the direct control of the supervisory ministry. This financial dependence gives the government significant power over the direction and operation of the NSO, as predicted by the RDT.
• International Donors: Faced with insufficient national budgets, many African NSOs rely heavily on international donors (World Bank, African Development Bank (AfDB), United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), PARIS21, bilateral cooperation agencies, etc.). This external funding is often crucial for major statistical operations (decennial censuses, demographic and health surveys, surveys on living conditions), the modernization of infrastructure and methods, as well as the strengthening of human and technical capacities. Regional initiatives such as the Forum on Statistical Development in Africa (FASDev) or the Strategy for the Harmonization of Statistics in Africa (SHaSA), although aimed at improving coordination and capacities, also create and formalize dependency links with the regional and international institutions that support them.
• Technical and Human Resources: Beyond funding, NSOs often rely on external sources for specialized technical expertise (new methodologies, data collection and analysis technologies, data science, Big Data), ongoing staff training, and sometimes even to address the lack of qualified statisticians or computer scientists at the national level. This technical support is often provided or funded by the same international partners that provide financial support.
• Technical and Human Resources: Beyond funding, NSOs often rely on external sources for specialized technical expertise (new methodologies, data collection and analysis technologies, data science, Big Data), ongoing staff training, and sometimes even to address the lack of qualified statisticians or computer scientists at the national level. This technical support is often provided or funded by the same international partners that provide financial support.

Impact on Operational and Financial Autonomy

This multi-dependence has direct and significant consequences on the autonomy of African NSOs:

• Limited Operational and Financial Autonomy: The dual dependence on the government (budget, supervision) and donors (additional funding, technical assistance) significantly restricts the NSOs’ room for maneuver. A report highlights that only 12 of the 54 African Union member countries have an NSO considered autonomous. The lack of budgetary autonomy, where the NSO does not directly manage its own funds, is a major constraint. The legal status, often placing the NSO under the direct supervision of a ministry (Finance, Planning), reinforces this institutional dependence and limits professional independence. Statistical laws exist, but their effective enforcement may be insufficient.
• Influence on Statistical Priorities: Heavy reliance on external funding frequently leads to a situation where donor priorities prevail over long-term national statistical needs. NSOs may be incentivized to devote their resources (human and material) to specific surveys or impact evaluations funded by external projects, often one-off (micro-oriented), to the detriment of the regular production of fundamental statistics (vital registration, agricultural statistics, basic national accounts) or investment in national information systems. This phenomenon corresponds to the concept of “goal displacement” identified by the RTD.
• Budgetary Instability and Uncertainty: The combination of often insufficient and unpredictable domestic funding and external funding tied to specific projects and subject to donor budget cycles creates ongoing uncertainty for NSOs. This instability makes it difficult to carry out medium- and long-term strategic planning, maintain stable technical teams, and consistently implement national statistical programs. The RTD emphasizes that organizations are seeking to reduce this environmental uncertainty.
• Reduced Capacity for Innovation and Modernization: Although donors often support modernization initiatives, structural dependence and the lack of own and predictable resources can hamper the intrinsic capacity of NSOs to innovate, to adopt new technologies (e.g., Big Data, geospatial) autonomously and sustainably, and to adapt their systems to changing user needs.

The interweaving of financial dependence and the lack of institutional autonomy creates a particularly strong double constraint for NSOs. The RDT highlights how the government’s control over budgetary resources and the legal framework ² severely limits NSOs’ room for maneuver. Financial autonomy cannot therefore be considered in isolation from institutional and political autonomy.

RDT Strategies for the Autonomy of NSOs

Drawing inspiration from the dependency management strategies proposed by the RDT, African NSOs can consider several avenues for increasing their autonomy:

• Strengthening Advocacy and Negotiation Capacity: NSOs must develop a proactive capacity to negotiate with their main resource providers.

• To the government: Advocate for an increase and stabilization of national budgets, as well as for a legal status guaranteeing greater operational and professional autonomy. The argument can be based on demonstrating the added value of statistics for good governance, informed decision-making, monitoring national development plans, and attracting investment.
• Towards donors: Negotiate for funding that is more aligned with National Statistics Development Strategies (NSDS), less fragmented, more predictable (multi-year), and includes a share for operating costs and sustainable institutional strengthening. The RDT suggests that clarity of needs and demonstration of internal capacity strengthen bargaining power.
• (Prudent) Diversification of Funding Sources: Actively explore alternative funding sources to the state budget and traditional donors. This could include:

• Partnerships with the private sector for specific projects or access to certain data (e.g. anonymized mobile data), ensuring confidentiality and ethics.
• Collaboration with other government agencies that are heavy users of data.
• RDT Nuance: Diversification can increase management complexity and administrative costs.³⁵ It must be strategically evaluated to ensure that it effectively reduces overall dependence or increases autonomy.
• Own Revenue Generation / Cost Recovery: This strategy, although less documented for African NSOs in the sources provided, is worth exploring. NSOs could consider charging for certain value-added services:

• Carrying out specific surveys or analyses at the request of private or public actors (outside the basic statistical program).
• Sale of specialized statistical publications or access to anonymized databases for commercial or research uses.
• Development of cost recovery models for certain products or services, while ensuring free access to fundamental statistics considered a public good.
• Challenges: This approach raises important questions regarding the NSO’s public service mandate, fair access to information, and the risk of prioritizing profit-making activities over core missions. It requires a clear legal and ethical framework.

• Internal Capacity Building: Continuously invest in developing the technical (statistics, IT, data analysis) and managerial (strategic planning, project management, negotiation, communication) skills of NSO staff. Strong internal expertise reduces dependence on external technical assistance and strengthens the NSO’s credibility and bargaining power, in line with RTD principles.
• Improving Donor Coordination: NSOs have a role to play in demanding and facilitating better coordination between various technical and financial partners. This involves promoting the SNDS as a single intervention framework, organizing regular dialogue platforms, and demanding harmonization of procedures and reporting requirements. The RDT suggests that reducing fragmentation in the donor environment reduces uncertainty and the costs of managing dependencies.
• Legal and Institutional Anchoring of Autonomy: Conduct sustained advocacy for the adoption or revision of statistical laws that clearly enshrine the professional, operational, and financial independence of the NSO. From the perspective of the RDT, this is a strategy aimed at changing the rules of the institutional environment to structurally reduce dependence on the executive political power.

It is important to emphasize that international efforts to “build the capacity” of NSOs, while indispensable, can paradoxically maintain or reinforce dependency if they are not integrated into an overall NSO strategy aimed, according to the RDT, at increasing its own bargaining power and autonomy vis-à-vis all external sources of resources, including donors themselves. External support must be managed as a strategic resource, involving active negotiation of terms and alignment with national priorities, rather than just passive reception. Otherwise, there is a risk of simple substitution of dependency, moving from government to donors, without any real gain in strategic autonomy.

Table 1: RDT Synthesis: Dependencies, Impacts and Autonomy Strategies for African NSOs

Dependency Type (Resource Source)	Nature of Dependence (Importance, External Control, Alternatives)	Impact on Autonomy (Operational, Financial, Priorities)	Potential RDT Strategies (Examples and References)
Government Funding	Very high importance (base), High control (Ministry), Limited/partial alternatives (donors) 2	Severe limitation of financial and operational autonomy, Political influence on priorities, Budgetary instability 2	Advocacy for increased/stable budget, Negotiation for autonomous status, Political/legal action to strengthen independence 1, Strengthening internal demand 41
International Donor Funding	High importance (major operations, modernization), Control via conditions/projects, Limited alternatives 2	Risk of domination of donor priorities (“goal displacement”), Fragmentation of efforts, Dependence on funding cycles 2	Negotiation for alignment with SNDS/flexible/multi-annual financing, Improvement of donor coordination 51, (Prudent) diversification towards other partners, Strengthening internal capacity to reduce aid needs 41
Technical / HR Expertise	Variable importance (depending on internal capacity), Control via provision of TA/training, Alternatives: develop internal capacity 39	Dependence on innovation/advanced methods, Potential influence on technical choices	Massive investment in training and internal skills development 39, South-South partnerships 41, Co-optation of national experts
Legitimacy / Legal Mandate	Fundamental importance (existence), High state control, No alternative for official mandate	Submission to administrative/political supervision, Vulnerability to political changes 2	Advocacy for a strong statistical law guaranteeing professional independence 1, Strengthening credibility through quality and transparency (can strengthen de facto legitimacy)
(Potential) Income Generation	Low current importance, Internal control (if permitted), Alternatives: other sources	Potential for increased financial autonomy (if successful), Risk of mission drift/inequity	Careful exploration of specific cost recovery/service sales models 47, Requires clear legal/ethical framework, Risk and benefit assessment (little specific ONS Africa data 41)

Section 3: RDT Applied to African Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) #

This section transposes the RDT analysis to the context of CSOs in Africa, examining their specific dependencies, the consequences for their autonomy and mission, and possible strategies to strengthen their financial resilience.

3.1 Key Dependencies of CSOs

African CSOs operate in a resource ecosystem that is often precarious and highly dependent on external sources:

• Foreign Aid / International Donors: This is the most frequently cited source of dependency and often the most critical for a large majority of CSOs on the continent. They rely on funding from international NGOs (INGOs), private foundations (often based in the North), and bilateral or multilateral cooperation agencies. This funding is characterized by its volatility, its often short-term nature (linked to projects of one year or less), its specific allocation to predefined activities (little core funding), and its sensitivity to changes in the geopolitical or thematic priorities of donor countries.
• Private Donations (Local and International): While potentially a source of self-reliance, reliance on private donations remains limited for many African CSOs. Local individual philanthropy, while existing (often informal or directed at religious or family institutions), is hampered by low income levels and a still underdeveloped culture of formal CSO giving. Donations from local businesses are also often limited, due to the lack of a vibrant private sector or sufficient incentive mechanisms. International private donations (excluding foundations) may exist but remain difficult to mobilize on a large scale.
• Government Grants: Unlike in some developed countries, direct grants from African governments to CSOs are generally rare, if not nonexistent. Where such mechanisms exist, they create direct political dependency and may be subject to conditionalities or payment delays, limiting the autonomy of recipient CSOs.
• Non-Financial Resources: CSOs also depend on other actors for crucial non-monetary resources:

• Access: Access to target communities, policy makers, media.
• Information: Data, specialist knowledge, information on financing opportunities.
• Legitimacy: Recognition and acceptance by the state (registration, authorization to operate), by local communities, and by peers.⁶
• Partnerships: Collaboration with other CSOs, research institutions, government entities or the private sector to implement projects or strengthen their impact.

Impact on Financial Autonomy and Ability to Fulfill their Mission

The heavy dependence, particularly on foreign donors, has profound consequences on the autonomy and functioning of African CSOs:

• Extreme Financial Vulnerability: The concentration of funding on a small number of external sources makes CSOs extremely vulnerable to fluctuations in aid, changes in donor priorities, economic crises in donor countries, or political restrictions imposed by their own governments (e.g., laws limiting foreign funding). Many CSOs struggle to survive financially, are forced to reduce their activities, lay off staff, or even cease operations.
• Mission Drift: The constant pressure to secure funding can lead CSOs to adapt their programs, thematic areas of work, and even their core mission to match available calls for proposals and donor priorities, rather than locally identified needs or their initial strategic vision.⁶ RTD explains this phenomenon as a logical consequence of the need to satisfy the demands of those who control vital resources.¹⁷ While sometimes necessary for organizational survival, this adaptation can dilute the CSO’s impact and distance it from its primary objectives. It is relevant to consider that what is often perceived negatively as “drift” can, from an RTD perspective, be analyzed as an adaptation strategy, chosen or imposed, to navigate a constraining resource environment.¹⁴ The question then becomes how to make this adaptation less costly for the social mission.
• Upward Accountability: Financial dependence creates a dynamic where CSOs are primarily accountable to their donors (compliance with contracts, production of activity and financial reports according to their formats, achievement of predefined indicators).¹² This focus on “upward” accountability often comes at the expense of “downward” accountability, that is, to the beneficiary communities, members or citizens they are supposed to serve.¹²
• Operational Constraints and Lack of Flexibility: Almost exclusive project-based funding, with little or no funding for core funding or institutional investments, severely limits CSOs’ flexibility.⁴ They struggle to plan long-term, invest in staff training, develop internal systems (management, monitoring and evaluation), or have financial reserves to cope with unforeseen events or seize new opportunities. Administrative and reporting requirements, often burdensome and not harmonized between donors, also consume a significant portion of resources and time.⁴
• Impact on Strategic Autonomy and Advocacy: Beyond operations, financial dependence limits CSOs’ strategic autonomy. They may be reluctant to innovate, take risks, or engage in advocacy activities that might displease their donors or the government.⁶ This may weaken their ability to set their own agenda and act as an independent countervailing force.

3.3 RDT Strategies for CSO Autonomy

The RDT provides a framework for identifying strategies for African CSOs to manage their dependencies and strengthen their financial and missional autonomy:

• Strategic Diversification of Funding Sources:

• Approach: This involves actively expanding the portfolio of revenue sources, combining different types of donors (private foundations, local/international companies, individual philanthropists, possibly local/national governments if possible) and different types of income (grants, donations, membership fees, earned income)^.35
• RDT/Contextual Nuance: Diversification is not a panacea. Studies in sub-Saharan Africa show that revenue diversification is not always associated with a reduction in financial hardship, and sometimes even the opposite.⁶⁷ This may be explained by the high transaction costs of managing multiple donor relationships, by limited organizational capacity to manage this complexity, or by the fact that diversification is sometimes a reactive survival strategy rather than a proactive strengthening approach. To be effective, according to RDT, diversification must truly reduce overall dependence on dominant actors or increase the CSO’s bargaining power. Therefore, a strategic approach to diversification is required, assessing the costs and benefits of each new source and favoring those that offer more flexible funds and strengthen autonomy (e.g., unrestricted funds, local resources).
• Mobilization of Local Resources (MRL):
• Strategies: Actively develop fundraising capacity at local and national levels.¹⁰ This includes:

• Fundraising from communities (events, local campaigns).
• Soliciting donations from wealthy individuals and the diaspora.⁶⁰
• The development of partnerships with local businesses (sponsorship, CSR).
• The establishment of contribution systems for members (if applicable).
• The use of digital technologies: crowdfunding platforms, mobile payments.¹⁰

• RDT Benefits: MRL directly reduces dependence on external actors (foreign donors). It can generate more stable, unrestricted funds. Importantly, it strengthens the CSO’s legitimacy within its own community and promotes downward accountability, which can increase its influence and overall bargaining power.
• Challenges: Requires overcoming obstacles such as the sometimes limited local philanthropic culture, prevailing poverty, lack of trust in CSOs, and the need to develop specific skills in local marketing and communication.⁶⁰
• Development of Social Enterprises / Income Generating Activities (IGA):
• Models: Create economic activities whose profits are reinvested in the social mission of the CSO.¹⁰ Examples:

• Sale of products (crafts, processed agricultural products) or services (consultancy, training, rental of spaces or equipment ⁵⁷).
• Creation of a separate social enterprise or for-profit subsidiary.⁵⁷
• Establishment of microfinance systems.⁵⁷

• RDT Benefits: Generates own, unrestricted, and potentially recurring income, significantly increasing financial independence. Can also create jobs and have a direct social impact.
• Challenges: Significant risk of “mission drift” toward commercial logic at the expense of social impact.⁶⁵ Requires specific entrepreneurial and managerial skills, often lacking in traditional CSOs. Requires an initial investment and carries financial risk. May generate conflicts of interest or perceived competition issues^.57 The success of these models often involves a profound organizational transformation affecting identity, culture, skills, and the relationship with the community,⁵⁷ going beyond the simple addition of an activity.
• Strategic Alliances and Networks:

• Approach: Actively engage in networks, coalitions, platforms or consortia with other CSOs (local, national, regional, international).⁴
• RDT Logic: These alliances allow:

• Pool resources (financial, human, technical) and risks.
• Carry out joint advocacy actions with greater weight and legitimacy.
• Access larger or specific funding (e.g. calls for consortia).
• Share knowledge and best practices (including in terms of MRL or AGR).
• Strengthen collective bargaining power with landlords or public authorities.
• Improving Landlord Relationship Management:
• Strategies: Transform the relationship with donors from simple dependency to a more balanced partnership.⁷ This involves:

• Une communication transparente et régulière.
• Rigorous demonstration of the impact and added value of the CSO.
• Active negotiation to obtain multi-year, flexible funding that includes indirect costs (“core funding”).
• Refusal of funding that would lead to too much mission drift or compromise the organization’s values.
• RDT Logic: Aims to change the terms of resource exchange to make dependency less restrictive, more predictable, and more aligned with the CSO’s objectives. This is about increasing its relative power in the relationship.
• Strengthening Internal Organizational Capacity:

• Approach: Invest in improving internal governance (active and competent board of directors), financial management systems (transparency, control), staff skills (MRL, project management, monitoring and evaluation, communication, leadership), and basic infrastructure (premises, equipment, technology).¹³
• RDT Logic: A stronger, more effective, and more credible organization is inherently less dependent. It is better able to attract a diversity of resources, manage them effectively, negotiate better terms, and resist external pressures. Capacity building is therefore a fundamental strategy for reducing dependency.

Table 2: RDT Synthesis: Dependencies, Impacts and Autonomy Strategies for African CSOs

Dependency Type (Resource Source)	Nature of Dependence (Importance, External Control, Alternatives)	Impact on Autonomy (Financial, Mission, Accountability)	Potential RDT Strategies (Examples, Nuances and References)
Foreign Aid / International Donors	Very high importance (often primary), Control via projects/conditions, Limited/difficult to mobilize alternatives 13	High financial vulnerability, High risk of mission drift, Dominant upward accountability, Operational constraints (short term, little core funding) 10	Strategic diversification (towards local, businesses, etc.) 57, Improvement of management of donor relations (negotiate flexibility, multi-year) 7, Alliances/Consortia for access/negotiation 4
Private Donations (Local/International)	Importance often low/medium, Low control (if individual donations), Alternatives: MRL active 57	Potential for autonomy if mobilized, but often narrow base, Can strengthen downward accountability	Active development of MRL (community, diaspora, local businesses, crowdfunding) 10, Strengthening local trust/visibility 62
Government Grants	Very low importance (rarely available) 4, High political control if existing	Risk of political dependence and instrumentalization	Advocacy for a framework conducive to public support (if contextually relevant), but main focus on other sources
Non-Financial Resources (Access, Legitimacy, Partnerships)	High importance (operational, influence), Shared control (state, communities, peers), Alternatives: actively build networks/reputation 6	Access conditions action, Legitimacy key for MRL and influence, Partnerships multiply impact/resources	Development of networks and strategic alliances 61, Investment in communication/visibility, Strengthening governance and accountability (for legitimacy) 71
Social Enterprises / AGR	Potentially important (if successful), High internal control, Alternatives: other strategies	High potential for financial autonomy (unallocated funds), Risk of mission/marketing drift, Requires skills/investments 57	Development of mission-aligned AGRs 57, Creation of social enterprise 57, Offer of paid services (consulting, rental) 57, Requires internal transformation 71

Section 4: Specific Challenges in the Quest for Financial Independence in Africa (RTD Perspective) #

The quest for financial autonomy by African NSOs and CSOs does not take place in a vacuum, but faces a series of major contextual challenges. RTD helps understand how these challenges, whether political, economic, structural, or capacity-based, shape the resource environment and limit possible strategies to reduce dependency.

4.1 Political, Economic and Structural Challenges

• Constraining Political and Legal Environment: Chronic political instability in some regions, weak democratic governance, endemic corruption ¹⁰ and the existence of restrictive legal and regulatory frameworks constitute major obstacles. For CSOs, this sometimes translates into a “shrinking civic space” ⁸, with laws that hinder their registration, limit their right to receive foreign funding (particularly those critical of the government), or restrict their advocacy activities. ⁸ For NSOs, the absence of strong political will to guarantee their independence and allocate sufficient resources is a fundamental constraint. ² From a RTD perspective, this unfavorable political and legal environment increases uncertainty and reduces the availability of or access to certain resources (funding, legitimacy, freedom of action), thus limiting possible autonomy strategies. ¹⁹ These are not simply passive constraints, but a “contested environment” where different actors, notably governments, may actively seek to maintain their control over resources and information, making the quest for autonomy a real power struggle. ⁸
• Widespread Economic Constraints: The economic situation prevailing in many African countries—characterized by persistent poverty, sometimes low or volatile economic growth, recurrent economic crises, an often underdeveloped formal private sector ⁹, and a high dependence on commodity exports—⁹ significantly limits alternative financing options. Strategies based on local resource mobilization (LRM), whether from citizens or businesses, are hampered by low contributory capacity.⁶² Public-private partnerships or social enterprise models can be difficult to implement in the absence of a dynamic and solvent local market. The RTD emphasizes that the richness and diversity of resources available in the environment are key factors in dependency. ¹⁶ An economically constrained environment offers fewer alternatives to reduce dependency on traditional sources (government for NSOs, foreign donors for CSOs). The current global financial architecture is also criticized as being unsuitable and disadvantageous for developing countries, limiting their political and economic autonomy.⁹
• Deep Structural Challenges: Structural factors also hamper the pursuit of autonomy. Basic infrastructure (transport, energy, communication) is often deficient, particularly in rural areas, which increases operational costs and limits the scope of actions.¹³ National financial systems may be underdeveloped, limiting CSOs’ access to credit or the use of modern financial tools for MRL.⁷⁰ The often dualistic structure of economies, with a predominantly informal sector,⁴⁶ complicates data collection for NSOs and the mobilization of formal resources for CSOs. These structural elements restrict the range of feasible RDT strategies and increase dependence on external solutions or financing to address these gaps.

4.2 Capacity and Coordination Issues

• Limited Internal Capacity: As discussed in previous sections, a major and cross-cutting challenge is limited internal capacity within many African NSOs and CSOs. This includes weaknesses in:

• Management and Leadership: Strategic planning, financial management, human resources management, monitoring and evaluation.¹³
• Technical Skills: Advanced statistics, data analysis, use of technologies for NSOs ¹; skills in MRL, communication, advocacy, project management for CSOs.¹³
• Human Resources: Difficulty attracting, retaining, and motivating qualified staff due to uncompetitive salaries and limited career prospects, leading to high turnover.⁴ RTD suggests that low internal capacity makes an organization more dependent on external resources (technical expertise, funding to compensate for inefficiencies, or purchasing services). This low capacity also limits the organization’s ability to effectively implement RTD strategies aimed at increasing its autonomy (e.g., developing a social enterprise, negotiating with donors).
• Challenges of Coordination of External Actors (Donors): The resource environment is often made more complex and uncertain by the lack of effective coordination between the many international donors operating in Africa.⁴⁰ This is manifested by:

• Duplication of efforts and parallel funding of similar projects.
• Divergent agendas and priorities among donors.
• Heterogeneous and often cumbersome reporting requirements and administrative procedures.
• A lack of transparency on financial flows and aid plans.⁵² This lack of coordination increases the administrative workload for NSOs and CSOs that must manage multiple relationships, disperses resources, reduces overall aid effectiveness, and makes it more difficult for recipient organizations to navigate this environment and manage their dependencies strategically.⁵¹ The RDT indicates that the fragmentation and unpredictability of the external environment increases uncertainty and complexity for the focal organization.
• Weak National Coordination Mechanisms: In many countries, institutional mechanisms responsible for coordinating external aid and ensuring its alignment with national priorities are weak or ineffective.⁵¹ Governments sometimes struggle to play their leadership role in dialogue with partners and impose collective discipline. This often leaves NSOs and CSOs to negotiate individually with donors, weakening their collective position.

There is a clear causal interdependence between internal capacity challenges and external environmental challenges. Weak capacity makes NSOs and CSOs more vulnerable to environmental pressures and constraints (restrictive policies, donor requirements). Conversely, an unstable environment, limited resources (including for capacity building), and poor external coordination hamper the development and retention of internal capacities needed to become more self-sufficient. This is a vicious cycle that RTD helps identify: dependence on external resources is exacerbated by weak internal capacity, which is itself difficult to improve due to environmental constraints and the nature of the dependency. Breaking this cycle requires interventions that simultaneously strengthen internal capacities and improve the external environment (advocacy for policy/legal reforms, improved donor coordination).

Section 5: Comparative Analysis of Dependency Dynamics and Pathways to Autonomy (ONS vs. OSC) #

Although NSOs and CSOs share the common goal of strengthening their financial autonomy in an often difficult African context, the application of RDT reveals significant differences in the nature of their dependencies and, consequently, in the autonomy strategies most relevant to each.

5.1 Comparison of Sources and Nature of Dependence

• Primary Sources of Dependence: The most striking difference lies in the primary sources of dependency.

• ONS: Their dependence is mainly vertical, focused on the State (national budget, supervisory ministry, legal mandate) and a relatively small number of large institutional donors (World Bank, AfDB, EU, UN agencies, major bilaterals) which provide substantial financing and technical assistance.²
• CSOs: Their dependence is typically more horizontal and fragmented. They interact with a broader and more diverse ecosystem of actors, including a multitude of foreign donors (INGOs, foundations, various agencies), potentially private companies, individual donors (local or international), and local communities themselves. Direct government funding is rare.⁴ This different structure of the resource environment has major implications. RDT suggests that the concentration of sources (in the case of NSOs) can reduce uncertainty but increase the power of these dominant sources, while fragmentation (in the case of CSOs) can offer more options but increase the complexity and transaction costs of managing multiple relationships.³⁵
• Nature of Dependence:

• ONS: Dependence is highly institutionalized, linked to their status as public or semi-public entities and their legal mandate defined by the state. The relationship with the government is hierarchical and political. The relationship with major donors is often formalized through long-term cooperation agreements or large-scale projects.
• CSOs: Dependence is primarily contractual, based on obtaining grants or funding for specific, time-limited projects. Relationships with donors are often more transactional and less stable.
• Critical Resources: The most vital external resources also differ:

• ONS: Funding (public and external) and political/legal legitimacy conferred by the state are essential. Access to technical expertise is also important.
• CSOs: Funding (mainly external) is crucial, but community legitimacy (acceptance and support from local populations) and access (to beneficiaries, to field information) are also vital resources for their operation and impact.

5.2 Comparison of Room for Maneuver and Potential Strategies

These structural differences in dependency shape autonomy issues and the applicability of RDT strategies:

• Nature of the Autonomy Sought:

• ONS: The quest for autonomy has a strong political and institutional dimension. It is about achieving professional independence from the executive branch, budgetary stability, and freedom in defining the national statistical program^.2
• CSO: The main issue is often programmatic autonomy (avoiding mission drift induced by donors ¹⁴) and financial autonomy (reducing precariousness and dependence on allocated external funding).
• Differentiated Applicability of RDT Strategies:

• Diversification of sources: This strategy seems structurally more accessible to CSOs, which can target a wider range of actors (MRL, businesses, various foundations).⁵⁷ For NSOs, diversifying beyond the state budget and large institutional donors is conceptually more complex and less explored.⁴¹
• Income Generation / Social Enterprise (IG): These models are being actively explored and implemented by CSOs.⁵⁷ For NSOs, their application raises fundamental questions related to their public service mandate, fairness of access to data and potential conflicts of interest (see 2.3).
• Local Resource Mobilization (LRM): This is a central and promising strategy for the autonomy of CSOs, strengthening their local roots^.61 It is less directly relevant for NSOs, whose legitimacy and funding depend more on the State and national/international institutions.
• Alliances and Networks: Crucial for both types of organizations, but with distinct purposes. NSOs form alliances for technical coordination, harmonizing standards, sharing good practices, and sectoral advocacy (e.g., within FASDev, AFRISTAT).³⁹ CSOs create networks for joint policy advocacy, sharing information and resources, accessing consortium funding, and building collective power against donors or the government.⁴
• Political Action / Lobbying / Negotiation: NSOs must negotiate directly with the government (for budget and status) and major donors (for aid conditions). CSOs can lead advocacy actions for a more favorable legal environment ⁸, influence sectoral public policies, or collectively negotiate better funding conditions.
• Co-optation: Potentially applicable to both. An NSO could integrate representatives from key users (sector ministries, private sector, research) into advisory committees to better align supply and demand and strengthen its support. A CSO could integrate community leaders, experts, or private sector representatives onto its board of directors to gain legitimacy, expertise, or access to resources.
• Mergers / Integration: Classic RDT strategy ¹⁶, but which seems less frequent or relevant in these specific contexts, except perhaps for CSOs seeking to rationalize their costs, to reach a critical size to access certain financing, or to bring together complementary expertise.

Finally, the very notion of “organizational effectiveness” as defined by the RDT—that is, an organization’s ability to meet the demands of external actors on whom it depends for its survival ¹⁸—takes on potentially conflicting meanings for NSOs and CSOs in Africa. For an NSO, meeting the demands of the government and donors ² may come into tension with the fundamental principles of official statistics (neutrality, objectivity, confidentiality) or the needs of other users. Its legitimacy rests on a delicate balance between perceived usefulness by those in power and technical credibility with all. For a CSO, meeting the contractual requirements of donors ¹³ is necessary for survival, but its legitimacy and impact also crucially depend on its ability to meet the needs of and be accountable to the communities it serves. Autonomy strategies such as MRL or social enterprise aim to strengthen this local legitimacy, but require demonstrating a different “effectiveness” (direct social impact, transparent management of local funds) that is not always valued or understood by traditional donors. The constant trade-off between these different facets of perceived “effectiveness” is at the heart of the quest for autonomy for both types of organizations.

Section 6: Summary and Recommendations: Key Conditions for Strengthening Financial Autonomy #

The analysis of the dynamics of dependency of African NSOs and CSOs through the prism of RDT makes it possible to identify key conditions and formulate strategic recommendations to strengthen their financial autonomy, an essential condition for their sustainability and the accomplishment of their respective missions.

6.1 Summary of Key Conditions (derived from RDT analysis)

Achieving greater financial autonomy for NSOs and CSOs in Africa depends on meeting several interdependent conditions, informed by the principles of RDT:

1. Adopting Strategic Resource Environment Management: NSOs and CSOs must move beyond a passive posture of simply receiving funds to adopt a proactive and strategic approach to managing their dependencies [Insight 1.1]. This involves continuous analysis of their resource environment (who controls what? what are the alternatives?), clear identification of critical dependencies, and a lucid assessment of power relationships.¹⁶
2. Reducing Critical Dependence and Controlled Diversification: It is essential to reduce excessive dependence on a limited number of sources of financing or vital resources.²² Diversification of sources (donors, revenues, partners) is a key strategy, but it must be carried out in a strategic and controlled manner, assessing the real costs and benefits in terms of autonomy ⁶⁷, and not as a simple multiplication of constraints.
3. Increased Bargaining Power: Autonomy increases when the organization strengthens its relative power vis-à-vis resource providers.¹⁷ This power stems from the control of alternative resources (e.g., equity from AGR or MRL), the possession of unique expertise or strong legitimacy (political, technical, community), or the ability to form powerful coalitions.⁴
4. Consistent Internal and External Alignment: The quest for financial autonomy must be aligned with the organization’s core mission, internal capabilities, and overall strategy. Resource mobilization strategies must not lead to uncontrolled mission drift or unmanageable internal tensions.¹⁵ Financial autonomy is not an end in itself, but a means to the mission [Insight 3.2].
5. Existence of a Favorable External Environment: Organizational autonomy is not solely the result of internal efforts. It also crucially depends on environmental factors: a strong political will (for NSOs in particular), a favorable legal and regulatory framework (for CSOs), a certain economic and political stability, and effective coordination of external partners.³ Financial autonomy is therefore a co-constructed process [Insight 6.1].
6. Strengthening Legitimacy and Anchorage: The most sustainable autonomy strategies are those that, beyond financial diversification, strengthen the legitimacy and anchorage of the organization in its specific ecosystem: political and technical legitimacy for NSOs; community legitimacy and advocacy for CSOs [Insight 5.2, Insight 6.2]. This legitimacy becomes an intangible resource that increases bargaining power and resilience.

6.2 Recommendations (Differentiated by Actor)

To translate these conditions into concrete actions, specific recommendations can be made to the various stakeholders involved:

For African National Statistical Offices (NSOs):

• Advocate for strengthened status and public funding: Conduct ongoing advocacy with national authorities to secure a legal status that guarantees genuine professional and operational independence, as well as a stable, predictable and sufficient budget allocation to cover core missions^.3
• Manage the relationship with donors via the SNDS: Use the National Strategies for the Development of Statistics (SNDS) as the main tool for negotiating with donors, clearly defining national priorities, financing needs and the desired support modalities.⁴⁴ Require alignment of external interventions with this national framework.
• Carefully explore revenue generation: Assess the feasibility and desirability of developing paid statistical services or cost-recovery models for specific value-added products, defining a strict ethical and legal framework to preserve equitable access to essential data and avoid commercial drift.⁴⁷
• Investing in leadership and strategic management: Strengthening the capacities of NSO leaders in strategic management, negotiation, communication and stakeholder relationship management (government, donors, users).⁴¹
• Strengthen dialogue with users: Establish and run regular dialogue platforms with the various users of statistics (public, private, civil society, research) to better understand their needs, demonstrate the added value of the ONS and thus strengthen internal demand and political and financial support.⁴¹

For African Civil Society Organizations (CSOs):

• Adopt strategic and prioritized diversification: Rigorously evaluate the different options for diversifying resources (new donors, MRL, AGR) by analyzing the costs, potential benefits, risks (particularly mission drift) and alignment with the mission.⁵⁷ Prioritize sources that generate unallocated funds and strengthen local roots.
• Investing in Local Resource Mobilization (LRM) and Social Enterprise: Allocate resources and develop specific skills for LRM (community fundraising, local philanthropy, digital) and/or for the creation and management of viable social enterprises.¹⁰ These strategies require internal transformation [Insight 3.2].
• Building and leading alliances and networks: Actively participate in or initiate coalitions, networks and consortia to pool resources, strengthen collective advocacy (e.g. for a more favorable environment), share good practices and access joint funding.⁴
• Strengthen transparency and multiple accountability: Establish transparent and robust governance and financial management systems. Actively communicate on activities and results, not only to donors (upward accountability) but also to beneficiaries and local communities (downward accountability), in order to build trust, an essential resource for legitimacy and MRL.⁶²
• Professionalize donor relationship management: Develop a proactive approach to donor relations, based on partnership rather than submission. Systematically negotiate for multi-year, flexible funding that includes structural costs. Know how to reject funding that is not aligned with the mission.

For African Governments:

• Ensure the autonomy and resources of NSOs: Adopt and implement modern statistical laws that enshrine the independence of NSOs. Allocate sufficient and predictable national budgets to enable them to fulfill their mandate.
• Create an enabling environment for CSOs: Establish a legal and regulatory framework that facilitates the creation, operation and financing of CSOs, avoiding arbitrary or political restrictions. Recognize the complementary role of CSOs in national development.
• Promote local philanthropy and partnerships: Establish tax incentives or other mechanisms to encourage individual and corporate donations to local CSOs. Facilitate constructive partnerships between the public sector, the private sector, and civil society.
• Ensure aid coordination: Strengthen the capacities of national aid coordination structures to ensure better alignment of donor interventions with national priorities and reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries.

For International Donors:

• Provide better quality funding: Move towards more predictable (multi-year), more flexible (less strict earmarking) funding arrangements, and including a significant portion for operating costs and institutional strengthening (core funding).⁴
• Align support with local priorities: Base funding decisions on national strategies (NSDS for NSOs) and strategic plans developed by CSOs themselves, rather than on externally defined priorities.¹⁴
• Simplify and harmonize procedures: Reduce the administrative burden related to funding applications and reporting by simplifying procedures and harmonizing requirements between donors.¹³
• Support diversification and MRL: Actively support CSOs’ efforts to diversify their revenue sources, particularly through MRL and social enterprise, through seed funding, specific capacity building, or innovative financing mechanisms [Help build alternatives].
• Coordinate interventions: Engage in effective coordination mechanisms, both among donors and with governments and local actors, to avoid duplication, maximize impact and reduce aid fragmentation.⁵¹
• Investing in human and organizational capital: Support the development of leadership, strategic management, negotiation and resource mobilization capacities within NSOs and CSOs, as this is a key lever for their future autonomy^.41

Table 4: Key Conditions and RDT Recommendations for Financial Autonomy in Africa

Key Actor	Key Conditions to Fulfill (Based on RDT)	Specific Recommendations (Concrete Actions)
African NSOs	– Strategic dependency management (government, donors) – Reduction of critical dependency (public budget, key donors) – Increased bargaining power – Strengthened political/technical legitimacy – Internal/external alignment	– Advocacy for autonomous status and a stable/increased public budget – Manage donor relations via SNDS – Carefully explore revenue generation – Invest in leadership/negotiation – Strengthen user dialogue
African CSOs	– Strategic dependency management (multiple donors, communities) – Controlled diversification of resources – Increased bargaining power (collective) – Strengthened community legitimacy/advocacy – Alignment of mission and funding	– Adopt strategic diversification (focus on MRL, AGR) – Invest in MRL/social enterprise skills – Build/manage alliances and networks – Strengthen transparency and multiple accountability – Professionalize donor relationship management
African Governments	– Creation of a less restrictive environment – Modification of environmental resources (favoring local resources) – Reduction of environmental uncertainty (coordination aid)	– Guarantee NSO autonomy/resources (laws, budgets) – Create a legal/regulatory framework favorable to CSOs – Promote local philanthropy and partnerships – Strengthen national aid coordination
International Donors	– Reduce precarity/constraints related to dependency – Reduce mission drift – Reduce transaction costs of dependency – Help build alternatives – Reduce environmental uncertainty (coordination) – Strengthen partners’ dependency management capacity	– Offer multi-year, flexible, core funding – Align support with local/national priorities – Simplify and harmonize procedures – Actively support MRL and social enterprise – Improve coordination between donors and with government agencies – Invest in leadership/management/MRL capabilities

Conclusion #

This report analyzed the conditions for financial autonomy of National Statistical Offices (NSOs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in Africa by mobilizing the Resource Dependency Theory (RDT). The analysis highlighted that these two types of organizations, although distinct in their missions and structures, share a significant vulnerability linked to their dependence on external resources, mainly public funding and international aid.

RDT proved to be a particularly heuristic framework for understanding these dynamics. It made it possible to decompose the nature of dependence according to the importance of resources, the control exercised by external actors, and the availability of alternatives. It highlighted how this dependence translates into power relations that limit the operational, financial, and strategic autonomy of NSOs and CSOs, potentially leading to chronic instability, excessive influence of funders on priorities, and even mission drift for CSOs. Above all, RDT highlighted the fact that organizations are not condemned to passivity: they can and must develop active strategies to manage their environment, negotiate their position, diversify their support, and ultimately increase their room for maneuver. The comparative analysis showed that while RDT principles are universal, their application and the most relevant strategies differ between NSOs (more vertical and institutionalized dependence) and CSOs (more horizontal and fragmented dependence).

However, applying RTD to the African context also reveals certain limitations or necessary nuances. First, the classic diversification strategies advocated by RTD can have mixed, even counterproductive, results for African CSOs, highlighting the importance of internal capacities and transaction costs in complex environments. ⁶⁷ Second, RTD, focused on external relations, must be complemented by attention to internal factors (leadership, organizational culture, technical and managerial capacities) that strongly condition the capacity of organizations to implement autonomy strategies. ³³ Third, the African environment is not only a source of resources and constraints, but a contested political and social space where the quest for autonomy is part of complex power relations. ⁸

Ultimately, strengthening the financial autonomy of African NSOs and CSOs appears to be a complex process that goes beyond the simple technical issue of fundraising. It is an eminently strategic and political issue, requiring concerted and multidimensional action. NSOs and CSOs must adopt a proactive stance in managing their dependencies, by developing their negotiation skills, exploring alternative sources of revenue aligned with their mission, and strengthening their legitimacy and local or institutional roots. But their efforts cannot succeed without a parallel commitment from African governments to create a favorable political and legal environment and to invest in their national institutions, and from international donors to reform their practices to offer more flexible, predictable support aligned with African priorities.

Future prospects lie in the ability of these actors to innovate and collaborate. Increased mobilization of local resources, the development of adapted social enterprise models, the strategic use of digital technologies, and the strengthening of South-South networks and alliances appear to be promising avenues.¹⁰ Ultimately, the financial autonomy of NSOs and CSOs is not only a matter of organizational survival; it is a necessary condition for these institutions to fully play their crucial role in building a more democratic, more prosperous Africa that controls its own destiny.

Sources of quotes #

1. Closing data gaps to accelerate Africa’s transformation – Mo Ibrahim Foundation, accessed April 14, 2025, https://mo.ibrahim.foundation/sites/default/files/2024-01/2023-iiag-series-report.pdf
2. old.adeanet.org, accessed April 14, 2025, https://old.adeanet.org/en/system/files/brief_of_the_data_for_african_development_wg.pdf
3. Data as a force for public good – World Development Report 2021: Data for Better Lives, accessed April 14, 2025, https://wdr2021.worldbank.org/stories/data-as-a-force-for-public-good/
4. The CSO enabling environment and disenabling CSO financing in Africa – Civicus, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.civicus.org/documents/reports-and-publications/SOCS/2015/SOCS2015_ESSAY17_CSOEnablingEnvironmentAfrica.pdf
5. The Civil Society Landscape in West Africa – Challenges and Opportunities – WACSI, accessed April 14, 2025, https://wacsi.org/the-civil-society-landscape-in-west-africa-challenges-and-opportunities/
6. Civil Society Sustainability – WACSI, accessed April 14, 2025, https://wacsi.org/civil-society-sustainability/
7. How to Avoid Mission Drift While Expanding Fundraising Efforts – fundsforNGOs, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www2.fundsforngos.org/articles-searching-grants-and-donors/how-to-avoid-mission-drift-while-expanding-fundraising-efforts/
8. Shrinking Civic Space in Africa: When Governments Crack Down on Civil Society – GIGA Hamburg, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/publications/giga-focus/shrinking-civic-space-africa-governments-crack-civil-society
9. Towards a needed Paradigm Shift in Economic Policy: Addressing Industrial Development and Financial Autonomy in the Global South, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.networkideas.org/announcements/2025/04/towards-a-needed-paradigm-shift-in-economic-policy/
10. Non-Governmental Organizations in Africa Can Survive Without Foreign Aid, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.cddwestafrica.org/blog/non-governmental-organizations-in-africa-can-survive-without-foreign-aid/
11. Foreign Aid Advances Donors’ Interests and Creates Dependency | Global Policy Journal, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/10/04/2025/foreign-aid-advances-donors-interests-and-creates-dependency
12. Control and autonomy: resource dependence relations and non-profit organizations | Emerald Insight, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/joe-05-2020-0021/full/html
13. www.civicus.org, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.civicus.org/images/stories/CSI_RA_West%20AFrica%20Regional%20report_Final.pdf
14. The Relationship Between Liberian CSOs and International Donor Funding: Boon or Bane?, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321042977_The_Relationship_Between_Liberian_CSOs_and_International_Donor_Funding_Boon_or_Bane
15. Exploring the potential effects of international donor funding on local NGO mission creep in Ghana – Journal of African Political Economy and Development, accessed April 14, 2025, https://afec-japed.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/Chanase_Donor%20funding%20of%20NGOs%20and%20mission%20creep.pdf
16. The low-down on Resource Dependence Theory – Perkbox, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.perkbox.com/resources/blog/the-low-down-on-resource-dependence-theory
17. Resource Dependence Theory – FutureLearn, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/managing-company-culture/0/steps/216762
18. Resource dependence theory – Wikipedia, accessed April 14, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_dependence_theory
19. Resource Dependence Theory – TheoryHub – Academic theories reviews for research and T&L, accessed April 14, 2025, https://open.ncl.ac.uk/academic-theories/43/resource-dependence-theory/
20. (PDF) Resource-Dependence Theory – ResearchGate, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355155423_Resource-Dependence_Theory
21. (PDF) Resource Dependence Theory: A Review – ResearchGate, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228378265_Resource_Dependence_Theory_A_Review
22. Clarifying Resource Dependence: A Multi-Dimensional Approach to …, accessed April 14, 2025, https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7746&context=etd
23. Resource Dependence Theory (RDT) – Toolshero, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.toolshero.com/management/resource-dependence-theory-rdt/
24. Resource dependence theory | Power and Politics in Organizations Class Notes | Fiveable, accessed April 14, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/power-and-politics-in-organizations/unit-1/resource-dependence-theory/study-guide/lWAIemCkQZ15DkBZ
25. X. Jeffrey Pfeffer and Gerald Salancik – Resource Dependence is Strategic – Cairn, consulted on April 14, 2025, http://www.cairn.info/les-grands-auteurs-en-management–9782376870432-page-151.html
26. 116: Resource Dependence Perspective – Pfeffer & Salancik, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.talkingaboutorganizations.com/116-resource-dependence-perspective-pfeffer-salancik/
27. Resource Dependence Theory – The Observatory of Managerial Innovation, consulted on April 14, 2025, https://www.observatoire-management.org/single-post/2016/11/14/th%C3%A9orie-de-la-d%C3%A9pendance-envers-les-ressources
28. What is Resource Dependency Theory? – YouTube, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp18D7qmjEM
29. Resource dependency and strategy in healthcare organizations during a time of scarce resources: evidence from the metropolitan area of ​​cologne, accessed April 14, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9136866/
30. RESEARCH ARTICLE – Moroccan Scientific Journals, accessed April 14, 2025, https://revues.imist.ma/index.php/MLS/article/download/6821/4090/16797
31. The role of resources in pivot dependence within innovation networks, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-gestion-2010-5-page-171.htm
32. Resource Dependence Theory – (Entrepreneurship) – Vocab, Definition, Explanations, accessed April 14, 2025, https://fiveable.me/key-terms/entrepreneurship/resource-dependence-theory
33. RESOURCE DEPENDENCY THEORY EXPLAINED – Research Consult Uganda, accessed April 14, 2025, https://researchconsultuganda.com/2023/12/09/resource-dependency-theory-explained/
34. Resource Dependence Theory: Past and Future – Michigan Ross, accessed April 14, 2025, https://webuser.bus.umich.edu/gfdavis/Papers/davis_cobb_09_RSO.pdf
35. How Do Resource Dependencies Affect Treatment Practices? The Case of Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment Programs – PMC, accessed April 14, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5697427/
36. Synthesizing and Extending Resource Dependence Theory: A Meta-Analysis, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256036914_Synthesizing_and_Extending_Resource_Dependence_Theory_A_Meta-Analysis
37. Why Your Organization Should Understand Resource Dependency Theory – GovLoop, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.govloop.com/community/blog/why-your-organization-should-understand-resource-dependency-theory/
38. Statistics Reform in Africa: Aligning Incentives with Results – Open Knowledge Repository, accessed April 14, 2025, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstreams/833f2e99-69da-5af0-b177-b4c6587538ad/download
39. Opening Remarks by Oliver Chinganya at the Eleventh Forum on Africa Statistical Development, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.uneca.org/stories/opening-remarks-by-oliver-chinganya-at-the-eleventh-forum-on-africa-statistical-development
40. AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK – UN Statistics Division, accessed April 14, 2025, https://unstats.un.org/unsd/trade/events/2019/FOCG/FOC_4b_AfDB-Statistical_Infrastructure.pdf
41. openknowledge.worldbank.org, accessed April 14, 2025, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstreams/ab160804-6cf3-5941-9467-141fef87b950/download
42. African Thematic Conference – UN Statistics Division, accessed April 14, 2025, https://unstats.un.org/capacity-development/thematic-conferences/africa-2019/presentations/Session%201/UNECA_Session%201.pdf
43. PARIS21, AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK, UNECA, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.paris21.org/sites/default/files/2055.ppt
44. paris21.org, accessed April 14, 2025, https://paris21.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/UNV003_Guidelines%20for%20Capacity%20Development%20PRINT_0.pdf
45. Road map for the transformation and modernization of official statistics in Africa, 2023–2030 – YAS, accessed April 14, 2025, https://yas.uneca.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/roadmap_for_the_transformation_and_modernization_of_official_statistics_2023_2030.pdf
46. Income Inequality Trends in sub-Saharan Africa – United Nations Development Program, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/africa/undp-rba_Income-Inequality-in-SSA_Chapter-1.pdf
47. Publication: Cost Recovery, Equity, and Efficiency in Water Tariffs: Evidence from African Utilities – Open Knowledge Repository, accessed April 14, 2025, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/1e6c00ad-52c5-5a22-a6eb-8f1057bc8cb2
48. (PDF) “Cost Recovery in Public Health Services in Sub-Saharan Africa” – ResearchGate, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321642285_Cost_Recovery_in_Public_Health_Services_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa
49. Cost Recovery in Water and Sanitation Projects – IRC, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/R264.1-02CO-17373.pdf
50. Data for Development – | Independent Evaluation Group – World Bank, accessed April 14, 2025, https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/sites/default/files/Data/Evaluation/files/datafordevelopment.pdf
51. DONOR COORDINATION IN A FRAGILE STATES OF AFRICA: CAPAITY BUILDING FOR PEACE AND POVERTY REDUCTION1 – Virtual Library on Capacity Development, accessed on April 14, 2025, https://elibrary.acbfpact.org/acbf/collect/acbf/index/assoc/HASH01e2/f6fe0362/85fb7f5b/175c.dir/File%20082.pdf
52. Duplication of effort across Development Projects in Nigeria: An example using the Master Health Facility List, accessed April 14, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6194105/
53. Beyond dependency: Rethinking Africa’s relationship with foreign aid, accessed April 14, 2025, https://speakingofmedicine.plos.org/2025/03/21/beyond-dependency-rethinking-africas-relationship-with-foreign-aid/
54. Aid That Works: Enhancing US Support for Civil Society Organizations – Stimson Center, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.stimson.org/2025/aid-that-works/
55. Ghanaian CSOs Acquire Critical Skills to Strengthen Institutional Operations and Boost Financial Sustainability Amidst Dwindling Donor Funding – WACSI, accessed on April 14, 2025, https://wacsi.org/ghanaian-csos-acquire-critical-skills-to-strengthen-institutional-operations-and-boost-financial-sustainability-amidst-dwindling-donor-funding/
56. INVESTIGATING FACTORS AFFECTING THE FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS IN NAMIBIA A THESIS SUBMITTED IN BY – UNAM Repository, accessed April 14, 2025, https://repository.unam.edu.na/bitstreams/9bdd41ce-6a68-4c2b-aaed-e11cade36cf5/download
57. rightscolab.org, accessed April 14, 2025, https://rightscolab.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Guidebook-on-Alternative-Funding-Models-for-Civil-Society-Organisations-in-Africa.pdf
58. www.issuelab.org, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.issuelab.org/resource/36750/36750.pdf
59. (PDF) New routes to CSO sustainability: the strategic shift to social enterprise and social investment – ResearchGate, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305309797_New_routes_to_CSO_sustainability_the_strategic_shift_to_social_enterprise_and_social_investment
60. Fundraising in Africa: How Looking Inward Makes the Difference – World | ReliefWeb, accessed April 14, 2025, https://reliefweb.int/report/world/fundraising-africa-how-looking-inward-makes-difference
61. Local Resource Mobilization: Trends and Practices in East Africa – 2022, accessed April 14, 2025, https://moose-tetra-jgs8.squarespace.com/s/LocalResourceMobilizationTrendsandPracticesinEastAfrica2022.pdf
62. growing giving… – in south africa – Charities Aid Foundation, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/growing-giving-in-south-africa.pdf
63. Strengthening Organizations – what do African CSOs need and want? – Well Grounded, accessed April 14, 2025, https://well-grounded.org/strengthening-organizations-what-do-african-csos-need-and-want/
64. Rethinking CSO sustainability: from dependency to self-reliance | Accountability Lab, consulté le avril 14, 2025, https://accountabilitylab.org/rethinking-cso-sustainability-from-dependency-to-self-reliance/
65. Change Can Be Good: A New Perspective on Mission Drift Joannie Tremblay-Boire Ph.D. Candidate University of Washington, Seattle – School of Social Policy & Practice, accessed April 14, 2025, https://sp2.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Tremblay-Boire.pdf
66. The Critical Need for Funding Civil Society Organizations by Global Health Initiatives, accessed April 14, 2025, https://aidspan.org/the-critical-need-for-funding-civil-society-organizations-by-global-health-initiatives/
67. Do revenue diversification and income generating activities promote …, consulté le avril 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296639551_Do_revenue_diversification_and_income_generating_activities_promote_financial_sustainability_of_NGOs_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa
68. Resource Mobilization Strategies, Resource Utilization and Sustainability of Community Based Organizations in Developing Countries – UDSM Journals, accessed April 14, 2025, https://journals.udsm.ac.tz/index.php/orsea/article/view/5938/4906
69. Analysis: Using homegrown funds to drive Africa’s transformation – Semafor, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.semafor.com/article/04/07/2025/mobilizing-domestic-resources-to-fund-africas-transformation
70. Innovating Local Resource Mobilization for Sustainability – East Africa Philanthropy Network, accessed April 14, 2025, https://eaphilanthropynetwork.org/event/innovating-local-resource-mobilization-for-sustainability/
71. New routes to CSO sustainability: the strategic shift to social enterprise and social investment – Bayes Business School, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.bayes.citystgeorges.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/419426/1.-Cass-CCE-Hailey-and-Salway-New-routes-to-CSO-sustainability.pdf
72. BUILDING THE CAPACITY OF AFRICAN CIVIL SOCIETY, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.africanmonitor.org/what-we-do/building-the-capacity-of-african-civil-society/
73. Capacity Needs Assessment of the African CSO Biodiversity Alliance (ACBA), accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.awf.org/about/careers/capacity-needs-assessment-african-cso-biodiversity-alliance-acba
74. AGOA CSO Network, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.agoacsonetwork.org/
75. Funding Constraints And Challenges Facing Civil Society Organizations In Sa | ResearchReports | National Development Agency, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.nda.org.za/publication/funding-constraints-and-challenges-facing-civil-society-organizations-in-sa
76. The African Peer Review Mechanism A compilation of studies of the process in nine African countries – Open Society Foundations, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/7a3048af-c9ac-461e-b815-0a1b2987856e/aprm-english-20100720.pdf
77. Sustainable Development Goals: Country Report 2023 – Stats SA, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.statssa.gov.za/MDG/SDG_Country_report.pdf
78. Donor support to private sector development in sub-Saharan Africa – JICA, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.jica.go.jp/jica-ri/IFIC_and_JBICI-Studies/english/publications/reports/study/topical/donor/pdf/wp290.pdf