The impact of Non-Governmental Organizations’ reconstruction activities in Bosnia and Kosovo was largely determined by the nature and content of two dominant relationships. The first is the donor countries-International NGO (INGO) relationship. To grasp the importance of this relationship, it suffices to mention that, at the global level, donors give around five times more funds to INGOs (and more precisely to their own national NGOs) than to Local NGOs (LNGOs). The second is the International NGO-LNGO relationship. With respect to the first relationship, donor countries had a clear hegemonic position vis-à-vis INGOs. In turn, INGOs developed a hegemonic position towards LNGOs. These hegemonic relationships undermined the quality and effectiveness of aid disbursed and failed to promote the development of an open and democratic civil society. More interestingly, although most donors and INGOs got involved in the post-conflict reconstruction of both countries, very weak learning processes seem to have operated in the region. A comparative examination of the two reconstruction efforts reveals that the manifestation of many inefficiencies and failures was indeed even more acute in Kosovo than in Bosnia.
Studies have identified variables that influence ngo objectives, organizational structures and activities, often related to the broader socio-economic context. Among the most important are the availability of funding and the density of networks. Both factors affect ngo s by driving them either to adjust priorities and widen or limit their operations and/or to become more or less extrovert. This article aims to assess whether, how and to what extent the recent refugee crisis has impacted the Greek ngo ecosystem in terms of scope of activities, professionalization, organizational structures and transnational networking. Available funding, mostly from European institutions, has suddenly and spectacularly increased while International ngo s (ingo s) established operations to Greece – some cooperating with local partners. Likewise, several Greek ngo s (gngo s) embarked on a process of significant operational expansion, mostly ‘in the field’ and as part of an ‘emergency response’. Also, a series of grassroots organizations have been created – mainly at the local level. Based on a series of interviews with executives of the most recognizable gngo s, funders and policymakers and a survey based on questionnaires, the authors argue that the impact was both positive and negative and varied extensively depending on the size and type of organization under focus.