Development Agencies vs INGOs: advantages and challenges for consultants and experts | Experts’ Opinions

Official development agency or international non-governmental organization (INGO) – which offers a better workplace? From an employee’s perspective, the grass is always greener on the other side, making it difficult to decide on a new position. Both aid organizations offer opportunities but come with challenges that are shaped by different organizational cultures, funding, and operational regulations. Understanding the similarities and the differences is vital for development professionals seeking the right environment in which to align their aspirations. We asked international aid experts to provide feedback on the advantages and disadvantages of working for a development agency and for an INGO. Learn what they had to say in our Experts’ Opinions article.

DevelopmentAid: How do organizational structures and decision-making differ between development agencies and INGOs?

“Development agencies, which are often connected to governments or international organizations, tend to have hierarchical set-ups. Their seniors usually report to government or international bodies, ensuring they follow national or international policies. These agencies are typically bureaucratic, meaning decisions take time because of multiple approval steps. While this ensures transparency and accountability, it can slow things down. On the flip side, INGOs often have flatter, more flexible structures that allow them to be more agile and responsive. Even though they are still formal, their decentralized design enables quicker decision-making, especially at the field level. INGOs tend to be mission-driven, with more freedom to set their own agendas, although donor expectations still play a role. When it comes to decision-making, development agencies are more centralized and heavily influenced by broader foreign policy goals or international strategies. Their need for diplomatic coordination and oversight adds more layers, but it also aligns their work with local government objectives. INGOs, on the other hand, empower local staff and offices to make decisions, enabling faster responses in the field. While donors influence their decisions, they have more flexibility than government agencies, allowing them to adapt their programs more quickly. To conclude, development agencies are larger, more structured, and slower due to bureaucracy, while INGOs benefit from a more decentralized, mission-driven structure that allows for faster, more adaptive decision-making.”

“The organizational structures and decision-making processes of development agencies and INGOs differ based on their mandates, funding sources, operational scope, and governance models. Below is a breakdown of these differences:

Organizational Structure – Development Agencies (e.g., FCDO, GIZ, AFD):

• Hierarchy & Bureaucracy: Development agencies are typically government entities or multilateral organizations. Their structures are bureaucratic, often rigidly hierarchical, with multiple levels of decision-making authority. They operate within government or intergovernmental frameworks and are accountable to political leaders or international governing bodies.
• Centralized Leadership: Leadership tends to be centralized, with the major decisions made at the top, often in national capitals or headquarters. There is a chain of command that involves various departments and agencies.
• Funding & Mandate Control: They are funded by national governments or multilateral institutions, which also influence their priorities. Their projects must align with national foreign policy or international development strategies.

Organizational Structure – INGOs (e.g., Oxfam, Save the Children, CARE):

• Decentralized/Networked Structure: INGOs tend to have more flexible and decentralized structures. Many operate globally through a network of national or regional offices, giving them adaptability to local contexts.
• Flat Hierarchy: Some INGOs have flatter organizational structures, with more decentralized decision-making left to field offices. These offices have relative autonomy in managing local operations and making on-the-ground decisions.
• Board Governance: INGOs are typically governed by a board of directors or trustees who set the strategic direction. While the headquarters set overarching goals, field offices may have considerable freedom in program design and execution.

Decision-making Processes – Development Agencies:

• Top-Down Decision-making: Decision-making in development agencies tends to follow a top-down approach. High-level policies and strategies are often dictated by governments or international agreements, leaving little room for immediate, localized adjustments without approval from higher-ups.
• Political and Strategic Constraints: Decisions are influenced by the political context, national foreign policy, or multilateral agreements. For example, funding allocations might be tied to geopolitical interests or diplomatic considerations.
• Complex Approval Processes: Due to their bureaucratic nature, development agencies often have lengthy approval processes for projects, with multiple layers of checks, assessments, and stakeholder involvement before decisions are made.

Decision-making Processes – INGOs:

• Bottom-up Flexibility: Many INGOs emphasize more flexible, bottom-up decision-making processes, especially in field operations. Field staff often have more authority to adapt projects based on local needs, which allows for quicker responses to emerging crises or changing environments.
• Community Engagement & Participation: INGOs often prioritize participatory decision-making that involves local communities in project design, execution, and evaluation. This contrasts with the more top-down nature of development agencies.
• Mission-Driven Decisions: INGO decision-making is generally driven by the organization’s mission and values, focusing on humanitarian goals and advocacy. Decisions tend to be more autonomous from political agendas, although they may still need to balance donor expectations.”

DevelopmentAid: What are the funding and project implementation differences between development agencies and INGOs, and how do these impact job stability and scope?

“Development agencies are mainly funded by governments, which generally provide them with stable budgets, although political changes can cause fluctuations. This tends to make jobs at development agencies more stable, especially for long-term projects that align with national strategies. INGOs, however, rely on a mix of donor funding, private donations, and grants, making their funding more unpredictable. Because they compete for limited resources and must constantly adapt to changing donor priorities, job stability can be less secure and is often tied to specific projects or grant periods, meaning jobs may only last for as long as a project is funded. Development agencies usually handle large, long-term projects that are tied to policy objectives. These projects involve extensive planning and coordination with national governments, which limits flexibility but provides more stable, long-term assignments for staff. INGOs tend to focus on grassroots-level projects, responding to immediate needs. Their timelines are usually shorter, but they offer staff more hands-on involvement and creativity in their work. However, job stability can be an issue, as many staff positions are project-based, and when the project ends, employees may find themselves looking for new opportunities. In short, while development agencies offer more stable roles with less flexibility, INGOs provide more dynamic work with greater opportunities for innovation but with less predictable job stability.”

“Funding and Accountability. Development Agencies:

• State-Sponsored: Development agencies are primarily funded by national governments, multilateral donors (e.g., the World Bank), or international organizations. They are accountable to taxpayers and politicians, meaning there is strong pressure to demonstrate outcomes that align with national interests.
• Programmatic Rigidity: Their accountability to public bodies often leads to rigid programming with predefined objectives and timelines. Flexibility may be constrained by the need to show measurable, reportable results to their government or governing bodies.

Funding and Accountability. INGOs:

• Private Donor and Multilateral Funding: INGOs receive funding from various sources, including private donors, foundations, governments, and international organizations. This allows them a certain degree of independence but also requires managing diverse donor expectations.
• Greater Flexibility: Because many INGOs depend on a mix of donor types, they often have more flexibility in adjusting their programs to meet local needs or changing circumstances. However, they still face donor reporting requirements.
• Values-Based Accountability: INGOs tend to be more values-driven, with accountability to their beneficiaries, donors, and often a board of trustees. Their work is frequently measured against ethical standards and their commitment to humanitarian principles.

Program Implementation. Development Agencies:

• Contracting Out: Development agencies often work through partnerships or by contracting projects to INGOs, private sector firms, or local governments. They provide oversight and strategic direction but may not directly implement programs.
• Long-Term Development Goals: The focus of development agencies is often on long-term development outcomes, such as governance reforms, infrastructure development, or capacity building.

Program Implementation. INGOs:

• Direct Implementation: Many INGOs directly implement programs, particularly in emergency or humanitarian contexts. They may have teams on the ground that are closely involved in all stages of project execution.
• Grassroots and Immediate Impact: INGOs tend to focus more on short- to medium-term impacts, like immediate relief efforts, community development, or advocacy for specific social issues.”

DevelopmentAid: What are the key benefits and challenges of working for a development agency versus an INGO?

“Development agencies provide job stability and competitive salaries, often higher than that you would find at INGOs. Since these agencies are tied to government or international organizations, they have long-term funding that is connected to policy goals, offering security to employees. Workers also have access to professional development opportunities and can be involved in large, high-impact projects. The structured environment is ideal for people who prefer clearly defined roles and career paths. In contrast, INGOs offer more opportunities for hands-on, mission-driven work. Employees enjoy more flexibility and autonomy when it comes to implementing projects, and decision-making happens more quickly. INGOs are often able to respond rapidly to emerging crises and offer diverse experiences, giving staff a chance to engage directly with communities and see the immediate impact of their efforts. That said, the bureaucratic nature of development agencies can frustrate people who thrive in fast-paced environments, and it can limit creativity and flexibility. Political shifts can also affect project priorities, sometimes causing disruptions. For INGOs, the biggest challenge is funding uncertainty. Since they rely on donations and grants, job security can be shaky. The fast-paced nature of their work can also lead to burnout, especially in crisis situations. Additionally, the project-based model can limit long-term career progression within one organization. In the end, the decision between the two depends on whether you prioritize job security and structure, or flexibility and hands-on involvement in your work.”

See also: Working with the EU Delegation. Tips and insights for junior development professionals | Experts’ Opinions

For professionals thinking about embracing a career with development agencies or INGOs, making the right decision can be challenging. The DevelopmentAid’s Individual Professional Membership can simplify this process by offering valuable resources to unlock new opportunities. For both candidates aiming for the stability of a development agency and for those opting for the fast-paced environment of an INGO, a DevelopmentAid Professional Membership opens access to over 4,800 job openings in the international development sector, the contact information for over 470,000 organizations in the field, and access to donor profiles, all while saving time and increasing visibility across the sector.