It is common sense to think of the non-profit sector in developed countries as being independent from the state and generally self-sufficient. This is why charities in the West ultimately rely on public trust and the culture of giving. As part of our Brand Attributes Monitor, we ask people to choose the attributes their ideal charity would have. The ‘credentials’ cluster, which includes attributes such as accountable, cost-effective, professional and reputable, is in the public's top three.

Since people are eager to know how effectively their donations are used, Western charities are under constant pressure to build a robust institutional structure that instills trust by enhancing efficiency and transparency. This is done at the risk of incurring extra administrative costs, but at the end of the day, charities largely stand or fall according to the measure of their own public credibility.

In the developing world, it is a different story. Where civil society institutions are more or less dependent on the state, charities may be insulated from the pressures of accountability to a degree. But this comes at a cost, not only for the charities, but also for the state! We can see this clearly in two recent events involving aid organisations that are championed by their respective states.

The first is the corruption scandal that surrounded the Chinese Red Cross. Until recently, it was one of the two institutions legally allowed to accept donations in China. When pictures of a Red Cross employee’s lavish lifestyle and the expensive watches of some aid workers went viral, public rage targeted not only the charity but also the state itself. The Chinese political establishment had to send in the first lady to clean up the tarnished image of the gigantic charity.

The second is a more recent example of how the misdeeds of charities stain not only themselves, but also their patrons. On the first day of 2014, a truck heading to Syria was stopped by police in Southern Turkey. The truck was rented by the Istanbul-based IHH (Humanitarian Relief Foundation). IHH first received international public interest with its involvement in the Mavi Marmara attempt to break the Israeli blockade over the Gaza Strip in May 2010. Since then, there were numerous media reports on the alleged links between the Turkish government and IHH. So when the Turkish police initially announced they found arms and ammunition in the truck, eyes were turned directly towards the government. The government first rejected claims of non-humanitarian cargo, but then announced the truck was bound for Syrian Turkmens in order to assist their self-defence. Moreover, they sparked intense parliamentary and public debate by tying the police search to an international conspiracy.

Even if we agree that politics and charitable work may not be fully divorced, it is clear that governments in the developing world have a long-term interest in allowing charities to be independent. Political authorities in developing countries often saw charitable work as a source of gaining public trust. But the steady pace of economic and social progress in the developing world requires states to assume the role of ‘impartial brokers’ in civil society, rather than ‘providing fathers’.

In favour? Outraged? Leave us a comment below.