l investment, nor do they receive the judgement of citizens through social unrest or the periodic vote. In other words, consumers and voters are the source of performance standards for business and government- but not for NGOs (Fowler, 1996).
与商业公司发展不同，非政府组织没有市场反馈、盈利能力和金融投资回报的“底线”，也没有通过社会动荡或定期投票获得公民的判断。换句话说，消费者和选民是企业和政府绩效标准的来源，而非非政府组织。
According to LeCompte (1986), the difficulty in measuring the development performance of NGOs stems from the basic incompatibility between the assumptions on which the aid system is based and the actual process of socio-economic change. Social economic change is mostly contingent as different from the linear model the aid system presupposes. There are three problems with this approach. Firstly, the right ways of doing things cannot all be sufficiently predicted in advance? Secondly, the assumptions seldom hold. And, thirdly, development – in the sense of sustained improvement in the lives and circumstances of people who are poor or marginalised – does not take place in a linear way under the influence of one single intervention (LeCompte, 1986). As resources move down the aid chain, several things happen which undermine the project approach, and hence limit the ability simply to tie resources and activities to NGO performance in terms of development?
根据LeCompte的说法，衡量非政府组织发展绩效的困难源于援助制度所依据的假设与社会经济变化的实际过程之间的基本不相容。社会经济变化与援助系统预设的线性模型不同，大多是偶然的。这种方法有三个问题。首先，正确的做事方式不能事先充分预测？其次，这些假设很少成立。第三，发展——在贫困或边缘化人群的生活和环境持续改善的意义上——不会在单一干预的影响下以线性方式发生。随着资源在援助链上的流动，发生了一些破坏项目方法的事情，从而限制了将资源和活动与非政府组织在发展方面的绩效挂钩的能力？
Furthermore, the measures of development are very complex, containing both tangible or physical elements and intangible factors of human and organisational processes and capacities. Also, the possibility of attributing the cause of change to an NGO’s work is very restricted.
此外，发展措施非常复杂，既包含有形或有形因素，也包含人力和组织过程和能力的无形因素。此外，将变革原因归因于非政府组织工作的可能性非常有限。
ACCOUNTABILITY 问责制
Who are NGOs accountable to, for what, and how? Concerns about the role and accountability of NGOs have been voiced from different quarters in recent years. As the World Bank (2005) noted, with growth in the influence of NGOs so also are they attracting greater public scrutiny, prompting calls for greater accountability. Some donors, governments, corporations, and international agencies raise important questions about the effectiveness of NGO work and the legitimacy of their advocacy. Some NGOs have also recognized the need to ensure good practice in the wider voluntary sector.
非政府组织对谁负责、对什么负责以及如何负责？近年来，各方面都对非政府组织的作用和责任表示了关注。正如世界银行所指出的，随着非政府组织影响力的增长，它们也吸引了更多的公众监督，这促使人们呼吁加强问责制。一些捐助者、政府、公司和国际机构对非政府组织工作的有效性及其宣传的合法性提出了重要问题。一些非政府组织还认识到需要确保更广泛的志愿部门的良好做法。
The question of accountability is seen as a bureaucratic hurdle at best, and at worst as a threat to achieving an NGO’s aims. Some fear that any toughening of accountability may lead to an overbearing influence from funders and governments, which could then lead to cooptation and a deflection of original purpose (Najam, 2000), or lead to the stymieing of innovation and reducing the diversity of NGOs (Cnaan, 1996).
问责问题充其量被视为官僚主义障碍，最坏的情况下被视为对实现非政府组织目标的威胁。一些人担心，任何问责制的加强都可能导致资助者和政府的霸道影响，进而导致合作和偏离初衷，或导致创新受阻，减少非政府组织的多样性。
The problem of to whom accountability should be towards also arises many times. Accountability is usually upwards to donors and not to the poor who are the most immediately concerned. NGOs just want to show that money is not being misappropriated and that the approved activities are completed rather than that desirable change was achieved, let alone sustainable. Bendell (2006) however argued that democracy and human rights should firmly be at the centre of the debate about NGO accountability. By democratic accountability he meant that NGOs should be more accountable to those with less power who are affected by the organization’s actions or decisions – “the poor”.
问责对象的问题也多次出现。问责通常由捐助者承担，而不是由最直接关心的穷人承担。非政府组织只是想表明资金没有被挪用，批准的活动已经完成，而不是实现了理想的改变，更不用说是可持续的。然而，Bendell认为，民主和人权应该坚定地成为非政府组织问责制辩论的中心。他所说的民主问责制意味着，非政府组织应该对那
