Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / In 2008, grassroots NGOs formed 13 alliances in response to the need for emergency relief and post-disaster recovery after the Sichuan Earthquake that occurred in West China and killed approximately 87,000 people. These alliances served to raise and deliver relief materials, train and supervise volunteers, promote information sharing, and assist victims with mental health and livelihood recovery. However, all alliances were terminated within less than four years. Although plenty of scholarship discusses how corporate alliances evolve or fail, few studies focus on interorganizational collaboration among nonprofits. To explore how NGOs developed collective actions in China’s adverse sociopolitical environment, the author performed three years of observation in four coalitions and interviewed 60 alliance leaders, employees, and volunteers. This paper identifies four types of termination these NGO alliances experienced: three of them failed at their very births, five self-disbanded shortly after the end of emergency aid, three dissolved due to failed institutionalization, and the remaining two evolved into independent organizations. Tracking their life cycles, this study finds four main factors accountable for their terminations: political pressure, funding shortage, short-term orientation, and leadership failure. In particular, the repressive NGO regulation regime and limited funding sources fundamentally restricted all alliances’ capacity and sustainability. Further, the transient nature of disaster relief efforts and the conflict between disaster management and planned work areas contributed to the short-term orientation among alliance members and, thus, led to the closure of some alliances shortly after they provided emergency relief. In addition, though generally exempt from internal rivalry that often undermines inter-firm partnerships, NGO alliances of all types were confronted with leadership challenges—partner misfits concerning resources, strategy, and mission; flawed governing structures, and undesired individual leadership. The four factors interplayed and led to alliance dissolution through different combinations. The paper points out that, in addition to environmental uncertainty, leadership failure has become a major challenge for nonprofit collaborations.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / The collapse of communism and the fall of the Soviet Union offered an unprecedented opportunity for the international community to support transitions to democracy in a region that had long known only totalitarian rule. Among the key players engaged in supporting efforts were U.S. grantmaking institutions, including both non-state and quasi-state aid providers. This thesis explores the motivations and evolving strategies of three different types of grantmaking institutions in a single country, Russia, with a particular focus on democracy aid provision from 1988-2002. The three types of grantmaking organizations examined through case studies include: the Ford Foundation, a private foundation with a history of international grantmaking spanning several decades; the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, a private foundation known primarily for its domestic focus with a much shorter history of international grantmaking; and, finally, the National Endowment for Democracy, a U.S. government-created and heavily taxpayer-funded organization established as a private nonprofit organization to make grants specifically for democracy promotion. Motivating factors for initiating or expanding grantmaking in Russia in the late 1980s included a previous history of grantmaking in the region, a previously established institutional commitment to democracy promotion, international peace and security concerns, and interest from a top institutional leader. Over the course of the fourteen year period studied, five grantmaking features are identified as influencing the development of grantmaking strategies: professional grantmaking staff; organizational habit; global political, social, and economic environments; market and other funding source influences; and physical presence. Though subject to constraints, the non-state and quasi-state grantmaking institutions included in this study were able to avoid weaknesses identified with private philanthropy in other research and demonstrated a willingness to experiment and take risks, an ability to operate at the non-governmental level, and a commitment to long-term grantmaking, informed by expertise.