**TL;DR - NGOs are a form of neocolonialism. NGOs working in non-western countries receive their funding from western funding sources such as the World Bank. This means that they rely on western funding in order to work in these countries meaning they will spread western values and norms in non-western cultures, exerting western influence over non-western countries.** *Definitions* Neocolonialism, according to Merriam-Webster, is defined as 'the economic and political policies by which a great power indirectly maintains or extends its influence over other areas or people'. NGOs (non-governmental organisations) or not for profit charitable organisations that are supposed to be separate from any governmental power. An example of an NGO is Oxfam. Many NGOs work in non-western countries. *NGO Funding* This opinion will look at the World Bank one of the main funding sources for NGOs. The World Bank is a western organisation based in the United States, that is funded by western countries to support initiatives that promote equality. However, this idea of equality is what is understood by western cultural standards of equality. As the World Bank is a western organisation, it works under the western frameworks that western society works under and from there universalises western cultural understandings and values without taking into account the cultural understandings of countries around the world. Whether it is freeing monkeys from their trainers in India, or fighting female genital mutilation in Africa, the money flows from Europe to help “educate” the locals. In many ways this constitutes part of a neocolonialism with buying influence through NGOs to encourage the spread of certain values. This in turn creates a power dynamic in which if an NGO working in a non-western country needs financial support from these big western funders such as the World Bank, they need to fit into western cultural categories in order to receive that funding. This results in the enforcing of western values and categories through western funding avenues resulting in the enforcement of western influence and power through these NGO funding sources onto non-western countries. This results in a forced dependency of NGOs in non-western countries on western funding streams. This fits with the previous definition of neocolonialism. Resources: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neocolonialism https://sethfrantzman.com/2013/03/16/are-ngos-a-form-of-neo-colonialism/ https://www.vocaleurope.eu/ngos-spearheading-neo-colonialism-eu-style/ Quijano, A. (2006). ‘Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America’, International Sociology, 15(2), p. 215–232. World Bank. (2015). ‘World Bank Group Gender Strategy (FY16-23)’, Gender Equality, Poverty Reduction and Inclusive Growth

**TL;DR: Modern NGOs have their limitations. However, labeling them neo-colonial ignores many layers of nuances.** Ideological purism in NGO funding does not render productive results. While NGOs should receive scrutiny for their fundraising like all other organizations, one should not criticize them for raising “western money.” To start with, many international NGOs work with underprivileged groups. These groups do not have the resources to support the work of the NGOs. Even if they do, donations to NGOs may just be a culturally alien concept to many people across the world. Therefore, a lack of local funding does not signal the lack of popularity of NGOs in those regions, nor does it discredit the importance of NGOs’ work. Furthermore, such criticism ignores the actual mechanism of NGO operations. Many NGOs enjoy a significant degree of autonomy from their funding sources. Many of them strive to connect with their target beneficiaries. Therefore, equating an NGO’s agenda to that of its funding source ignores some of the basic realities of NGO functions. The proponent of the idea sets up so-called “western cultural understanding and values” as a straw man. What does the word western mean here? There are countless NGOs with different and often competing agendas, funded by very different sources. Reducing that ideological diversity to a simple stamp of “western cultural understanding and values” appears puzzling. Moreover, the level of moral relativism in this argument seems shocking in its depth. Cultural toleration of cruelty does not excuse cruelty. Human genital mutilation remains a grotesque deed despite its cultural root. In other words, one should assume that the concept of human rights has the property to exceed cultural differences. Calling a good concept western does not discredit it. Lastly, the harm of this idea looms larger than its benefits. The argument itself is not entirely wrong. Many of these NGOs may, despite their best intentions, be reinforcing the current global power structure. However, the idea has often become weaponized as an excuse for authoritarian countries to discredit human rights advocacy. China has done so. Russia has done so. For these reasons, a purity test on NGOs ignores important nuances and lends credibility to autocracies.