CHAPTER 8
Middle East and North Africa

Tariq Cheema and Naila Farouky

Wealth creation in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is driving a generation of actors to commit their resources to the greater public welfare (Cheema 2013). Institutionalized philanthropy is rapidly growing, and in some countries in the region there is an amplified shift in government recognition towards the vast potential of civic participation, a deeper interest in philanthropic giving by large corporate institutions,1and financially well-resourced individual actors with strong ties to the community willing to commit to nonprofit organizations. In this chapter, Tariq Cheema, founder of the World Congress of Muslim Philanthropists, and Naila Farouky, CEO of the Arab Foundations Forum, discuss some of the exciting opportunities and challenges for the sector in this dynamic environment. The authors offer their thoughts on building a self-actualized board and discuss some of the issues—stewardship, accountability and transparency, culture—related to governance in the region. Because of the historic opportunity presented by the potential impact of the MENA's grant-making foundations, two case studies of foundations that have implemented good governance practices are presented.

THE PHILANTHROPIC LANDSCAPE—A HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY

The philanthropic sector in the MENA region has a historic opportunity to design and establish a more sustainable, professionalized, and formal ecosystem of giving without needing to abandon the more traditional, culturally embedded forms of philanthropy as a result. By moving more towards a world governed by the objectives of long-term value creation and sustainability, progress will occur and a new, carefully driven social contract among states, the private sector, and the philanthropic sector will begin to thrive.

The growth of the philanthropic sector in the Muslim world depends very much on how government and state institutions act and respond to it. The states have a critical role to play; they are needed to introduce incentive-based policies for donors, establish effective monitoring systems to ensure transparency in charitable operations, and regulate the collection and disbursement in Zakat, as well as other forms of religious giving (Sadaqqa, Oshour, etc.2). In some regions of the MENA, government does not promote philanthropy. The increasingly narrowing civil society space and prohibitive restrictions mounting against the sector across much of the region is severely limiting the potential for philanthropic impact and success.

In general, the public, private, and philanthropic sectors lack harmony, and their development strengths are not aligned. The policy-making process and/or service delivery is often influenced by private, political, or corporate interests and not necessarily driven by on-the-ground realities.

Despite these challenges there is a historic opportunity for the transformation of the MENA's philanthropic sector, which lies with the numerous grant-making foundations that operate across the Arab region and Muslim world. These were established mostly by the rich and powerful of those countries, mostly royals,3 private-sector leaders, and government officials.4 There is a rising class of professionally run family, corporate, and state-backed foundations whose grant making is development oriented and strategic in nature.

These foundations have potential for enormous social impact. They possess a strong drive towards philanthropic endeavors and sustainability initiatives in the MENA region, but are hampered by a lack of clarity on how to best meet the demand for giving and the supply of philanthropy. Subscale initiatives, limited investment in delivery capacity, a lack of targeted, evidence-based assessment of the needs and gaps in the sector, a general lack of strategic planning around giving and philanthropy, and a generally underdeveloped civil society are all factors that contribute to hindering the best intentions of these philanthropists. Addressing these challenges requires enhancing the institutionalization of philanthropic organizations, creating a stronger and more powerful narrative on behalf of the sector to communicate the value-added proposition of the sector (particularly to garner more government support and buy-in for the sector), and increasing the professionalism and transparency of nonprofit institutions. Improving the governance of MENA foundations, and the NGOs they support, can go a long way in achieving these improvements. In this chapter we will look at improving governance, examine some key aspects of the current context, and take a closer look at best practices for foundations.

THE ROLE OF GOOD GOVERNANCE

Good governance is key to seeking proper alignment with other sectors, in ensuring that mission takes precedence over the interests of other parties, and that pragmatically sound decisions are made to deliver maximum mission impact. But what is good governance? To illustrate, Christopher Grundner (2014) derives interesting insights from Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory (Maslow 1943) and puts it into parallel for the nonprofit board (see Figure 8.1).

Schematic illustration of Maslow’s pyramid model of nonprofit board governance.

FIGURE 8.1 Nonprofit board governance.

Source: Graphic courtesy of Chris Grundner.

Tier One: Passion and Presence

Maslow's pyramid model has at its base fundamental needs such as food, water, and rest. Adapted for the nonprofit board, at the bottom of the pyramid lies the essential element of passion for the mission. Unlike the boards of private and public corporations, nonprofit boards are not driven by financial gains, profit margins, and company stock. While passion is an absolutely essential building block for success, it is not enough to build a sustainable philanthropic venture and to steer an organization towards self-actualization of its purpose and achievement of social objectives.

The nonprofit pyramid also rests on necessary duties, such as meeting the board's fiduciary and legal responsibilities and contributing resources. Board members must regularly attend board meetings and other important organizational events and personally contribute financial resources to the organization. In Grundner's opinion, a passionate, dutiful board that just shows up is not enough to bring a nonprofit to the apex of success and establish long-term organizational sustainability. Members must also aspire to meet standards and follow best practices.

Tier Two: Standards and Best Practices

Implementing best practices (i.e., clearly defining job descriptions, initiating term limits, and conducting annual board performance reviews) is the next step up the pyramid. These measures create an environment of continuous learning and contribute to the board's ability to function at an optimum level. In order for these practices to work, however, it is also important that board members are held accountable.

There is oftentimes a disconnect between form and function in the MENA's NGOs, although this varies across the region. It is common practice for the form to serve mostly as a vehicle for communication with wealthy donors, and to be completely unrelated to function (the NGO's mission and objectives).

According to Grundner, form must follow function, and organizational structures and practices must transcend the agenda of any one individual, irrespective of wealth, position, influence, or personal financial contributions to the organization. It is imperative that nonprofit organizations do not accommodate the whims of board members and donors—the end result will be failure of the organization's mission. Setting standards that are the same for everyone will help attract the best talent and plentiful resources to NGOs. Nonprofit boards should also be intentionally selected.

Tier Three: Diversity and Inclusion

Boards should select individuals who can add meaningful value to the organization, rather than simply naming persons of influence to the governing body for the sake of visibility or prestige. At the tertiary level of Grundner's pyramid are boards that include beneficiaries and representatives of the greater community. Bringing a diversity of ethnicity and perspectives, and a broad set of skills to the board, is a means of challenging the status quo, making possible critical internal discussions in pursuit of the goal of large and meaningful impact. A culture of constructive conflict should be nurtured, because purposeful disruption drives organizational evolution and growth. In addition, diversity on philanthropic boards may mean representation of a spectrum of ages, backgrounds, experiences, education, and gender. Boards that have met basic responsibilities, set standards and best practices, and conscientiously invited to the board those who can contribute to productive and creative conversation, have yet one tier to ascend.

Tier Four: Transcendent Leadership

At the top of Grundner's nonprofit board pyramid is transcendent governance, where generativity, organizational evolution, and sustainability can exist. These boards anticipate the future through succession planning, an aspect often overlooked by philanthropic organizations. New leadership invigorates mission focus and maintains forward organizational momentum. Nonprofit organizations need to be periodically infused with a bold and energetic leadership ready to meet challenges. Finally, transcendent leaders understand that their work is governing, not managing.

Organizations with strong executive leadership—whether in the form of an executive director, director general, or a CEO—do not require the board's involvement in the minutiae of day-to-day administration and the running of an organization. Instead, the board's focus is at the policy level, providing strategic oversight. Recognizing and clearly defining the board's role as separate from management can help to alleviate the burdensome dynamics of micromanaging boards.

Diverse voices in constructive discussion lead to effective decisions. Boards that just ratify the decisions of management render incompetent governance. It is the same in both the nonprofit and corporate worlds.

STEWARDSHIP

Another similarity between the two worlds is that both nonprofits and for-profits have stakeholders. Private investors have a tangible stake and vested interest in the progress and success of a company. This makes corporate shareholders vigilant. Donors, beneficiaries, and the greater community are the stakeholders in nonprofits, and they should exercise the same level of watchfulness because they, too, have much at stake.

Philanthropic board leaders often do not reap financial rewards, but they bear no less responsibility than paid corporate board directors. If anything, in increasingly complex social and regulatory environments, they shoulder ever more responsibility, accountability, and due diligence.

They are stewards of donor and community resources, and donations and grants from state institutions, private corporations, wealthy individuals, and therefore leaders must provide stringent board oversight (Farouky 2016).

There are also profound differences between corporations and nonprofits beyond the profit factor that affect nonprofit stewardship. Where corporations can make bold decisions (because they are able to financially sustain loss from such actions), nonprofits are risk averse and have a surprisingly low tolerance for failure due, in part, to fewer resources. Often operating on lean margins, they cannot afford to gamble their resources.

Furthermore, misuse of community resources can result in the deprivation of aid to beneficiaries and disservice to donors and the greater community. And of course, the legal penalties for noncompliance are severe.

CHALLENGES TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

Professionalizing the sector by putting in place best practices, which are necessary for creating a standard by which nonprofit organizations can be measured and held accountable, will help to lessen dependence on donors and ensure the sustainability and longevity of philanthropic organizations (Farouky 2016). This can only happen in a culturally relevant framework.

One of the challenges vis-à-vis the standardization of metrics of accountability and transparency in the MENA stems, in part, from the fact that (with few exceptions) there is no expectation on the part of the public for either. MENA governments, in general, have not modeled principles of transparency and accountability, and so the people do not expect—or are not conditioned to expect—transparency and accountability from public service institutions. There are other reasons why the environment may not be conducive to transparency (i.e., in countries where NGOs have been marginalized and face intense scrutiny). Nevertheless, in order for the sector to thrive and deliver long-term impact regionally—as well as to raise the visibility of the MENA's philanthropy on the global stage—the cultural context of these challenges must be reconciled with the more universally accepted models of conducting business based on the principles of accountability and transparency.

As an example of the type of challenges NGOs face in some parts of the MENA, let us turn to the situation in Jordan.5 The government has implemented a program of regulation and relentless monitoring of NGO activity, and in this way, the State controls the philanthropic narrative of the country (Doyle 2015). Organizations that defy the status quo are quashed through stifling legalities and banking and government measures. For instance, the mandatory placement of former state/government ministers or other personnel on NGO boards keep Jordanian authorities informed of civil society ideology as it develops. They know the narrative to be controlled.

Organizations in Saudi Arabia are tightly controlled in a similar fashion. NGOs must be registered with the state and listed by the National Authority for Associations and Civil Organizations (NAA) (El Taraboulsi-McCarthy 2017). The NAA reserves the right to veto development initiatives and programs, as well as retaining the power to approve board appointments.

Jessica Leigh Doyle, in her 2015 article “Civil Society as Ideology in the Middle East: a Critical Perspective,” relates this phenomenon of state restriction and interference in civil society to Antonio Gramsci's6 argument that the dominant class produces the leaders of both civil and political realms. A study of civil society in Egypt provides further evidence that a tightly interconnected network of corporate board members and state bureaucrats wield a powerful influence in the state system. This network weighs heavily in NGO policy formulation (Abdelrahman 2004). The problem, of course, is that the political and economic interests of business enterprises are often at odds with those of the poor and disenfranchised.

Scholars of civil society and democracy in the MENA have drawn in detail the involvement of nonprofits in aiding and abetting the economic and political agenda of the ruling elite in government, society, and business. Doyle (2015) describes how Hawthorne (2004) found that NGOs often work in “partnership with states to spread the ideology of the dominant development agenda.” Arguably, this may or may not be consciously intended—NGO boards need affluent state players on their boards to ensure financial sustainability.

Outside influences are not limited to local government. Others employ nonprofits to spread ideas and build consensus; supranational states and organizations and foreign states have used domestic nonprofits to advance their agendas. NGO mission and programming can also be clouded as the result of a need to network and maintain relationships with foreign donor organizations.

NEED FOR STUDY OF THE SECTOR

Nonprofit organizations are complex. They often provide “collective goods which complement or compete with those provided by the State” (Ben Nefissa 2000, 20). They differ from the State in that benefits are not provided to the individual voter, but to a community or all of society. NGOs have both apparent and underlying functions—they have organized and regulated areas where “different power plays, legitimacies, material and symbolic interests and ideologies are acted out” (Ben Nefissa 2000, 20). Because NGOs have a unique place in the overall scheme of things, and can mediate between donors and society, they deserve and need careful study, which they lack (Ben Nafissi 2000).

What study does take place is undertaken by research centers and experts whose aims are mainly short term, selective, and empirical. Additionally, much of the research and analysis of research on the topic is rarely produced from within the MENA. Instead it is produced by nonlocal institutions and lacks a nuanced, contextualized understanding of the region and its unique challenges and opportunities. There are limits to the applicability of studies conducted elsewhere. The NGO sector did not develop along the same lines as its counterparts in the West, and while Western-style taxonomy may be borrowed, it must be very carefully tailored for the MENA to ensure its applicability in a meaningful way. There is a true risk in the lack of data and analysis produced in MENA—when the narrative is not locally owned, it is not accurately reflective of the local reality. A region that does not own its narrative cannot, in turn, tell its story.

MENA CULTURE

Culturally appropriate avenues must be found to raise NGO standards—ones that reference how the charitable and social work of Arab organizations is closely bound up with a culture shaped by religious, social, tribal, and political elements (Ben Nefissa 2000).

Religion

The earliest historical reports of Arab philanthropy involve the charitable initiatives of wealthy Muslims, Christians, and other secular reformists. Early philanthropy possessed “both modern and traditional features” (Ben Nefissa 2000, 27). Modern because some early associations were structured to include a board of directors, elections, and annual general meetings.

Philanthropy and charitable giving are neither new nor nascent concepts in the MENA or within Islamic tradition. These are deeply embedded values within the fabric of the culture and religion, and are long-held traditions that have survived for centuries. That being said, there are aspects of this paradigm that present some impediments to the more modern, practical application of giving today. For one, the informal nature of religious giving means that much of it is unaccounted for, leaving the sector with the inability to accurately account for its impact. For another, the lack of a more diversified mechanics for channeling giving in the region leaves a gap where opportunities for nonreligious, secular giving is disincentivized.

Religion today drives giving in countries such as Saudi Arabia that are largely motivated by religious belief. “Saudi philanthropy has largely been ad hoc, informed by religious and charitable impulses rather than any long-term vision” (El Taraboulsi-McCarthy 2017). Many philanthropic organizations operating within the country rely heavily on funding derived from the religious act of almsgiving, and because of its ad hoc nature, have trouble establishing sustainability.

Another example can be seen in Lebanon, where giving is governed by 18 waqf laws—one waqf per recognized sect—but where there is no law within Lebanon's constitution that allows for giving via secular, nonreligious channels. The Arab Foundations Forum, in partnership with the Arab Human Rights Fund, has drafted a nonreligious giving amendment to be introduced to the Lebanese Parliament, which outlines a means for those wishing to give outside of the waqf system, but that amendment has yet to be officially presented to the Lebanese Parliament, due, in, part, to the instability of the government in recent years.

Society

In Arab culture the family is a seminal unit, and it can influence organizational structure. For instance, in Lebanon,7 social organizations that have “connections with leading Lebanese families follow an organizational pattern similar to that of traditional family” (Ben Nefissa 2000, 24).

Politics

NGOs defer to powerful politicians, administrations, and patrons. In order to function at all, MENA NGOs are virtually “forced” (Ben Nefissa 2000, 31) to build close relationships with government. This is because of the important role played by state authorities and the regulatory system (which authorizes NGOs to collect funds). Many organizations feel that they need to recruit prominent political figures to leadership positions to maintain a basic good working relationship with the government and to avoid unnecessary legal roadblocks. Government needs nonprofits too, because they can help to broaden grassroots influence, can serve as electoral or political platforms, and also can be a conduit for the feedback of the general public.

Most Egyptian members8 of parliament hold high positions of leadership within the philanthropic sector, irrespective of their political affiliations. Reliance on transient political power, however, weakens organizations. NGO activities may change course abruptly or even cease altogether when there is a change in board leadership. This why it is vital to promote formal policies of board transition and succession. Without them, sustainability is not possible.

NGO sustainability is also at risk because of the short-term horizons of grant-giving organizations and a tendency to relate individual-to-individual instead of building holistic long-term organizational relationships. Once a favorite of a grantor leaves the NGO board, the relationship can end. Cultivating relationships between grantor and grantees over time, creating partnerships to achieve common mission goals, is the road to mutual success.

The consequences of an unaccounted sector are far reaching—if the region cannot accurately account for its giving in a formal way, it is unable to claim credibility and impact, both of which are necessary for lending gravitas to the sector. Without legitimacy, the sector is thus limited in its capacity to incentivize giving across all sectors of society and to encourage donorship and partnership building among other funders (both local and global), and is ultimately unable to measure its success in either the long term or short term.

One way to begin formalizing and professionalizing the sector in the region is to ensure that board governance of NGOs is cognizant of and conscientious towards the implementation of governance vis-à-vis these values.

Despite the challenges described above, some boards have committed themselves to raising standards. Following are case studies of two MENA foundation boards that have successfully adopted best governance practices.

CASE STUDY: EMIRATES FOUNDATION

The Emirates Foundation is headquartered in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE). Its board consists of 12 members—5 women and 7 men. Among them are government representatives, including some ministers (per UAE Emiriti decree), leaders of civil society, and the private sector.

Diversity

Because the foundation receives donations from the private sector, the government, and individuals, and so is accountable to many stakeholders, the board has purposefully focused on diversifying its composition. Initially it recruited celebrated, widely recognized, and accomplished persons from the private sector and from civil society, which helped to advance the foundation's work by raising the visibility of its programs. As the Emirates Foundation's philanthropic initiatives have gained traction and visibility, recruitment has shifted away from prominent public figures and more towards those with academic knowledge and/or experience related specifically to the organization's mission and programs.

It has also sought a better ratio of men to women on its board. In 2012, only one of the board's seven members was a woman. The board of that time represented diversity in experience, but the gender ratio was imbalanced. Over the past five years the board has expanded to include several women, all of them experienced, renowned, and highly educated. The addition of Muna Al Gurg9 and HE Shamma bint Suhail bin Faris Al Mazrui10 are examples of the outstanding women who now sit on the board of directors of the Emirates Foundation.

Relationship to Management

The board appoints the senior management team of the foundation, comprised of many Emirati and international experts, who are compensated financially on the basis of expertise and experience (the board itself is not compensated). A board level committee oversees the foundation's investments, and the board supervises and approves foundation budget plans, but avoids petty micromanagement (for example, it established a level of autonomy for the CEO of the foundation: The CEO may approve funding requests of up to US$270000.11 Larger expenditures are subject to board approval).

Policies

The Emirates Foundation's board members and foundation employees comply with an internal code of conduct, which includes a commitment to environmental sustainability. In 2008, the foundation joined the Abu Dhabi Sustainability Group to measure the foundation's environmental carbon footprint and to assist the foundation in integrating green practices into the code. The Emirates Foundation's code also gives priority to purchasing from local and national vendors and small business owners, thus encouraging the health of the local economy.

Programs

The Emirates Foundation looks to the future of the UAE. The foundation has recently shifted its programmatic focus to youth development. This shift has reshaped the organization's mission and strategies, and the formation of goal-specific projects and initiatives. Many board members take a personal interest in the programs, choosing to be involved with the foundation's outreach programs and serving as mentors to the young people who are benefitting from the Emirates Foundation's generosity.

CASE STUDY: AM QATTAN FOUNDATION

This family foundation is the legacy of one man—Abdel Mohsin Al Qattan, who has donated a large portion of his private wealth to philanthropic initiatives.

Diversity

The board of trustees once consisted only of Qattan family members, and they are still an actively involved majority, but today several renowned experts from the field also sit on the board. Experts such as Nadia Hijab12 (the first addition from outside the Qattan family) and Dr. Khalil Hindi13 provide informed opinion to foundation decisions.

The foundation also seeks to include more persons from within the family. In addition to the governing board of trustees, there is an honorary board. It is exclusive to the Qattan family—those over 30 years of age who wish to be involved with the foundation through various activities and playing different roles.

Roles and Responsibilities

Board meetings are held twice a year. Clearly defined roles have been established for the chair, deputy chair, and corporate secretary. Board committees have been established for Nomination and Governance, and one for Management.

Policies

The foundation has set clear protocols for the handling of internal audits, financial approvals, and foundation policies. Policies for accounting and procedures (such as procurement; i.e. suppliers and vendors) are in place. The foundation's funding policies limit outside contributions to a certain percentage—this is a method by which the Qattan family maintains independence in its programs and status as the primary stakeholders. The Qattan family bears all administration costs for the AM Qattan Foundation. At the same time, the foundation acknowledges its accountability to its various funding and project partners; for instance, it has clearly articulated an annual general meeting framework.

Transparency and Accountability

The foundation publishes on its website its audited annual reports, financial statements, strategic plan, and policies, making available to the public the following:

  • Board governance manual
  • Human resource policy
  • Financial policy
  • Resource development policy
  • Risk management policy

Programs

Cultural connectivity, the AM Qattan Foundation's vision since its inception, transcends borders. Foundation leaders saw that, if their mission was to be fully realized, they needed to keep pace with today's rapid globalization. Their programmatic footprint in the world was enlarged, and today the AM Qattan Foundation is registered in London, Gaza, Ramallah, and Lebanon. The foundation still honors its roots. Because the family has strong ancestral ties to Palestine, it aims to create culturally inclusive and safe places for the community in places like the Occupied West Bank. At the same time, it also has created cultural spaces in London—transporting Arab culture into the Western world to counter a negative narrative through culture, art, and literature.

TAKEAWAY POINTS

From the above case studies (and the example of others), we offer eight takeaway points for readers seeking to employ best practices:

  1. Define the mission, charter, and fundamental governance. Next, an organization should identify its beneficiaries and other stakeholders, clearly mapping out to whom the foundation owes accountability.
  2. Understand the social compact component the foundation has with its stakeholders and the greater community. Explore such questions as What do we do to stay socially relevant? and What is our level of interaction with the State and government institutions? (Grady and Roberts 2017).
  3. Evaluate the core competencies, operating capabilities, and the capacity-building of the board. Explore the interplay between the board charter, the social compact, and operating capabilities (Grady and Roberts 2017). This can open up thinking, leading to having available more options for programs and different models for operations.
  4. Strive to become a strategic board. The board should be presented with a social problem relevant to its mission that has potential for maximum impact. If the board is concerned with isolated aspects of the programs, the vision of the foundation will be compromised and social impact minimized. Becoming a strategic board may require some changeup in board composition. In designing a smooth transition, a strategic performance framework will be needed.
  5. Organize the board structure to meet the foundation's needs and to fit the environment. For most foundations, this will be some adaptation of a centralized structure.
  6. Initiate bold programs for these times of rapid globalization—nonconventional initiatives that promote research, innovation and leadership (World Congress of Muslim Philanthropists 2010).
  7. Establish endowments and other sustainable-giving vehicles. As important as emergency assistance will always be, foundations must also engage the root causes of deprivation and conflict by making investment in longer term solutions (World Congress of Muslim Philanthropists 2010).
  8. Emphasize the need to build capacity at all levels, creating best practices and encouraging informed giving.

CONCLUSION

Good governance has become a vital issue for political, economic, and social arenas. Certainly this is true for civil society, as the state delegates more and more of its responsibilities to NGOs, and the need for leadership for the sector grows. We are confident that that the philanthropic sector in the MENA will recognize the critical role of good governance in achieving the transcendent leadership it needs.

REFERENCES

  1. Abdelrahman, Maha. M. 2004. Civil Society Exposed: The Politics of NGO's in Egypt. Tauris Academic Studies.
  2. Ben Nafissi, Sara. 2000. “Management of social transformations.” MOST Discussion Paper No. 46.
  3. Cheema, T. 2013. “Our historic opportunity.” Philanthropy Age, 16–17.
  4. Civil Society Facility South. 2015. Mapping Civil Society Organizations in Lebanon. Civil Society Facility South.
  5. Doyle, Jessica Leigh. 2015. “Civil society as ideology in the Middle East: A Critical Perspective.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 403–422.
  6. El Taraboulsi-McCarthy, Sherine. 2017. A Kingdom of Humanity? Saudi Arabia's Values, Systems, and Interests in Humanitarian Action. Humanity Policy Group.
  7. Farouky, Naila. 2016. “The state of Arab philanthropy and the case for change.” Development in Practice 26, no. 5: 637–645.
  8. Grady, Heather, and Jonathan Roberts, eds. 2017. The Theory of the Foundation: European Initiative Report 2016. Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors; LSE Marshall Institute.
  9. Government of Egypt. 2002. Law on Non-Governmental Organizations. Part I: Associations Purposes, Rights and Obligations of Associations, Article 11. http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5491907d4.pdf (accessed January 5, 2017).
  10. Grundner, Chris. 2014. “Modern nonprofit board governance—passion is not enough!” TED Talk. www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIF9yJVldwQ2014 (accessed December 12, 2017).
  11. Hawthorne, A. 2004. “Middle Eastern democracy—is civil society the answer?” Carnegie Papers.
  12. Maslow, A. 1943. “A theory of human motivation.” Psychological Review 50: 370.
  13. World Congress of Muslim Philanthropists. 2010. 10 Guiding Principles for Muslim Giving.

NOTES

FURTHER READING

  1. Herrold, Catherine, E. 2016. “NGO policy in pre- and post-Mubarak Egypt: effects on NGOs' roles in democracy promotion.” Nonprofit Policy Forum 7, no. 2: 189–212.
  2. Law, R. T. 2007. www.hrw.org/reports/2007/jordan1207 (accessed December 12, 2017).
  3. Rahman, M. 2005. A Civil Society Exposed: The Politics of NGOs in Egypt. Tauris Academic Studies.
  4. UNESCO. 2000. NGOs, Governance and Development in the Arab World. UNESCO.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
18.223.182.97