Growth and Impact of International Associations and their Networks
- / -
This paper, originally presented under the title Networks
of International Associations; occupational categories and world problems,
was completely re-written in the light of the papers and discussion at the Conference
on International Scientific and Professional Associations and the International
System (Philadelphia, November 1976)
This paper considers various aspects of the significance and nature of the
Impact of International associations on their environment, and particularly
the Impact of International scientific and professional associations on the
International system. In approaching this matter,it is first useful to examine
why the question of impact is important, what is meant by impact, and the
questions raised by the process of proving Impact. This establishes an
appropriate context within which to comment on the progressive increase in
the number of International associations and their Interrelationships and
the manner in which networks of organizations may diffuse Impact and act as
vehicles for its transference.
A. Assessment of impact of INGOs on IGOs
a. Justification for assessing impact
The following points indicate the major reasons for assessing impact:
Policy concern: In order to justify an existing policy with
regard to an International association,it is appropriate to assess the Impact
of the body on its environment. Of a slightly different nature is the
need for an organization to assess the general Impact of such a body on
its environment before responding to an unprecedented attempt by such an
association to influence the organization's policy.
- Resource allocation: To the extent that the allocation of resources
in support of project proposal of a particular association is a program rather
than a policy decision, then it may be important to evaluate the actual or
potential Impact of the association on its environment.
- Acknowledgment of recommendations: Many associations produce
recommendations, resolutions or declarations which may be directly or indirectly
transmitted to parts of the intergovernmental system. In order for IGOs
to justify attention to such recommendations, they must prove that the association
has adequate political impact to give credibility to such positions,irrespective
of their content.
- Suspension of relationships: Under certain circumstances (e.g
. ECOSOC's positions in relation to Spain, South Africa and Taiwan and channelling
of CIA funds through INGOs), an IGO may need to prove Inappropriate
Impact r, order to justify suspension of relationships with an INGO, or some
other form of sanction or censorship.
- Provocation: Since there is a range of INGOs associated with the
ideology of each major power bloc, the IGOs associated with a power bloc may
wish to prove the negative impact of the equivalent INGOs on any other power
blocs as a Justification for some form of tacit or overt support. (Where
the impact is shown to be positive, this then becomes justification for some
form of sanction or censorship as under the previous point.)
- Value elaboration: Where national or International associations
have built up a climate of opinion superior in some values to those with which
the Intergovernmental system is associated, IGOs may wish to recover lost
ground by proving the positive impact of selected INGOs in order to justify
binding them into IGO programmes (the UN approach to the environment issue
is a case in point).
- Reinforcement of constituency: Where IGO member slates have for
political reasons generated resolutions Initiating programmes which alienate
much of its usual constituency, it may seek to prove the Impact of INGOs on
such programmes in order that by so associating them it may establish a favourable
climate of opinion for the programmes amongst the INGOs constituencies.
- Tradition, prestige and public relations; Where an IGO wishes
to maintain relations with a particular INGO for special reasons,it may prove
impact to justify such a position (the relation between the UN and the World
Federation of United Nations Associations Is a case in point).
b. Varieties of impact
The different types of impact can be grouped as follows:
Physical,including violet demonstrations, occupation of
offices, physical damage to buildings or equipment, violence or threats
of violence to personnel, physical assistance (manpower), etc.
- Affective, including non-violent demonstrations, emotional
propaganda, smear or hate-campaigns, supportive campaigns, etc.
- Procedural, including strikes, lock-outs,
restraining orders, procedural andregulatory devices (legal, administrative,
financial, safety, health), resolutions, declarations, etc.
- Programme content, namely conceptual or information inputs contributing
to the elaboration of programme content, within its predetermined framework.
- Organization policy, namely political, financial, statistical,
conceptual and similar Inputs affecting the formulation, selection and rejection
- Policy coordination, namely political and other considerations
affecting the coordination of programmes of semi-autonomous organizations
acting on interrelated problem areas.
- Research, namely conceptual and methodological advances which effectively
question the utility and significance of the problems addressed by existing
programmes and policies.
- Socio-political, namely political, ideological and philosophical
advances which effectively question the utility and significance of: (a)
the organizational structures used to direct existing programme and policies;
and (b) the research by which the problems and remedial action are defined.
The above grouping reflects a primarily western approach to the varieties
of impact. The situation is more complex as has been remarked by authors such
as Stafford Beer and J. Forrester:
"Le Chatelier's Principle: Reformers,
critics of institutions, consultants in innovation, people in short who 'want
to get something done', often fall to see this point. They cannot understand
why their structures, advice Or demands do not result in effective change.
They expect either to achieve a measure of success in their own terms or to
be flung off the premises. But an ultrastable system (like a social institution)..
.has noneed to react in either of these ways. It specializes in equilibrial
readjustment, which is to the observer a secret form of change requiring no
actual alteration in the macro-systemic characteristics that he is tryingto
do something about." ((Stafford Beer. The cybernetic cytoblast -- management
itself. Chairman's Address to the International Cybernetics Congress, September
Some eastern philosophies might even be described as philosophies of "non-impact".
They have influenced, and continue to influence, the Gandhian non-violent
approach and some aspects of the Chinese approach social change. It should
be stressed that the western perception that such attitudes constitute a form
of passivity are but ill-informed simplifications, particularly since such
philosophies underlie the eastern martial arts.
Such a point could well be supported with citations from Lao Tzu, Chuang
Tzu or similar authors. It is more appropriate however to note the study
mode by Scott Boorman on the implications of this kind of thinking for
Mao Tse Tung's revolutionary strategy(2). It could be argued that a similar
approach partly underlies the evolution of the Vietnam situation end that
in other arenas. Conventional biliard-hall models of impact are likely
to be insensitive to such strategies. no coincidence that Scott Boorman himself
has specialized in the study of formal social networks.(3).
The utility of the conventional approaches may also be questioned in the
light of comments such as that of Peter Drucker: "The correct figures
could perhaps have forecast; but what today, only ten years later,
controls America's mood and shapes its policies - not to mention
its picture of itself -- would have been quite unpredictable to any statistical,
protective method: there has been a change of meaning, the
quality, the perception of our experience. In 1959 the accent was, on
our affluence. In 1969 it is all on the poor." (#, emphasis
added) And as predicted, the meaning has again changed unexpectedly since
then. This point is made even more strongly by Alvin Toffler (5).
It could argued that many international associations function in order to
change meaning, to support or facilitate any such change, or to maintain
continuity through such changes. Their success in doing so is not necessarily
detectable by the methods of evaluation normally recommended. Moreover
alternative philosophies may well change the significance, if any,of "success"
as determined in this way and the legitimacy of actions based on conclusions
of "low Impact".
Related to the indirect forms of impact noted above is the static impact
which in its most extreme form is now termed structural violence.
"Basically, what seems to be behind it is a pattern of human Interaction,
of social order that is so prevalent, so all-pervasive that it seems to be
present as an archetype at all times and all points in space. The moment
one believes a more egaliterian structure has been created the same social
order seems to come in by the back door. It seems to survive very well the
changes from a slave society, via a feudal and capitalist order, towards
a socialist society. "(6)
This "structural impact" may also be significant in the activities
of an organization and of the international system.
c. Issues raised in assessing impact
The process of proving and assessing impact raises a number of Issues briefly
The situations in which a demand is made for an assessment of Impact
tend to be structured such that impact must effectively be proven before
attention is directed towards the bodies giving rise to the impact.
The "existence" of such bodies is deduced from the recognition
of the Impacts to which they give rise. If no Impact can be detected then
the question of whether such bodies exist is considered irrelevant. The
convenience of this approach does not eliminate the question of whether
the organizational system has an adequate concept of its environment,in
that some Impacts may be undetectable by the methods or criteria used, and
some external unrecognized bodies may suddenly give rise to impacts for
which the organization is unprepared.
- Related to the previous point is the assumption of absence of impact on
an organizational system unless impact can be proven. It is certainly debeteable
whether this is an appropriate attitude for an organization (as noted above)
or for the Intellectual disciplines associated with the assessment and its
methodology. It is particularly unfortunate in that the assumption places
the burden of proving Impact on the external unrecognized body (in a manner
somewhat analogous to that of a legal system in which innocence, rather than
guilt, has to be proven).
- The demand for proof and assessment of impact places the body making such
demands in a special position in relation to those who may be perceived as
having Impact. Where such bodies have a special place in the international
system (e.g. the United Nations), the conclusions of any such evaluation effectively
contribute to the definition of the reality of the international system.
Those bodies excluded from this reality by this process have no method of
appeal, since the effects of the evaluation process are not of Interest to
the bodies demanding it. Such evaluations may usefully be termed "directive
assessments" because of the by-products of the evaluation process.
It is important to render explicit for whom a particular set of impacts is
considered significant and in whose interest.
Impact studies are organized in terms of impact on a focal organization
or group (known as the point of anchorage in social network analysis where
it is usually taken to be some specified individual whose behaviour the
observer wishes to interpret). This raises the question of what bodies
are undetected or ignored by this approach, whether such bodies may have
some indirect impact on the focal organization, and whether the behaviour
of the whole set of bodies in network does not effectively result in diffusion
of all Impacts throughout the network.
Current impact studies necessarily predefine what processes are to be
considered as conveying valid impacts. This raises the question of what
other processes are undetected or ignored by this approach and the consequences
of inability to focus on them.
- Impact impact studies raise the question of how the thresholds are selected
below which Impacts of a particular kind are considered Insignificant. (The
physical sciences are fortunate in having established how "weak"
and "strong Interactions" should be taken into consideration, thus
enabling them to give appropriate attention, for example, to the Impact on
an object (a) of a falling weight, (b) of a mass any specified distance from
it, and (c) of weak electromagnetic forces such as the magnetic field of the
earth. The question may be asked whether Impact studies in the social sciences
are able to focus on Impacts analogous to (b) and (c) where there is no direct
impact as such merely the Influence of forces, which under some conditions,in
the case of physics, may be of considerable significance aside from being
necessary to any adequate understanding.)
Studies of association impact on the intergovernmental system raise the question
as to how relevant the Impact of one organization on another is to an understanding
of their separate or combined impact on the problems for which they were established.
The approach loses sight of the fact the society's available Institutions
are falling to contain the complex of problems on which they purport to focus.
It is difficult to avoid the general impression of a series of continuing
sterile debates about "pseudo-issues" effectively (although not
deliberately) structured to avoid converging on conclusions which could legitimate
any recommendations for remedial projects to increase the value of organizations
and associations separately and as linked in networks. Such issues can be
termed "pseudo-issues" because, from a very realistic and practical
point of view, there is little that can be done about any of them individually
at this point in time. Such Issues should better be seen as constraints on
any action strategy, rather than the prime policy concern in connection with
INGOs, as tends to be the case in IGO, INGO and academic circles. Hopefully
many of these problems will be overcome at some stage, but it would seem
to be unnecessarily short- sighted to allow them to constitute delays to effective
development of the full potential of the INGO network. The organizational
Instruments for action may in many cases be imperfect, but concentrating attention
on their imperfections may simply obscure the fact that they are already quite
adequate for many tasks and that the specific imperfections are in large part
a circumstance of the times rather than of their nature. Practical approaches
to improving their ability to perform their functions may well be the quickest
method of reducing their imperfections. The point made here has beenexplored
elsewhere ( 7).
d. Conventional evidence for impact
As noted earlier, there are problems in obtaining satisfactory evidence
impact of international associations on the intergovernmental system, particularly
since within the IGO system such evaluations tend to be tied to programme
themes such as development, environment, peace, human rights, etc.
The category of scientific and professional associations is not used by the IGO
system, although occasional references are made to technical associations.
It is interesting that probably some white collar trade
unions coming within the
parview of ILO could also be
considered as professional associations.
There have been numerous positive statements concerning international
associations in general, produced by officials from the UN Secretary-General
downwards on appropriate occasions, as well as from government delegates.
Official resolutions frequently call upon such bodies for some action or
support. Unfortunately none of this
constitutes "evidence" of Impact, because
such statements may always be Interpreted as having a public relations
Although if this is the case, the obligations felt by parts of the IGO
maintain good relations with such
associations may perhaps Itself be considered
as stronger evidence of impact.
Assessments by scholars do not in
or reasons noted earlier, provide good evidence for the presence or absence of
impact, except in the case of intensive study of particular associations or
groups of associations (cf. the studies of Edward Miles of space,
and sea-related bodies). IGO
secretariat assessments, such as those of ECOSOC
and UNESCO, of NGCs in consultative
status are basically descriptive rather than
Thus, although it would be possible
to select, sift and cite specific
statement of positive impact, the question
remains as to whether this would
be considered positive proof (and by whom) or merely circumstantial evidence
of little relevance to current theory in
the field of political science or policy
studies. Current theories are indeed indifferent to such evidence. For example,
Keohane and Nye note that the impact of inter-societal interactions and
transnational actors in international affairs has been ignored in both policy-
oriented writings and more theoretical works, and that when they have been
recognized they have often been consigned to the environment of Inter-state
politics, and relatively little attention has been paid to them in their own
right or to their connections with the inter-state system (8)..Singer
and Wallace are quite explicit about exclusion of NGOs from their analysis:
"our interests (and, we suspect, those of most of our colleagues) are
more concerned with IGOs than with nongovernmental organizations."
Finally there is the question of what criteria to use in evaluating the evidence
forpossible impact of ISPAs on IGOs. Should the criteria relate purely to
the transfer of scientific knowledge and considerations? Should they relate
to science policy and use of resources for science? Or should they simply
relate to political clout irrespective of the scientific and professional
component? Curtis Roosevelt, former Chief of the NGO Section of the UN Secretariat
makes the (11) that IGOs are political institutions and an NGO can only
be effectivein relation to them by relating to such bodies politically.
The reality of the situation is that governmental delegates assess the potential
value of an NGO primarily in terms of the political power of the constituency
it represents. Scientific or professional expertise does not necessarily
imply political power. Furthermore, most expertise, however technical, is
now held by IGOs to have political overtones. Even NGOs concerned with
astronomy, cardiology or Sanskrit literature, for example, are not effective
IGO terms unless they take positions on issues such as peace, human rights,
etc. Clearly an ISPA low on expertise might therefore be perceived as having
more impact than one having high expertise and little political sensitivity.
What would be a good indication of political impact in this context? For
example, the ability to influence the wording of a resolution is an indicator
of impact, but what if the resolution is never effectively acted upon by the
IGO (as can be frequently argued). The ability to influence allocations
of funds is also important, but what if the resources are small relative to
the expenses of the lobbying activity necessary (as is the case with many
programmes of interest to ISPAs)?
The disadvantages of
following this route seem clear enough, and in the light of
the argument of the previous
sections another approach seems more appropriate.
e. Characteristics of impact-oriented associations
It is perhaps useful to distinguish a category of international associations
whose operations are strongly influenced by the desire to impact directly
upon the intergovernmental system. Such associations tend to have characteristics
such as the following:
a relatively high proportion of resources is devoted to face-to-face
contact with government delegates and IGO secretariat officials. In addition
the funds of the association, such resources may effectively include the
time of international personalities linked to the association (but funded
through other channels) or willing to act for it in any lobbying role, whether
discreet or overt.
the people used in the lobbying role tend to have past experience as
part of the intergovernmental system, whether as diplomats, as IGO officials,
or as national government delegates or experts. Where this is not the
case, the people and the association tend to adopt an activist stance relying
on their energy, expertise, and/or ability to feed politically embarrassing
information to the media, rather than rely on the fruits of subtle lobbying.
considerable attention may be given to actual and potential links with
the news media to maintain an Image of strength with respect to the intergovernmental
system (and possibly to association membership). Such links may be based
on the release of well-researched reports of value to the media or by the
ability to generate news by triggering demonstrations. Alternatively,
or possibly in addition, links may be obtained with influential national
power bases with their own contacts to national delegations.
considerable attention is given to the rights and procedures by which
International associations may be physically represented at intergovernmental
conferences or in IGO secretariats, particularly over matters such as the
right to make or circulate statements.
- almost by definition, the existence of such associations tends to be justified
and maintained by the existence of intergovernmental entitles with which they
can interact. There is a relationship of dependency.
f. Characteristics of non-impact-oriented associations
A category of international associations whose operations arc not strongly
influenced the desire to Impact directly upon the Intergovernmental system
may also be distinguished. Such associations tend to have characteristics
such as the following:
a relatively high proportion of resources is devoted to the activities
and programmes of the association,irrespective of how they are appreciated
by the Intergovernmental system.
the activities tend to emphasize: relationships between members, member
or association activity on identified problems, the convocation of meetings
to clarify the domain of interest to the association, or the collection
or generation of information reflecting the content of that domain. Such
activities may only incidentally involve or be of interest to the intergovernmental
the attitude of members may not be oriented towards achieving
or accomplishing specific programme objectives but rather of developing
a certain climate of opinion amongst members and others, possibly including
the general public. The evaluation of the effectiveness of such activity
may even be considered destructive of its quality and as such undesirable
as well as unnecessary. Members concern for the effectiveness of the association
may be limited to Us Impact on themselves and those with whom they associate.
g. Limited validity of conclusion from impact studies
Some studies of the impact of international associations on the intergovernmental
system employ a procedure which results in misleading, if not erroneous, conclusions.
An impact study may be organized in terms of one of the following, for example:
(a) investigation at a major intergovernmental meeting (e.g. UN Environment
Conference, Stockholm 1972; UN Habitat Conference, Vancouver, 1976) of international
association action and contact with government delegates.
(b) investigation of those international associations having consultative
status with one or more intergovernmental bodies (e.g. Unesco, Ecosoc, ILO,
(c) interviews with secretariat personnel of one or more Intergovernmental
bodies concerning their contact with international associations.
(d) investigation of field level activities of international associations
andtheir relation to the representatives of one or more intergovernmental
bodies in the countries in question.
Such studies tend to have one or more of the following unstated assumptions:
(i) that because part of the intergovernmental system has given
rise to an organization, a programme or a conference to focus on a particular
subject or problem, then any international association which attempts to act
on that Issue would want to interact with the structure in question.
This is incorrect because a significant number of International associations
may consider that the particular structure (1) can itself only be relevant
to a (possibly minor) aspect of the issue, (ii) has been prepared, or operates.
In such a way that most decisions of any significance are either taken in
advance or in other arenas, (iii) is conceived mainly as an exercise in public
relations to focus public support and the attention of some governments insensitive
to the issue, (iv) is conceived as a political compromise substituting forany
effective action on the issue.
(ii) that because an international association is represented at
some inter- governmental organization, programme or conference, then the association
is necessarily attempting to have an impact on that intergovernmental structure.
This is incorrect because a significant number of international associations
may consider that the structure suffers from the defects Identified under
the previous point. In order to maintain a line of contact with the Intergovernmental
body, whilst minimizing the resources engaged, they may effectively employ
any of the following strategies: (i) ensure that any list of participants
or contacts produced by the Intergovernmental body identifies the association,
even though its representative departed Immediately after having accomplished
this, if it could not be done by post; (ii) allow the association to be
represented whenever necessary or convenient by whatever member happens to
be livingin the area or passing through; (iii) allow the association to be
represented by any enthusiastic member interested in the activity (or personal
reasons (including personal status and prestige, etc.); (iv) allow the association
to be represented by a non-member with some special interest (e.g. conducting
Interviews (or a research project). Some associations may only be represented
because of the convenience o( the setting (or maintaining contact with other
associations interested in the issue (and irrespective of the intergovernmental
activity). Note that questionnaire research is based on mailing lists
of association representatives o( the type identified here.
(iii) that because a representative emphasizes the interest of his association
in having impact on some intergovernmental organization, programme or conference,
that the association necessarily has such an Interest or that any of its efforts
at impact are related to the representative in question.
This is incorrect because (i) the representative may sincerely believe
that the association has given him a responsible role, when it has merely
responded passively to or minimally to his availability; (ii) the representative
may feel obliged to disguise the minimal response of his association, he is
aware of it, to avoid negative consequences for his association: (iii) the
association may feel obliged to be represented to ensure that it is still
recognized as "in the game", by its peers, by any part of the Intergovernmental
system which makes later use of the mailing lists, and possibly even some
of Us own members or by those conducting studies of representation which may
be widely distributed; (iv) the association may participate not in an attempt
to have Impact on that intergovernmental body but in order to counteract any
impression of bias arising from its special interest in interacting with some
other part of the intergovernmental system (e.g. with a different ideological
(iv) that because information or impact has been supplied by a person
in one part of an association secretariat, that this necessarily reflects
the official position of the association.
This is incorrect because (i) the person in the secretariat may have such
responsibilities for reasons similar to those of the external representative
identified in the previous point; (ii) the association may not have a position
on the matter as well-formed as is implied by the ability to respond to questions
about it in particular (iii) the association may not conform to a structure
and be easily comparable with its peers, namely speak on behalf of the association
as a whole; (v) that because Information on impact has been supplied by
a person in one part of an intergovernmental secretariat, at this necessarily
reflects the official position of the organization.
this is incorrect because an intergovernmental secretariat has a number
of offices (in the case of the larger agencies) or positions via which it
interacts with associations. The lack of coordination between such offices
is well recognized. Such offices may include: (1) public information
office charged with mobilizing association support for agency programs, unrelated
to (ii) abureau responsible (or consultative relations with NGOs, in support
of (iii) a governmental committee defining which bodies shall be called NGOs,
icy on them, which may be ignored by (iv) departments concerned with substantive
programme areas working with useful associations, irrespective or whether
they are "NGOs" or international, (v) departments emanating, receiving
or exchanging information with associations (vi) the agency conference environment
in which a particular association may get considerable air-time through several
Thus when an intergovernmental representative complains that the associations
with which he has any contact (possibly at agency-convoked meetings) are naive,
he may well be correct. Agencies have set up such an unfruitful environment
for contact with associations that the latter avoid contact because there
are more effective forms of action. Those that do not either have special
introductions to exploit (and are therefore assessed as "effective")
or are in the process of learning what a waste of effort such contacts
can prove to be.
B. Growth of INGOs and ISPAs
a. Quantitative increase in number
of international associations
The preceding sections have drawn attention to the absence of
evidence to establish the significance or policy relevance of international
associations. It is therefore
appropriate to look at the quantitative increase
in the number of such bodies, particularly for the sub-set of international
scientific and professional associations. For although there is no consensus
concerning the significance of such associations as a social phenomenon
relevance to the process of policy formulation, such bodies continue to be
created and continue to attract membership.
An indication of the number of IGOs and INGOs is given in Table 1 based on
data from the Yearbook of International Organizations (1977). The ISPAs,
as defined by William Evan, are identified therein by *********** .(insert
chosen for the Table). The
relatively complex form of the Table reflects
the changes made by the Union of International Associations in compiling
successive editions of the Yearbook.
The most recent edition, completely
restructured, incorporated over 2,000 additional organizations corresponding
to borderline categories previously excluded (11). It
should not therefore
be assumed that INGOs are distinguished unambiguously from other types of
organization. Nor should it be
assumed that INGOs can be easily allocated
to the subject categories of Table 1.
For example, should the international
Federation of Catholic Pharmacists be placed under "religion,
ethics" (i.e. not
an ISPA) or "health, medicine" (i.e. an ISPA). To get around this difficulty,
organizations are allocated to one category with secondary allocations to one
or more other categories, as shown in the last line of Table 1.
Table 1 may be interpreted as indicating that ISPA's as a sub-set of
are growing at a faster rate than the class of INGO's as a whole.
Aside from the growth in the number of international organizations, data
available (see Table 2) on the growth
in the national representation in those
bodies. To the extent that each
international organization is perceived as an
ordered network, this is an indication
of the extent of such networks. This
derived from work in
connection with the
Yearbook of World Problems
and Human Potential
In attempting to establish how many "international organizations"
there are, (12)
is important to consider the data presented in Tables 3 and 4. These show
the extent to which "regional" bodies are present in the data
set. This is
significant in that regional bodies are not always considered to be part of the
community of "international" organizations.
The significance of available data on international organizations and
membership is reduced because of the lack of information on the number of
organizations in each country which constitute the pools from which members
are drawn or from which initiatives arise for the creation of new INGOs. As an
indication of the amount of unrecognized organization activity on which the
visible INGOs are based:
(i) David Horton Smith has estimated that for the USA there are (a)
from 30 to 100 voluntary associations per 1,000 population in towns with less
than 10,000 and (b) from 5 to 30 per 1,000 for larger towns (13).
(ii) Francois Bloch-Laine notes that
b. Extent of interorganizational networks
There is little available information on the extent of interorganizational
networks, particularly with regard to the relationships between ISPAs and
IGOs. As a by-product of the establishment of its data base on the network
of world problems, the Union of International Associations indicated the existence
of the following relationships between 3,300 international organizations (12)
A a member of B 625
B a member of A 752
A in working relationship with B 790
A in formal relationship with B 881
The same study also attempted to establish the number of intellectual disciplines
and the number of International bodies with which they be linked by using
the ILO International Standard Classification of Occupations. This gave
|Professional technical and related occupations (i.e. ILO ISPAs)
Information on the formal "consultative relationship" between some
INGOs and some IGOs is regularly presented in tabular form in the Yearbook
of International Organizations. In the case of the 1970-71 edition, this
has been analyzed and presented in Table 5. (Since some IGOs have relationships
with INGOs of different degrees of intimacy, the IGO column/rows have been
split in the case of ECOSOC and UNESCO.)