The presumption that NGO people have undergone a sudden transfiguration and become better than business people is nonsense. Their goals may differ, but their approach to problems is constrained by the same rules of the game as in society at large. Comparing the failures of individuals in the market and government with the presumed perfect individuals working for NGOs distorts reality. If corruption occurs in the market and the government, there is no reason to assume it does not occur in NGOs.

In fact, NGOs can be viewed as potential sources of corruption as well as criminal activities. As written by Robert Wade, a professor at the London School of Economics: "Unkind people might observe that al-Qaeda is an NGO, and one with extraordinarily high levels of social capital". Many may disagree with such a view, but it is supported in principle by the understanding that NGOs are often seen as ultimate and formalized representatives of "civil society." It would follow then, that the distinction between Greenpeace and al-Qaeda would be narrowed down to the question of a formal incorporation. While al-Qaeda may not be a "true NGO" in the formal sense and while its actions are believed uncivil by Western standards, it certainly would represent "civil society"...

But at least it considers the possibility that NGOs, as representatives of civil society, are open to a wide range of possibilities. A recent study titled "The 21st Century NGO" by SustainAbility for the United Nations demonstrates that NGOs are often less transparent and accountable than the businesses they tend to criticize. Obviously, organizations closed to external pressures will tend to become inward-looking, a habit which may lead to corruption. It goes without saying that incentives for potential NGO involvement in corruption are created by government financing. The European Parliament recently organized a public hearing on the awarding of EU contracts to NGOs and on their performance. In the words of Jan Mulder, a Dutch MEP: "It appears that annually EU funds worth €1.5 billion are awarded to NGOs, of which only a limited amount is subject to some form of tendering".

So, even if NGOs in developed democracies and partners of respected international organizations make many multinational businesses look like "choirboys," the expectations of these organizations should be significantly adjusted in Central and Eastern Europe. On the basis of this value-free and mechanical approach to civil society, it is obvious that NGOs are doomed to be the "Trojan horse" in the fight against corruption in the CEE. An idealistic NGO aiming to replace "discourse of power" with "communitarian discourse" would not beat criminal gangs in this competition. Hence, a civil society where gangs determine informal rules of the game will actually encourage the spread of corruption and criminal activities. Instead of putting efforts into encouraging and creating new NGOs for the fight against corruption, the advancement of the rule of law would work better. Creating trustworthy formal institutions reduces people’s reliance on informal criminal rules.