Moreover, the partnership of SNGOs and INGOs may be based on the formers’ dependence on funding and thus lead to a determination of the agenda from outside (Kang 2010). Hence, “the acceptance of increasing volumes of foreign aid involves entering into agreements about what is done, and how it is to be reported and accounted for” (Hulme&Edwards 1997: 8). This consequently raises questions about the sustainability of such projects. Porter (2003) observes that due to the lack of Ghanaian funding available to NGOs, “there is a tendency for NGOs simply to jump to provide whatever foreign donors (including INGOs) demand” (136). This may eventually lead to discontinuities in the work at community level and to inappropriate programmes in the local context.
The more foreboding and cautionary tale which increasing numbers of Western historians have offered in place of Turner's account has provoked sharp controversy. "New" Western historians -- many of whom actually echo and draw upon fairly old scholarly works -- often argue that their accounts offer a more inclusive and honest reckoning of the Western past. Western historians who still adhere roughly to Turner's approach accuse their opponents of mistaking a simple-minded political correctness for good scholarship in their quest to recount only the doom and gloom of the Western past. Often the rhetoric reaches an acrimonious crescendo. But in a sense, the very acrimony of these debates takes us full circle back to Turner and his legacy, for debates about the significance of Western history are hardly ever confined to the past. In our understanding of what we are as a nation, if on no other level, the Western past continues to define us today.