Our primary goal has been to extend the discussion on global connectedness of local NGOs by emphasizing that findings that discovered in the previous research complemented rather than refuted each other. While scholars, who studied the relation between global connectedness and local rootedness of NGOs, emphasized on competitive character of findings (for example, those, who revealed positive statistical association between global integration and local embeddedness, think that they have refuted arguments of other scholars, who critiqued global integration of local NGOs), we focus on consensus between them. Stark and colleagues (Stark, Vedres, & Bruszt, 2006) have persuasively demonstrated that globally integrated NGOs are deeply embedded in local context than their non-integrated counterparts. At the same time, the analysis of network demonstrates that the structure of partners is formed on the basis of homophily. It partly supports the arguments suggested by qualitative scholars – critics of global integration (Mendelson & Glenn, 2002; Luong & Weinthal, 1999). Though aid of international donors fosters the growth of trust, we cannot find evidences that the norms of trust begins to spread on a civil society at a whole. Rather we have the homophilic group – globally integrated NGOs – with relatively high level of collaboration. Therefore the ties in civic network become very unevenly distributed, and social bonds appear that can be a potential threat for the development of a vibrant civil society (Baldassari & Diani, 2007).