Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- no (5)
Keywords
- Civil society (5) (remove)
Civil society has re-entered the standard social sciences vocabulary, and important contributions have been made in recent years to advance the historical understanding and conceptual development of this sphere analytically located between the state and the market. Such contributions have been mostly within a political science perspective that examines civil society in the context of a particular country or region or in reference to the emerging field of non-profit studies. What has been missing is a broader perspective within a comparative institutional framework that places the capacity of civil society for self-organisation and self-correction relative to the capacity of the state to control and regulate. Frequently, these two capacities are in conflict with each other, and exploring their relationship may suggest new answers to the question of what makes civil society develop and be sustainable in the long run.
Control of corruption in a society is an equilibrium between resources and costs which either empowers or constraints elites predatory behavior. While most research and practice focuses on legal constraints, this paper investigates normative constraints, deemed to be more important, especially civil society and the press. Fresh evidence—both historical and statistical—is found to support Tocqueville’s assertions regarding the importance of collective action and the joint action of media and associations in not only creating a democratic society, but controlling corruption as well. However, little is known on how to build normative constraints.
Responding to comments on “Social Origins of Civil Society,” an article published in this issue of Voluntas, this article focuses on three critical issues that underlie cross-national theory building and theory testing in the field of nonprofit studies: the issue of definitions, the challenge of operationalizing key theoretical concepts, and the nature of the tests available to verify results. Regarding the first, the article defends the structural-operational definition used in The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project against suggestions by the commentators that it either be expanded or narrowed, arguing that the alternative is either to broaden the focus beyond what is manageable or to make the basic yardstick vulnerable to changing political and policy shifts—a sure prescription for confusion. Regarding the question of operationalization, the article concedes that better measures of some key features of prevailing theories might be imaginable, but, since few of these are available, it cautions against letting the best become the enemy of the good in cross-national nonprofit theory testing. Finally, the article finds, in suggestions that multivariate techniques be used in testing various nonprofit theories, confirmation of its central argument that a contextual analysis of the sort embodied in the authors' “social origins” approach is needed to come to terms with the reality of the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Taken together these comments underline the need to continue the kind of systematic data gathering and theory testing that the authors have undertaken, to utilize an interdisciplinary approach, and to link the study of the nonprofit sector to social analysis more generally.
The research for this article was motivated by a noticeable discrepancy between levels of participation and trust in post-socialist civil organizations. While civic participation in Central and Eastern Europe is almost nonexistent, levels of trust in post-socialist civil organizations compare favourably to those in Western Europe. The first aim of this article is to understand why citizens place relatively high trust in post-socialist civil organizations. The political context, within which civil organizations operate, reveals one explanation for the high levels of trust in civil organizations: government corruption dissuades citizens from relying on state institutions and creates a void that is filled by informal networks of association and civil organizations. Empirical evidence demonstrates that trust in civil organizations focused on socioeconomic and political development is higher among citizens who express concern about corruption in their country. The second aim of this article is to understand the discrepancy between levels of trust and civic participation. A novel interpretation of past findings suggests that civil organizations' effectiveness, professionalization, transactional capacity and orientation toward service provision may garner citizens' trust while parallel neglect of grassroots mobilization leaves civil organizations short of capitalizing on that trust. Civil organizations' limited focus on interest aggregation, mobilization and representation raises doubts as to whether observers of civil society in the region should look to these organizations as its core component.
Nonprofit organizations and the nonprofit sector more generally are part of a complex dual transition from industrial to postindustrial society and from national state to transnational policy regimes. This transition shows the beginnings of a new policy dialogue in addressing the future role of nonprofit organizations and involves three broad perspectives that have become prominent in recent years: First, nonprofits are increasingly part of new public management and a mixed economy of welfare; second, they are seen as central to “civil society—social capital” approaches, specifically the Neo-Tocquevillian emphasis on the nexus between social capital and participation in voluntary associations; and third, they are part of a wider social accountability perspective that sees them as instruments of greater transparency, heightened accountability, and improved governance of public institutions