Abstract
This aim of this paper is to analyze how civil society organizations (CSOs) in developed and developing countries collaborate with governments through institutional processes. The concept of co-governance suggests that such collaboration can improve a government’s effectiveness. The vertical structures employed by the state and the horizontal structures embraced by civil society are forging collaborative relationships. Scholars of natural resource management argue that co-management involving public, civic, and private actors is crucial in directing development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Although this definition of publicness is influenced by Jörgen Habermas, we do not discuss his theory of communicative action. We use the term to indicate that there are public services which should be performed by the government and/or CSOs.
- 2.
This survey is part of a larger project called the Cross-national Survey on Civil Society, which conducted similar types of surveys in 15 countries: Japan, South Korea, The U.S.A., Germany, China, Turkey, Russia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Brazil, Poland, Estonia, Uzbekistan India and Thailand. The generic name of the survey is Japanese Interest Group Study (JIGS). Only the survey data-set of Japan, South Korea, Bangladesh and the Philippines has been used in this study.
- 3.
As the survey was conducted in local languages in each county, the translations may differ.
- 4.
Institutionalization’ means that at least one of variable 1, 2 or 3 is yes, and ‘collaboration’ means that at least one of variable 4, 5 or 6 is yes.
- 5.
While 62 and 76 % of institutionalized CSOs are collaborative in Tokyo and Seoul, only 38 and 30 % of them are collaborative in Manila and Dhaka.
- 6.
Groups from the for-profit sector include agriculture, economic/business, and labour groups; non-profit sector groups include educational, government-related, welfare and professional organizations; citizen groups include NGOs, philanthropy, recreational or sports-related, religious, and cultural organizations.
- 7.
The values for ‘activity area’ are 0 (local), 1 (provisional), 2 (regional), 3 (national) and 4 (global). The values for ‘contacts with the ruling parties’ are 0 (never), 1 (sometimes), 2 (about half), 3 (most), 4 (always).
- 8.
The rates are 75.2 % in Dhaka, 68.3 % in Tokyo, 74.4 % in Seoul, and 68.4 % in Manila (all p values of the independence tests are below 0.1 %).
- 9.
In Tokyo, ‘profit sector’ is positively significant, and ‘sub-government.
- 10.
Amakudari is a Japanese word. The literary meaning is ‘descent from heaven’. In the social science literature, amakudari refers to the costly transaction of institutional practices that allow retired bureaucrats to obtain higher positions in the corporate entities that they regulated during their public service careers.
References
Carlssona, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 65–76.
Farazmand, A. (2012). Sound governance: Engaging citizens through collaborative organizations. Public Organization Review, 12(3), 231–241.
Fukui, H., & Fukai, S. N. (1996). Pork Barrel politics, networks, and local economic development in contemporary Japan. Asian Survey, 36(3), 268–86.
Hayashi, M. (2004). Global governance of deep-sea fisheries. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 19(3), 289–298.
Jamil, I. (1998). Transactional friction between NGOs and public agencies in Bangladesh: Culture or dependency? Contemporary South Asia, 7(1), 43–69.
Kim, S. (2009). The limits of Ngo-government relations in South Korea. Asian Survey, 49(5), 873–894.
Kooiman, J. (2000). Societal governance: Levels, modes, and orders of social-political interaction. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating governance: Authority, steering, and democracy (pp. 138–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage.
Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R., Mahon, R., & Pullin, R. (Eds.). (2008). Interactive governance and governability: An introduction. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 7(1), 1–11.
Muramatsu, M., Itho, M., Tsujinaka, Y., et al. (2001). Nihon no Seiji [Politics in Japan 2nd edition]. Tokyo: Yuhikaku.
North, D. C., Wallis, J. J., & Weingast, B. R. (2009). Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oh, J. S. (2012). Strong state and strong civil society in contemporary South Korea: Challenges to democratic governance. Asian Survey, 52(3), 528–549.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pekkanen, R. (2006). Japan’s dual civil society: members without advocates. California: Stanford University Press.
Quimpo, N. G. (2008). Contested democracy and the left in the Philippines after Marcos. Manila: Ateneo De Manila University Press.
Siddiqui, K. (2008). Local government in Bangladesh. Dhaka: University Press Limited.
Sidel, J. T. (2004). Bossism and democracy in the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia: Towards an alternative framework for the study of ‘Local Strongmen’. In J. Harriss, K. Stokke, & O. Tornquist (Eds.), Politicising democracy: The new local politics of democratisation (pp. 51–74). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tsujinaka, Y. (2011). Center for international, comparative, and advanced japanese studies. http://cajs.tsukuba.ac.jp/TSUJINAKA%20Tunisia-Nov%209-14%202011-R.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2012.
Tsujinaka, Y. (2012). Seijigaku Nyumon: Kotekikettei No Kozo Akuta Jokyo [Introduction of politics: Structure, actor and situation of public decision]. Tokyo: Open University of Japan.
Vodden, K., Ommer, R., & Schneider, D. (2005). A comparative analysis of three modes of collaborative learning in fisheries governance: Hierarchy, networks and community. In G. S. Tim (Ed.), Participation in fisheries governance reviews: Methods and technologies in fish biology and fisheries (pp. 291–306). Berlin: Springer.
Walker, J. L. (1983). The origins and maintenance of interest group in America. The American Political Science Review, 77(2), 390–406.
World Bank. (1991). Managing development: The governance dimension. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tsujinaka, Y., Ahmed, S., Kobashi, Y. (2015). Constructing Co-Governance Between Government and Civil Society: An Institutional Approach to Collaboration. In: Jamil, I., Aminuzzaman, S., Haque, S. (eds) Governance in South, Southeast, and East Asia. Public Administration, Governance and Globalization, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15218-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15218-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15217-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15218-9
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)