Civic Sectors in Transformation and Beyond: Preliminaries for a Comparison of Six Central and Eastern European Societies

Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

The paper presents a comparative analysis of the recent developments in the civil societies in six Central and East European (CEE) countries: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Focusing on the level of civil society organizations (CSO), it first discusses the changes in their role as social actors and co-operation within the civic sector itself. Second, it examines the process of civic–public sector partnership consolidation, and third, some of the more recent challenges that the civic initiatives in these countries are facing. It aims to highlight the diversity of patterns of civil society development in the region and argues for a reassessment of its ‘weakness’ thesis.

Keywords

East- and Central European countries Civil society organizations Differentiation Cross-national comparisons Democracies in transformation 

Résumé

L’article présente une analyse comparative des développements récents au sein des sociétés civiles dans six pays de l’Europe Centrale et de l’Est (ECE) : la République Tchèque, l’Estonie, la Hongrie, la Lettonie, la Lituanie et la Pologne. S’attachant au niveau des organisations de la société civile (OSC), il analyse en premier lieu les modifications de leur rôle en qualité d’acteurs sociaux et la coopération avec le secteur civil lui-même. En second lieu, il examine le processus de consolidation d’un partenariat entre les secteurs public et privé, et en troisième lieu, certains des défis les plus récents auxquels les initiatives civiques sont confrontées dans ces pays. Il vise à souligner la diversité des tendances du développement de la société civile dans la région et postule une réévaluation de la thèse de sa ‘faiblesse’.

Zusammenfassung

Der Beitrag präsentiert eine komparative Analyse neuester Entwicklungen in den Bürgergesellschaften in sechs mittel- und osteuropäischen Ländern: Tschechische Republik, Estland, Ungarn, Lettland, Litauen und Polen. Der Beitrag konzentriert sich auf die Ebene der Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen und diskutiert zunächst die Änderungen in ihrer Rolle als soziale Akteure und ihrer Zusammenarbeit innerhalb des gesellschaftlichen Sektors selbst. Anschließend wird der Prozess der Partnerschaftskonsolidierung zwischen dem bürgerlichen und öffentlichen Sektor untersucht. Und letztlich werden einige der neueren Probleme erörtert, mit denen die Bürgerinitiativen in diesen Ländern konfrontiert werden. Ziel des Beitrags ist es, die unterschiedlichen Muster der Bürgergesellschaftsentwicklung in der Region hervorzuheben und für eine neue Bewertung der „Schwäche“-These einzutreten.

Resumen

El presente documento presenta un análisis comparativo de los recientes desarrollos en las sociedades civiles en seis países de Europa Central y del Este (CEE): la República Checa, Estonia, Hungría, Letonia, Lituania y Polonia. Centrándose en el nivel de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil (CSO), primero trata de los cambios en su papel como actores sociales y la cooperación dentro del propio sector cívico. En segundo lugar, examina el proceso de consolidación de la asociación del sector cívico-público, y en tercer lugar, algunos de los desafíos más recientes a los que se están enfrentando las iniciativas cívicas en estos países. Tiene como fin destacar la diversidad de patrones de desarrollo de la sociedad civil en la región y defiende una reevaluación de la tesis sobre su “debilidad”.

摘要

本文对捷克共和国、爱沙尼亚、匈牙利、拉脱维亚、立陶宛和波兰等六个中欧和东欧(CEE)国家的民间社团在近期的发展进行了比较分析。本文以民间社会组织(CSO)的等级为重心,首先对民间社会组织作为社会行动者的角色演变以及民间部门的内部合作进行了讨论。其次,本文还对民间公共部门间的合作巩固进程进行了调查。第三,本文提出了这些国家的民间倡议行动所面临的最新挑战。作者旨在重点强调该地区民间社团发展模式的多样性,同时主张对其“薄弱环节”进行重新评估。

要約

本論文は中央・東ヨーロッパ(CEE)の6ケ国、すなわちチェコ共和国、エストニア、ハンガリー、ラトビア、リトアニア、ポーランドの市民社会における最近の動向の比較分析を提示する。市民社会団体(CSO)のレベルに焦点を合わせて、まず社会的な主体と都市のセクター自体の中での協力としての役割の変化について議論する。第二に都市の公共部門のパートナーシップの強化における過程、第三にこれらの国々における都市のイニシアチブが直面する最近の局面について調査する。地域における市民社会の開発でのパターンの多様性を強調して、「脆弱な」論文の再査定について議論する。

ملخص

يقدم البحث تحليلا˝ مقارنا˝ للتطورات التي حدثت مؤخرا˝ في المجتمعات المدنية في ستة بلدان وسط وشرق أوروبا(CEE) : جمهورية التشيك ، إستونيا ، المجر ، لاتفيا ، ليتوانيا وبولندا. مع التركيز على مستوى منظمات المجتمع المدني(CSO)، يناقش أولا˝ التغييرات في دورهم كأشخاص نشطاء في الحركات الإجتماعية والتعاون في القطاع المدني نفسه. ثانيا˝، إنه يفحص توطيد الشراكة لعملية قطاع مدني عام ، وثالثا˝، بعض التحديات الأكثر حداثة التي تواجه مبادرات المجتمع المدني في هذه البلدان. إنه يهدف الى تسليط الضوء على تنوع أنماط تنمية المجتمع المدني في المنطقة، ويجادل لإعادة تقييم “ضعف” فرضياتها.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Kone Foundation and Estonian Science Foundation for supporting the research conducted for this article.

References

  1. Alapuro, R. (2010a). Introduction: Comparative approaches to associations and civil society in Nordic countries. In R. Alapuro & H. Stenius (Eds.), Nordic associations in a European perspective (pp. 11–28). Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alapuro, R. (2010b). Conclusion: How history matters in putting Nordic associations into a European perspective. In R. Alapuro & H. Stenius (Eds.), Nordic associations in a European perspective (pp. 309–317). Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alasuutari, P. (2011a). Spreading global models and enhancing banal localism: The case of local government cultural policy development. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/10286632.2011.625418.
  4. Alasuutari, P. (2011b). Modernization as a tacit concept used in governance. Journal of Political Power, 4(2), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1989). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  6. Anheier, H., & Seibel, W. (1998). The nonprofit sector and the transformation of societies: A comparative analysis of East Germany, Poland and Hungary. In W. Powell & E. Clemens (Eds.), Private action and the public good (pp. 177–192). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bernhard, M. (1993). Civil society and democratic transition in east central Europe. Political Science Quarterly, 108(2), 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bockman, J., & Eyal, G. (2002). Eastern Europe as a laboratory for economic knowledge: The transnational roots of neoliberalism. American Journal of Sociology, 108(2), 310–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bocz, J. (2009). A nonprofit szektor strukturális átalakulása Magyarországon. A magyar nonprofit szektor az 1990-es évek elejétől a 2000-es évek közepéig. Ph.D. értekezés, Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem: Szociológiai és Társadalompolitikai Intézet.Google Scholar
  10. Brhlikova, P. (2004). The nonprofit sector in the Czech Republic (online]). Retrieved March 8, 2011, from http://home.cerge-ei.cz/brhlikova/npos/DPBrhlikova.pdf.
  11. Celichowski, J. (2008). Civil societies in post-communist Europe: The challenges posed by social isolation. In F. Heinrich & L. Fioramonti (Eds.), Civicus: Global survey of the state of civil society, 2. Comparative perspectives (pp. 143–163). Chicago: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, J., & Arato, A. (1995). Civil society and political theory. London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Csóka, I. (2000). Between the governmental and civil sectors in Hungary. The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 3(1). http://www.icnl.org/research/journal/vol3iss1/art_1.htm.
  14. Department of Statistics, Republic of Lithuania (online). Retrieved March 4, 2011, from http://www.stat.gov.lt/en/.
  15. Foley, M. W., & Edwards, B. (1996). The paradox of civil society. Journal of Democracy, 7(3), 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gellner, E. (1994/1996). Conditions of liberty: Civil society and its rivals. New York, NY: Allen Lane/Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gerasimova, M. (2005). The Liaison office as a tool for successful NGO-government cooperation: An overview of the Central and Eastern European and Baltic Countries’ Experiences. The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 7(June), 4–32.Google Scholar
  18. Hadenius, A., & Uggla, F. (1996). Civil society work promoting democratic development: What States and donors can do. World Development, 24(10), 1621–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hadzi-Miceva, K. (2008). Legal and institutional mechanisms for NGO government cooperation in Croatia, Estonia and Hungary. The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 10(4) (online). Retrieved March 2, 2011 from http://www.icnl.org/research/journal/vol10iss4/art_1.htm.
  20. Howard, M. (2002). The weakness of postcommunist civil society. Journal of Democracy, 13(1), 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howard, M. (2003). The weakness of civil society in post-communist Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huber, S. (2011). Citizens’ participation in Latvia. Still a long road to go? Forschungspapiere Probleme der Öffentlichen Verwaltung in Mittel- und Osteuropa, 12. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
  23. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Klon/Jawor Association. (2006). Facts and numbers on voluntary sector (online). Retrieved March 2, 2011 from http://english.ngo.pl/x/100983#liczba.
  25. Koldinska, K., & Tomes, I. (2004). Social services in accession countries. Social Work and Society, 2(1), 110–117.Google Scholar
  26. Kopecky, P., & Mudde, C. (2006). Uncivil society? Contentious politics in post-communist Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Kõve, V. (1996). Mittetulundundusühingute ja sihtasutuste seadusest. Juridica, 10, 555–559.Google Scholar
  28. Kuti, É. (1993). Defining the nonprofit sector: Hungary. Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project (13). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  29. Kuti, É. (1996). The nonprofit sector in Hungary. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kuti, É. (1998). Hivjuk talan nonprofitnak… Budapest: Nonprofit Kutatocsoport.Google Scholar
  31. Kuti, É. (2001). Nonprofit organizations as social players in the period of transition: Roles and challenges. In Fodor, E. & Ladanyi, J. (Eds.), Szelenyi 60: A Festschrift in Honor of lvan Szelenyi. Retrieved Feb 20, 2012 from http://hi.rutgers.edu/szelenyi60/kuti.html.
  32. Lagerspetz, M. (1999). Post-socialism as a return: Notes on a discursive strategy. East European Politics and Societies, 13(2), 377–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lagerspetz, M. (2001). From ‘parallel polis’ to the ‘time of the tribes’: Post-socialism, social self-organization and post-modernity. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 17(June), 3–18.Google Scholar
  34. Lagerspetz, M. (2007). Oligarhia raudne seadus Eesti kodanikuühiskonnas. In E. Rikmann (Ed.), Algatus, osalus ja organisatsioonid. Uurimusi Eesti kodanikuühiskonnast (pp. 153–169). Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikooli kirjastus.Google Scholar
  35. Lagerspetz, M. (2008). Estniska frivilligorganisationer mellan professionalisering och gräsrotsaktivism? In L. Kanckos & R. Kauranen (Eds.), Social samhörighet och religion. Festskrift till Susan Sundback (pp. 245–261). Åbo: Åbo Akademis förlag.Google Scholar
  36. Lagerspetz, M. (2009). Still citizen vs state? Post-communist prospects for democracy in Europe. In A. Konttinen (Ed.), Civic mind and good citizens. Comparative perspectives (pp. 147–168). Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lagerspetz, M., & Rikmann, E. (2008). Civil initiative and voluntary organizing. In M. Heidmets (Ed.), Estonian human development report 2007 (pp. 32–39). Tallinn: Eesti Ekspressi Kirjastus.Google Scholar
  38. Lagerspetz, M., & Rikmann, E. (2009). Ethics and public good in a transforming state: A study of Estonian civil servants. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(4), 402–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lagerspetz, M., & Vogt, H. (2004). Estonia. In S. Berglund, et al. (Eds.), The handbook of political change in Eastern Europe (pp. 57–94). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  40. Ledeneva, A. (1998). Russia’ s economy of favors: Blat, networking and informal exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Leś, E. (1994). The voluntary sector in post-communist east central Europe. Washington, DC: CIVICUS.Google Scholar
  42. Leś, E., Nałęcz, S., Wygnański, J. (2000). Defining the nonprofit sector: Poland. Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project (36). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Centre for Civil Society Studies.Google Scholar
  43. Linz, J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lomax, B. (1997). The strange death of civil society in post-communist Hungary. Journal of Communist Studies and Transitional Politics, 13(March), 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lursoft. (2011). Database of all companies registered in Latvia (online). Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://www.lursoft.lv/.
  46. Mendelson, S. E., & Glenn, J. K. (Eds.). (2002). The power and limits of NGOs: A critical look at building democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Miezaine, Z. (2003). Public administration and NGOs—opportunities for cooperation. Riga: Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS.Google Scholar
  48. Miszlivetz, F., & Ertsey, K. (1998). Hungary: Civil society in the post-socialist world. In A. Van Rooy (Ed.), Civil society and the aid industry: The politics and promise. London: Earthscan Publications Limited.Google Scholar
  49. Nevyriausybiniu organizaciju informacijos ir paramos centras, 2009. Nacionalines nevyriausybiniu organizaciju tarybos sukurimo studija (online). Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://www.nisc.lt/lt/files/main/Nvo_taryba_studija.pdf.
  50. NGO Directory. Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations in Central and Eastern Europe: Latvia (online). Retrieved March 8, 2011 from http://archive.rec.org/REC/Publications/NGODirIntros/Latvia.html.
  51. Niitsoo, V. (1992). Avalik vastupanuliikumine Eestis aastail 1977–1984. Akadeemia, 10, 2180–2194.Google Scholar
  52. Ojala, O. (2004). The NGO legislation in the countries in the Baltic Sea Region. Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference.Google Scholar
  53. Ost, D. (2011). The decline of civil society after post-communism. In U. Liebert & H.-J. Trenz (Eds.), The new politics of European civil society (pp. 163–178). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Papakostas, A. (2003). Mer organisation med färre människor och många organisationer med få frågor—en essä om politiska partier och frivilliga organisationer. Stockholm: Score Rapportserie.Google Scholar
  55. Petrova, T., & Tarrow, S. (2007). Transactional and participatory activism in the emerging European polity: The puzzle of East-Central Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 40(January), 5–31.Google Scholar
  56. Pospíšil, M. (2005). Mapping the Czech nonprofit sector: Year one. Conference presentation, concepts of the third sector: The European debate, Paris—France (online). Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://www.e-cvns.cz/soubory/1EMES_ISTR_presenation.pdf.
  57. Potucek, M. (2000). The uneasy birth of Czech civil society? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 11(2), 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  59. Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1994). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Randma-Liiv, T., Liiv, D., & Lepp, Ü. (2008). Institutionalising relationships between government and the third sector. In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The third sector in Europe: Prospects and challenges. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. RIK, The Registry of Estonian Ministry of Justice (online). Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://www.rik.ee/31826.
  62. Rikmann, E., Lagerspetz, M., Vallimäe, T., Keedus, L., Sepp, M., Jesmin, T., & Hinno, K. (2010). Kodanikualgatuse institutsionaliseerumine Eestis 2009/2010. Research Report (online). Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://kysk.ee/sisu/10_14138226_Uuringuraport_Kodanikualgatuse_institutsionaliseerumine_Eestis_20092010_uuringu_teostaja_Kodanikeuhiskonna_uurimis-ja_arenduskeskus_Tallinna_Ulikool.pdf.
  63. Rutzen, D., Moore, D & Durham, M. (2009). The legal framework for not-for-profit organizations in Central and Eastern Europe. The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 11 (February).http://www.icnl.org/research/resources/regional/CEE%20Overview_eng.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2012.
  64. Ruutsoo, R. (2004). Resistance to the Soviet occupation in Estonia 1944–1991. In D. Pollack & J. Wielgohs (Eds.), Dissent and opposition in communist Eastern Europe. Origins of civil society and democratic transition. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  65. Salamon, L., Anheier, H., et al. (1999). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.Google Scholar
  66. Schöpflin, G. (1994). Postcommunism: The problems of democratic construction. Daedalus, 123(3), 127–141.Google Scholar
  67. Smolar, A. (1996). Civil society after communism: From opposition to atomization. Journal of Democracy, 7(1), 24–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Szczepanski, P. (2003). A critique on the act on public benefit organizations and volunteerism. The International Journal of Civil Society Law, 4(October), 147–148.Google Scholar
  69. TNS Gallup. (2007). NVO sektoriaus skaidrumo skatinimas (online). Retrieved March 4, 2011 from www.transparency.lt.
  70. Tocqueville, A. (1969). Democracy in America. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  71. Uhlin, A. (2010). The structure and culture of post-communist civil society in Latvia. Europe-Asia Studies, 62(5), 827–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Verdery, K. (1996). What was socialism, and what comes next? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Von Zon, H. (1994). The lack of cohesion as the crucial problem for post-socialist societies. AI & Society, 8(2), 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Woods, A. (2000). Facts about European NGOs active in international development, development centre studies. France: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Tartu UniversityTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations