Advertisement

Covenants, Constitutions, and Distinct Law Types: Investigating Governments’ Restrictions on CSOs Using an Institutional Approach

  • Anthony J. DeMatteeEmail author
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

A growing number of researchers study the laws that regulate the third sector and caution the legal expansion is a global crackdown on civil society. This article asks two questions of a thoroughly researched form of legal repression: restrictions on foreign aid to CSOs. First, do institutional differences affect the adoption of these laws? Second, do laws that appear different in content also have different causes? A two-stage analysis addresses these questions using data from 138 countries from 1993 to 2012. The first analysis studies the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and constitution-level differences regarding international treaties’ status. The study then uses competing risk models to assess whether the factors that predict adoption vary across law types. The study finds that given ICCPR ratification, constitutions that privilege treaties above ordinary legislation create an institutional context that makes adoption less likely. Competing risk models suggest different laws have different risk factors, which implies these laws are more conceptually distinct than equivalent. Incorporating these findings in future work will strengthen the theory, methods, and concepts used to understand the legal approaches that regulate civil society.

Keywords

CSOs NGOs Civil society Regulations Constitutions International treaties 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Jennifer Brass, Terrance Chapman, Sean Nicholson-Crotty, Michelle Reddy, Chrystie Swiney, Joey Carroll, Martin Delaroche, Renzo de la Riva Agüero, Laura Montenovo, the reviewers, and the journal’s editorial team for their written comments and constructive criticisms. My appreciation also extends to those who offered early input on the project at the International Society for Third-Sector Research, Brass Club, the Emory Conference on Institutions and Lawmaking, the Midwest Political Science Association, the International Spring School on Public Policy, and the Workshop on the Ostrom Workshop (WOW6).

References

  1. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) 1981 Organization of African Unity.Google Scholar
  2. Aligica, P. D. (2018). Public entrepreneurship, citizenship, and self-governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Allison, P. D. (2014). Event history and survival analysis (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  4. American Convention on Human Rights “Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica” (B-32) (ACHR) 1969 Organization of American States.Google Scholar
  5. Amnesty International. (2019). Laws designed to silence: The global crackdown on civil society organizations. Online.Google Scholar
  6. Amrhein, V., Greenland, S., & McShane, B. (2019a). Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature,567, 305–307.Google Scholar
  7. Amrhein, V., Trafimow, D., & Greenland, S. (2019b). Inferential statistics as descriptive statistics: There is no replication crisis if we don’t expect replication. The American Statistician,73(sup1), 262–270.Google Scholar
  8. Anheier, H. K., & Salamon, L. M. (1998). The nonprofit sector in the developing world: A comparative analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Anheier, H. K., & Toepler, S. (2019). Civil society and the G20: Towards a review fo regulatory models and approaches. Retrieved from https://t20japan.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/t20-japan-tf6-10-civil-society-g20.pdf.
  10. Arhin, A. A., Kumi, E., & Adam, M.-A. S. (2018). Facing the bullet? Non-governmental organisations (NGOs’) responses to the changing aid landscape in Ghana. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,29(2), 348–360.Google Scholar
  11. Bailey, M. A., Strezhnev, A., & Voeten, E. (2017). Estimating dynamic state preferences from United Nations voting data. Journal of Conflict Resolution,61(2), 430–456.Google Scholar
  12. Baldwin, E., Carley, S., & Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2019). Why do countries emulate each others’ policies? A global study of renewable energy policy diffusion. World Development,120, 29–45.Google Scholar
  13. Barber, P., & Farwell, M. M. (2017). The Relationships between State and Nonstate Interventions in Charitable Solicitation Law in the United States. In O. B. Breen, A. Dunn, & M. Sidel (Eds.), Regulatory waves: Comparative perspectives on state regulation and self-regulation policies in the nonprofit sector (pp. 199–220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bauerle Danzman, S., Winecoff, W. K., & Oatley, T. (2017). All crises are global: Capital cycles in an imbalanced international political economy. International Studies Quarterly,61(4), 907–923.Google Scholar
  15. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics,53(04), 1044–1074.Google Scholar
  16. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Benevolenski, V. B., & Toepler, S. (2017). Modernising social service delivery in Russia: Evolving government support for non-profit organisations. Development in Practice,27(1), 64–76.Google Scholar
  18. Bloodgood, E. A., Tremblay-Boire, J., & Prakash, A. (2014). National styles of NGO regulation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,43(4), 716–736.Google Scholar
  19. Boettke, P. J., & Candela, R. A. (2019). Productive specialization, peaceful cooperation and the problem of the predatory state: Lessons from comparative historical political economy. Public Choice.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00657-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Jones, B. S. (2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Brass, J. N. (2012). Why do NGOs go where they go? Evidence from Kenya. World Development,40(2), 387–401.Google Scholar
  22. Brass, J. N. (2016). Allies or adversaries? NGOs and the state in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Brass, J. N., Longhofer, W., Robinson, R. S., & Schnable, A. (2018). NGOs and international development: A review of thirty-five years of scholarship. World Development,112, 136–149.Google Scholar
  24. Breen, O. B., Dunn, A., & Sidel, M. (Eds.). (2017). Regulatory waves: Comparative perspectives on state regulation and self-regulation policies in the nonprofit sector. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Breen, O. B., Dunn, A., & Sidel, M. (2019). Riding the regulatory wave: Reflections on recent explorations of the statutory and nonstatutory nonprofit regulatory cycles in 16 jurisdictions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(4), 691–715.Google Scholar
  26. Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. M. (1985). The reason of rules: Constitutional political economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Breslin, B. (2009). From words to worlds: Exploring constitutional functionality. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Brown, D. S., Brown, J. C., & Desposato, S. W. (2008). Who gives, who receives, and who wins? Transforming capital into political change through nongovernmental organizations. Comparative Political Studies,41(1), 24–47.Google Scholar
  29. Buchanan, J. M. (1975). The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1961). The calculus of consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  31. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Cammett, M. C., & MacLean, L. M. (2014). Introduction. In L. M. MacLean & M. C. Cammett (Eds.), The politics of non-state social welfare (pp. 1–16). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Carothers, T. (2006). The backlash against democracy promotion. Foreign Affairs,85(2), 55–68.Google Scholar
  34. Carothers, T. (2015). The closing space challenge: How are funders responding? Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Google Scholar
  35. Carothers, T., & Brechenmacher, S. (2014). Closing space: Democracy and human rights support under fire. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  36. Chahim, D., & Prakash, A. (2013). NGOization, foreign funding, and the Nicaraguan civil society. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,25(2), 487–513.Google Scholar
  37. Chapman, T. L. (2009). Audience beliefs and international organization legitimacy. International Organization,63(4), 733–764.Google Scholar
  38. Christensen, D., & Weinstein, J. M. (2013). Defunding dissent: Restrictions on aid to NGOs. Journal of Democracy,24(2), 77–91.Google Scholar
  39. CIVICUS. (2018). CIVICUS monitor. Washington, DC: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.Google Scholar
  40. Cole, D. H. (2017). Laws, norms, and the institutional analysis and development framework. Journal of Institutional Economics,13(4), 829–847.Google Scholar
  41. Cole, D. H., Epstein, G., & McGinnis, M. D. (2014). Toward a new institutional analysis of social-ecological system (NIASES): Combining Elinor Ostrom’s IAD and SES frameworks. Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 299, August 2015.Google Scholar
  42. Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C. H., Lindberg, S. I., Skaaning, S.-E., Teorell, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, M. S., Cornell, A., Dahlum, S., Gjerløw, H., Glynn, A., Hicken, A., Krusell, J., Lührmann, A., Marquardt, K. L., McMann, K., Mechkova, V., Medzihorsky, J., Olin, M., Paxton, P., Pemstein, D., Pernes, J., von Römer, J., Seim, B., Sigman, R., Staton, J., Stepanova, N., Sundström, A., Tzelgov, E., Wang, Y.-t., Wig, T., Wilson, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). V-Dem [Country-Year/Country-Date] Dataset v8.Google Scholar
  43. Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,34, 187–220.Google Scholar
  44. Cox, D. R. (1975). Partial likelihood. Biometrika,62(2), 269–276.Google Scholar
  45. Crack, A. M. (2018). The regulation of international NGOS: Assessing the effectiveness of the INGO accountability charter. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,29(2), 419–429.Google Scholar
  46. de Tocqueville, A. (1840). Democracy in America (English ed.). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  47. DeMattee, A. J. (2019). Toward a coherent framework: A typology and conceptualization of CSO regulatory regimes. Nonprofit Policy Forum,9(4), 1–17.Google Scholar
  48. Donnelly, J. (2013). Universal human rights in theory and practice (3rd ed.). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Dupuy, K., Ron, J., & Prakash, A. (2016). Hands off my regime! governments’ restrictions on foreign aid to non-governmental organizations in poor and middle-income countries. World Development,84, 299–311.Google Scholar
  50. Edwards, M. (2004). Civil society. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  51. Elkins, Z., Ginsburg, T., & Melton, J. (2009). The endurance of national constitutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Elkins, Z., Ginsburg, T., & Melton, J. (2012). Constitutional constraints on executive lawmaking. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.434.9346.
  53. Elkins, Z., Ginsburg, T., & Melton, J. (2014). Comparative constitutions project: Characteristics of national constitutions, Version 2.0 (2014).The Comparative Constitutions Project (CCP).Google Scholar
  54. European Convention on Human Rights as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, and supplemented by Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 16 2010 Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  55. Frantz, T. R. (1987). The role of NGOs in the strengthening of civil society. World Development,15(Supplement), 121–127.Google Scholar
  56. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  57. Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2004). A loss of credibility: Patterns of wrongdoing among nongovernmental organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,15(4), 355–381.Google Scholar
  58. Gibney, M., Cornett, L., Wood, R., Haschke, P., Arnon, D., & Pisanò, A. (2017). The Political Terror Scale 1976–2016. (Political Terror Scale website: http://www.politicalterrorscale.org/.) Created online: http://www.politicalterrorscale.org/.
  59. Gormley, W. T. (1986). Regulatory issue networks in a federal system. Polity,18(4), 595–620.Google Scholar
  60. Greenland, S. (2017). Invited commentary: The need for cognitive science in methodology. American Journal of Epidemiology,186(6), 639–645.Google Scholar
  61. Hadenius, A. & Teorell, J. (2005). Assessing Alternative Indices of Democracy. C&M Working Papers, IPSA.Google Scholar
  62. Hanmer, M. J., & Ozan Kalkan, K. (2013). Behind the curve: Clarifying the best approach to calculating predicted probabilities and marginal effects from limited dependent variable models. American Journal of Political Science,57(1), 263–277.Google Scholar
  63. Hathaway, O. A. (2002). Do human rights treaties make a difference? Faculty Scholarship Series at Yale Law School (Paper 839) (pp. 1935–2042).Google Scholar
  64. Hellwig, T., & Samuels, D. (2008). Electoral accountability and the variety of democratic regimes. British Journal of Political Science,38(1), 65–90.Google Scholar
  65. Henkin, L. (2000). Human rights: Ideology and aspiration, reality and prospect. In S. Power & G. T. Allison (Eds.), Realizing human rights: Moving from inspiration to impact (1st ed., pp. 3–38). New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  66. Hyde, S. D., & Marinov, N. (2012). Which elections can be lost? Political Analysis,20(2), 191–210.Google Scholar
  67. ICNL. (2009). Global philanthropy in a time of crisis. In Global trends in NGO law: A quarterly review of NGO legal trends around the world (Vol. 1, no. (2), pp. 1–10). www.icnl.org.
  68. ICNL. (2015). The right to freedom of expression: Restrictions on a foundational right. In Global trends in NGO law: A quarterly review of NGO legal trends around the world (Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–28). www.icnl.org.
  69. Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. (1990). Improving implementation through framing smarter statutes. Journal of Public Policy,10(01), 67–88.Google Scholar
  70. Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. (1991). The Choice of Target Populations. Administration & Society,23(3), 333–356.Google Scholar
  71. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966 United Nations General Assembly.Google Scholar
  72. Jones, B. S. (1994). A longitudinal perspective on congressional elections. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
  73. Kajese, K. (1987). An agenda of future tasks for international and indigenous NGOs: Views from the south. World Development,15(Supplement), 79–85.Google Scholar
  74. Kameri-Mbote, P. (2002). The operational environment and constraints for NGOs in Kenya: Strategies for good policy and practice. Switzerland: International Environmental Law Research Centre. in Geneva.Google Scholar
  75. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics. International Social Science Journal,15(159), 89–101.Google Scholar
  76. Kiai, M. (2012). Report of the special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. United Nations General Assembly.Google Scholar
  77. Kiai, M., Stern, C., Simons, D., Anderson, G., & Kaguongo, W. (2017). Full text the Freedom of Association Chapter of FOAA Online!—The world’s most user-friendly collection of legal arguments on assembly and association rights. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.Google Scholar
  78. King, G., & Zeng, L. (2001). Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis,9(2), 137–163.Google Scholar
  79. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  80. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review,19(2), 79–88.Google Scholar
  81. Linzer, D. A., & Staton, J. K. (2015). A global measure of judicial independence, 1948–2012. Journal of Law and Courts,3(2), 223–256.Google Scholar
  82. Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  83. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2014). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press Publication, StataCorp LLP.Google Scholar
  84. Lowi, T. J. (1964). American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Politics,16(4), 677–715.Google Scholar
  85. Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review,32(4), 298–310.Google Scholar
  86. MacLean, L. M. (2011). State retrenchment and the exercise of citizenship in Africa. Comparative Political Studies,44(9), 1238–1266.Google Scholar
  87. Mahajan, V., & Peterson, R. A. (1985). Models for innovation diffusion. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  88. Malesky, E., & Schuler, P. (2011). The single-party dictator’s dilemma: Information in elections without opposition. Legislative Studies Quarterly,36(4), 491–530.Google Scholar
  89. Marshall, M. G., Gurr, T. R., & Jaggers, K. (2017). Polity IV Project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2016. (Center for Systemic Peace). www.systemicpeace.org.
  90. Maru, M. T. (2017). Legal frameworks governing non-governmental organizations in the horn of Africa. Kampala,Google Scholar
  91. Mayhew, S. H. (2005). Hegemony, politics and ideology: The role of legislation in NGO–government relations in Asia. The Journal of Development Studies,41(5), 727–758.Google Scholar
  92. McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society,19(2), 30–42.Google Scholar
  93. Mettler, S., & Soss, J. (2004). The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics,2(01), 55–73.Google Scholar
  94. Morgan, P. (2018). Ideology and relationality: Chinese aid in Africa revisited. Asian Perspective,42(2), 207–238.Google Scholar
  95. Murphy, W. F. (1993). Constitutions, constitutionalism, and democracy. In D. Greenberg, S. N. Katz, M. B. Oliviero, & S. C. Wheatley (Eds.), Constitutionalism and democracy: Transitions in the contemporary world (pp. 3–25). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Musila, G. M. (2019). Freedoms under threat: The spread of anti-NGO measures in Africa. Retrieved from www.freedomhouse.org.
  97. Mutunga, W. (1999). Constitution-making from the middle: Civil society and transition politics in Kenya, 1992–1997. Nairobi: SAREAT.Google Scholar
  98. Ndegwa, S. N. (1996). The two faces of civil society: NGOs and politics in Africa. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  99. North, D. C., & Weingast, B. R. (1989). Constitutions and commitment: The evolution of institutions governing public choice in seventeenth-century England. The Journal of Economic History,49(4), 803–832.Google Scholar
  100. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Ostrom, V. (1997). The meaning of democracy and the vulnerabilities of democracies: A response to Tocqueville’s challenge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  102. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Ostrom, E. (2011). background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal,39(1), 7–27.Google Scholar
  104. Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: A multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation,37(4), 451–463.Google Scholar
  105. Ostrom, E., & Ostrom, V. (2004). The quest for meaning in public choice. American Journal of Economics and Sociology,63(1), 105–147.Google Scholar
  106. Pallas, C., Anderson, Q., & Sidel, M. (2018). Defining the scope of aid reduction and its challenges for civil society organizations: Laying the foundation for new theory. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,29(2), 256–270.Google Scholar
  107. Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics,45(4), 595–628.Google Scholar
  108. Pierson, P. (1994). Dismantling the welfare state? Reagan, Thatcher, and the politics of retrenchment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review,94(2), 251–267.Google Scholar
  110. Pitkin, H. F. (1987). The idea of a constitution. Journal of Legal Education,37, 167–170.Google Scholar
  111. Popplewell, R. (2018). Civil society, legitimacy and political space: Why some organisations are more vulnerable to restrictions than others in violent and divided contexts. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,29(2), 388–403.Google Scholar
  112. Powell, E. J., & Staton, J. K. (2009). Domestic judicial institutions and human rights treaty violation. International Studies Quarterly,53(1), 149–174.Google Scholar
  113. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Rakner, L. (2019). Democratic rollback in Africa. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press. Retrieved July 30, 2019, from https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-887.
  115. Reddy, M. (2018). Do good fences make good neighbours? Neighbourhood effects of foreign funding restrictions to NGOs. St Antony’s International Review,13(2), 109–141.Google Scholar
  116. Reimann, K. D. (2006). A view from the top: International politics, norms and the worldwide growth of NGOs. International Studies Quarterly,50(1), 45–67.Google Scholar
  117. Rutzen, D. (2015). Aid barriers and the rise of philanthropic protectionism. International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law,17(1), 1–42.Google Scholar
  118. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences,21(2), 129–168.Google Scholar
  119. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  120. Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 189–222). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  121. Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  122. Salamon, L. M., Benevolenski, V. B., & Jakobson, L. I. (2015). Penetrating the dual realities of government-nonprofit relations in Russia. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,26(6), 2178–2214.Google Scholar
  123. Salamon, L. M., & Toepler, S. (1997). The international guide to nonprofit law. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  124. Salamon, L. M., & Toepler, S. (2000). The influence of the legal environment on the nonprofit sector. No. 17 [Lecture]. The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, unpublished.Google Scholar
  125. Salamon, L. M., & Toepler, S. (2012). The impact of law on nonprofit development: A framework for analysis. In C. Overes & W. van Ween (Eds.), Met Recht Betrokken (pp. 276–284). Amsterdam: Kluwe.Google Scholar
  126. Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  127. Schnable, A. (2015). New American relief and development organizations: Voluntarizing global aid. Social Problems,62(2), 309–329.Google Scholar
  128. Schneider, A., Ingram, H., & deLeon, P. (2014). Democratic policy design: Social construction of target populations. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed., pp. 105–150). New York, NY: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  129. Sidel, M. (2017). State regulation and the emergence of self-regulation in the Chinese and Vietnamese nonprofit and philanthropic sectors. In O. B. Breen, A. Dunn, & M. Sidel (Eds.), Regulatory waves: Comparative perspectives on state regulation and self-regulation policies in the nonprofit sector (pp. 92–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  130. Smyth, R. (2019). Winning hybrid elections: Organized opposition, incumbent regimes, and threat of popular engagement, world politics research seminar. Indiana University Department of Political Science.Google Scholar
  131. Smyth, R., & Turovsky, R. (2018). Legitimising victories: Electoral authoritarian control in Russia’s gubernatorial elections. Europe-Asia Studies,70(2), 182–201.Google Scholar
  132. Stremlau, C. (1987). NGO coordinating bodies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. World Development,15(Supplement), 213–225.Google Scholar
  133. Toepler, S., Pape, U., & Benevolenski, V. (2019). Subnational variations in government-nonprofit relations: A comparative analysis of regional differences within Russia. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2019.1584446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. U.N. Human Rights Committee. (2006). UN Doc. CCPR/C/88/D/1274/2004: Views of the Human Rights Committee under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (88th session). United Nations. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/1274-2004.html.
  135. U.N. Human Rights Committee. (2007). UN Doc. CCPR/C/90/D/1296/2004 : Views of the Human Rights Committee under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights (9th session). United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=CCPR/C/90/D/1296/2004.
  136. U.N. Human Rights Committee. (2015). UN Doc. CCPR/C/115/D/2011/2010: Views of the Human Rights Committee under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (115th session). United Nations.Google Scholar
  137. Union of International Associations. Yearbook of International Organizations. (Online: https://uia.org/yearbook). Created online: https://uia.org/yearbook.
  138. United Nations Office of Legal Affairs. (2018). Status of ratification of a core international human rights treaty or its optional protocol. (Online)Google Scholar
  139. Voeten, E. (2013). Data and analyses of voting in the UN general assembly. In Reinalda, B. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of international organization.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2111149.
  140. Wasserstein, R. L., Schirm, A. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2019). Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05”. The American Statistician,73(sup1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  141. Wintrobe, R. (1998). The political economy of dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  142. Woldense, J. (2018). The ruler’s game of musical chairs: Shuffling during the reign of Ethiopia’s last emperor. Social Networks,52, 154–166.Google Scholar
  143. World Bank. (1997). Handbook on good practices for laws relating to non-governmental organizations. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  144. World Bank. (2018). World development indicators (WDI). Washington, DC. https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/world-development-indicators.
  145. Zahariadis, N. (2014). Ambiguity and Multiple Streams. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed., pp. 25–58). New York, NY: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, and Department of Political ScienceIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options