Abstract
In this article, we explore the ways in which partnerships with the state within state-led developmental programs might effect the autonomy of civic organizations (COs) and their readiness to enter in political action. To identify the relationship between collaboration with the state and civic autonomy we draw on data from a survey of 740 Hungarian regional civic associations. We did not find support for the theses that mixing with the state might undermine the autonomy of COs and lead to their political neutralization. Also, we did not find support for the hypotheses that political action is solely about money or it is the property of non-autonomous NGOs. We have identified several mechanisms that allow COs to combine participation in partnership projects with maintained autonomy and political activism.
Résumé
Dans cet article nous explorons les façons dans lesquelles les partenariats avec l’état dans le cadre des programmes d’organisations civiques peuvent affecter l’autonomie des organisations civique s (COs : Civic Organizations) et leur empressement d'entrer dans l'action politique Pour identifier la relation entre la collaboration de l’état et de l’autonomie civique nous tirons les données d'une enquête portant sur sept-cent quarante (740) associations civiques régionales hongroises. Nous n'avons pas constaté de soutien pour celles-ci ; le mélange en avec l'état pourrait saper l'autonomie des COs et mener à leur neutralisation politique. Aussi, nous n'avons pas trouvé d’assistance pour les hypothèses stipulant que l'action politique concerne uniquement l’octroi de finances ou est la propriété des MGOs d’actions autonomes. Nous avons identifié plusieurs mécanismes qui permettent aux COs de combiner la participation dans des projets avec l'autonomie maintenue et l'activisme politique.
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Beitrag untersucht, inwieweit Partnerschaften mit dem Staat innerhalb staatlich geführter Entwicklungsprogramme die Autonomie bürgerlicher Organisationen und ihre Bereitschaft zur aktiven Teilnahme am Politikgeschehen beeinflussen können. Zur Verdeutlichung der Beziehung zwischen der Zusammenarbeit mit dem Staat und der bürgerlichen Autonomie beruft sich der Beitrag auf Daten aus einer Befragung von 740 ungarischen regionalen Bürgervereinigungen. Thesen, die besagen, dass die Verbindung zum Staat die Autonomie bürgerlicher Organisationen untergraben und zu ihrer politischen Neutralisierung führen könnte, konnten nicht belegt werden. Des Weiteren wurden keine Beweise für die Hypothesen gefunden, dass es bei einer aktiven politischen Teilnahme ausschließlich um Geld geht oder diese nicht-autonomen nicht-staatlichen Organisationen vorbehalten bleibt. Es wurden mehrere Mechanismen herausgestellt, die es Bürgerorganisationen erlauben, an Partnerschaftsprojekten teilzunehmen und gleichzeitig ihre Autnomie zu wahren und eine aktive Teilnahme am Politikgeschehen fortzuführen.
Resumen
En este trabajo se analiza la influencia que las alianzas con el estado en programas de desarrollo dirigidos por éste podrían tener en la autonomía de las organizaciones cívicas y su disponibilidad a participar en medidas políticas. Para identificar la relación entre la colaboración con el estado y la autonomía cívica, hemos utilizado los datos de un sondeo realizado a 740 asociaciones cívicas regionales húngaras. En él, no hallamos ninguna conclusión que respaldara la tesis según la cual negociar con el estado podría perjudicar la autonomía de las organizaciones cívicas y provocar su neutralización política. Tampoco encontramos nada que respaldara las hipótesis de que el único objeto de la acción política es conseguir dinero o que es propiedad exclusiva de las ONG no autónomas. También hemos identificado varios mecanismos que permitirían a las organizaciones cívicas participar en los proyectos de asociación conservando su autonomía y haciendo al mismo tiempo activismo político.
摘要
民间组织在国家领导的开发项目中与国家建立合作关系,可能在哪些方面对民间组织的自主权及其涉足政治行为的意愿产生影响?本文对此作了探讨。我们采用了对740家匈牙利地区民间组织的一项调查中收集的数据,进行了研究分析,以找出民间组织与国家建立合作关系对民间组织的自主权产生什么样的关联。我们发现,并没有证据表明,与国家合作会破坏民间组织的自主权并导致其政治中立化。另外,我们也没有发现任何证据表明,政治行为只是金钱驱动,或只是无自主权的非政府组织的一种特性。我们已找到几种机制,这些机制可以帮助民间组织既参与合作项目,又能保持自主权和对政治的积极性。
ملخص
في هذا البحث نحن نستكشف طرق المشاركه مع الدوله داخل الدوله التي تقودها برامج التنميه التي قد تؤثر على
إستقلال المنظمات المدنيه (( COs وإستعدادهم للدخول في العمل السياسي . لتحديد العلاقه بين التعاون مع الدوله و الإستقلال المدني نحن إستخلصنا بيانات من فحص ٧٤٠ من المنظمات المدنيه المجريه الإقليميه . لم نجد دعم لإفتراضات أن الإختلاطات مع الدوله ربما يضعف مكانه إستقلال المنظمات المدنيه (COs ( و إبطالهم سياسياً. أيضاً لم نجد دعم للإفتراضات أن العمل السياسي هو فقط حول المال أو من ممتلكات المنظمات الغير حكوميه الغير مستقله NGOs . قد حددنا عده آليات التي تسمح للمنظمات المدنيه COs أن تجمع بين الإشتراك في مشاريع المشاركه مع الحفاظ على الإستقلاليه و النشاط السياسي .
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
There are several roots of this approach. In economic sociology and the literature on forms of economic governance, the works of Charles Sabel, Wolfgang Streeck, and Philippe C. Schmitter influenced most the thinking about the role played by developmental associations or associative action (Sabel 1993, 1994, 1996; Streeck and Schmitter 1985). On linking local associative action and democratic experimentalism in the framework of the concept of “directly deliberative polyarchy” see Sabel and Cohen (1997). Another direction that influenced thinking on different developmental partnerships came from the literature on the nonprofit sector linking associative action to the production of diverse types of public goods (see the work of Powell and Clemens 1998). On deliberative association in post-socialist transformation see Stark and Bruszt (1998).
For example, Kaldor, Anheier, and Glasius in their introductory chapter to Global Civil Society 2003 subsume these combinations at the supra-national level under the rubric of new public management and talk about the “basically neo-liberal role NGOs assume in public management manifestations.” (p. 9) See also Chandhoke (2002), Kettle (2000), and Perrow (2001, 2002). For a more balanced critique of NGO participation in partnerships see Howell and Pearce (2002).
Information based on interview in the Ministry of Economy and Trade (June 2005, Budapest).
“Statistical regions” were created in Hungary during the process of preparation for the reception of EU regional development funds. As the name suggests, these “regions” do not have autonomous political representation.
The list consisted of various social goals (improving health conditions, improving social conditions, improving education, increasing employment, strengthening higher education) economic goals (furthering industrial development, furthering agricultural development, development of tourism, development of firm creation, strengthening economic innovation, furthering capital influx in the region) environmental goals (improving the quality of environment, optimal use of environmental resources, environmental education) and general regional goals (improve transportation within the region, improve internal cohesion in the region, improve external territorial relations of the region, further cross-territorial communication, improving the administrative, political institutions of the region).
The list of actors used in the questionnaire: donors, central government, county government, local government, Regional Development Council/Regional Development Agency, political party, other domestic NGO, foreign NGO, international organization, church, media, a business organization, scientific organization, and trade union.
See Tarrow (1998) for the discussion of opportunity structures, and form and types of organizing.
See our article co-authored with David Stark for further discussion of civic associative action (Stark et al., Unpublished manuscript, 2005).
References
Anderson, K. (2000). The ottawa convention banning landmines, the role of international non-governmental organizations and the idea of international civil society. European Journal of International Law, 11(1), 91–120.
Brown, L., Khagram, S., Moore, M, & Frumkin, P. (2001). Globalization, NGOs, and multi-sectoral relations. In J. S. Nye Jr. & J. D. Donohue (Eds.), Governance in a globalizing world (pp. 271–296). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Bruszt, L. (2002). Making markets and Eastern enlargement: Diverging convergence? In P. Mair & J. Zielonka (Eds.), The enlarged European Union: Diversity and adaptation (pp. 121–141). London, Portland: Frank Cass.
Bruszt, L., & Stark, D. (2003). Who counts? Supranational norms and societal needs. East European Politics and Societies, 17, 74–82.
Chandhoke, N. (2002). The limits of global civil society. In M. Glasius, M. Kaldor, & H. K. Anheier (Eds.). Global civil society yearbook 2002 (pp. 35–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, P. (1997). State—society synergy: Government and social capital in development. International and Area Studies, University of California at Berkeley.
Fraser, N. (1994). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gerstenberg, O., & Sabel, C. F. (2002). Directly deliberative polyarchy: An institutional ideal for Europe? In C. Joerges & R. Dehousse (Eds.), Good governance in Europe’s integrated market (pp. 289–341). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howell, J., & Pearce, J. (2002). Civil society and development: A critical exploration. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Kaldor, M., Anheier, H. K., & Glasius, M. (2003). Global civil society yearbook 2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kettle, D. (2000). The global public management revolution: A report on the transformation of governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
OECD (1995). Participatory development and good governance. Paris: Development Cooperation Guidelines Series, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Perrow, C. (2001). The rise of nonprofits and the decline of civil society. In H. Anheier (Ed.), Organizational theory and nonprofit form. (Report no. 2) (pp. 33–44). Centre for Civil Society, London School of Economics.
Perrow, C. (2002). Organizing America: Wealth, power and the origins of American capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Powell, W., & Clemens, E. (1998). Private action and the public good. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
Sabel, C. (1993). Studied trust: Building new forms of cooperation in a volatile economy. Human Relations, 46(9), 214–267.
Sabel, C. (1994). Learning by monitoring: The institutions of economic development. In N. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Sociology (pp. 137–165). Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press and Russell Sage Foundation.
Sabel, C. (1996). Ireland: Local partnerships and social innovation. OECD Publications.
Sabel, C., & Cohen, J. (1997). Directly-deliberative polyarchy. European Law Journal, 3(4), 313–342.
Schmitter, P. C., & Streeck, W. (1999). The organization of business interests: Studying the associative action of business in advanced industrial societies. Max Planck Institute fur Gesellschaftsforschung, Discussion Papers 99/1.
Stark, D., & Bruszt, L. (1998). Postsocialist pathways: Transforming politics and property in East Central Europe. New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Streeck, W., & Schmitter, P. C. (1985). Community, market, state—and associations? The prospective contribution of interest governance to social order. In W. Streeck & P. C. Schmitter (Eds.), Private interest government. Beyond market and state (pp. 1–34). Sage: London.
Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
UNDP (1993). UNDP and organizations of civil society: Building sustainable partnerships. November, Mimeo.
UNDP (1995). Proposed UNDP Regional Programme: Civil society empowerment for poverty reduction in sub-Saharan Africa. January, Mimeo.
World Bank (1992). Governance and development. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank (1996). The World Bank’s partnership with nongovernmental organizations. Washington, DC.: World Bank.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bruszt, L., Vedres, B. The Politics of Civic Combinations. Voluntas 19, 140–160 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-008-9060-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-008-9060-1