Issues related to the role of 'civil society' have become increasingly important in political and developmental discourse over the past two decades, particularly in connection with the political changes in Latin America and the transformation in Eastern Europe. At the beginning of the 21st century, the discussion about the role of the civil society in the development process is going on practically in all parts of the developing world as an agent for limiting authoritarian government, strengthening popular participation enforcing political accountability, and contribution to the effectiveness of the development process.

Due to a number of reasons, general expectations about the role of 'civil society' have often been overly optimistic and have disregarded the ambiguities and conflicts inherent in the realities of the given economic, social and political environment.

It is necessary:

• To gain a clearer analytical and practical understanding of the character and functions of civil society, both in general and in the light of systemic and other variations between and within regions.
• While recognizing that civil organizations can play a number of potentially positive roles, to concentrate on those activities which can enhance (or detract from) the quality of political life and governance in different societies.
• To develop practical measures which can strengthen civil society and enhance its impact as an agent for improving political life and governance – with particular emphasis on seeking ways to improve government policies toward poor, excluded and vulnerable groups, and to strengthen their access to and influence on the policy process.

I. History and Concepts

The contemporary term ‘civil society’ has its origins in the early modern period, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The term, of course, had appeared earlier. Like all Western political concepts, it can be traced back to Greek political philosophy. Aristotle talked about politike koinona (political community/society) to refer to a rule-governed society in which the ruler puts the public good before his (not usually her) private interest. The term was translated into Latin as Societas Civilis. The renaissance of the concept in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was inextricably linked to theories of individual rights and the idea of a social contract. What was new about the early modern usage of the term was the assumption of human equality, drawn from Christianity. A civil society was a society where individuals come to together to make a social contract and the outcome of that contract is expressed in the rule of law and the existence of a state, which is also subject to the law. A civil society was a peaceful society, a society in which people treated strangers with civility, in contrast to other violent and ‘rude’ societies. The Scottish enlightenment thinkers were to augment the concept with their emphasis on the importance of commercial society. They saw the market as the condition for individualism and the existence of a civil society. But they still understood civil society in much the same terms as a rule-governed society based on the consent of individuals in contrast to the state of nature, where there were no rules, or with despotic systems where rules were imposed through coercion.

It was Hegel who was first to use the term as something distinct from the state. Hegel, who was strongly influenced by the Scottish political economists, defined civil society as ‘the realm of difference, intermediate between the family and the state In other words, civil society was equated with the economy. Hegel used the term ‘bourgeois society’ (Bürgerliche Gesellschaft) and this was the definition to be taken up by Marx and later nineteenth century thinkers. For Hegel famously, civil society was ‘the achievement of the modern world. The territory of mediation where there is free play for every idiosyncrasy, every talent, every accident of birth and fortune, and where waves of passion gush forth, regulated only by reason, glinting through them. Thus the state was viewed as a mediator, resolving the conflicts of civil society; the civil servants were the ‘universal class’ acting in the public interest.

Although de Tocqueville used the term civil society in an eighteenth century sense to refer to a rule-governed society, his contribution needs to be mentioned because of the importance he attributed to associationalism and self-organisation, which informs so much of contemporary thinking, especially in the United States. In his study of democracy in America, he was greatly impressed by the extent of associations in civil life and put forward the argument those active associations were a condition for freedom and equality. As the state takes over more and more functions of daily life, as the division of labour becomes more complex and as demands for the redistribution of wealth increase, an active voluntary sector is necessary to provide a check on state power. ’As soon as several inhabitants of the United States have taken up an opinion or a feeling they wish to promote in the world, they look for mutual assistance; and as soon as they have found one another out, they combine. From that moment they are no longer isolated men, but a power seen from afar, whose actions serve for example and whose language is listened to. Among the laws that rule human societies, there is one which seems to be more precise and clear than all the others. If men are to remain civilised or to become so, the art of associating together must grow and improve in the same ratio as the equality of conditions is increased.

For Marx and Engels, political associations were a reflection of material conditions. They were to take up the Hegelian concept of Bürgerliche Gesellschaft and to emphasise the role of the economy. According to Marx, the ‘material conditions of life are summed up by Hegel after the fashion of the English and the French of the eighteenth century under the name “civil society”; the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy. Unlike Hegel, however, Marx and Engels argued that the state was subordinate to civil society; they saw the state as an instrument or apparatus in the hands of the dominant classes. Civil society was the ‘theatre of history. Civil Society embraces all the material relations of individuals within a definite stage of the development of productive forces. It embraces the whole commercial and industrial life of a given stage and, hence, transcends the State and the nation, though, on the other hand again, it must assert itself in its foreign relations as nationality and inwardly must organise itself as state.

In the twentieth century, the content of the concept has been further narrowed to forms of social interaction that are distinct from both the state and the market. Writing in prison, the Italian Marxist, Gramsci called into question the economism of the Marxist definition of civil society. According to Gramsci, it is not ‘economic structure’ as such that governs political action but the ‘interpretation of it.’ Thus the ‘theatre of history’ is not the story of economic development but of ideological and cultural struggles. Gramsci drew an important distinction between coercion and consent, domination and hegemony.

Bourgeois society had established a powerful set of norms and institutions to sustain the hegemony of bourgeois rule based on the consent of the working classes. Whereas capitalism was overthrown in Russia through the capture of the state, this was not possible in the west where ‘there was a proper relation between state and civil society, and when the state trembled, a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed.’(Quoted in Ehrenberg, p.209) Hence, he was to emphasis the need for political activism in the realms of education, media and other institutions of civil society.

In contemporary usage, it is possible broadly to distinguish three different versions of usages of the term:

The first version is what we may call the ‘activist’ version. This is the version that initiated the contemporary revival of the term in both Latin America and Eastern Europe. The term emerged simultaneously in the 1970s and 1980s, and as far as I know without any communication, in these two regions as a way of describing the efforts to create autonomous public spaces in the context of authoritarian states –military dictatorships in Latin America and totalitarian Communist regimes in Eastern Europe. In Latin America, the intellectuals who used the term were strongly influenced both by Gramsci (via the Spanish and Italian Communist parties) and by the ideas of liberation theology –the notion of the conscientisation of the poor, overcoming the ‘culture of silence’

In Eastern Europe, the term arose out of the failure of the Prague spring and the loss of faith that any change could come ‘from above’ or through overthrow of the regime. The idea was that instead of trying to change the state, it was important to change the relation between state and society, to create self-organised institutions, independent of the state that could challenge the reach of the state In both Latin America and Eastern Europe, these new autonomous spaces depended on transnational links, and this was even before the advent of Internet. It was both the existence of formal international instruments like the Conventions on Human Rights or the Helsinki Agreement and the links with peace and human rights groups in Western countries that helped to open up spaces in these countries This understanding of civil society was to be taken up by intellectuals in Europe and the United States, as well as other parts of the world especially India, to mean the ‘new politics’ It referred to the idea of a realm outside political parties where individuals and groups aimed to democratise the state, to redistribute power, rather than to capture power in a traditional sense. It was associated with the so called new social movements that emerged after 1968, concerned with peace the environment, women, human rights and so on. It involved an effort to create a public space where individuals can act and communicate freely, independent of both the state and capitalism. Accordingly, civil society is composed of more or less spontaneously emergent associations, organisations, and movements.

The second version of the term ‘civil society’ can be described as the ‘neo-liberal’ approach which is associated with ideas about the ‘third sector’ or the ‘nonprofit sector’ that developed in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. The idea is that, in the United States, there is a group of organisations that are neither controlled by the state nor the market, but which play an essential role in facilitating the operation of both. This concept owes much to the Tocquevillian emphasis on associationalism and is linked to neo-liberal ideas about minimising the role of the state. According to these ideas NGOs, NPOs (non-profit organisations), charities and voluntary associations are more flexible and innovative than the state. They can substitute for the state, in providing social services for example; they can check abuses of the state and poor governmental practices; and they can call corporations to account. Civil society was needed as a cushion against the shocks associated with structural adjustment, to provide a social safety net, for example, at a time when public services were being cut, and to foster good governance. Market failures and economic crises like those in Asia, were attributed to failures of governance, especially corruption. Civil society, it was hoped, could correct this.

A third version of civil society is the non-western version. In different parts of the world there exist various traditional and new organisations, based on kinship or religion that remain autonomous from the state and offer alternative sites of power or autonomous spaces. In Iran, for example, ‘various religious and bazaar institutions and groupings, under powerful molla patrons, and the duality of state power between the presidency and the spiritual leadership, constitute some plurality of power as compared with neighbouring states. It is usually argued that these groups cannot be included in the concept of civil society because they may be compulsory associations and they are often mechanisms for social control, especially the oppression of women.

Some groups and organizations that form part of civil society operate clandestinely, either because they are declared illegal, or because they suffer from systematic state repression. In some contexts, large segments of civil society may be located in the illegal sphere.

It could be argued that clandestine organizations should be excluded because they do not operate in full public view. But given (i) that they are important in state-society relations in some of the countries which we are studying, (ii) that clandestine groups can transmogrify into associations operating in the open, and (iii) that some of them are forced to operate clandestinely by government bans, we have decided not to exclude them from this exercise.

Finally, churches as organizations and political parties represent also problems in relation to the concept. They are usually seen, as part of civil society. But we need to be aware of two problems here. Churches may have close relations and specific role in the goverment. They usually derive their existence from God and not from the society. Second, parties usually serve as bridges between civil society and government. They straddle the division between the two in ways that may undermine their loyalty and responsiveness to civil society. And since they often exercise state power and act on the imperatives of government, many of them are not parts of the civil society. They can become involved in government efforts to control, repress, intimidate, marginalize, or coopt civil society in ways that damage it (or parts of it). Second, some parties are so entirely the creations (and/or the creators) of governments or states (or they are so dependent upon governments) that they scarcely qualify as elements or representatives of civil society. We do not propose to exclude parties from consideration as constituent parts of civil society, but researchers in some countries will need to bear these two problems firmly in mind.

In the international life a special concept was developed and used, the NGO concept

The term was first used in Article 71 of the UN Charter, where the Economic and Social Committee is empowered ‘to make suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organisations which are concerned with matters in its competence.‘ International NGOs (INGOs) were established already in the nineteenth century. The most famous examples are probably the Anti-Slavery Society (1839) and the International Red Cross (1864). By 1874, there were 32 registered INGOs and this had increased 1083 by 1914 although not all survived INGOs were instrumental in setting up international institutions, during this period, many of which began as non-governmental institutions The League of Nations was initiated by the movement of the World Federalists. They also influenced treaty making, particularly in the case of anti-slavery and many of the techniques that INGOs use today were pioneered during this period, particularly parallel fora at inter-governmental conferences. In the inter-war period, INGOs were very active in the League of Nations up to 1935 and in the International Labour Organisation, which even today includes delegates from trades unions, employer organisations and women’s groups in its formal structures, alongside governmental organisations. The two most influential groups were the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), founded in World War I, which moved its headquarters to Geneva, and the International Chamber of Commerce. The number of INGOs increased during the post-war period not only under the stimulation of new social movements but also as former missionaries and colonial administrators sought new occupations. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, however, their influence was constrained by the Cold War and the statist character of many of the postwar international institutions. It was not until the 1970’s that the opening up of access for ‘new’ social movements to local and international institutions led to the proliferation of both NGOs in general and INGOs in particular. Initially, this opening up applied mainly to ‘soft’ issues that did not seem to engage directly with the ideological conflict, mainly the environment and women. The Rio Conference on Environment and Development in 1972 marked the beginning of the parallel summit as a way of organising global civil society organisations on particular issues. Likewise, a series of world conferences on women helped to galvanise women’s groups – Mexico City 1975, Copenhagen 1980, Nairobi 1985 and Beijing 1995 (Chen 1997). By the 1980’s, development and humanitarian NGOs also began to be seen as partners for governments and international institutions for a variety of reasons; their local knowledge, the need to bypass ineffective or authoritarian governments, and the need to find ways to implement structural adjustment packages. The end of the Cold War accelerated these tendencies. It was no longer possible to ally with authoritarian governments in the context of a wave of support for democratisation and human rights. As the ideological conflict dissolved, governments and international institutions became more responsive to peace and human rights groups. In the second half of the 1990’s, ‘third way’ politicians came to power in Western Europe, who accepted the neo-liberal orthodoxy, but nevertheless had learned their politics through the experience of new social movements and were ready to pursue new issues and to open up the corridors of power to ‘tamed’ social movements. Finally, in the late 1990s, even the international financial institutions, like the World Bank, the WTO or the IMF, but especially the World Bank began a dialogue with INGOs (O’Brien et al). These openings have encouraged institutionalisation and professionalisation, the transformation of social movements into NGOs or INGOs. During the 1990s, registered INGOS increased by one third, from 10,292 to 13,206 and their memberships increased from 155,000 to 263,000 over the same period.

Civil organizations vary in the nature and range of their objectives. Some of them have explicitly 'systemic' aims in the sense that they seek to make an impact on broad political and social structures and processes: for example, by changing an authoritarian into a democratic regime; by deepening the democratic character of an existing democratic regime; changing socio-economic circumstances by improving equity or stimulating particular kinds of developmental action which improve the well-being of poor and excluded people. [1] Others may have relatively wide social aims, seeking to represent and improve the condition of other social groups beyond their own personnel or membership. Still others may be concerned with more limited goals, seeking to maximize the narrow interests of their own members without concern for, and sometimes at the cost of, external organizations and groups.

Work on civil societies in developing countries has produced the following kinds of distinctions between different types of civil actors: between 'modern' interest groups such as trade unions, professional and business associations and 'traditional' organizations based on kinship, ethnicity, culture or religion; between those organizations with specifically political aspirations and roles, and those which are either outside politics or only intermittently involved; between associations which accept the political status quo and those which seek to transform it by changing the political regime or redefining the political community; between highly organized and well resourced interest groups such as trade unions and business/professional organizations and other forms of organization such as NGOs or community associations which have different operating procedures and organizational objectives; between organizations which are intended to protect and extend the narrow interests of their members and those with a wider social or political agenda; and between organizations with extensive membership and those with quite limited membership (but sometimes with broad support from non-members).

Civil societies vary considerably from country to country, and the ethical and political character of each constellation of civil actors to be very diverse. There can be no assumption that civil society is 'virtuous' by definition or that it contains an intrinsic potential for contributing to better governance. [2] Nor can we assume that all civil society organizations have explicit concerns with improving the quality of political life and governance. Therefore, one of the first steps in our enquiry will be the mapping or profiling of each constellation of civil society organizations. This will involve a specific set of questions defined by the main concerns of our research, i.e. the relationship between civil society and forms of governance.

Official agencies and private foundations have led to the development of a market for NGOs, in which donors influence the culture and management style of NGOs and successful NGOs transform themselves into a kind of oligopoly. OECD figures show that, by the end of the 1990s, some 5% of all official aid is channelled through NGOs, with differing shares for different countries. Some 85% of Swedish aid is channeled through NGOs and some 10% of UK aid. NGOs are both service providers and advocacy groups. Services include relief in emergencies, primary health care, non-formal education, housing and legal services, and provision of micro-credit as well as training to other service providers.

In their practical work NGOs follow different patterns. In some cases they are moving from concern with immediate relief, to projects concerned with local development, to advocacy relating to the wider institutional and policy context. In an other pattern the ‘new’ social movements acting primarily as advocates transform themselves into service providers to gain credibility among local populations or as a way of ensuring their survival

Civil society organizations can have a constructive impact on political life – by helping to foster fairer, more honest, transparent, democratic and accountable governance which is more tolerant of diversity and pluralism – in two ways. First, these organizations can appeal to governments (or even pressure them) to improve their performance in these areas. Second, and in a more subtle manner, they can encourage these things by practicing this sort of governance themselves, within their own organizations. This sets an example for government institutions. It also acquaints ordinary people both with the possibility of better governance (which puts pressure on government to improve) and can provide people with participatory experience that inculcates the skills needed to make such governance a reality.

Of course, the leaders of some civil society organizations – representing groups which benefit from unfair government practices – may not wish to see government improve in these ways. And even leaders who might wish to see improvements in official practices do not always operate in this manner within their organizations.

These organizations are often criticized – fairly or unfairly – by people in government for being unelected and thus unaccountable (although it is not as simple as that, since there are other ways of ensuring accountability), and of being secretive about their finances and internal decision making. This dimension needs to be explored since it will reveal how civil society is doing less than it might in promoting good governance, and how changes in practice might enable it to do more.

II. Civil Society and Development Issues

The contribution made by civil society to development is essentially concerned with the means by which organized interests seek to influence and engage in the process. In doing so, they usually help to strengthen state legitimacy and relations of trust between public officials and ordinary citizens. In the past, there has been a special category among the NGOs, the development oriented organizations, which have been interested in promoting the progress of the developing countries in general, or in one or another narrow field, like land reforms or food security.

At the beginning of the 21st Century one can differentiate between many types of the associations of the civil society working in the field of development. .

1. Global organizations, dealing with the global aspects of development policies. (WFUNA)
2. Interest-based (including occupational) organizations (Trade Unions, Farmers)
3. Service provision organizations (ACT)
4. Self-help (often community-based) organizations. (Slum Dwellers)
5. Advocacy groups (Small business, women)
6. Cultural/religious/'ethnic' organizations, (Christian Aid)
7. Social movements (usually – in contrast to all six of the types above – quite large entitieswhich may have little organization, or may have large memberships with an organization at the core) (Anti-Slavery movement)
8. Environmentalists (Greenpeace)
9. Research (South Center)
10. Anti-globalization.

Some organizations will fall into more than one of the categories above.

ACTIVITIES of civil society organizations

1. Representation
2. Mobilization
3. Regulation and Monitoring
4. Developmental and Social Action
5. Direct Assistance

As we noted above, however, not all civic organizations engage in activities designed to promote PROGRESS. Some actively conspire to undermine MODERNIZATION by aggressively pursuing self-interested goals or by fomenting violence against the state or other organized groups. Others consciously seek to evade or disengage themselves from formal state structures through various forms of collective action in the informal economy.

The contribution of civil society to good governance may be summarized under four headings: public policy and decision making; enhancing state performance; transparency and information; and social justice and the rule of law.

1. Improving the effectiveness of development cooperation, promoting the transparency and accountability of public institutions.

   The quality and effectiveness of overseas development assistance, development cooperation for the improvement of such public services as health, education, are integral to development. It is expected that civil society organizations contribute here by working directly with the donor countries, their development agencies more efficiently than the national governments in a variety of ways. In practice, this cooperation may also require the involvement of national authorities, central government agencies or the local administration. These can take the form of public-private partnerships in which civil society organizations work closely with state institutions in designing and providing health and educational services, by mobilizing funds from among client groups and other sources, by providing services directly, and by monitoring quality and coverage.

   Effective state-society partnerships arise in the context of a particular set of institutional and political conditions which may be context-specific and not easily replicable. These conditions and the types of groups that can form such partnerships require more detailed comparative investigation to determine under what circumstances synergy can be fostered. The following issues are of relevance under this heading:

   • The nature of the policy environment and the role of the state in governing the activities of civil society (through non-intervention, responsiveness, promotion and regulation);
   • The effectiveness of various types of institutional innovations designed to foster complementarity;
   • The types of leadership and forms of commitment among public officials and civic organizations which could create mutual trust and a pre-disposition toward partnership;
   • The contribution of cooperative relationships and alliance-building between civil society organizations and sympathetic bureaucrats to improving the quality of public services, and the effectiveness with which they are delivered.

2. Promoting a participatory model of development.

   Civil society organizations can play a role in mobilizing particular constituencies to participate more fully in politics and public affairs. Wealthy and socially dominant groups are better able to organize themselves and, by virtue of superior resources and social status, are able to exert considerable influence over public policy. They can form and support intermediary organizations to represent and articulate their interests in an effective manner.

   Poor and socially disadvantaged groups – marginal peasants, sharecroppers, landless laborers, artisans, informal sector workers, urban slum dwellers, disabled people and certain categories of women – are usually much less able to exercise influence over public policy and resource allocations. Higher rates of political participation often result from institutional innovations – such as democratic decentralization – designed to promote local involvement in decision-making. But such innovations will only be effective if grassroots organizations and social movements can organize the poor and articulate their demands at local and higher levels.

   The following issues are significant here:

   • Under what socio-economic and political conditions can grassroots mobilization be effective in influencing public policy?
   • What kinds of strategies appear to be most effective at promoting high rates of civic engagement?
   • What types of institutions are conducive to higher rates of political participation?
   • To what extent do public policy and resource allocations actually benefit poor and marginalized groups?

3. Informing and educating the public, sharing best practices and technical knowledge.

   Civil organizations are thought to contribute to development by improving transparency and increasing the availability of information about important issues. Activities from within civil society to promote these goals include the discovery, publication and dissemination of information about items of legislation, legal provisions, public expenditure allocations, the implementation of policy and programs, and special enquiries. Such information may be directly published and circulated by groups within civil society, or distributed through new or existing media outlets.

   These groups may also seek to mobilize citizens to pressure governments into implementing existing legislation and by taking action to indict public officials who are involved in malfeasance. Efforts to enhance transparency in government may contribute to poverty reduction by helping citizens monitor the delivery of development resources and staunch the appropriation of resources by bureaucrats and local elites. This suggests a more activist role for civil society, in which civic actors back up information and dissemination activities with mobilization and public advocacy work. It also raises questions about the transparency and legitimacy of civic organizations which cannot be taken for granted.

   The spread of democratization in recent years has changed the political and institutional environment in which civil society organizations operate. In some cases civil society was the locus of active opposition to authoritarian governments, and provided a critical breeding ground for political parties. In others civil society was marginalized through state repression or withdrawal from active engagement in politics. Civil society may constitute the locus in which civic values and norms of democratic engagement are nurtured, though conversely greater political freedom can be exploited by self-interested groups to advance narrow, self-interested agendas that can so exacerbate political conflict that it undermines governance.

4. Promoting social justice and moderation the adverse effects of globalization.

   The process of globalization has had a double effect on civil society organizations. On the one hand, like other domestic agencies such as the state and private business, they find their autonomy compromised by invasive pressures of global markets. On the other hand, globalization – particularly in terms of freer flows of information across national boundaries – has fostered the spread of ‘transnational communities’ and opened the ways for global cooperation between civil society groups. This is especially important in the view of the winners and losers of the changes connected with the globalization process. The protective role of civil society in sheltering individuals threatened by the globalization process may take different forms. Anti-globalization movements are the relative newcomers among the NGOs. They include a great variety of civil society organizations: movements attached to religious fundamentalism, anti-capitalist radicals, trade union groups, populist movements, movements interested in promoting social justice, environmentalists, etc.

III. The Accountability of the Civil Society Organizations

This is a difficult and delicate issue. There are no international rules and regulations, related to the civil society organizations. Their effectiveness should be related to their goals. National laws also differ. In practical terms, they are accountable to their founders and constituency. Their chartes also vary. There are many proposals: they should be more transparent, the states, where they are incorporated should control them, there should be self-regulating mechanism, etc.

---

References

Agarwal, Anil, (2000) 'International Pressure and the Civil Society' Down to Earth, Centre for Science and Environment, India, January

Anheier, Helmut K. (2000) ‘Managing Non-profit Organisations: Towards a New Approach’ in Civil Society Working Papers, Number 1, Centre for Civil Society, LSE, London, January

Arato, Andrew and Cohen, Jean (1995) Civil Society and Political Theory MIT Press, Cambridge

Arllano-Lopez, S., and Petras, J.F. (1994) ‘Non-governmental organisations and Poverty Alleviation in Bolivia’ Development and Change, 25: 555-568

Bobbio, Noberto (1988) ‘Gramsci and the Concept of Civil Society’ in Keane, ed. Civil Society and the State Verso, London

Charnowitz, Steve (1997) ‘Two centuries of Participation: NGOs and International Governance’ Michigan Journal of International Law Winter

Chatfield, Charles (1997) ‘Inter-governmental and Non-governmental Associations to 1945’ in Jackie Smith, Charles Chatfield, and Ron Pagnucco, eds Transnational Social Movements and Global Politics Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York

Chen, Martha Alter (1997) ‘Engendering World Conferences: The International Women’s Movement and the UN’ in Gordenker and Weiss,

Comaroff, John L. and Comaroff, Jean Eds. (1999) Civil Society and the Political Imagination in Africa: Critical Perspectives University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Della Porta, Donatella and Diani, Mario (1999) Social Movements: An Introduction Blackwell, Oxford.

Edwards, Michael (2000) NGI Rights and Responsibilities: A New Deal for Global Governance The Foreign Policy centre in association with NCVO, London

Ehrenberg, John (1999) Civil Society: The Critical History of an Idea New York University Press, New York and London.

Ferguson, Adam (1995) An Essay on the History of Civil Society (first published 1767) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Fowler, Alan (1997) Striking a Balance: A Guide to Enhancing the Effectiveness of Non-Governmental Organisations in International Development Earthscan, London

Freizer, Sabine and Kaldor, Mary Civil Society in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Paper prepared for DFID project on Strengthening Democratisation in War-torn Societies, Unpublished

Gellner, Ernest (1994) Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and its Rivals Hamish Hamilton, London

Goldwin, Robert A. (1987) ‘John Locke’ in Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey eds History of Political Philosophy University of Chicago Press, 3rd edition, Chicago and London

Gordenker, Leon and Weiss, Thomas G. Eds. (1996) NGOs, the UN and Global Governance Lynne Reinner, Boulder and Colorado

Hann, Chris and Dunn, Elizabeth Eds. (1996) Civil Society: Challenging Western Models Routledge, London and New York

Havel, Vaclav (1985) ‘The Power of the Powerless’ in John Keane Ed. The Power of the Powerless: Citizens Against the State in Central-Eastern Europe, Hutchinson, London

Hegel, G.W.F (1996) The Philosophy of Right (1820) translated by S.W.Dyde, originally published in English in 1896, Prometheus Books, London

Howell, Jude and Pearce, Jenny (2001) Civil Society and Development: A Critical Exploration Lynne Rienner, Colorado

Hulme, David and Edwards, Michael (1997) NGOs, States and Donors: Too close for Comfort? Macmillan in association with Save the Children, Basingstoke

Jordan, Lisa and Tujil, Peter van (2000) ‘Political Responsibility in Transnational NGO Advocacy’ World Development Vol. 28, No.12, pp 2051-2065

Kaldor, Mary (1991) ed Europe from Below Verso, London

Kaviraj, Sudipta and Khilnani, Sunil (2001) Civil Society: History and Possibilities, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Keck, Margaret, E. and Sikkink, Kathryn (1998) Activists beyond Borders Cornell University Press, Cornell

Khor, Martin (1999) 'The Revolt of the Developing Nations' Third World Network, December 6

Konrad, George (1984) Anti-Politics Quartet Books, London

Koonings, Kees and Kruijt, Dirk (Eds) (1999), Societies of Fear: The Legacy of Civil War, Violence and Terror in Latin America, Zed Books, London & New York.

Kothari, Rajni

Lewis, David (2001) The Management of Non-Governmental Development Organisations: An Introduction Routledge, London and New York

Mamdani, Mahood (1996) Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of late Colonialism Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

Melucci, Alberto (1988) Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and individual needs in contemporary Society Hutchinson, London.

Melucci, Alberto (1996) Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Michnik, Adam (1985) 'The New Evolutionism' in Letters from Prison and Other Essays California University Press, California

O’Brien, Robert, Goetz, Anne-Marie, Scholte, Jan Art and Williams, Marc (2000) Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Putzel, James (1997) ‘Accounting for the “dark side” of Social Capital: Reading Robert Putnam on Democracy’ Journal of International Development, Vol 9, No 7, pp 939-949

Salamon, Lester M. and Anheier, Helmut K. (1997) Defining the Non-Profit Sector: A Cross-national Analysis Manchester University Press, Manchester and New York

Tarrow, Sydney (1998) Power in Movements: Social Movements and Contentious Politics Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition

Tocqueville, Alexis de (1945) Democracy in America, (first published in 1835) Vintage Books, New York

Touraine, Alain (1981) The Voice and the Eye: an Analysis of Social Movements Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Wood, G.D. (1997) ‘ States without citizens: the problem of the franchise state’ in Hulme and Edwards

Zubaida, Sami (2001) ‘Civil Society, Community and Democracy in the Middle East’ in Kaviraj and Khilnani.

---

[1] Note however, that certain civil society organizations may also act to change democratic into authoritarian regimes, to reduce the amount of participation in formally democratic systems and to worsen socio-economic inequalities.

[2] On this point, see J.-F. Bayart, “Civil Society in Africa” in P. Chabal (ed.) Political Domination in Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986), and R. Fatton, Jr., “Africa in the Age of Democratization: The Civic Limitations of Civil Society”, African Studies Review (September, 1995) pp. 67-99.