Voluntas [voluntas]
pp805-volu-461055
March 18, 2003
19:36
Style file version June 4th, 2002
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations C 2003) Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2003 (°
Book Reviews Helmut Anheier, Marlies Glasius, and Mary Kaldor, Global Civil Society 2001, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001. It is difficult to try to pin down in print a developing concept. There is always the danger that by the time a book is in the hands of its readers, events and debates will have moved on to such an extent that the work will be primarily an historical artifact. When the concept is global civil society (GCS), that danger is exacerbated. One way of trying to overcome this problem is to adopt a yearbook approach. In this volume, Helmut Anheier and his two colleagues from the Centre for Civil Society at the London School of Economics, in association with a number of other contributors, have taken the first steps in an iterative process of unpacking the concept. The editors state that they are “asking our readers to participate in a journey of discovery,” and that “the Yearbook is itself a part of global civil society” (p. 3). This explicitly reflexive approach which attempts to engage with the readers reflects the process of chapter development in which editors and authors discussed the contributions face-to-face on a number of occasions before a final draft was agreed. The volume is divided into four sections. The first is an attempt to get to grips with the concept. The second selects three GCS issues for examination in depth, the anticapitalist movement, responses to plant biotechnology, and humanitarian intervention. The third examines three aspects of the infrastructure of GCS, the Internet, parallel summits, and funding. Finally, there are the “records of civil society” (p. vii) in which data to satisfy the most positive of positivists has been collated and presented. In almost all cases there are two sets of data from two points in time to allow comparison. There is also a chronology of GCS in which major events of the years 1989–99 and a more thorough chronology of 2000 are presented. The task that the authors have set themselves is not an easy one. They have selected a concept which has not yet gained an agreed meaning and which is ideologically loaded. There is an acknowledgment that the evidence used in the debates to date is sketchy in nature. They have had to select a small number of issues on which to concentrate and their “records” necessarily depend upon the work of others unconnected with the current enterprise. 123 C 2003 International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 0957-8765/03/0300-0123/1 °
Voluntas [voluntas]
124
pp805-volu-461055
March 18, 2003
19:36
Style file version June 4th, 2002
Book Reviews
Despite the potential pitfalls, the authors have produced a fine volume. The essays are authoritative and do more than merely map out unfamiliar territory, they also lay out a number of research agendas. I can foresee these being of great interest to academics preparing bids to research-funding agencies as well as to students searching for worthwhile topics to address in theses. Finally, their objective of engaging the reader is in line with the underlying principles of civil society. In the spirit of that objective, I would suggest two areas that could usefully be explored in a future edition. The first is that of leadership in both GCS and also the organizations contributing to it, and the second is the failure of GCS to produce a higher-profile peace movement. The editors say that their ambition “is to provide the beginnings of a systematic profile of the contours, composition, and developments of civil society.” They hope that the yearbook, “updated annually, will become a central reference point for empirical and theoretical work on global civil society” (p. 19). Although a final assessment of their success in achieving these aims cannot be made until a number of volumes have been published, they have made a very positive start to the journey of discovery on which they have embarked. Alistair McCulloch Edge Hill College of Higher Education United Kingdom
Terje Tvedt, Angels of Mercy or Development Diplomats? NGOs and Foreign Aid, Africa World Press, Trenton; James Currey, Oxford, 1998. Occasionally one comes across a book that not only shatters conventional assumptions about a particular subject but also opens up new paths in the creation of knowledge in a particular area. Terje Tvedt’s Angels of Mercy or Development Diplomats is an example of one such work in the field of NGO and Development Research. Treading where other scholars have feared to tread, Tvedt subjects both NGOs and existing theories about their origins, development, and operations to ruthless investigation. The result is a refreshing work that questions prevailing wisdoms, and transcends political rhetoric and conventional orthodoxy by exposing the everyday myths surrounding the efficiency and progressive agendas of NGOs. In its stead, Tvedt portrays NGOs for what they really are: a heterogeneous community of organizational constructs with diverse values, aims, projects, and political agendas whose origins, operations, and impact are conditioned largely by ideological trends, donors and state policies, and political and cultural traditions. This is primarily a study of NGOs: how and why they emerge in different historical contexts, what informs their relations with other actors including the state and market, how they came to take on particular sets of values and
Voluntas [voluntas]
pp805-volu-461055
Book Reviews
March 18, 2003
19:36
Style file version June 4th, 2002
125
ideological orientations, and what their impact is on development and democracy. These issues are addressed through an empirical investigation of one donor government’s NGO policy—Norway—and its influence on NGOs and their environment in four developing countries: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, and Zimbabwe. These case studies are treated as a subsystem of a global NGO channel, and as a result, analyses of these national cases enable conclusions to be drawn of the broader international universe of NGOs. Perhaps the greatest asset of this work is the theoretical perspective it operationalizes and advances. Much of the literature on the Third Sector which, partly because it is written by NGO practitioners or scholars whose normative agenda is to advance the interests of the sector, utilizes an organizational and institutional lens that permits an overly optimistic and romanticized picture of NGOs and their impact. By contrast, this study employs a systemic analysis that locates NGOs and their operations as part of a structural organizational framework known as the NGO channel, which itself is conceived as an international social system configured by internal economic and political structures, and by external donor interests. In addition, the relationship between donor states and NGOs in the developing world is understood from a foreign policy perspective. The result is that the systemic perspective underlying this study enables Tvedt to focus on two explanatory variables normally not considered in the literature on the Third Sector: the structural distribution of power both between states and within the NGO channel, and institutional culture and tradition. Tvedt thus addresses issues normally considered taboo in the NGO community: are international NGOs within donor communities simply instruments of foreign policy, and do these organizations possess the comparative advantage in terms of efficiency and flexibility over the public sector that so many Third Sector practitioners seem to claim? His answers to both questions are empirically grounded and refreshingly nuanced. Tvedt recognizes that in most cases NGOs have become foreign policy instruments of donor states to advance one or another political or economic agenda. But he also recognizes that there are cases where the direction of the influence can go the other way, and he makes a persuasive case to demonstrate that in Norway, particularly because of its peculiar institutional tradition and the fact that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs relied on their instruments to be their primary informants, NGOs were able to fundamentally influence the policy perspective of the Norwegian state. Tvedt’s answer to the question of NGO efficiency and flexibility is similarly nuanced. Because of the heterogeneity of the NGO community and the problems of differential objectives and methodology, he maintains that it is impossible to assess the efficiency and flexibility of the sector in the abstract. Instead, he argues for contextualization and demonstrates that NGOs can be flexible or inflexible, efficient or inefficient, depending on the organizations, the contexts within which they operate, and the relevant tasks for which they are responsible and undertake.
Voluntas [voluntas]
126
pp805-volu-461055
March 18, 2003
19:36
Style file version June 4th, 2002
Book Reviews
Finally, Tvedt tackles the role of NGOs in furthering democracy and pluralism. He does this through a critical appraisal of the “New Policy Paradigm,” a theory of development that prioritizes a role for NGOs, and subjects this theoretical perspective to a ruthless comparison with other state-centered theories and “clash of civilizations” discourses. He concludes that understanding these theories and how they impact analyses of state–society relations in different contexts is necessary for formulating useful strategies for NGOs that do not involve the abrogation of democratic principles and the further fragmentation of divided and conflict-ridden societies. Overall, this is a book that has much to recommend it. For those serious about understanding the nonprofit sector, for those scholars and critical activists committed to building a new democratic and development order, this is a book that must be read. For the others, those content with operating within the framework of the current system, the propagandists of the status quo, and most of all the cynics, this is a book that will not be too popular. For at its heart, this is a work about change, how to understand it, how to enhance its potential, and ultimately, how to come to terms with its limits. Adam Habib Center for Civil Society University of Natal, Durban South Africa
Ondine Barrow and Michael Jennings (eds.), The Charitable Impulse: NGOs and Development in East and North-East Africa, James Currey, Oxford, 2001. This book examines the historical and contemporary role of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in East and North-East Africa. The authors argue that these agencies have increasingly adopted roles that have fundamentally challenged and thereby reshaped many of the original assumptions that underpinned their own creation. Indeed, the NGO sector is difficult to define simply, as it has grown in scale and remit in recent history. However, the authors reject the notion that NGOs are too diverse or too vague to be pinned down in a single definition and instead attempt to define, analyze, and learn from experiences of NGOs at the very local level. They argue that that there is too little understanding of the processes that have led NGOs to be where they are today, and assert that despite their increased prominence in development, the context of the NGO is missing from many analyses; “it is not enough simply to want to do good: the charitable impulse needs to be reinforced with knowledge” (Barrow and Jennings, p. 27). The authors argue that without an assessment of the contribution NGOs make to development and other national processes important issues are submerged or even subverted—if
Voluntas [voluntas]
pp805-volu-461055
Book Reviews
March 18, 2003
19:36
Style file version June 4th, 2002
127
however, these issues are addressed—over time this could perhaps reduce the need for charity. A series of case studies examine the roots of past and present problems, which have led to the current dilemmas facing the sector. The authors assert that questions concerning the role of politics, democracy, empowerment, the realities of war economies, the challenges of civil society, and relations with host and donor governments are not new: “they were just never adequately answered by previous generations of development workers” (Barrow and Jennings, p. 9). They describe how changes in the operational environment, specifically the growth in complex emergencies, have changed how NGOs work. New key issues facing NGOs, such as the extent to which NGOs themselves are now a force in development, their subsidization by national governments, their role in promoting democracy and human rights, and their increasing work in conflict management, are explored. The cases acknowledge the tensions posed by NGOs in these situations. Leopold (p. 94) asserts that NGO misunderstanding of the situation in northwest Uganda (1996–97) arose from their own institutional biases against using knowledge of local history and society. He argues that these misunderstandings and biases further aggravated the tensions and alienated local actors, thereby inhibiting the NGO to actually help local communities. The nature of NGO relationships with the state, as well as wider state–society relations, is also examined. The case study authors acknowledge that development and the contribution of NGOs can be highly politicized and ideological. The case studies themselves highlight major concerns regarding the ethics, interpretations, and limitations of humanitarian action. The tensions between the principle of neutral humanitarianism and the reality of political involvement are honestly and critically addressed. The book aims to provide a tool for institutional learning and thereby identify possible futures for NGOs. The collection does not oversimplify or romanticize the role of NGOs but rather works to acknowledge and understand challenges and problems facing this broad, growing sector. Indeed, as Van Brabant (p. 183) argues, public understanding of what NGOs can and cannot do is crucial to its institutional and organizational learning processes. It is toward such an understanding that this collection hopes to contribute. This is a clearly written and accessible book providing clear definitional work, as well as historical accounts and analysis of the issues facing NGOs today. The book is ambitious in its coverage, but specific examples make it a useful resource to practitioners. Ursula Grant International Development Department University of Birmingham United Kingdom
Voluntas [voluntas]
128
pp805-volu-461055
March 18, 2003
19:36
Style file version June 4th, 2002
Book Reviews
Nicholas Deakin, In Search of Civil Society, Palgrave, Basingstoke and New York, 2001. According to the vernacular, the search for a needle in a haystack is one of the most difficult tasks we could possibly face. Compared with the search for civil society, it appears, however, quite simple. In the first case it is clear what we are looking for, whereas it is by no means so in the second. Readers of this journal are, of course, aware of the fuzziness of the term. But in Deakin’s case another factor makes the search for the answer even more difficult. The author begins by providing some definitions, amongst them a definition of civil society. Quoting Walzer he argues that the “words ‘civil society’ name a space that has not been coerced by human association and also the set of relational networks—formed for the sake of family, faith, interest and ideology—that fill this space” (p. 4; from M. Walzer, 1995, Toward a Global Civil Society, Providence, Oxford, p. 7). As broad as this definition is, it could nevertheless be accepted, but later, when introducing the perspective under the heading Civil Society, Charity and Welfare it becomes clear that the author is actually not just looking for civil society. His point of departure is that “activities have spilt over from the civil society space in different directions, into the ‘borderlands,’ involving collaborations (and conflicts) with agencies and individuals based in those other spheres occupied by the state and the market” (p. 26). Civil society can only be “found” as a relational unit—moving in and between the uncivil parts of societies. The shift between these two perspectives—civil society as such, vs. civil society space—prevents Deakin from an unequivocal localization of what he proposes to investigate. On the other hand, remaining vague allows us to simultaneously combine the “internal” and the “relational” perspective—while focusing on a wide understanding of what we may call “social well-being politics.” This appears to be the positively distinctive direction of the book: referring to organizations and process in the social policy area, Deakin looks at politics rather than at policy-making. Time and again the author mentions the limitations of civil society—to mention one example he points to the shortcoming that “the associational model tends to brush aside the issue of how far the customs and practices of associations themselves are democratic” (p. 108). But in general, he takes up Almond and Verba’s notion of the “‘latent political functions’ performed by voluntary associations which are necessary for a ‘balanced’ political culture” (p. 101). In Deakin’s view, this balance is suggested as a process of “correcting” and making good for the shortcomings and one-sidedness of the other parts of the societal systems. He finds several examples for this understanding in the different areas he is looking at: • “civil society as an arena in which voluntary action could form relationships with the state that would supplement . . . the state’s role, in particular of delivering welfare”;
Voluntas [voluntas]
pp805-volu-461055
Book Reviews
March 18, 2003
19:36
Style file version June 4th, 2002
129
• “the civil society space as one in which activity at a small scale facilitates linkages between families and groups . . . that can build and sustain communities and create social capital”; • “civil society as the public sphere, in which the means of creating and sustaining democracy, evolving rights and responsibilities of citizenship are forged”; • “civil society as a space in which social movements can mount challenges to certain features of globalism” (p. 204 ff.). The author offers many interesting and important examples—showing the advances and shortcomings of civil society, but taken together, there remains an unpleasant taste of “liberalism without direction.” Instead of taking utopia in a positive sense as a point of departure, it is suggested as a negative point in the end— utopia with Dahrendorf as a total, thus closed society. From there, civil society is not anymore approachable as space. Instead, it is reduced to a mere being at the edge. For his grandchildren, Deakin wants “liberty for their imaginations, an education system that preserves and enhances it, and an economy that does not confuse reward with ersatz, but provides opportunities” (p. 211)—Utopia as not more than an idea for privileged members of an “open conspiracy” (Wells). Peter Herrmann European Social, Organisational and Science Consultancy Department of Applied Social Studies University College, Cork Ireland
John K. Glenn III, Framing Democracy: Civil Society and Civic Movements in Eastern Europe, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2001. John Glenn’s study of the shift from one-party rule to democracy in Poland and Czechoslovakia emphasizes the role of publics, a welcome change from the focus on political elites espoused by standard political science works on democratic transition. Glenn shows us that it is not only elite bargaining but also public mobilization that created the different paths to regime change and directed the formation of early political parties in the two (later three, as Czechoslovakia split) states. The book explains how the ouster of the communist regimes was enabled by a mass expression of a “general will” for change. Throughout the transition process, both the weakened communist governments and the emboldened dissidents made appeals to the public, attempting to spin, or “frame” their activities in a way that each hoped would maximize public support for their cause. Although the dissidents
Voluntas [voluntas]
130
pp805-volu-461055
March 18, 2003
19:36
Style file version June 4th, 2002
Book Reviews
garnered more public support for their framing efforts, Glenn argues that their subsequent victory was not a forgone conclusion. In tracing the interactive elite bargaining and mass mobilization that pushed for change, he identifies potential counterfactual accounts and explains why they did not unfold. As each event in the transition process was constrained by previous events, the fall of communism in Poland and Czechoslovakia was an inherently contingent process, one that can only be understood through a detailed analysis of the sequence of steps involved. A useful chronology of events appears as an appendix. This analysis allows Glenn to develop some important concepts that have been omitted from other studies of these transitions. First, the publics in each country did not simply organize spontaneously into protests and demonstrations. Instead, the dissidents used the social networks that already existed through established institutions: the Catholic Church in Poland and the extensive theaters in Czechoslovakia. Glenn’s account explains how these institutions served as brokers for networks in the process of mobilizing the public behind the dissidents. Second, he develops an intriguing story of how the Polish and Czechoslovak dissidents entered into negotiations with their communist leaderships while avoiding the public perception that they were becoming tainted by them. The dissidents managed to shift from strident oppositions to negotiating partners with the communists, without being viewed skeptically by their mobilized publics. Glenn persuasively notes that this success was due to the dissidents’ active and selective framing of their new cooperative role. Although the book presents captivating descriptions of the unfolding of events in both countries, it also contains some weaknesses. First, the notion of civil society can be somewhat confusing. Glenn rightly argues that it is wrong to view civil society as the cause of the fall of communism, but that we should instead understand it as a “civil society master frame” around which publics could mobilize (pp. 24, 194). However, later in his stories, this framing strategy doubles as an expression of mass public opinion, a kind of general will that constrains negotiations between government and opposition elites (pp. 75, 176, 193). The civil society frame thus shifts from an object of mobilization to an actor that constrains the negotiations, a conflation that adds some incoherence to an already-complex picture of the transition process. Is this kind of shift common to any democratic transition? Or is it contingent on particular elements in these cases? Is civil society merely a frame in all contexts, rendering previous studies of civil society useless? A more systematic examination of this role shift for civil society or a separation of these concepts would clarify these questions for the reader. The book takes some unfair aim at a few widely held tenets regarding these transitions, leading to two critiques. Glenn argues that it is a mistake to view the fall of communism as a set of events directed by international influences (the “Gorbachev effect”), because he prioritizes the actions of domestic actors. However, the network mobilization arguments that he uses could also explain how
Voluntas [voluntas]
pp805-volu-461055
March 18, 2003
19:36
Style file version June 4th, 2002
Book Reviews
131
international influences filtered into each state. It is no accident that Czechs encountered the East Germans camped out in Prague’s West German Embassy pleading for asylum, or that Czech dissidents held meetings with their Polish counterparts. Even in these generally isolated states, networks were not constrained by borders. Finally, in the attempt to emphasize the role of mass publics, the book gives short shrift to the overwhelmingly dominant role of particular elites in the Czechoslovak separation (pp. 215–217). Public opinion polls and the rules of the federal constitution did not support a split, and Glenn’s analysis emphasizes the role of party politics. But few of those voting for the ODS in the Czech Republic and the HZDS in Slovakia understood their votes as mandating a divorce. Rather, party leaders V´aclav Klaus and Vladim´ır Meˇciar pursued the split on their own in a series of closed-door meetings throughout the summer of 1992. In its first vote, the Czechoslovak parliament rejected the proposed separation, and only rubberstamped the arrangement at the eleventh hour in late 1992 when the Klaus–Mei ar meetings had overshadowed all other options. Party politics did play the role of placing the two elites in the position to negotiated, but the divorce itself was solely the product of the particular ambitions of, and the relationship between, these two men. Different personalities might have produced a different outcome. These points do not deter from the fact that this book makes a rich addition to our understanding of the substance of transition in Poland and Czechoslovakia, as well as deftly presenting strategic frames as a useful analytical tool. The cases are well-written and detailed, providing a comprehensive and often captivating account of the unfolding of events. Strategic frames provide a useful, systematic means to evaluate how political actions at one point constrain the actions that follow. As more social scientists begin to use this fruitful approach, this book will set a good example for future projects to emulate. Sherrill Stroschein Department of Political Science Ohio University, Ohio United States Grant Jordan, Shell, Greenpeace and Brent Spar, Palgrave, New York, 2001. Large, international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), such as Greenpeace, have begun to get a tighter hold of the decision-making structures and policies of big multinational companies. In fact, some NGOs seem to resemble some kind of “network corporations” in terms of their influence and power: Greenpeace International comprises millions of supporters in a few hundred countries. This book demonstrates that a large-scale, cross-border Greenpeace-led protest in the United Kingdom, Germany, and other continental countries fundamentally affected the decision of the multinational Shell not to dump its Brent
Voluntas [voluntas]
132
pp805-volu-461055
March 18, 2003
19:36
Style file version June 4th, 2002
Book Reviews
Spar oil facility in the North Atlantic deep sea in the mid-1990s. The campaign was targeted against the British Government’s approval of the disposal plan for the Brent Spar oil storage. The Greenpeace vs. Shell “episode” is often cited as manifesting and symbolizing the power of single-issue pressure groups, which are able to inject new ideas—such as environmental considerations—into the core of corporation decision-making systems. Pressure groups can actually influence investment decisions in some companies and this kind of impact can be expected to increase in the future. Attracting as much publicity as possible is the main tactic of these environmental organizations—and in turn, being under the bright lights, i.e., bad publicity, is never the goal of big multinationals. The author looks at the manipulation of media by groups and companies attempting to control the political agenda. As one of the notable Greenpeace members in the United Kingdom considered, this Shell episode victory could be “regarded as a defining moment for the environmental movement” (p. 6, italics in original). The author scrutinizes the numerous incidents and media publications that occurred during the confrontation between the two large actors, as well as their aftermath, especially the change in Shell’s policy. In general, in-depth case studies in international NGOs can still be regarded as a scarce resource in third sector research. Therefore, Jordan’s book offers important and detailed, in many parts quite extensive, analysis of the larger political context of this incident, which is a turning point for all: environmental groups, governments, companies, and media. Susanna Myllyl¨a Department of Regional Studies and Environmental Policy University of Tampere Finland Nancy L. Rosenblum and Robert C. Post (eds.), Civil Society and Government, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2002. Recent debates on the relationship between civil society and government have been marked by a series of ambiguities and disparate understandings. A growing academic interest in civil society and a massive number of books and papers written on this issue have generated a variety of important topics in political theory. Civil society has proved to be not a univocal, static category in relation to government, but subject to permutations within different theories and traditions. The collection of essays in Civil Society and Government brings an unusual diversity of positions of prominent experts on the subject by exploring how civil society has been approached in classical liberalism, liberal egalitarianism, critical theory, feminism, natural law, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Confucianism.
Voluntas [voluntas]
pp805-volu-461055
Book Reviews
March 18, 2003
19:36
Style file version June 4th, 2002
133
Driven by the need to make comparison among cultures and traditions accessible, the editors have organized each essay topically, according to several basic questions. Does it matter where the line is drawn between civil society and the state, in terms of function and consequences? Do civil society and the state need each other and what are the particular values they impart to one another? Do civil society and the state pose liabilities for each other? In what contexts and/or under what conditions should government interact with individuals? What are the prerogatives of citizenship and what is the role of civil society in forming good citizens, in moral rather than strictly legal terms? How are conflicting demands of citizenship and membership in the nongovernmental associations of civil society to be handled? Perhaps the most interesting debates on these questions emerge in the essays that analyze non-Western perspectives of civil society. It is somewhat striking to see how differences between various contemporary theoretical perspectives on civil society and government such as classical liberalism, liberal egalitarianism, critical theory, and feminism become almost insignificant when compared with Confucianism, Judaism, or Islam. Classical liberalism, for example, suggests an immediate contrast with Confucianism. For classical (and other) liberals, government exists by virtue of the powers that have been delegated to it “from below.” For Confucians, civil society exists at the forbearance of government, receiving permission “from above.” The idea of civil society is also problematic within the Confucian tradition for moral reasons because it refers to a realm of “selfish” activity that proceeds independently of traditional roles or authorities. The conceptual discrepancies highlighted by the essays in this volume indicate the importance of examining the impact of globalization on the diffusion of Western notions of democracy, civil society, and individual freedom throughout the world—particularly in regard to the transposition and reception of these notions in radically different traditions. This book provides a solid and innovative framework for analysis and understanding of that controversial issue. Overall, it is hard to do justice to such a valuable work like Civil Society and Government within the word limits of a book review. This volume is unprecedented in its scope, comprehensiveness, and depth. The editors have done a remarkable job that offers a great service to the community of scholars engaged in research on civil society, but also to those in search of fundamental values and principles common to all traditions. Igor Vidacak Institute for International Relations Zagreb Croatia
