Civil society in times of change: Shrinking, changing and expanding spaces and the need for new regulatory approaches

Anheier, Helmut K.; Lang, Markus; Toepler, Stefan Working Paper Civil society in times of change: Shrinking, changing and expanding spaces and the need for new regulatory approaches Economics Discussion Papers, No. 2018-80 Provided in Cooperation with: Kiel Institute for the World Economy – Leibniz Center for Research on Global Economic Challenges Suggested Citation: Anheier, Helmut K.; Lang, Markus; Toepler, Stefan (2018) : Civil society in times of change: Shrinking, changing and expanding spaces and the need for new regulatory approaches, Economics Discussion Papers, No. 2018-80, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW), Kiel This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/184921 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Discussion Paper No. 2018-80 | November 09, 2018 | http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2018-80 Civil society in times of change: shrinking, changing and expanding spaces and the need for new regulatory approaches Helmut K. Anheier, Markus Lang, and Stefan Toepler Abstract The relationship between many G20 governments and organized civil society has become more complex, laden with tensions, and such that both have to find more optimal modes of engagement. In some instances, state-civil society relations have worsened, leading some experts and activists to speak of a “shrinking space” for civil society. How widespread is this phenomenon? Are these more isolated occurrences or indeed part of a more general development? How can countries achieve and maintain an enabling environment for civil society? The authors suggest that much of the current impasse results foremost from outdated and increasingly ill-suited regulatory frameworks that fail to accommodate a much more diverse and expanded set of civil society organizations (CSO). In response, they propose a differentiated model for a regulatory framework based on functional roles. Based on quantitative profiling and expert surveys, moreover, the paper also derives initial recommendations on how governments and civil society could find ways to relate to each other in both national and multilateral contexts. (Submitted as Global Solutions Paper) JEL F5 L31 H7 K33 Keywords Civil society; NGOs; Closing Civic Space; nonprofit regulation; G20 Authors Helmut K. Anheier, Hertie School of Governance, Germany; University of Heidelberg, Germany Markus Lang, University of Heidelberg, Germany Stefan Toepler, George Mason University, USA, [email protected] Citation Helmut K. Anheier, Markus Lang, and Stefan Toepler (2018). Civil society in times of change: shrinking, changing and expanding spaces and the need for new regulatory approaches. Economics Discussion Papers, No 2018-80, Kiel, Institute for the World Economy. http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2018-80 Received October 28, 2018 Accepted as Economics Discussion Paper November 1, 2018 Published November 9, 2018 © Author(s) 2018. Licensed under the Creative Commons License - Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 2 1 The Challenge Civil society is a highly diverse ensemble of many different organizations that range from small local associations to large international NGOs like Greenpeace, and from social service providers and relief agencies to philanthropic foundations commanding billions of dollars. It is an arena of self-organization of citizens and established interests seeking voice and influence. Located between government or the state and the market, it is, according to Ernest Gellner (1994: 5) that “set of non-governmental institutions, which is strong enough to counter-balance the state, and, whilst not preventing the state from fulfilling its role of keeper of peace and arbitrator between major interests, can, nevertheless, prevent the state from dominating and atomizing the rest of society.“ For John Keane (1998: 6), civil society is an “ensemble of legally protected non-governmental institutions that tend to be non-violent, self-organizing, selfreflexive, and permanently in tension with each other and with the state institutions that ‘frame’, constrict and enable their activities.” Taken together, CSOs express the capacity of society for self-organization and the potential for peaceful, though often contested, settlement of diverse private and public interests. What is more, for several decades, most developed market economies as well as transition countries have seen a general increase in the economic importance of nonprofit and other civil society organizations (CSOs) as providers of health, social, educational and cultural services of many kinds. They account for 5-10% of GDP in most OECD countries (see Anheier 2014), and receive more attention in the context of civic participation and social engagement. In addition, CSOs are regarded as important sources of social innovations to address public problems. Indeed, these developments are taking place across many countries that otherwise differ much in their economic structures, politics, cultures and social fabrics. They are driven, in large measure, by broad perspectives that position CSOs in specific ways and allocate certain roles to them: First, nonprofits are increasingly part of new public management approaches and what could be called a mixed economy of welfare with a heavy reliance on quasi-markets and competitive bidding processes (Salamon and Toepler 2015). Expanded contracting regimes in health and social service provision, voucher programs, and public-private partnerships are examples of this development as is the recent rediscovery of co-production (Verschuere et al. 2012; Brandsen et al. in preparation). In essence, this policy approach sees CSOs as more efficient provider than public agencies, and as more trustworthy than for-profit businesses in markets where monitoring is costly and profiteering likely. • Second, they are seen as central to building, maintaining and rebuilding social cohesion, and for strengthening the nexus between the social capital of citizens and economic development. Attempts to revive or strengthen a sense of community and belonging, enhance civic mindedness and engagement, including volunteering and charitable giving, are illustrative of this perspective. With the social fabric changing in all G20 countries, civic associations of many kinds are seen as the glue holding diverse society together. The basic assumption is that people embedded in dense networks of associational bonds are not only less prone to social problems of many kinds but also economically more productive and politically more involved (Putnam 2001). Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 3 • Finally, there is the policy perspective that views nonprofits as a source of social innovation in addressing diverse public problems.1 Indeed, nonprofits are assumed to be better at such innovations than governments typically are: their smaller scale and greater proximity to communities affected and to those concerned makes them creative agents in finding solutions. They are the operating ground for social entrepreneurs. Governments are encouraged to seek a new form of partnership with CSOs aimed at identifying, vetting and scaling up social innovations to build more flexible, less entrenched, public responses. Importantly, these perspectives cast CSOs in strikingly different roles. At one level, they become parallel actors that may substitute, even counteract, state activities. At another, the state and CSOs are part of ever more complex and elaborate public-private partnerships and typically work in complementary fashion with other agencies, public and private. Civil society harbors significant potentials in terms of social innovations, resilience, service-delivery and giving voice to diverse interests and communities otherwise excluded. However, CSOs operating locally, national and across borders have also experienced many changes in recent decades. The current decade has brought about a particularly complex and challenging environment (Anheier 2017). Specifically, there are growing indications that the “space” for civil society organizations is shrinking worldwide as a result of increased regulation, greater reporting requirements, but also curtailing of CSO activities, and even harassment of staff and threats of violence among growing authoritarianism (Carothers and Brechenmacher 2014; Civicus 2018; ICNL 2018; USAID 2017). 2 Approach, Data and Findings To assess the state of civil society across the G20 countries, and, particular, to probe how widespread the shrinking of civil society space has become, we use data available from the international social sciences project Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem). Specifically, we chart the space for civil society organizations over time along three dimensions (Coppedge et al. 2018): • Control over the formation of civil society, which measures government discretion in granting legal status to CSOs (CSO Entry and Exit); • Control over the operations of civil society, which measures bureaucratic harassment and repression of existing CSOs (CSO Repression); and • Degree of Self-organization and Participation, which measures CSO diversity and voluntary participation (CSO Participatory Environment) _________________________ 1 This was most prominently exemplified by the Obama Administration’s Social Innovation Fund and other highlevel partnerships between the federal government and philanthropies to identify social innovations through CSOs (Toepler 2018). Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 4 We also differentiate the G20 member countries by political regime type, using the Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) Democracy Index: • Full Democracies (Australia, Canada, Germany, United Kingdom); • Flawed Democracies (Argentina, Brazil, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, S. Korea, Mexico, South Africa, United States); • Hybrid Regimes (Turkey); and • Authoritarian Regimes (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia). The purpose here is to show how the space of civil society has changed in the course of the last decade, i.e., from the global financial crisis of 2008 to 2016. In a second step, we look into the policy context to gauge how countries manage to balance the potential civil society offers with the mandate of government of state and international organizations to serve as keepers of peace and arbiters between major political and economic interests. Among the results, as presented below, several stand out: • The V-Dem data do indeed suggest a general, but mostly gradual erosion of civil society space: values measuring freedom from government control over the entry or formation or exit or dissolution of CSOs are, on balance, lower in 2016 than they were in 2008 (Figure 1). The same holds for government repression and self-organization and participation as well (Figures 2 and 3). While these values are lower, they are not lower in the sense that they would have dropped suddenly or by much. Nonetheless, the overall trend suggests some gradual erosion rather than dramatic decline. The main exception is Turkey, the one hybrid regime in the G20, where the situation for CSOs rapidly deteriorated after 2010 (B panels in Figures 1-3). Figure 1: Government Control over CSO Formation Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 5 Figure 2: Government Repression Figure 3: CSO Diversity and Participation Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 6 • The few G20 countries that show overall improvements along the three indicators are the four full democracies in the EIU index (D panels in Figures 1-3). The great majority, however, reveals a pattern of either relative stability or gradual decline across the dimension of civil society space. While this is not surprising for the authoritarian regimes (A panels), which were at low levels already, more worrisome is that civil society space contracted in several flawed democracies to significant degrees in recent years, which contributed most to the overall slow erosion. • This suggests that some democracies may at least not actively seek to develop civil society space through reform efforts. Instead, they more or less passively let civil society space slowly erode either through the impact of other policies (mostly antiterrorist, anti-corruption, and national security related legislations and measures) or lack of reform. It also suggests that hybrid and authoritarian regimes are the clearest case of a shrinking (e.g., Turkey) and shrunk (e.g., Russia) civil society space, whereas for flawed democracies, it would be better to speak of a slow process of erosion. Of course, the relationship between civil society and government is complex and multifaceted. What are the policy rationales why government and CSOs develop some form of relationship? Economic theory offers three answers to this question, each casting CSOs in a different role (see Steinberg 2006; Anheier 2014, Chapter 8, 16). Young (2000) in particular has suggested a triangular model of government – civil society relations of complementarity, substitution, and adversarity. He argues that to varying degrees all three types of relations are present at any one time, but that some assume more importance during some periods than in others. It is the task of policy to balance this triangle. The notion that CSOs are supplements and substitutes to government rests on the public goods and government failure argument first advanced by Weisbrod (1988): they offer a solution to public goods provision in fields where preferences are heterogeneous, allowing government to concentrate on median voter demand. CSOs step in to compensate for governmental undersupply. The theory that CSOs are complements to government was proposed by Salamon (1995), and finds its expression in the third-party government thesis whereby CSOs act as agents in implementing and delivering on public policy. Indeed, we find that even hybrid and authoritarian regimes have developed a strong interest in involving CSOs in service-delivery with state support (eg, Benevolenski and Toepler 2017). CSO weaknesses correspond to strengths of government (public sector revenue to guarantee nonprofit funding and regulatory frameworks to ensure equity; and CSO strengths (being closer to actual needs, more responsive) complement government weaknesses. The theory that CSOs and governments are adversaries is supported by public goods arguments (see Boris and Steuerle 2006) and social movement theory (Della Porta and Felicetti 2017): if demand is heterogeneous, minority views may not be well reflected in public policy; hence self-organization of minority preferences will rise against majoritarian government. Moreover, organized minorities are more effective in pressing government (social movements, demonstration projects, think tanks) than unorganized protests; however, if CSOs advocate minority positions, the government may in turn try to defend the majority perspective, leading to potential political conflict. To an extent, a similar dynamic also underlies the current global Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 7 backlash against foreign funding of mostly social justice and rights-focused advocacy NGOs that has been at the heart of the shrinking space phenomenon (Christensen and Weinstein 2013; Dupuy, Ron and Prakash 2016) To probe deeper into these issues, we asked a group of civil society experts (see Appendix 2) three questions: • What are the main challenges for CSOs, both domestically and in terms of cross-border activities, and what opportunities present themselves? • What are likely trajectories for CSOs over the next five to ten years, especially with changing geo-politics? • From a policy perspective, what could be the roles of national governments and international organizations in that regard? Are reforms and models of state - civil society relations being discussed? We also asked if, in the course of the past five years or currently, changes to, or new, laws and regulations have been put in place or are being passed or envisioned that either facilitate and improve or complicate and worsen the establishment and operations of: • domestic CSOs; • international CSO headquartered abroad and working in the country; • domestic CSOs working internationally. Appendix 1 presents a synopsis of answers received along three dimensions: the state of civil society, the implications for its expansions, stability or contraction, and the need for reform and dialogue. While Appendix 1 offers a rich portrait of the diversity of civil society, its relationships with governments, and its trajectories across G20 countries, there are also four overarching results: • the general trajectory of a slow erosion in most consolidated democracies is confirmed, as are the developments in hybrid and authoritarian regimes, although the expert reviews add important nuances; • few countries have open, proactive dialogues in place to review civil society – government relations; the most common pattern is the absence of a policy engagement rather than some form of contestation; • fewer countries still have reform efforts under way, even though a general sense of reform needs prevails among expert opinions; • most countries seem to do little to stem the erosion, perhaps out of unawareness, lack of civil society activism and organizational a capacity to find a common voice, or the absence of political will on behalf of governments. Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 8 More specific results are: • There are characteristic “pendulum policies” in a number of G20 countries with more pronounced differences between center-right and center-left governments that tend to politicize the relationship with civil society and contribute to inconsistencies over time; • Several G20 countries have seen the need to respond to the hybridization of CSO, especially around service-provision, and established new forms like social enterprises or public benefit corporations as part of an effort to modernize regulatory frameworks; • Government bureaucracy is seen as a major stumbling block to more efficient relations, especially in middle-income countries; there is a need to simplify registration processes and reporting requirements in particular; in some countries, registration is also used as a tool to control CSOs and restrict their activities; • Few countries have umbrella organizations for CSOs, which leads to disjointed civil society voices, and decreases advocacy capacity; • Some countries establish dedicated government agencies for CSO oversight, control, and also development. 3 A Need for New Regulatory Approaches Thus, CSOs find themselves in contradictory policy environments across the G20 member countries, and subject to a ‘push and pull’ along the different directions by the challenges and opportunities the perspectives above harbor. This situation is made worse by the limited and outdated policy approaches and regulatory framework in many countries (Phillips and Smith 2011). In essence, no G20 country has an explicit, normative approach concerning civil society to guide regulatory frameworks which help realize CSO potentials. Instead, regulation is either almost exclusively fiscal in nature and rests on some notion of public utility CSOs serve; or is controlling in the sense that state authorities oversee nearly all aspects of CSO operations and governance. While the former typically implies some form of a ‘light’ hands-off regulatory framework with few general government supports other than tax benefits as typified by the US, the latter is a stricter hands-on regime, albeit with more financial and other contributions by the state for qualifying CSOs. Emerging exemplars of this approach are the dual government postures towards NGOs in Russia (Benevolenski and Toepler 2017) and China (Zhang 2015). For the fiscal regulatory regime, the key governance question becomes: is the organization entitled to preferential tax treatment; and for the control regime, it is: does the organization fit into government policy and set priorities? Clearly, most G20 countries fall somewhere in between but are closer to the fiscal framework. Yet, they share three key deficiencies in view of the policy approaches above, and hence the developmental potential of CSOs: First, CSOs have different organizational forms and governance structures: • The membership association, based on some shared interests of members that as demos form the basis for its internal governance; Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 15 Civicus (2018). State of civil society report 2018. Available at: https://www.civicus.org/index.php/stateof-civil-society-report-2018 Coppedge, M. et al. (2018). "V-Dem codebook v8" varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project. https://doi.org/10.23696/vdemcy18 Christensen, D. and Weinstein, J. M. (2013). Defunding dissent: Restrictions on aid to NGOs. Journal of Democracy, 24(2): 77–91. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/article/defunding-dissentrestrictions-aid-ngos Crutchfield, L. R. and Grant, H. M. (2007). Forces for good: The six practices of high-impact nonprofits. Jossey-Bass. Della Porta, D. and Felicetti, A. (2017). Democratic innovations and social movements. In Hertie School of Governance (Ed.), The governance report 2017 (pp. 127–142). Oxford University Press. Dupuy, K., Ron, J. and 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.02.001 Ebrahim, A. and Weisband, E. (2007). Global accountabilities: Participation, pluralism, and public ethics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490903 Eikenberry, A. M. and Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2): 132–140. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3542607?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents Fox, J. A. (2015). Social accountability: What does the evidence really say? World Development, 72: 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.011 Gellner, E. (1994). Conditions of liberty: Civil society and its rivals. London: Hamish Hamilton. Gugerty, M. K. and Prakash, A. (2010). Voluntary regulation of NGOs and nonprofits: An accountability club framework . Cambridge University Press. ICNL (2018). Civic freedom resources. International Center for Nonprofit Law. Available at: http://www.icnl.org/research/resources/index.html Keane, J. (1998). Civil society: old images, new visions. Stanford University Press. Kramer, R. M. (1981). Voluntary agencies in the welfare state. University of California Press. Leat, D. (2016). Philanthropic foundations, public good and public policy. Springer. Phillips, S. and Smith, S. R. (2011). Governance and regulation in the third sector: International perspectives. Routledge. Prewitt, K. (2006). American foundations: what justifies their unique privileges and powers. In Prewitt, K., Dogan, M., Heydemann, S. and Toepler, S. (Eds.), Legitimacy of Philanthropic foundations: United States and European perspectives (pp. 27–48). Russell Sage Foundation. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. Sabeti, H. (2011). The for-benefit enterprise. Harvard Business Review, 89: 98–104. https://hbr.org/2011/11/the-for-benefit-enterprise Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 16 Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service. Johns Hopkins University Press. Salamon, L. M. and Sokolowski, S. W. (2016). Beyond nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4): 1515–1545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9726-z Salamon, L. M. and Toepler, S. (2015). Government–nonprofit cooperation: Anomaly or necessity? International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(6): 2155–2177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9651-6 Steinberg, R. (2006). Economic theories of nonprofit organizations. In Powell, W. W. & Steinberg, R. (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 117–139). Yale University Press. Toepler, S. (2004a). Ending pay-out as we know it: A conceptual and comparative perspective on the payout requirement for foundations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4): 729–738. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0899764004269318 Toepler, S. (2004b). Conceptualizing nonprofit commercialism: A case study. Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, 9(4): 240–253. https://spaef.org/article/186/Conceptualizing-Nonprofit-Commercialism-A-Case-Study Toepler, S. (2018). Public philanthropic partnerships: The changing nature of government/foundation relationships in the US. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(8): 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1295462 United Nations (2004). We the peoples: Civil society, the United Nations and global governance. Available at: https://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/0611report.pdf USAID (2017). The 2016 CSO sustainability index for central and eastern Europe and Eurasia. U.S. Agency for International Development. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/CSOSI_Report_7-28-17.pdf Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T. and Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The state of the art in research and the future agenda. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4): 1083– 1101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8 Weisbrod, B. A. (1988). The nonprofit economy. Harvard University Press. Weisbrod, B. (1998). To profit or not to profit: The commercial transformation of the nonprofit sector. Cambridge University Press. Young, D. R. (2000). Alternative models of government-nonprofit sector relations: Theoretical and international perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1): 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764000291009 Young, D. R., Searing, E. A. M. and Brewer, C. V. (2016). The social enterprise zoo: A guide for perplexed scholars, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, leaders, investors and policymakers. Edward Elgar Publishing. Zhang, Y. (2015). Dependent interdependence: The complicated dance of government–nonprofit relations in China. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(6): 2395– 2423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9645-4 Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 17 Appendices Appendix I: Summary of Expert Assessments of Civil Society Status and Trajectory, G20, 2018 Country CIVIL SOCIETY STATUS Trajectory Emerging issues, Reforms needs, Reform agendas, Potential policy models Overall characteristic Main domestic issues, developments Main international issues, developments Implications for civil society space Argentina Developing yet unsettled relations with state (“pendulum swings”); lack of representative bodies providing voice for CSOs New Civil Code unifies legal treatment of CSOs, and lowers demands on small organizations, while actual regulation remains overly complex Cross-border activities likely to increase; OECD admissions process helpful, and comes with push for greater transparency Expanding domestically and internationally Need for cooperationcomplementary model based on simpler regulation Australia Well-developed, established relations with state that can be strained based on ruling government policy preferences CSOs seen as service providers, part of quasimarkets; some regulatory issues of CSO advocacy role in context of elections and lobbying Greater control of financial inflows and outflows; greater burden (registration, disclosure) on ICSO; declining international aid budget Stable domestically, but slightly shrinking internationally Need to decouple policy and politics through nonpartisan commitment to value of CSOs for democracy, while aiming at improved regulation of lobbying, and better self-regulation Brazil Major reform in legal environment for CSOs since 2010 advanced relationship with state, provided access to public funding, brought higher scrutiny in procurement procedures and overall reporting, including tax exemptions Political and economic uncertainty plus austerity measures present a challenge to implementing reforms and establishing improved state-CSO relations Anti-corruption and antiterrorism measures plus the economic and political crises weakened democracy domestically and civil society relations internationally; foreign CSOs in Amazon region face great scrutiny and suspicious; some states passed tax laws imposing tax of foreign grants Stable to mixed internationally; expanding domestically but unevenly Many reforms yet to be fully implemented and acted upon; reform measures are held back by low governance capacity as well as by weak economic and fragile social conditions. Canada Well-developed, established relations with 2015 Trudeau mandate to Minister of Finance to Canadian CSOs cannot make grants to nonStable Need for policy reform seen; better alignments to Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 18 state, while at the same time undergoing a period of change and policy review modernize governance of CSO, with formation of federal task force, as current framework seen as outdated and overly restrictive; Senate decided to do own review of charity law Canadian CSOs without adequate “direction and control,” for which only larger CSOs have resources to comply with; concerns of future of NAFTA and spill-over of US politics into Canadian debates leverage both state and civil society assets while keeping independence both domestically and Internationally; need for stronger formal CSO representation at national level to complement provincial level; attempts to modernize CSO governance and regulation, openness for reform China 2016 Charity Law provides more enabling environment, but increases regulatory burden; major push for government contracting to CSOs as service providers; national securityrelated laws (Counterespionage Law (2014), National Security Law (2015), Counterterrorism Law (2015), Cybersecurity Law (2017) signifycantly enhance state’s power over civil society, restricting space for CSOs, esp. rights-based activism and advocacy Fast-changing regulatory environment under state tutelage; lack of organizational resources and capacity-building; inability of CSOs to effectively respond to critical social issues or individual citizens due to controlled political space More crossborder international; no specific legislation for domestic CSOs for working abroad and no restrictions on using domestic funds for activities abroad, at the same time more conflicts between government and international NGOs; Overseas NGO Law (2016), clearly shaped by national security concerns Stable for domestic CSOs working abroad; expanding for domestic CSOs providing services in China; restrictive for ISCOs operating in China, and for domestic advocacy CSOs Need for new model for clear and comprehensive relationship between commissioning government and increasing number of service-providing CSOs; Need for “governmentplatform-society,” based on new communication technologies to allow for more diverse voices; Need to review domestic – international interface as international CSOs face increasing limitations, and domestic CSOs working abroad few. France Well-developed, established relations between strong, centralized state and dynamic, Cuts in public budgets affect many CSO operations; reforms under way and being implemented Overall favorable conditions for cross border CSOs activities; some concerns Expanding domestically as well as internationally Active government policy advances reform agenda with supply side tools (grants & subsidies, contracts, loans & Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 19 growing CSO sector including the 2014 Law on Social and Solidarity Economy; openness for reform about effects of anti-terrorist and anti-corruption legislation loan guarantees, tax exemptions & tax credit), demand side tools (vouchers) and improved public regulation to encourage civil society, the social economy and philanthropy Germany Well-developed, established relations between public sector and CSOs in the context of a decentralized state, with extensive system of cooperation in service delivery, and active civic life Commercialization of service delivery system; Access to capital market and longterm planning hindered by tax exempt status, minor improvements in regulatory environments; lack of reforms Overall favorable conditions for cross border CSOs activities, some concerns about effects of anti-terrorist and anti-corruption legislation (2017 Money Laundering Law); some pushback for German CSOs working in autocracies and anocracies Stable domestically and internationally Need for basic review of framework (legal form and tax exemption), access to and modes of financing (less bureaucracy, availability of seed money and loans), both for domestic and international levels; low propensity for actual reforms could threaten future relations India Dynamic, diverse and long-standing CSO tradetion, with legal framework dating back to colonial era, and broad definitions of legal entities; growing collaborations between governments and private business in social development agendas reduces CSO scope; increasing focus on terrorism prevention and national security New laws proposed by central government on orders of supreme court to favor light regulation of CSOs 2010 Foreign Contributions Regulation Act established high regulatory requirements for CSOS involved in political activities to receive foreign funding; Increased reporting requirement for ICSOs Shrinking for ICSOs, stable for domestic CSOs While the domestic environment for CSOs is stable, even slightly improving, it is becoming more complex as far as international activities are concerned; need for consultation seems high, a response is the multistakeholder platform “Forum for India Development Cooperation” to focus on southsouth cooperation Indonesia After authoritarian government in the 1980s, when Complex legal framework for CSOs remains, despite new Law No. 17 in 2013, ICSOs need written agreement with Indonesian governUneven but generally shrinking for both domestic Need for broad dialogue as current situation puts CSOs at mercy of Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 20 the CSOs were highly controlled, the legal environment opened up and improved but remains unsettled and volatile which remains contested: President Joko Widodo signed emergency regulation which gives government power to disband societal organizations without court process if organizations threatens unity of country ment; otherwise, the same rules and regulations as to domestic CSOs apply, in addition ICOS are prohibited from intelligence gathering, political activities, raising funds from the Indonesian society, and using government facilities. and international CSOs government; there is strong opposition to opening up space for CSOs for fear of radical ideological movements Italy Well-developed, established relations between state and CSOs sector; lingering impact of austerity policies and high dependency of CSOs on public funds Regulatory complexity and high levels of bureaucratic burden remain; at the same time new laws enable some CSOs, e.g.: Legislative Decree 155/2006 on social enterprises, Law 221/2012 on CSO start-ups access to capital markets, Law 208/2015 on benefit companies Overall favorable conditions for cross border CSOs activities, some concerns about effects of anti-terrorist and anti-corruption legislation Stable internationally, slightly expanding domestically Need to re-evaluate government-CSO relationship to innovate social and political life; need to cast CSOs in innovative rather than serviceprovider roles primarily; better implementation needed Japan Gradual growth of CSO sector overall in recent decades as part of a move away from a statist model with high regulation and extensive control Continued fragmentation of regulatory environment; hybridization due to lack of overarching model; social enterprises growing rapidly Overall gradually more favorable conditions for cross border CSOs activities, some concerns about effects of anti-terrorist and anti-corruption legislation; CSOS to mediate in tense relations among North Asian states Expanding domestically and internationally Many reform efforts under ways but in a cautious, stepwise fashion without overarching concept as to the role of CSOs in society; despite ODA cuts, Japanese CSO more active aboard Mexico Legal framework generally considered favorable and enabling for Barriers that inhibit the operations and financial sustainability of CSOs remain; Overall favorable conditions for cross border CSOs activities, Stable but with contradictory swings towards expansion and contraction Need to address the hiatus between laws and regulations on the one hand, and the practices on the Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 21 CSOs, esp. the 2004 Federal Law for the Promotion of the Activities of CSOs; in practice, complex and contradictory environment prevails; growing concern about erosion of rule of law; increased crime and violence against activists in name of national security several reforms and new laws been put in place to give more legal certainty and expand the range of CSO tax exempt activities; other laws and regulations increase reporting (AntiMoney Laundering Law, Transparency and Access to Public Information Law) some concerns about effects of anti-terrorist, antidrug, and anti-corruption legislation, few Mexica CSOs operate abroad ground; Need to harmonize state and Federal law, and improve tax treatment of CSOs Russia Restricted environment for CSOs generally; declining number of registered domestic and international CSOs; unclear role of CSOs Complex registration and reporting requirements; unfavorable tax treatment; some state-CSO cooperation in terms of service delivery According Federal Law 129-FZ, foreign CSOs can be declared as undesirable if activities threaten constitutional order, national defense or state security, limitations to financial activities Shrinking, and basically only tolerated as service providers and extended arm of the state Need for a major review of state – CSO relations to create more enabling environment at least in the field of service delivery to reduce multiple regulations, esp. at local levels Saudi Arabia CSOs truly local in terms of funding, programs and activities, no international funding and very limited work internationally; growing role in service delivery Despite improvements (2015 law regulating CSOs), there are still multiple regulatory agencies involved in establishing, monitoring CSOs; lack of umbrella organizations; highly individualized field Foreign CSOs are prohibited from opening branches in Saudi Arabia or to provide funding for local CSOs; strict financial restrictions adopted after 9/11; Saudi CSOs cannot fund projects abroad unless they have foreign branches or are registered Domestically cautious expansion, little change internationally New strategy needed for activating civic engagement and grow civil society in the context of political and social change South Africa Legal framework for establishment 2012 Non-profit Organisations Law Registration of foreign CSOs More or less stable Proactive policy stance towards Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 22 and operations of CSOs generally enabling; After Apartheid, CSOs played critical role in reconciliation, improving participation, providing services, and acting as watchdog over the ruling ANC further improved CSO environment and established The South African Nonprofit Organisations Regulatory Authority responsible for e.g. monitor registration and use of public funding, ensure accountability; capacity of state agencies and departments to ensure speedy registration and effective implementation still limited compulsory considering the risk of money laundering and financing of terrorist activities CSOs; Need to review relationship between domestic and foreign CSOs, esp. large foundations; decrease in funding from abroad challenges resource base of advocacy CSOs South Korea After two decades of more supportive relations between government and CSOs, more unfavorable policy attitudes prevail; continued uncertainty about role of CSOs in Korean society CSOs need government permission to start new initiatives; change of Individual Income Tax Law decreased donations; new transparency measures meant greater burden due to inefficient services; limitations to, and strict regulation of, fundraisingactivities Few Korean ISCOs exist; ICSOs follow the same regulations as for domestic CSOs, but face strict controls over fundraising and donations Slight declines domestically and internationally Need for legal reforms seen, with two different, partially contradictory bills proposed: one advances the establishment of government committee with jurisdiction over CSOs to unify registration process and regulations for more CSO autonomy, flexibility; the other bill focused on preventing misuse, tightening control on finance Turkey Rise of authoritarian regime since 2013, with consolidation of centralized government power and erosion of fundamental rights and freedoms for Closure of organizations, arrest of activists; implementation of legislation against money laundering and terrorism; greater control of existing CSOs, with blocking of websites and social media outlets; some CSOs Rise of crossborder activities due to refugee crisis; ICSOs start facing constraints; Changes in priorities of donor organization to avoid political backlash; new Dramatic shrinking in recent years What is the role of CSOs under autocratic regimes other than service provision? Continued political uncertainty in region could provide opening for CSOs to build stronger ties with constituencies abroad Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 23 sake of national security and unity, and public order become more resilient, finding new ways to work under repression alliances among CSOs and donor organization towards more flexibility in supporting cross border activities bypassing government United Kingdom Stable democracy with vibrant domestic and international CS sector; active governmental and sector reform agenda Legal measures which potentially restrict domestic advocacy work (e.g. Lobbying Act 2014, counter terror measures); new public management approaches put pressures on serviceproviding CSOs; erosion in trust and legitimacy of CSOs through aggressive fundraising, incompetence, high CEO salaries; introduction of Social Value Act and new legal forms e.g. Community Interest Company; government supports new forms of finance, e.g. Social Investment Strategy Overall favorable conditions for cross border CSOs activities, some concerns about effects of anti-terrorist and anti-corruption legislation; need for UK and other western governments to set highest standard of policy and practice in interaction with CSOs More or less stable, with some signs of erosion and expansion Need to remove legislation and contractual arrangements that discourage or limit advocacy and campaigning Need to ameliorate effects of new public management approaches on CSOs’ identity and autonomy; need for understanding of mutual responsibilities and respect of state and CSOs; Implications of Brexit remain unclear and bring uncertainties (e.g., loss of EU funds) United States Vibrant and highly developed civil society in a threatened democracy facing many challenges but also opportunities for renewal Politicization through increased involvement in partisan politics makes CSO less independent (Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (2010), Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010); under-enforcement of tax law by Internal Revenue Services in relation to tax-exempt organizations; Tax Reform 2017 Overall conducive environment for nonprofits headquartered abroad and working in the US; stricter implementation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act; sanctions: in some cases, CSOs require license from Office of Foreign Asset Gradual erosion domestically, shrinking internationally Current U.S. government rejects most previous goals of state-CSOs relations; need for strict separation of campaign financing and the role CSOs; continued commercialization pressures in education, health care, social services; major review effort needed as to the role of CSO in US society; Economics Discussion Paper (2018–80)—submitted to Global Solutions Papers 24 can lead to drop in donations; Right to Assemble threatened: since Nov. 2016, over 50 laws in 28 states and Federal Level restrict right to assemble or protest Control to operate in certain countries; access to financial institutions: banks disengage due to stricter enforcement of moneylaundering, sanctions and terrorist financing laws; Financial Action Task Force (removed label of nonprofit organizations as particularly vulnerable to terrorist abuse; ICSOs must certify to not perform or promote abortion to receive any U.S. funds, and must ensure compliance of sub-recipients politicization of USbased ICSOs in context of changed geo-politics CSO = civil society organization ICSO= international civil society organization