Bo bá h, End e; Hu e , Swen
A icle — Published Ve sion
Mobilizing indi iduals in c isis: The ole o ci il socie y
o ganiza ions in olun ee engagemen du ing COVID-19
Jou nal o Ci il Socie y
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Bo bá h, End e; Hu e , Swen (2025) : Mobilizing indi iduals in c isis: The ole o
ci il socie y o ganiza ions in olun ee engagemen du ing COVID-19, Jou nal o Ci il Socie y, ISSN
1744-8697, Taylo & F ancis, London, Vol. La es A icles, pp. 1-21,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/17448689.2025.2530108
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/320722
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Mobilizing indi iduals in c isis: The ole o ci il socie y
o ganiza ions in olun ee engagemen du ing COVID-19
End e Bo bá h
a,b
and Swen Hu e
c,d
a
Ins i u e o Poli ical Science, Rup ech -Ka ls-Uni e si ä , Heidelbe g, Ge many;
b
Cen e o Ci il Socie y
Resea ch, WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e , Be lin, Ge many;
c
Ins i u e o Sociology, F eie Uni e si ä , Be lin,
Ge many;
d
Cen e o Ci il Socie y Resea ch, WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e , Be lin, Ge many
ABSTRACT
The Co id-19 pandemic c ea ed a dual c isis o ci il socie y
o ganiza ions (CSOs): heigh ened demand o social suppo
alongside es ic ions ha limi ed hei capaci y o mobilize
people. This s udy in es iga es how olun ee -based CSOs
os e ed ci ic engagemen amid hese cons ain s, p o iding new
empi ical insigh s in o hei capabili ies and limi a ions du ing
imes o c isis. B idging esea ch on bo h he demand and supply
sides o ci ic engagemen , we d aw on h ee o iginal s udies – a
comp ehensi e su ey o CSOs, a la ge-scale popula ion su ey,
and a su ey expe imen – o map esponses o he c isis a bo h
he indi idual and o ganiza ional le els. Ou indings e eal
pe sis en social inequali ies in olun ee ing and mu ual suppo ,
wi h CSOs p ima ily engaging men, highly educa ed indi iduals,
a luen ci izens, and hose al eady ac i e in o ganiza ions.
Despi e hese p e-exis ing inequali ies, CSO ou each signi ican ly
boos ed engagemen , pa icula ly in mo e o mal se ings. This s udy
con ibu es o ongoing deba es abou he ole and ans o ma ion
o ci il socie y du ing pe iods o c isis, highligh ing he challenges
and oppo uni ies ha CSOs encoun e ed as hey na iga ed he
pandemic.
KEYWORDS
Ci il socie y; olun ee ing;
social suppo ; COVID-19;
mobiliza ion
In oduc ion
P e ious esea ch has highligh ed ha o many olun ee s, being con ac ed by an o gan-
iza ion is he ini ial s ep in hei ci ic engagemen (B ady e al., 1995; Klande mans &
Oegema, 1987; Va ese & Yaish, 2000). Howe e , he li e a u e has la gely concen a ed
on inequali ies among hose al eady pa icipa ing in ci il socie y (e.g., Ande sen e al.,
2022; Be ogg & Koos, 2021; Dal on, 2017; Lahusen & G asso, 2018; Teo ell e al.,
2007). Compa a i ely li le a en ion has been paid o how o ganiza ions hemsel es
migh s a egically mi iga e hese inequali ies by in luencing who ge s con ac ed in he
© 2025 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup
This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/
licenses/by/4.0/), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly
ci ed. The e ms on which his a icle has been published allow he pos ing o he Accep ed Manusc ip in a eposi o y by he
au ho (s) o wi h hei consen .
CONTACT End e Bo bá h [email p o ec ed] Rup ech -Ka ls-Uni e si ä Heidelbe g, Ins i u ü Poli ische
Wissenscha , Be gheime S . 58, Heidelbe g 69115, Ge many
Supplemen al da a o his a icle can be accessed online a h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/17448689.2025.2530108.
JOURNAL OF CIVIL SOCIETY
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/17448689.2025.2530108
i s place ( an O e beeke e al., 2022, p. 36; also see: Meye & Ramede , 2022). Recen
s udies explo ing inequali ies in ec ui men emphasize ha social class (Dean, 2016),
p e ious olun ee ing expe iences (Høgenha en, 2025; an O e beeke e al., 2022), a ail-
able esou ces (Meye & Ramede , 2022), and in eg a ion in o social ne wo ks (Ca lsen
e al., 2021; Höl mann e al., 2023) a e key de e minan s o being con ac ed by ci il
socie y o ganiza ions (CSOs). Consequen ly, dispa i ies in ec ui men p ac ices may
ein o ce socio-economic inequali ies and pa ially explain a ia ions in indi iduals’ like-
lihood o pa icipa e (Q is e al., 2018).
To ad ance his eme ging li e a u e, we ocus on wo dependen a iables: (1) he
abili y o CSOs o each po en ial olun ee s, and (2) indi idual olun ee ing beha iou s
du ing he Co id-19 c isis. By doing so, we b idge insigh s on he mobilizing capaci y o
o ganized ci il socie y ( he ‘supply side’ o ci ic engagemen – see And ews e al., 2010;
Han, 2014; Heylen e al., 2020; Meye & Ramede , 2022; Nesbi e al., 2018) and esea ch
on inequali ies in pa icipa ion ypically emphasized by ci ic engagemen schola s ( he
‘demand side’ o ci ic engagemen ).
The Co id-19 pandemic ep esen s a c i ical junc u e o unde s anding CSOs’
capaci y o mobilize olun ee s (e.g., Ca lsen e al., 2021; Høgenha en, 2025; Höl mann
e al., 2023). Du ing his pe iod, CSOs con on ed a dual c isis cha ac e ized by heigh-
ened demand o social suppo alongside se e e es ic ions on hei ope a ional capa-
bili ies. Public lockdowns and social dis ancing measu es c ea ed unp eceden ed ba ie s
o main aining olun ee engagemen . Simul aneously, a he indi idual le el, ea s
associa ed wi h con ac ing Co id-19 and es ic ions on in e pe sonal con ac likely dis-
cou aged pa icipa ion. Al hough some o ganiza ions connec ed o go e nmen al ins i-
u ions o led by s a egically posi ioned ac o s managed o mobilize success ully, he
pandemic p esen ed unique and subs an ial challenges o olun ee mobiliza ion
mo e b oadly (Kim & Mason, 2023; San os & Lau eano, 2022).
The pandemic con ex also imposed me hodological challenges o esea ch, limi ing
p ima y da a collec ion. To add ess his, we ely on h ee complemen a y empi ical
s udies, each ocusing on in e ela ed esea ch ques ions: (1) Which po en ial olun ee s
we e CSOs able o each? (2) How signi ican was o ganiza ional ou each (‘being asked’)
in d i ing o mal and in o mal engagemen ? (3) To wha ex en was he e un apped
mobiliza ion po en ial? Al hough using h ee s udies ine i ably agmen s ou analysis
somewha , each p o ides essen ial insigh s o unde s anding he mobiliza ion dynamics
o CSOs. The i s employs an o ganiza ional su ey o CSOs in Ge many, e ealing he
pa adox o o ganiza ional s ain pai ed wi h obus indi idual willingness o olun ee .
The second s udy u ilizes compa a i e, obse a ional su ey da a om Ge many, I aly,
and Poland, o p o ile indi iduals con ac ed by CSOs and o es ima e he impac o
con ac on engagemen . Finally, a hi d s udy om Ge many, I aly, and Poland explici ly
assesses he causal impac o o ganiza ional con ac h ough a su ey expe imen . While
we acknowledge he limi s o each s udy, oge he hey o e a laye ed pe spec i e on he
mobilizing capaci y o CSOs: he o ganiza ional su ey highligh s he cons ain s, he
obse a ional da a show how hese cons ain s shape pa e ns o ou each and engage-
men , and he expe imen al design illus a es wha le els o engagemen migh ha e
been possible unde less es ic i e condi ions.
Toge he , hese s udies allow us o make h ee dis inc con ibu ions. Fi s , we b idge
o ganiza ional and indi idual-le el pe spec i es by analyzing how o ganiza ions shape
2 E. BORBÁTH AND S. HUTTER
ec ui men ou comes. Second, we iden i y inequali ies in ec ui men du ing an unp e-
ceden ed c isis, p o iding aluable insigh s in o he socio-economic dimensions o
olun ee ing. Thi d, we demons a e empi ically he causal impo ance o o ganiza ional
con ac o indi idual olun ee ing decisions du ing he Co id-19 pandemic.
Ou esul s show ha e en hough many CSOs we e s ained by he pandemic – acing
olun ee deac i a ion and ope a ional obs acles – hey s ill managed o mobilize pocke s
o engagemen , pa icula ly among indi iduals al eady inclined o olun ee . Ye only
abou one- hi d o he popula ion was e e con ac ed, indica ing un apped po en ial.
In ou obse a ional s udy, people who we e explici ly asked by a CSO we e much
mo e likely o engage in bo h o mal and in o mal olun ee ing, unde sco ing he impo -
ance o di ec ou each. A coun e ac ual es based on he su ey expe imen u he
sugges s ha CSOs could ha e ac i a ed le els o engagemen compa able o amily o
iendship ne wo ks had hey been able o each a b oade c oss-sec ion o socie y.
In he ollowing sec ions, we ou line ou concep ual amewo k on he mobilizing
capaci y o CSOs du ing c ises, om which we de i e expec a ions ailo ed o he
Co id-19 con ex . We hen p esen and discuss esul s om ou h ee empi ical
s udies, beginning wi h an o ganiza ional-le el su ey and con inuing wi h analyses con-
duc ed a he indi idual le el. Ou empi ical analysis p ima ily ocuses on Ge many, bu
we also inco po a e indi idual-le el da a om I aly and Poland o s eng hen he gene -
alizabili y o ou indings wi hin a b oade Eu opean con ex .
Expec a ions on he Mobilizing Capaci y o Volun ee -Based CSOs du ing
he Co id-19 Pandemic
The li e a u e on ci ic engagemen du ing he pandemic ends o show excep ionally
high le els o mu ual aid and solida i y a he indi idual le el (Ande sen e al., 2022;
Be ogg & Koos, 2021; Ca lsen e al., 2021). Unde heigh ened p essu e o add ess he
inc easing need o suppo (Ande sen e al., 2022), many ci izens – also many om
hose who we e no p e iously socially engaged – became ac i e in wha Høgenha en
(2025) call ‘c isis olun ee ing,’ i.e., olun a y ac i i ies aimed a ackling immedia e
needs a ising om a c isis. Howe e , his does no imply ha inequali ies in engagemen
o in who ecei es suppo ha e disappea ed (Fe we da e al., 2023). Di e ences acco d-
ing o gende (e.g., Ande sen e al., 2022), educa ion (Dede ichs & K use, 2023), and
social ne wo k size (Ca lsen e al., 2021; Höl mann e al., 2023) s and ou , poin ing o
he pe sis en ole o p e-exis ing inequali ies in pa icipa ion (e.g., Bo bá h e al.,
2021; Lahusen & G asso, 2018). Missing om his line o inqui y is a compa a i e analy-
sis o he ole o o ganized ci il socie y in channelling and mobilizing suppo in imes o
his global c isis.
By o ganized ci il socie y, we e e o o mally egis e ed public o nonp o i o gan-
iza ions, as well as in o mal g ass oo s g oups, ha ely on olun ee ne wo ks o
sus ain hei ac i i ies (e.g., Nesbi e al., 2018). This includes membe ship-based o gan-
iza ions wi h o malized, long- e m olun ee a angemen s, as well as g oups cha ac e -
ized by in o mal, sho - e m, and o en mo e spon aneous engagemen . Exis ing
empi ical e idence sugges s ha olun ee -based o ganiza ions aced a deep c isis in
channelling social suppo du ing he pandemic (e.g., Ande sen e al., 2022), wi h
CSOs o en being eplaced by online coo dina ion o ms (Ca lsen e al., 2021). E en
JOURNAL OF CIVIL SOCIETY 3
mobilizing hei p e iously exis ing olun ee ne wo ks p o ed challenging o many
CSOs (Dede ichs & K use, 2023).
Despi e he heo e ical impo ance o ec ui men in explaining pa icipa ion, ‘who
ge s con ac ed’ as a dependen a iable emains unde - esea ched, wi h e y ew
s udies b idging o ganiza ional and indi idual-le el pe spec i es. S udies ocusing on
he supply side highligh he impo ance o membe s and ac i is s (And ews e al.,
2010; an O e beeke e al., 2022) e en as o ganiza ions p o essionalize (Heylen e al.,
2020). Han (2014), o ins ance, a gues ha success ul o ganiza ions need o ocus on
bo h ec ui ing new pa icipan s and aining hei ac i is s. O ganiza ions o en ace a
ade-o be ween a ge ing olun ee s om a ela i ely homogeneous backg ound
who can easily in eg a e e sus a mo e he e ogeneous se o olun ee s who may be
ha de o ain (e.g., Dean, 2016). This con ibu es o inequali ies in ec ui men , docu-
men ed by s udies poin ing o di e ences based on social class (Dean, 2016), p e ious
olun ee ing expe iences (Høgenha en, 2025), esou ces (Meye & Ramede , 2022),
and social ne wo ks (Ca lsen e al., 2021; Höl mann e al., 2023).
As a esul , ci ic engagemen in gene al – and olun ee ing in pa icula – is ma ked
by s uc u al inequali ies: olun ee s end o be disp opo iona ely male, be e educa ed,
and possess highe income and social capi al (Ande sen e al., 2022; B ady e al., 1995;
Chamb é, 2020; Wilson, 2012). Howe e , o ganiza ions and ields a y in hei capaci y
o mi iga e hese inequali ies. Fo ins ance, Meye and Ramede (2022) show ha in
Aus ia, women a e o e - ep esen ed among olun ee s in eligious o ganiza ions o
social se ices compa ed o ields like poli ics and spo s, and ha olun ee ing in
hese a eas is less s ongly shaped by occupa ional inequali ies bu mo e s ongly
shaped by educa ional inequali ies. In he sphe e o poli ical pa icipa ion aimed a
in luencing go e nance (Ve ba e al., 1995), B ady e al. (1999, p. 154) ind ha ou each
pa e ns o en ep oduce membe ship inequali ies, no ing ha : ‘The p ocess o ci izen
ec ui men b ings in o poli ics ac i is s who closely esemble hose who would ha e
aken pa spon aneously. Poli ical ec ui men does no mobilize he ma ginal and dispos-
sessed’. Fo o ms o engagemen close o ci ic pa icipa ion ( o a mo e in-dep h discus-
sion o he dis inc ion be ween poli ical and ci ic engagemen , see e.g., Ba e &
B un on-Smi h, 2014), F ey and Meie (2004) indica e ha o ganiza ional iden i ica ion
s ongly in luences willingness o dona e. P e-exis ing ne wo ks a e hus cen al o
o ganiza ional mobiliza ion (e.g., Ca lsen e al., 2021; Höl mann e al., 2023; Klande -
mans & Oegema, 1987), making membe ship a key p edic o o whe he indi iduals
espond o o ganiza ional eques s (Q is e al., 2018).
Howe e , his li e a u e does no ocus on di e ences be ween c isis and egula imes,
hough he e a e easons o belie e inequali ies a e less signi ican du ing c ises. Resea ch
demons a es ha disas e s lead o ex ao dina y spikes in spon aneous and classical
o ms o engagemen (Cla ke, 2015; Ma jano ic e al., 2009; Penne e al., 2005; Simsa
e al., 2019; S e en & Fo he gill, 2009). Indi iduals equen ly adop new, spon aneous
o ms o ac ion du ing c ises (Ande sen e al., 2022), o en c ea ing a si ua ion wi h
oo many olun ee s o o ganiza ions o o icial channels o manage (Simsa e al., 2019).
Al hough calls o engagemen come om a ious sphe es, CSOs a e key mobilizing
ac o s (Han, 2014). Volun ee -based CSOs a y signi ican ly in mobilizing capaci y –
hei abili y o p o ide engagemen oppo uni ies o willing pa icipan s. This a ia ion
pa ially esul s om CSO’s ela ionships wi h s a e o public adminis a ion, which
4 E. BORBÁTH AND S. HUTTER
du ing c ises may be coope a i e (inclusiona y) o compe i i e (exclusiona y). S udies on
na u al disas e s (Ma jano ic e al., 2009) o e o is a ack (Penne e al., 2005; S e en &
Fo he gill, 2009) show ha CSOs can adap signi ican ly o con ibu e o c isis elie
(Rod íguez e al., 2006; Wang & Ganapa i, 2018), e en when s a e ela ions a e
compe i i e.
Compa ed o o he c ises, he Co id-19 pandemic was unp eceden ed (no only) o
ci il socie y (Fe we da e al., 2023). Social dis ancing posed signi ican challenges o
in e pe sonal con ac , assembly, and public space u iliza ion, all essen ial o o ganizing
ci il socie y. Unlike p e ious c ises – na u al disas e s o socio-poli ical eme gencies –
o ganiza ions could no ully deploy hei mobiliza ion epe oi es du ing Co id-19,
acing s a k ope a ional limi a ions (e.g., Ande sen e al., 2022). Ins ead, CSOs we e
pa ly eplaced by online coo dina ion o ms (Ca lsen e al., 2021), and he s a e
s epped in o o ganize and en o ce pandemic- ela ed measu es.
F om indi iduals’ pe spec i es, he pandemic posed simila ly unp eceden ed chal-
lenges. Social dis ancing, ea o he i us, and pandemic- ela ed bu dens such as house-
hold Co id-19 cases, childca e esponsibili ies, o he ca egi ing asks, o di ec inancial
losses complica ed engagemen in helping beha iou s. These bu dens had mul i ace ed
implica ions o indi idual a ailabili y o ci ic engagemen and olun ee ing (Ande sen
e al., 2022; Be ogg & Koos, 2021; Bo bá h e al., 2021; Fe we da e al., 2023; Höl mann
e al., 2023).
Mo e speci ically, he pandemic migh ha e a ec ed CSOs’ mobiliza ion capaci y in
wo ways. Fi s , as Høgenha en (2025) has shown CSOs expe ienced pa ial deac i a ion
o exis ing olun ee ne wo ks alongside ac i a ion o new olun ee s mo i a ed
especially by c isis- ela ed asks. Second, indi iduals we e con on ed wi h an inc eased
need o engage, po en ially d i ing indi idual-le el o ms o ci ic engagemen indepen-
den o CSO cons ain s. The pandemic hus po en ially ein o ced longe - e m ends in
ci il socie y, a ou ing in o mal and spon aneous engagemen o e o mal, o ganized
pa icipa ion (Q is e al., 2018).
Building on he abo e discussion, we o mula e speci ic expec a ions ega ding ou
h ee esea ch ques ions. Gi en he empi ical na u e o ou pape , we ea hese as
guiding expec a ions o ou mul i-s ep analysis. Fi s , ega ding who olun ee -based
CSOs could each, we assume o ganized ci il socie y was se e ely es ic ed du ing he
pandemic. This es ic ion implies ha CSOs p ima ily elied on hei es ablished ne -
wo ks o olun ee s a he han eaching ou o new a ge g oups. To examine his
expec a ion, we di e en ia e be ween p e-exis ing socio-economic inequali ies (gende ,
educa ion, income) and pandemic-speci ic bu dens ( o e idence on di e en ial e ec s
also see: Fe we da e al., 2023). The la e includes ha ing a case o Co id-19 in he
household, childca e a home, o he ca e commi men s, o a nega i e income change.
In oducing hese bu dens allows us o iden i y whe he he c isis c ea ed addi ional
inequali ies. Thus, we expec CSOs o each ou o hei p e ious membe s and he
‘usual suspec s’ in e ms o socio-demog aphics (male, highly educa ed, a luen ) o ge
engaged (H1).
Second, we explo e he impo ance o CSO con ac o o mal e sus in o mal
engagemen . Du ing he pandemic, in o mal, o en digi ally media ed o ms o ci ic
engagemen eme ged alongside adi ional ne wo ks (Be ogg & Koos, 2021;
Ca lsen e al., 2021; Höl mann e al., 2023). Pla o ms such as Teleg am channels,
JOURNAL OF CIVIL SOCIETY 5
Facebook g oups, and neighbou hood se ices connec ed willing olun ee s di ec ly,
bypassing adi ional CSOs (also see Ka ada, 2022). Thus, we expec ha o hese
o ms o in o mal ci ic engagemen , pandemic- ela ed ules o social dis ancing
we e less c i ical han o o ganized ci il socie y. As we p e iously a gued, he pan-
demic s ongly impai ed CSO’s in e nal s uc u e pe sonnel, and made conduc ing
o ganiza ional ou each mo e challenging. Acco dingly, we hypo hesize ha CSOs
ha e he mos impo an linking unc ion o o mal olun ee ing. They play a less
impo an ole in mo e in o mal o ms o social suppo be ween s ange s du ing he
pandemic (H2).
Thi d, we assess o wha ex en CSOs ul illed hei mobilizing capaci y du ing he
pandemic. Gi en he dual c isis o inc eased demand o suppo coupled wi h ope -
a ional cons ain s, we hypo hesize ha CSOs could no each hei ull mobilizing
capaci y (i.e., abili y o each ou o indi iduals o become engaged) (H3).
Da a & Me hods
Collec ing da a in he ola ile con ex o he pandemic p o ed challenging. Hence, he
empi ical e idence we ely on is d awn om h ee empi ical s udies. Fi s , we conduc ed
an o ganiza ional su ey by sampling bo h o mal and in o mal CSOs. Because o he
e o in ol ed, we we e only able o collec hese da a in one coun y, Ge many (see
Hu e e al., 2021). We hen complemen ed he o ganiza ional pe spec i e wi h indi id-
ual-le el da a on olun ee ing om h ee coun ies: Ge many, I aly, and Poland. In
Ge many, we also ielded a second wa e in a panel design o he indi idual-le el
su ey used in S udy 2.
We selec ed he h ee la ges EU membe s a es in No hwes e n, Sou he n, and
Cen al-Eas e n Eu ope because hey di e , among o he ac o s, in pa e ns o ci il
socie y o ganiza ions (Foa & Ekie , 2017), long- e m ci ic engagemen pa e ns
(Masche ini e al., 2011), and pandemic- ela ed g ie ances (G ee e al., 2021). In
Poland, olun ee ing adi ions a e s ongly in luenced by he Ca holic Chu ch: a sig-
ni ican sha e o olun ee s se e h ough chu ch-a ilia ed cha i ies o pa ish ini ia -
i es, whe e se ice is o en amed as a eligious du y o calling. This leads o a
posi i e co ela ion be ween eligious obse ance and ci ic engagemen (Fałkowski
& Ku ek, 2020; Sadlon & Rymsza, 2024). In I aly, he e is a ma ked No h – Sou h
di ide in olun ee ing cul u e. No he n egions end o ha e mo e obus , o malized
ci ic pa icipa ion – olun ee a es in no he n a eas a e mul iple imes highe han in
pa s o he Sou h (e.g., Guidi e al., 2021) – whe eas sou he n communi ies o en ely
on in o mal suppo ne wo ks and amily-based assis ance (Pu nam e al., 1994). In
Ge many, olun ee ing commonly bi u ca es in o o mal, long- e m commi men s
wi hin membe ship-based associa ions ( he classic Eh enam , such as se ing in olun-
ee i e b igades, e.g., Simonson e al., 2017), and mo e spon aneous o p ojec -based
engagemen s ou side hose s uc u es. Despi e hese di e ences in olun ee ing a-
di ions, we ocus on c oss-coun y simila i ies o gain insigh s ha may ex end o
o he Eu opean con ex s. The e o e, all analyses in he main ex include coun y-
ixed e ec s. Whe e ele an , we discuss coun y-le el di e ences based on he analysis
p esen ed in Appendix B. Table 1 p o ides an o e iew o he empi ical e idence and
da a sou ces used.
6 E. BORBÁTH AND S. HUTTER
S udy 1: Desc ip i e E idence on he C isis o CSOs
We ielded he o ganiza ional su ey be ween No embe and Decembe 2020, collec ing
in o ma ion om 1066 CSOs (27% esponse a e) ac i e in Ge many. The su ey was
inno a i e in in i ing bo h o mal olun ee -based CSOs (i.e., classical associa ions
and wel a e o ganiza ions) and mo e in o mal CSOs (e.g., ini ia i es and social mo e-
men ac o s). Me hodologically, we sampled 55 loca ions om all 16 ede al s a es,
including e e y s a e capi al. Fo he 13 non-ci y s a es, we addi ionally sampled
ano he majo ci y (>500,000 inhabi an s), a medium-sized own (>100,000), and a
u al loca ion (<100,000).
We used sepa a e me hods o sampling o mal and in o mal CSOs. Fo he in o mal
ac o s, 641 ini ia i es and ne wo ks wi h email add esses we e iden i ied h ough a sys-
ema ic online sea ch wi hin he 55 loca ions, and all we e con ac ed.
1
Mo e o mal
o ganiza ions we e sampled ia he o icial comme cial egis e (Handels egis e ),
which ini ially yielded 79,400 egis e ed associa ions o he selec ed loca ions. We na -
owed his lis by sampling acco ding o ields o ac i i y.
2
F om a andomly d awn
sample o 4162 o ganiza ions, 3850 associa ions, and ini ia i es we e in i ed and
eminded – up o ou imes by email and elephone – o comple e he online ques ion-
nai e. Rep esen a i es o 1066 o ganiza ions comple ed he ques ionnai e, o a esponse
a e o 27.7%, which is somewha lowe han he mean esponse a e o 34% iden i ied by
Ful on (2018) o published s udies su eying o ganiza ions; ye , s ill highe han he
majo gene al su ey o ci il socie y o ganiza ions in Ge many Zi iZ wi h esponse
a es o below 20% (Schube e al., 2023). In e ms o sec o al dis ibu ions, he da a
does e lec he gene al pa e ns unco e ed by p e ious s udies (e.g., Simonson e al.,
2017). All ques ions in he ques ionnai e we e manda o y ( o u he de ails, see
Hu e e al., 2021).
To epo he agg ega e pa e n o indi idual-le el beha iou , we dis inguish be ween
o mal and in o mal o ms o ci ic engagemen based on i ems om a b oade ba e y on
ci ic engagemen (see i em wo ding and u he in o ma ion in Appendix C). The i ems
encompass mo e o mal modes, whe e CSOs end o play a s onge media ing ole (e.g.,
olun ee ing, dona ing), and mo e in o mal modes (e.g., emo ional suppo , shopping
o o he s, inancial help, childca e o o he s, and symbolic o ms o suppo ). We dis-
inguish h ee ime poin s by elying on he e ospec i e i em included in Wa e 1 ( e e -
ence pe iod: 2019, he yea be o e he Co id-19 c isis), he alues in Wa e 1 ( e e ence
pe iod: since he beginning o he Co id-19 c isis), and he alues om Wa e 2 ( e e ence
pe iod: No embe 2020 up o he in e iew in Ma ch 2021).
Table 1. O e iew o he da a sou ces.
Da a
Uni o
analysis Co e age
Pe iod o da a
collec ion Con ex
S udy
1
O g. su ey CSOs Ge many No . – Dec. 2020 Desc ip i e e idence o
illus a e he dual c isis aced
by CSOs
Mass su ey
(panel)
Indi idual
ci izens
Ge many Wa e 1: Oc . – No .
2020; Wa e 2: Ma .,
2021
S udy
2
Mass su ey Indi idual
ci izens
Ge many, I aly,
Poland
Oc .–No . 2020 Tes o H1 & H2
S udy
3
Vigne e
expe imen
Indi idual
ci izens
Ge many, I aly,
Poland
Ma . 2021 Tes o H3 & obus ness es o
H2
JOURNAL OF CIVIL SOCIETY 7
S udy 2: Indi idual-Le el Su ey
We ielded a ep esen a i e indi idual-le el su ey in Oc obe 2020 in all h ee coun ies
(Ge many: Oc obe 14 – No embe 04; I aly: Oc obe 08 – Oc obe 26; Poland: Oc obe
06–Oc obe 25). The su ey was conduc ed wi h membe s o an online access panel,
ec ui ed by he su ey i m Respondi. Da a we e collec ed wi h quo as o age, gende , edu-
ca ion, and egion (eas – wes ), based on Eu os a s a is ics o 2020, ensu ing ep esen a ion
o 18- o 69-yea -old esiden s. Since some quo as did no ma ch pe ec ly, we applied socio-
demog aphic weigh s o balance all o hese a iables. In Ge many, we collec ed addi ional
in o ma ion in a second wa e wi hin a panel design in Ma ch 2021 (n = 1004).
3
The indi id-
ual-le el su ey aimed o measu e ci ic and poli ical engagemen du ing he pandemic.
Fo his analysis, we d aw on h ee dependen a iables, which we in oduce sequen-
ially. The i s a iable is whe he esponden s we e con ac ed by a CSO o become
engaged. To imp o e he i em’s alidi y, we p imed esponden s by i s e e encing
CSOs and hen asking: ‘Since he beginning o he co ona i us c isis, ini ia i es, clubs,
and aid o ganiza ions ha e app oached indi iduals o suppo o he people. How o en
ha e hese o ganiza ions con ac ed you o suppo o he people?’ Responses anged om
‘ne e ’ o ‘ e y o en’ on a i e-poin scale. We use his i em o es ou i s expec a ion.
Building on a dis inc ion be ween membe s and non-membe s, we examine whe he
CSOs each non-membe s wi h di e en socio-demog aphic p o iles han hei egula
membe s, and whe he hose who a e con ac ed and olun ee di e sys ema ically
om hose who olun ee wi hou being con ac ed.
Nex , we ocus on wo a iables ep esen ing olun ee ing beha iou s du ing he pan-
demic. We asked esponden s how o en hey had engaged in ‘ olun a y wo k o an
ini ia i e, aid o ganiza ion o associa ion’ (also on a scale om ‘ne e ’ o ‘ e y o en’)
since he s a o he Co id-19 pandemic. This i em was pa o he b oade ci ic engage-
men ba e y also used in S udy 1 (see Appendix C). Among hose who indica ed any
o m o ci ic engagemen , we hen asked: ‘You ha e indica ed ha you ha e suppo ed
people who do no li e in you household since he beginning o he Co ona c isis. Ha e
you suppo ed he ollowing g oups o people?’ Answe op ions included ‘ amily and
iends,’ ‘neighbou s,’ ‘p e iously unknown people,’ and ‘people li ing ou side you
[coun y].’ We use his i em o es ou second expec a ion by compa ing he e ec o
‘being asked by an o ganiza ion’ ac oss di e en sphe es o helping.
Finally, we ely on socio-demog aphic a iables and Co id-19-speci ic bu dens o map
inequali ies in con ac and engagemen . The socio-demog aphic a iables include
gende , educa ion, age, age squa ed, income, and egion, which p io li e a u e iden i ies
as c i ical indica o s o socio-economic s a us (e.g., B ady e al., 1995; Teo ell e al., 2007;
Wilson, 2012). Co id-19-speci ic bu dens include whe he esponden s expe ienced a
Co id-19 in ec ion hemsel es o in hei household, had child en a home, had o he
ca egi ing esponsibili ies, o expe ienced a nega i e income change du ing he pan-
demic (e.g., Höl mann e al., 2023).
S udy 3: Su ey Expe imen
To es ou hi d expec a ion, we conduc ed a sepa a e igne e su ey expe imen in
Ma ch 2021 in all h ee coun ies (Ge many: Ma ch 04 – Ma ch 16; I aly: Ma ch 10 –
8 E. BORBÁTH AND S. HUTTER
We analyze he expe imen by es ima ing a linea eg ession model, clus e ing s an-
da d e o s by esponden because each pa icipan e alua ed wo igne es. We
include ixed e ec s o coun y, igne e ound ( i s o second), and he o he ea -
men s. Figu e 5 shows he a e age ea men e ec o he mobilizing ac o .
Unde his coun e ac ual scena io, he e ec size we iden i y closely mi o s he e ec
size om ou obse a ional da a: in bo h cases, he a e age p obabili y o engagemen
when asked by a CSO is a ound 50%. Howe e , in he obse a ional da a, his 50% pa -
icipa ion a e is only eached among esponden s who epo ed being con ac ed o en by
a CSO (see Figu e 4). In ela i e e ms and consis en wi h ou expec a ions, local CSOs’
mobilizing powe lies be ween he p i a e sphe e ( amily and iends) and he s a e,
7
and
local CSOs ha e a g ea e capaci y o mobilize han hei na ional coun e pa s.
Beyond hei basic mobilizing e ec , he main limi ing ac o is he sha e o he popu-
la ion CSOs we e ac ually able o each du ing he pandemic. As no ed, ou su ey
Figu e 4. E ec o being con ac ed ac oss di e en o ms o engagemen . No e: The igu e shows p e-
dic ed p obabili ies based on he model in Table 3 in Appendix A. The esul s a e weigh ed by socio-
demog aphic weigh s. Sou ce: Indi idual-le el su ey, Oc .–No . 2020.
JOURNAL OF CIVIL SOCIETY 15
indica es ha abou one- hi d o socie y was con ac ed a leas once by a CSO. Coupled
wi h ou e idence o he mul iple cons ain s on o ganized ci il socie y – shown by ou
o ganiza ional su ey and he ongoing biases in who could be con ac ed and who ul i-
ma ely olun ee ed – his inding sugges s ha while CSOs did mobilize du ing he pan-
demic, hey could ha e eached a b oade audience had hey no been hinde ed in hei
daily ope a ions. We in e p e his as suppo o ou hi d hypo hesis, namely ha ci il
socie y was unable o ul il i s ull mobilizing po en ial du ing he Co id-19 c isis.
Conclusion
Wha ha e we lea ned abou he mobilizing capaci y o o ganized ci il socie y du ing he
Co id-19 c isis? To answe his ques ion, we adop ed an o iginal mul i-s ep design ocus-
ing on CSO ec ui men e o s o olun ee ing. Despi e he pandemic- ela ed chal-
lenges in da a collec ion, ou compa a i e analysis o h ee Eu opean coun ies o e s
h ee key insigh s.
Fi s , we ound ha CSOs la gely eached he ‘usual suspec s’ o ci ic engagemen ,
ep oducing exis ing inequali ies a he han b oadening ou each. E en among olun-
ee s, hose con ac ed by CSOs esembled hose who olun ee ed wi hou being con-
ac ed, indica ing a limi ed capaci y o b idge he inequali y di ide. In his ega d, we
ad oca e including su ey i ems on whe he indi iduals we e con ac ed by a CSO,
enabling mo e p ecise measu emen o o ganiza ional agency and how i ein o ces o
mi iga es s uc u al inequali ies.
Figu e 5. Expe imen al e ec s o di e en mobilizing ac o s on becoming engaged. No e: The igu e
shows he main e ec s o di e en mobilizing ac o s on he likelihood o engagemen , based on Table
5 in Appendix A. E o ba s ep esen 95% con idence in e als. Sou ce: Vigne e expe imen , Ma .
2021.
16 E. BORBÁTH AND S. HUTTER
Second, we examined how o ganiza ions mobilized o connec ed indi iduals h ough
bo h o mal and in o mal engagemen . Being asked by a CSO p o ed c ucial o ac i a -
ing olun ee s, and o ganiza ions also helped acili a e ‘s ange s helping s ange s’
beyond hei co e membe ship. Despi e subs an ial challenges – highligh ed by ou
desc ip i e e idence – CSOs s ill se ed as media o s, p omo ing olun ee ing and
mo e in o mal o ms o help du ing he pandemic.
Las ly, a coun e ac ual es showed ha while ci il socie y has a s ong mobilizing
po en ial, compa able a imes o amily and iendship ne wo ks, CSOs we e cons ained
in eaching e e yone who migh ha e pa icipa ed. Ou da a sugges ha only abou a
hi d o he popula ion was con ac ed, e lec ing bo h pandemic- ela ed and o ganiz-
a ional limi a ions on ou each.
Two main limi a ions s and ou : We could only conduc he o ganiza ional su ey in
Ge many, and ou ocus was on ela i ely sho - e m e ec s. Thus, u u e esea ch
should in es iga e whe he deac i a ed olun ee s e u n o o ganized ci il socie y se ings
and how he pandemic migh in ensi y in o maliza ion p ocesses in he long un. In
addi ion, while ou mul i-s udy design allows us o combine insigh s ac oss di e en
le els and me hods, i also in oduces challenges o in eg a ion – o example, di e ences
in iming, coun y co e age, and measu emen ac oss s udies limi s di ec compa abili y.
Howe e , ca e ully designed combina ions o indi idual- and o ganiza ional-le el da a
o e ime could u he e eal which ou each s a egies sus ain engagemen and how
CSOs adap o ail o adap o new challenges ac oss c isis and non-c isis con ex s.
These indings also ca y p ac ical implica ions o ci il socie y o ganiza ions, local
au ho i ies, and o he s akeholde s acing c ises such as pandemics o na u al ca a-
s ophes: hey unde sco e he need o in es in mo e a ge ed and inclusi e ou each
s a egies – especially hose b idging digi al and ace- o- ace communica ion –,
because hey may help olun ee -based CSOs engage people beyond hei usual ne wo ks
in c isis si ua ions. By wo king closely wi h communi y g oups and local go e nance
s uc u es, o ganiza ions can coo dina e esou ces mo e e ec i ely and ampli y hei
impac . In es ing in collabo a i e app oaches may hus help add ess inequali ies in
ci ic pa icipa ion and add o he o e all c isis esponse capaci y. Fu he mo e, sys em-
a ically acking who pa icipa es and who is le ou in such si ua ions may allow o gan-
iza ions o iden i y and add ess pe sis en inequali ies in olun ee ing in he long- un,
he eby maximizing he posi i e impac o o ganiza ional ou each.
No wi hs anding hese limi a ions, his s udy con ibu es bo h o academic unde -
s anding and o p ac ical insigh s o ci il socie y o ganiza ions acing mobiliza ion chal-
lenges in imes o c isis. Fo he scien i ic li e a u e, we highligh and empi ically
demons a e he ole o o ganiza ional ou each in ein o cing o mi iga ing social
inequali ies in engagemen , especially du ing momen s o heigh ened need. Fo he
ci il socie y sec o , ou s udy unde sco es he c ucial ole o ou each s a egies in sus-
aining engagemen , e en as CSOs ace subs an ial ope a ional cons ain s.
No es
1. The la e was based on keywo d sea ches o he Ge man e ms o ci izens’ ini ia i e (Bü -
ge ini ia i e), neighbou hood assis ance (Nachba scha shil e), co ona assis ance (Co ona-
hil e), p o es , and alliance (Bündnis) in combina ion wi h he locali y name.
JOURNAL OF CIVIL SOCIETY 17
2. To e lec he b ead h o ci il socie y while also ocusing on ields whe e ac i e olun ee
in ol emen is cen al, we selec ed he ollowing ca ego ies (based on he su ey by
P ieme e al., 2017): Cul u e/Media, Spo , Social Se ices, Ci il P o ec ion/Disas e Man-
agemen , En i onmen al P o ec ion/Na u e Conse a ion, In e na ional Solida i y/Human
Righ s, and Ci izen/Consume In e es s.
3. To accoun o di e ences in sample size, we ely on non esponse weigh s o ensu e ha he
ein e iewed subsample does no signi ican ly di e om he o iginal sample.
4. Bo h he design and he hypo hesis we e p e egis e ed wi h he Open Science F amewo k a
h ps://doi.o g/10.17605/OSF.IO/QK7H4 The sample sizes a e oughly equal ac oss he
h ee coun ies (1,000 in Ge many, 898 in I aly, 900 in Poland).
5. As a collabo a i e p ojec , he design included o he ea men op ions ha we e analyzed
elsewhe e. In his pape , we add ess Q1 and Q2 om ou p e egis e ed plan and es ou
associa ed hypo heses.
6. The esul s a e obus o an o de ed logi speci ica ion. We op ed o p esen ing an OLS
model since i ep esen s a mo e pa simonious speci ica ion which allows us o di ec ly
in e p e he es ima ed coe icien s as ma ginal e ec s.
7. Rela i e o he s a e, he di e ence is he la ges in I aly and Poland and he smalles in
Ge many.
Acknowledgemen
We would like o hank all membe s o he SolZi p ojec , he Cen e o Ci il Socie y Resea ch a
F eie Uni e si ä Be lin and he WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e , as well as Gesine Höl mann,
Ch is ian on Sche e, Philipp Wunde lich, Raphaël Lé ou neau, Manuel Die se, S e ano Calzá,
and he wo anonymous e iewe s o hei aluable eedback and suppo . We also g a e ully
acknowledge unding om he Be lin Uni e si y Alliance and he Volkswagen Founda ion.
Disclosu e S a emen
No po en ial con lic o in e es was epo ed by he au ho (s).
Funding
This wo k was suppo ed by Be lin Uni e si y Alliance; Volkswagen Founda ion.
Da a A ailabili y S a emen
All da a and eplica ion ma e ials will be made publicly a ailable on he Ha a d Da a e se upon
publica ion.
ORCID
End e Bo bá h h p://o cid.o g/0000-0002-2980-8586
Swen Hu e h p://o cid.o g/0000-0002-1107-1213
Re e ences
Ande sen, D., Toubøl, J., Ki kegaa d, S., & Ca lsen, H. B. (2022). Imposed olun ee ing: Gende
and ca ing esponsibili ies du ing he COVID-19 lockdown. The Sociological Re iew, 70(1), 39–
56. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/00380261211052396
18 E. BORBÁTH AND S. HUTTER
And ews, K. T., Ganz, M., Bagge a, M., Han, H., & Lim, C. (2010). Leade ship, membe ship, and
oice: Ci ic associa ions ha wo k. Ame ican Jou nal o Sociology, 115(4), 1191–1242. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1086/649060
Ba e , M., & B un on-Smi h, I. (2014). F aming ci ic engagemen , poli ical pa icipa ion and
ac i e ci izenship in Eu ope. In C. Bee, & R. Gue ina (Eds.), F aming ci ic engagemen , poli ical
pa icipa ion and ac i e ci izenship in Eu ope (pp. 5–28). Taylo & F ancis L d.
Be ogg, A., & Koos, S. (2021). Socio-economic posi ion and local solida i y in imes o c isis. The
COVID-19 pandemic and he eme gence o in o mal helping a angemen s in Ge many. Resea ch
in Social S a i ica ion and Mobili y, 74, 100612. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j. ssm.2021.100612
Bo bá h, E., Hunge , S., Hu e , S., & Oana, I.-E. (2021). Ci ic and poli ical engagemen du ing he
mul i ace ed COVID-19 c isis. Swiss Poli ical Science Re iew, 27(2), 311–324. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1111/sps .12446
B ady, H. E., Schlozman, K. L., & Ve ba, S. (1999). P ospec ing o pa icipan s: Ra ional expec-
a ions and he ec ui men o poli ical ac i is s. Ame ican Poli ical Science Re iew, 93(1),
153–168. h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/2585767
B ady, H. E., Ve ba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A esou ce model o poli ical
pa icipa ion. Ame ican Poli ical Science Re iew, 89(2), 271–294. h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/2082425
Ca lsen, H. B., Toubøl, J., & B incke , B. (2021). On solida i y and olun ee ing du ing he
COVID-19 c isis in Denma k: The impac o social ne wo ks and social media g oups on he
dis ibu ion o suppo . Eu opean Socie ies, 23(1), 122–140. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/14616696.
2020.1818270
Chamb é, S. M. (2020). Has olun ee ing changed in he Uni ed S a es? T ends, s yles, and mo i -
a ions in his o ical pe spec i e. Social Se ice Re iew, 94(2), 373–421. h ps://doi.o g/10.1086/
708941
Cla ke, J. (2015). Solida i y and su i al: A mul idisciplina y explo a ion o olun ee ing du ing
he G eek c isis. In J. Cla ke, A. Hulia as, & D. A. Sō ē opoulos (Eds.), Aus e i y and he
hi d sec o in G eece: Ci il socie y a he Eu opean on line (pp. 67–84). Sou heas Eu opean
S udies. Ashga e Publishing Company.
Dal on, R. J. (2017). The pa icipa ion gap: Social s a us and poli ical inequali y. Ox o d Uni e si y
P ess.
Dean, J. (2016). Class di e si y and you h olun ee ing in he Uni ed Kingdom: Applying bou -
dieu’s habi us and cul u al capi al. Nonp o i and Volun a y Sec o Qua e ly, 45(1_suppl),
95S–113S. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0899764015597781
Dede ichs, K., & K use, H. (2023). Who s ays in ol ed? A longi udinal s udy on adolescen s’ pa -
icipa ion in olun a y associa ions in Ge many. Eu opean Sociological Re iew, 39(1), 30–43.
Fałkowski, J., & Ku ek, P. (2020). The ans o ma ion o sup eme alues: E idence om Poland on
sal a ion h ough ci ic engagemen . Public Choice, 185(1), 113–129. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/
s11127-019-00743-y
Fe we da, J., Magni, G., Hooghe, L., & Ma ks, G. (2023). How c ises shape ci cles o solida i y:
E idence om he COVID-19 pandemic in I aly. Compa a i e Poli ical S udies, 57(2), 356–
381. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/00104140231169028
Foa, R. S., & Ekie , G. (2017). The weakness o pos communis ci il socie y eassessed. Eu opean
Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch, 56(2), 419–439. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/1475-6765.12182
F ey, B. S., & Meie , S. (2004). P o-social beha io in a na u al se ing. Jou nal o Economic
Beha io & O ganiza ion, 54(1), 65–88. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jebo.2003.10.001
Ful on, B. R. (2018). O ganiza ions and su ey esea ch: Implemen ing esponse enhancing s a -
egies and conduc ing non esponse analyses. Sociological Me hods & Resea ch, 47(2), 240–276.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0049124115626169
G ee , S. L., King, E. J., da Fonseca, E. M., & Pe al a-San os, A. (Eds.). (2021). Co ona i us poli ics:
The compa a i e poli ics and policy o COVID-19. Uni e si y o Michigan P ess. h ps://www.
ulc um.o g/conce n/monog aphs/jq085n03q
Guidi, R., Fono ić, K., & Cappadozzi, T. (Eds.). (2021). Accoun ing o he a ie ies o olun ee ing:
New global s a is ical s anda ds es ed. Nonp o i and ci il socie y s udies. Sp inge In e na ional
Publishing. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-3-030-70546-6
JOURNAL OF CIVIL SOCIETY 19
Han, H. (2014). How o ganiza ions de elop ac i is s: Ci ic associa ions and leade ship in he 21s
cen u y. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Heylen, F., Willems, E., & Beye s, J. (2020). Do p o essionals ake o e ? P o essionalisa ion and
membe ship in luence in ci il socie y o ganisa ions. VOLUNTAS: In e na ional Jou nal o
Volun a y and Nonp o i O ganiza ions, 31(6), 1226–1238. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11266-
020-00214-9
Høgenha en, L. (2025). The dual s uc u e o olun ee ing du ing c ises: A ask-d i en app oach
o olun ee ing. Nonp o i and Volun a y Sec o Qua e ly, 08997640241311868. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1177/08997640241311868
Höl mann, G., Hu e , S., & Spech , J. (2023). How social capi al ma e s o ecei ing social
suppo : On he complemen a y ole o ci il socie y in he COVID-19 pandemic. Eu opean
Socie ies, 25(5), 804–828. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/14616696.2023.2176528
Hu e , S., Teune, S., Daphi, P., Nikolas, A.-M., Rößle -P okho enko, C., Somme , M., S einhilpe ,
E., & Zajak, S. (2021). Deu schlands Zi ilgesellscha in de Co ona-Pandemie. Eine Be agung
on Ve einen und Ini ia i en (III.2021.). Be lin: ipb wo king pape s. Re ie ed om h ps://
p o es ins i u .eu/ipb-wo king-pape s/
Ka ada, A. (2022). C ea ing a hype local in as uc u e o ca e: COVID-19 mu ual aid g oups in
he UK. In B. B ingel, & G. Pleye s (Eds.), Social mo emen s and poli ics du ing COVID-19 (pp.
147–154). B is ol Uni e si y P ess.
Kim, M., & Mason, D. P. (2023). A shock o he s a us quo: Cha ac e is ics o nonp o i s ha make
s a egic decisions du ing a c isis. Independen Sec o . h ps://sea ch.issuelab.o g/ esou ces/
42691/42691.pd
Klande mans, B., & Oegema, D. (1987). Po en ials, ne wo ks, mo i a ions, and ba ie s: S eps
owa ds pa icipa ion in social mo emen s. Ame ican Sociological Re iew, 52(4), 519–531.
h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/2095297
Kom e , A. E., & Vollebe gh, W. A. M. (2002). Solida i y in Du ch amilies: Family ies unde
s ain? Jou nal o Family Issues, 23(2), 171–188. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0192513X02023002001
Lahusen, C., & G asso, M. T. (2018). Solida i y in Eu ope: Ci izens’ esponses in imes o c isis.
Sp inge In e na ional Publishing.
Ma jano ic, Z., G eenglass, E. R., Wa d S u he s, C., & Faye, C. (2009). Helping ollowing na u al
disas e s: A social-mo i a ional analysis. Jou nal o Applied Social Psychology, 39(11), 2604–
2625. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00540.x
Masche ini, M., Vidoni, D., & Manca, A. R. (2011). Explo ing he de e minan s o ci il pa ici-
pa ion in 14 Eu opean coun ies: One-size- i s none. Eu opean Sociological Re iew, 27(6),
790–807. h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/es /jcq041
Meye , M., & Ramede , P. (2022). Who is in cha ge? Social inequali y in di e en ields o olun-
ee ing. VOLUNTAS: In e na ional Jou nal o Volun a y and Nonp o i O ganiza ions, 33(1),
18–32. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11266-020-00313-7
Nesbi , R., Ch is ensen, R. K., & B udney, J. L. (2018). The limi s and possibili ies o olun ee ing:
A amewo k o explaining he scope o olun ee in ol emen in public and nonp o i o gan-
iza ions. Public Adminis a ion Re iew, 78(4), 502–513. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/pua .12894
Penne , L., B annick, M. T., Webb, S., & Connell, P. (2005). E ec s on olun ee ing o he
Sep embe 11, 2001, a acks: An a chi al analysis. Jou nal o Applied Social Psychology, 35(7),
1333–1360. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005. b02173.x
P ieme , J., K imme , H., & Labigne, A. (2017). Zi iZ-Su ey 2017. Viel al Ve s ehen.
Zusammenhal S ä ken. S i e e band.
Pu nam, R. D., Leona di, R., & Nane i, R. Y. (1994). Making democ acy wo k: Ci ic adi ions in
mode n I aly. P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
Q is , H.-P. Y., Hen iksen, L. S., & F idbe g, T. (2018). The consequences o weakening o ganiz-
a ional a achmen o olun ee ing in Denma k, 2004–2012. Eu opean Sociological Re iew,
34(5), 589–601. h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/es /jcy030
Rod íguez, H., T aino , J., & Qua an elli, E. L. (2006). Rising o he challenges o a ca as ophe: The
eme gen and p osocial beha io ollowing Hu icane Ka ina. The ANNALS o he Ame ican
Academy o Poli ical and Social Science, 604(1), 82–101. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0002716205284677
20 E. BORBÁTH AND S. HUTTER
Sadlon, W., & Rymsza, M. (2024). Volun ee ing and ca holicism in Eu ope. The inside pe spec i e
pa 2: Empi ical. The Pe son and he Challenges. The Jou nal o Theology, Educa ion, Canon
Law and Social S udies Inspi ed by Pope John Paul II, 14(1), 213–227. h ps://doi.o g/10.15633/
pch.14113
San os, M. R. C., & Lau eano, R. M. S. (2022). COVID-19- ela ed s udies o nonp o i manage-
men : A c i ical e iew and esea ch agenda. VOLUNTAS: In e na ional Jou nal o Volun a y
and Nonp o i O ganiza ions, 33(5), 936–951. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11266-021-00432-9
Schube , P., Tahmaz, B., & K imme , H. (2023). Zi ilgesellscha in K isenzei en: Poli isch ak i
mi geschwäch en Fundamen en. Be lin: Zi iZ im S i e e band. Re ie ed om h ps://www.
zi iz.de/si es/zi / iles/zi iz-su ey_2023_ endbe ich .pd
Simonson, J., Vogel, C., & Tesch-Röme , C. (Eds.). (2017). F eiwilliges engagemen in Deu schland:
De Deu sche F eiwilligensu ey 2014. Sp inge Fachmedien. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-3-658-
12644-5
Simsa, R., Ramede , P., Aghamanoukjan, A., & To e , M. (2019). Spon aneous olun ee ing in
social c ises: Sel -o ganiza ion and coo dina ion. Nonp o i and Volun a y Sec o Qua e ly,
48(2), 103–122. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0899764018785472
S e en, S. L., & Fo he gill, A. (2009). 9/11 olun ee ism: A pa hway o pe sonal healing and com-
muni y engagemen . The Social Science Jou nal, 46(1), 29–46. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.soscij.
2008.12.005
Teo ell, J., Sum, P., & Tobiasen, M. (2007). Pa icipa ion and poli ical equali y. An assessmen o
la ge-scale democ acy. In J. W. Van De h, J. R. Mon e o, & A. Wes holm (Eds.), Ci izenship and
in ol emen in Eu opean democ acies: A compa a i e analysis (pp. 384–414). Rou ledge.
an O e beeke, P. S. M., Koolen-Maas, S. A., Meijs, L. C. P. M., & B udney, J. L. (2022). You shall
(No ) pass: S a egies o hi d-pa y ga ekeepe s o enhance olun ee inclusion. VOLUNTAS:
In e na ional Jou nal o Volun a y and Nonp o i O ganiza ions, 33(1), 33–45. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1007/s11266-021-00384-0
Va ese, F., & Yaish, M. (2000). The impo ance o being asked: The escue o Jews in Nazi Eu ope.
Ra ionali y and Socie y, 12(3), 307–334. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/104346300012003003
Ve ba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & B ady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equali y : ci ic olun a ism in
Ame ican poli ics. Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
Wang, L., & Ganapa i, N. E. (2018). Disas e s and social capi al: Explo ing he impac o Hu icane
Ka ina on Gul Coas Coun ies. Social Science Qua e ly, 99(1), 296–312. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1111/ssqu.12392
Wilson, J. (2012). Volun ee ism esea ch: A e iew essay. Nonp o i and Volun a y Sec o
Qua e ly, 41(2), 176–212. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0899764011434558
JOURNAL OF CIVIL SOCIETY 21
