Typology of countries regarding the civil society sector

Typology of countries regarding the civil society sector

These are regional patterns of the development of the civil society sector. This classification is relative as each country has its specifications. While some countries can be clearly identified with a given category, some others are rather hybrid and a few do not fit any of these categories. The civil society sector is very heterogeneous. The development of CSOs depends on a lot of factors, including historical, cultural, economical, political and social factors. Not only do the size and the power of CSOs differ from one country to another but also the type of CSOs, the way they are organized, financed, the importance of religious CSOs etc.

1. The Liberal (Anglo-Saxon) model

These countries are characterized by a high level of development and a relatively low level of welfare state (this is a bit less true for the UK and Switzerland, which are in fact hybrid models between the Anglo-Saxon and the Western European welfare state model). The civil society sector attracts quite a lot of volunteers. This country cluster includes the USA, the UK, New Zealand and with some restrictions Australia, Canada, Switzerland. They rely heavily on CSOs, which is reflected by their civil society workforce which is the largest of all regional groups.

The dominant field is well-being and the dominant subfield varies among countries. For instance;

USA – health services prevail

UK and Australia – education.

Compared to the other developed regions, the Anglo-Saxon cluster has a very strong development sector. This predominance of well-being and development services can be explained by the relative withdrawal of the welfare state in these countries, giving the relay to private organizations. Even if the share of environmental CSOs is quite small compared to other fields, it is the second largest environmental sector after the welfare partnership cluster. CSOs’ revenues come mainly from fees essentially resulting from fees charged for the services provided in the well-being sector (health, scholarship fees for the education sector etc.). Government support is weaker than in other developed regions. This is again a consequence of the weaker welfare state of liberal countries compared to the other developed ones. Although philanthropy resources are quite sizable in liberal countries, it is not the dominant revenue source of CSOs.

2. The Social Democratic (Nordic) model

This country cluster is characterized by a high level of development and a strong tradition of welfare state. Examples of countries under this cluster includes; Finland, Norway, Sweden and with some restrictions Austria.

In these countries, the strong tradition of welfare state has left little room for CSOs to deliver basic social and human services. This is shown by a very weak well-being sector compared to other developed countries. Most of well-being workforce in these countries is focused on culture, which leaves the core welfare services (health, education, social services) even weaker. However, this does not mean that civil society is inexistent in the social democratic countries.

The specificity of the social democratic countries is the huge size of the Civic & Human Rights and the Labor & Farmer Rights sectors which together represent almost 25% of total civil society workforce of these countries, far above the other countries, both developed and developing ones. There are two main explanations for this situation. First, as the state takes care of the basic social necessities, people’s volunteering time which goes to well-being CSOs is smaller. Second, these countries are dotted with very powerful unions and a long tradition for the defense of civic rights. Nevertheless, one must never forget that these countries are very small in terms of population and that, even if they have a very strong civil society sector, once compared to the global civil society workforce, they do not represent a significant share, except maybe for the Civic & Human Rights and Farmer & Labor Rights sectors where they still count for 5% of the total workforce for each of these sectors.

Service-oriented CSOs (essentially present in the well-being sector) traditionally rely heavily on paid staff whereas advocacy-oriented CSOs, which are particularly strong in social democratic countries, rely rather on volunteers.

The revenue structure of CSOs in the social democratic cluster is quite comparable to the liberal one, as fees are the dominant financing source. However, contrary to liberal countries, they come mainly from membership fees rather than amounts charged for services provided. Government support is quite comparable to the one in the liberal cluster however the explanation might again differ. The relative small share of government support results in this case from a focus of the state on well-being and social services rather than a withdrawal of the state. Again philanthropy’s share is quite small, with only 9% of total CSOs’ revenue.

3. The Welfare Partnership (Western European) model

This country cluster is characterized by a high level of development. There is also a tradition of several interest groups acting in cooperation with a strong welfare state to achieve common societal goals. This country cluster includes Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands and, with some restrictions, Spain, Italy, Portugal.

The size of civil society of these countries is the largest of all groups in relative. Despite the relative small share of Western European countries in the world population, their absolute share of global civil society workforce is big. This can be explained by the partnership model of Western European states. In these countries, the welfare state has traditionally played a central role but it cooperates with non-governmental organizations, historically church-related ones, to deliver social services. It is important to note that a large part of these organizations today are separated from the Church and have nothing in common with worship groups. However, a sizable number of CSOs remain more or less influenced by religious values, such as Christian charity.

As a consequence, Western European CSOs are heavily focused on well-being service provision which absorb almost 85% of total civil society workforce in these countries.  Besides, even if the share of environmental CSOs compared to other fields is not very high in Western European countries it is still the highest of all developed regions. Moreover, 39% of the global civil society workforce dedicated to the environmental cause is located in the welfare partnership cluster, making it the largest civil society environmental sector in the world despite the relative limited population of Europe in the world. In these countries, the share of paid staff of civil society workforce is by far the largest of all countries. This is allowed by a close cooperation of the civil society sector with governments and important public funding.

Indeed, the welfare partnership cluster is the only one which has a government-dominant revenue structure, government subsidies and affiliated financial flows. Fees are also quite a sizable source of revenue even if it is less than in any other country cluster. Philanthropy, as elsewhere, does not represent a large share of CSOs’ revenues.

The last two country clusters are mainly composed (but not only) of developing and transitional countries. These groups are less homogeneous than the first ones and sometimes classification can be quite approximate. In these countries, civil society plays a much smaller role than in the first three groups, commonly referred as the “Western developed countries”.

4. The Deferred Democratization model

This country cluster is mainly composed (but not only) of developing and transitional countries. This country cluster includes Brazil, Colombia, Poland, Slovakia, and, with some restrictions, Czech Republic, Japan, South Korea, Hungary, Mexico, Peru and Romania (plus Russia and China).

It can be divided in three sub-groups: Eastern European countries, Latin American countries and industrialized Asian countries. They are characterized by a historically authoritarian state (even if in most of the countries it is not the case anymore). When a significant level of development has been reached, it has taken the form of an economical boom and a very rapid growth (ex: Japan, South Korea). Most of the other countries are transitional countries with relatively high levels of growth.  Japan, South Korea and China have quite a specific civil society sector dominated by government organized NGOs (GONGOs).

The traditional authoritarian states in these countries have prevented, or at least not supported, the emergence of significant civil society sector which was seen damageable to the state’s authority or to the economical growth which was often (or is still) the primary goal of the society. Even if a lot of countries have more or less abandoned this path, this historical trend is reflecting the small size of the civil society sector in these countries.

The main sector in these countries is well-being which absorbs about 76% of total civil society workforce, which is quite comparable with most of Western countries. The dominant sub-level varies among countries: health and education for industrialized Asian countries (mostly GONGOs such as public benefit corporations, medical corporations, private school corporations and social welfare corporations), culture for Eastern European countries (mostly former State-controlled CSOs during the Soviet era which have been able to make the transition into nonprofit status) and education for Latin American countries (mostly religious schools). In the case of industrialized Asian countries, the predominance of the education and health sectors can be explained by the historical focus on rapid growth which has left little room for basic public services. As participation in CSOs has never been really encouraged in these countries, the share of volunteers in civil society workforce is very low. Government financial support to civil society is also smaller than in every Western country cluster (even the liberal one). Fees are the dominant revenue source in these countries although its nature varies among countries. In Asian industrialized countries it comes mainly from charged amounts from health and social services organizations, in Latin American countries the main source of revenues are scholarship fees and in Central and Eastern European countries it is dominated by membership fees.

It is noticeable that the Labor & Farmer Rights sector is relatively high and growing in this country cluster. This reflects the current trend of the development of community-based empowerment, pro-democratic and worker’s CSOs (including trade unions) in these countries.

5. The Traditional model (Africa, India and other developing countries with high poverty rates)

This country cluster is characterized by a lower level of development, more rural populations and high rates of poverty. Examples of countries in this cluster include; Pakistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, the Philippines, and, with some restrictions, India, South Africa. Most of these countries are former colonies with limited democratic rules.

Globally speaking, the size of the civil society sector in the traditional country cluster is the smallest of all regions. One explanation of the incredibly weakness of the civil society sector is the lack of formal CSOs, solidarity being much more informal and community and/or family oriented in these countries.

Although well-being services stay the major sector, it is the weakest of all country clusters. This can be explained by the extremely large size of the development sector compared to other groups. One explanation is the greater need for basic development programs, poverty assistance etc. in these countries than elsewhere. Development and Housing CSOs have most of the time at least some empowerment and advocacy features. This suggests that there is a marked tendency to grassroots empowerment in these countries, even if the civil society sector is relatively small. The environmental sector is also relatively sizable and is the largest relative sector of all five country clusters. However, in absolute size, it is only the third, far behind Western European and Anglo-Saxon countries. This can be explained by the important air and water pollution and water supply issues faced by these countries.

Volunteers represent a very high share of total civil society workforce making it the second country cluster in terms of relative size of volunteers. However this illustrates also the lack of resources of CSOs in these countries, which cannot afford to hire a lot of paid staff.

Revenue structure of CSOs in these countries is characterized by an incredibly small share of government support. This is one of the consequences of the lack of public resources (and sometimes corruption) in these countries. Fees, like in almost every country cluster, are also the dominant financial source. However, philanthropy’s share is the highest of all groups. Even if there is a sizable grassroot community-based civil society sector in these countries, they still rely heavily on Western CSOs and international solidarity, including religious CSOs and some major philanthropic CSOs. As a consequence, the dynamism of the civil society sector in these countries, at least in the mid-term, depends a lot on international solidarity and Western efforts and voluntarism to make some wealth transfers.

Types of civil actors at a global level

The civil society organizations at the global level are not necessarily the same just as those working at national and regional level.

There are five types of civil actors at a global level:

1. International non-governmental organizations (INGOs)

In some cases, CSOs which act at a national level also act at an international level. This is the case of the so called INGOs which are large organizations with an international range of intervention but which stay more or less linked with a particular country or region. These organizations can afford to act both at a national and global level because they have important financial and human resources. Greenpeace international, Oxfam International or Amnesty International are examples of such organizations. These organizations are the most effective CSOs today. They have huge capacities: they are well organized bodies with a solid basis of paid staff, who supervise and elaborate long term strategies. Because INGOs are well-known and carry a good image, they attract many volunteers (registered members but also people who participate temporarily or regularly to INGOs’ actions). They are able to elaborate long-term strategies of fundraising which allows them to raise sizable charitable funds. INGOs are also very sustainable organizations. Because of their experience, popularity and competences, they often perceive sizable government funding as well as membership fees which makes their financial sources very diversified. INGOs have also the most important impact on international institutions, mostly because of their formal and institutionalized structure which is required to be recognized by some international institutions, especially the UN.

Limits/Disadvantages of INGOs

1. They are almost exclusively Northern organizations: this is quite problematic, especially because a sizable part of INGOs deal with Southern issues (development, human and farmer rights etc.).
2. Because they are huge organizations with sometimes a management style which can be more or less close to businesses, INGOs are sometimes criticized for their lack of proximity with field issues and popular claims. These limits lead to representation and legitimacy issues.

2. CSO federations

These are smaller, national CSOs which regroup in CSO federations in order to increase their capacity, sustainability and impact. These federations can be geographical – i.e. national/regional federation of NGOs (example: CONCONRD for Europe) – or thematic – i.e. homogenous groups of NGOs which work in the same field (example: Caritas Internationalis, which regroups catholic NGOs for humanitarian help and development from the entire world or the Global Union Federation which seeks to build an international cooperation between major national unions). In terms of raw capacity (i.e. by simply adding up the capacity of each individual member-CSO) they have important financial and human resources. However, their real impact is much weaker than their raw capacity. Indeed, these organizations are federations, which means that their cooperation is limited: they do not share their resources and stay primarily independent organizations. The purpose of these federations is only to put in common some resources to achieve common goals. Moreover, these organizations are characterized by a large diversity of members (either because they come from different countries and have a different culture and vision, or because they intervene in different fields). This involves coordination problems and a lack of efficiency or coherence because a global consensus is often hard to reach. Because of these internal differences, their sustainability is also quite fragile, as internal struggles can rapidly lead to the dissolution of the federation. CSO federations can nevertheless be temporarily particularly efficient, when they conduct a very united action on a very specific and polemic subject. These organizations are also very efficient for bringing national or regional concerns to the international agenda.

3. Thematic coalition

On some rare occasions, the civil society can also be suddenly united and act as a bloc to lead some specific actions. This is what we call thematic coalitions. In this case, CSOs which do not usually work together temporarily forget their differences and take part of a global movement. This was, for instance, the case of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) which took place in 1993 or the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) in 2005. Thematic coalitions involve a broad range of actors, including small local CSOs (from the South and the North) but also larger organizations such as INGOs. Thematic coalitions often use their important media coverage and the potential weight they represent in terms of capacity (even if, as in the case of CSO federations, it is nonsense to add up their individual financial and human resources). However, the fact that they represent a large part of the civil society gives them an important weight in global negotiations with governments or international institutions. These movements stay nevertheless punctual and occasional. When the specific goal of the thematic coalition is reached or if the punctual global activism slows down, CSOs which have taken part in the thematic coalition leave it as fast as they have joined it.

4. Expert groups

Some small specific CSOs can also have a sizable influence on global issues. This is the case of expert groups or think tank. These are small but very specialized CSOs, composed of scientist or highly skilled people in some very technical fields (example: finance, IT, biotechnology, climatology, nuclear technology, state of the art technology etc.). Finance Watch 21 or Vivagora 22 are examples of such organizations. In terms of capacity, these organizations are quite weak compared to other global civil society actors. However, their impact can be very important because governments, international institutions listen very carefully to their claims. Indeed, these organizations, because they are recognized for their scientific or technical knowledge, are seen as legitimate actors when an issue related to their field of intervention is raised. In some cases, they are even summoned by international institutions to participate to the policy making process as their expertise is needed.

5. Business International Non-Governmental Organizations (BINGOs) and Government Oriented Non-Governmental Organizations (GONGOs)

These are civil organizations which are linked with businesses or governmental interests. Most of time, these organizations are officially registered as civil organizations however their close relationship with a given government or industry makes them very difficult to classify as they are hybrid organizations. Nevertheless, they have a clear influence on global issues and international institutions. These organizations are quite controversial. On one hand, they could represent opportunities, especially in regions where civil movements and CSOs are not well implanted (example: In China, where GONGOs have encouraged some civil movements, especially in the fields of well-being and labour rights). But on the other hand, they represent an important threat for the future of global CSOs, especially regarding their accountability and the transparency of the civil society sector. Indeed, if such organizations would develop themselves in the future, it could become very difficult to distinguish civil claims and interests from business lobbies or organizations defending the interests of a given State.