Types of Organisations of Civil Society

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

I. Associations

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

- According to Talcott Parsons modern societal communities foster the proliferation of three distinct forms of social organization: markets, bureaucracies, and associations.

- Associations, though not exclusive to modernity are one of its central features. Associations in democratic societies differ widely form their pre-modern equivalents. There is a clear distinction between traditional involuntary associations such as kin groups, castes, or communities and modern voluntary associations. Historically, the shift from involuntary groupings to the modern association has been made possible by the evolution of the concept of freedom of association.

- This concept constitutes an integral part of the majority of the constitutions of modern democracies, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulating that (1) everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; (2) no one may be compelled to belong to an association (Art. 20).

Associations

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

- Associational life is by no means restricted to the world of politics. Associations are ubiquitous in both ancient and modern societies in a variety of extra-political forms; there are those working on behalf of the business interest of their members, and others facilitating the private life of their membership by providing an institutional setting for a wide range of leisure activities. The scope of research that the subject matter of associations provides within the social sciences thus encompasses most levels social organisation that are of interest to sociologists today.

- David Sill’s classical definition an association is an organized group of persons (1) that is formed in order to further some common interest of its members; (2) in which membership is voluntary in the sense that is neither mandatory nor acquired through birth; and (3) that exists independent from the state.

Associations

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

- The relationship of associations to governments is not determined a priori; for as lobbyists and interest organizations associations are supporting as well as criticizing government. As service providers they are working on par with for-profit business enterprises; and as membership organizations they are embedded in social milieus, providing avenues for civic engagement and societal integration. Hence associations are membership-based organizations that – guided by interests – are independent from the state apparatus (although they might cooperate with government).

- Associations do not restrict their scope of activities to just one level of operation. Instead, many of them are complex organizations with local, regional, federal, and even international chapters and departments.

Associations

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

- Associations defined in terms of modernity typically involve definitions grounded in an Anglo-Saxon, or at least Western context typically focus on the voluntary dimension of associations (which is one of the integral features of the notion of ‘free association’). Providing prime avenues for social participation, volunteering, and discourse, associations constitute an important part of the infrastructure of civil society.

- Habermas, Walzer, Dahrendorf, and other civil society scholars have characterised associations as intermediary organisational fields functioning as a public sphere between state, economy, and private life. Thus part from relating to and emerging from the infrastructural base of society, associations in turn shape the organisational structure of society by defining how members of society (social agents) come together in various forms of organisation by means of free association.

Associations

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

- Max Weber took a different approach by defining association as a domain of sovereign rule. This definition focuses on the steering and ruling capacities of associations. It is particularly referred to in Continental Europe, where the term association is primarily used for large, encompassing organizations that often are integrated into corporatist governance arrangements, and as such are working on par or at least in close cooperation with government. In contrast, associations that are small and membership based organizations operating first and foremost at the local level are generally referred to as voluntary organizations and more specifically as clubs that are supposed to generate high degrees of reciprocity among their members, and are generally associated with notions of sociability facilitated by an active club life.

Associations- The term association in the categorisation of social

organisations in contemporary research is used in the sense that excludes primary groups and commercial companies but admits an exceptionally wide area of institutions and organizations that – pervading every functional sector of society – ranges from business related activities, trade, and labor unions, clubs, churches, and congregations, civic service associations, third sector organizations, social welfare councils, self-help groups, secret societies, professional societies, and other ‘‘collectivist organizations’.

- A further distinction is that between associations that foster the self-interest of their members and those working either on behalf of a third party (i.e., children, the elderly) or for the advancement of a public purpose and/or common good (i.e., human rights or clear water).

Associations

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

Gordon and Babchuk differentiate between associations either working on behalf of their members (expressive association) or fostering the common interest (instrumental association). By introducing the variables ‘‘accessibility-’’ and ‘‘status-conferring capacity of the association,’’ Gordon and Babchuk drew the attention to the prestige factor of associational membership. Their work shows that associations significantly contribute to the stratification of modern societies.

Associations

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

There are also structural analyses of associations. The general distinction is that between centralized and federalized organizations. The ‘‘centralized type’’ of association is modeled in accordance with a ‘‘corporate or hierarchical governance structure’’ (Anheier and Themudo, 2002: 316ff.). A characteristic feature of this model is a topdown approach of decision making that leaves little room to maneuver for departments or chapters and for associated membership organizations. The Catholic Church or Greenpeace are organized according to the ‘‘corporate model.’’ Associations modeled according to the ‘‘federation type’’ constitute loosely coupled systems, which give way to a larger degree of membership participation (individual or corporate) and hence democratic decision making within the organization. The Red Cross, the Diakonie and the Protestant Church are federalized associations.

II. Nongovernmental Organisations

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are now recognized as key third sector actors on the landscapes of development, human rights, humanitarian action, environment, and many other areas of public action. NGOs have existed in various forms for centuries, but they rose to high prominence in international development and increased their numbers dramatically in the 1980s and 1990s. It is difficult to know precisely how many NGOs there are, because few comprehensive or reliable statistics are kept. Some estimates put the figure at a million organizations, if both formal and informal organizations are included, while the number of registered NGOs receiving international aid is probably closer to ‘‘a few hundred thousand.’’ The United Nations estimates that there were about 35,000 large established NGOs in 2000.

Nongovernmental OrganisationsThe world of NGOs contains a bewildering variety of labels. While the term ‘‘NGO’’ is widely used, there are also many other over-lapping terms used such as ‘‘nonprofit,’’ ‘‘voluntary,’’ and ‘‘civil society’’ organizations. In many cases, the use of different terms does not reflect descriptive or analytical rigour, but is instead a consequence of the different cultures and histories in which thinking about NGOs has emerged. For example, ‘‘nonprofit organization’’ is frequently used in the USA, where the market is dominant, and where citizen organizations are rewarded with fiscal benefits if they show that they are not commercial, profit-making entities and work for the public good. In the UK, ‘‘voluntary organization’’ or ‘‘charity’’ is commonly used, following a long tradition of volunteering and voluntary work that has been informed by Christian values and the development of charity law. But charitable status in the UK depends on an NGO being ‘‘non-political,’’ so that while Oxfam is allowed the formal status of a registered charity, Amnesty International is not, because its work is seen by the Charity Commission as more directly ‘‘political.’’

Nongovernmental Organisations

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

The work undertaken by NGOs is wide-ranging; their roles can be divided into three main components: implementer, catalyst, and partner. The implementer role is concerned with the mobilization of resources to provide goods and services to people who need them. This role has increased as NGOs have been increasingly ‘‘contracted’’ by governments and donors with governance reform and privatization policies to carry out specific tasks in return for payment; it has also become more prominent as NGOs are increasingly responding to man-made emergencies or natural disasters with humanitarian assistance. The catalyst role can be defined as an NGO’s ability to inspire, facilitate or contribute to improved thinking and action to promote social transformation. This effort may be directed towards individuals or groups in local communities, or among other actors in development such as government, business or donors.

Nongovernmental OrganisationsNGOs defy generalisation. They range from small informal groups to large formal agencies. As a result, ‘‘NGO’’ as an analytical category remains complex and unclear. For example, despite the fact that NGOs are neither run by government, nor driven by the profit motive, there are nevertheless some NGOs that receive high levels of government funding, and others that seek to generate profits to plough back into their work. In relation to structure, NGOs may be large or small, formal or informal, bureaucratic or flexible. In terms of funding, many are externally-funded, while others depend on locally mobilized resources. While there are many NGOs which receive funds from and form a part of the ‘‘development industry’’ (which consists of the world of bilateral and multilateral aid donors, the United Nations system and the Bretton Woods institutions), there are also NGOs which choose to work outside the world of aid as far as possible. One basic distinction common in the literature is that between ‘‘Northern NGO’’ (NNGO) which refers to organizations whose origins lie in the industrialized countries, while ‘‘Southern NGO’’ (SNGO) refers to organizations from the less developed areas of the world.

Nongovernmental OrganisationsA key distinction is between membership forms of NGO, such as community-based organizations or people’s organizations, and intermediary forms of NGO that work from outside with communities, sometimes termed grassroots support organizations (GSOs). There are also numerous examples of bogus NGOs, such as those established as fronts by government (GONGOs – government-organized NGOs) or ‘‘briefcase’’ NGOs set up by individuals for purely personal gain. Some NGOs are well-resourced and affluent, while others lead a fragile ‘‘hand to mouth’’ existence, struggling to survive from 1 year to the next. There are NGOs with highly professionalized staff, while others rely heavily on volunteers and supporters. NGOs are driven by a range of motivations and values. There are both secular and ‘‘faith-based’’ organizations. Some NGOs may be charitable and paternalistic, while others seek to pursue radical or ‘‘empowerment’’-based approaches.

Nongovernmental Organisations- Some NGOs aim to meet only people’s immediate needs, while others take a longer-term view and seek to develop alternative ideas and approaches to problems. Morris-Suzuki notes that ‘‘NGOs may pursue change, but they can equally work to maintain existing social and political systems.’’ For example, for radicals who seek to explore alternative visions of development and change, NGOs may be seen as progressive vehicles for change or conservative market-based solutions to policy problems. - A usefully concise definition of NGOs by Vakil (who draws on elements of the structural-operational definition set out above), states that NGOs are ‘‘self-governing, private, not-for-profit organizations that are geared to improving the quality of life for disadvantaged people.’’ One can therefore contrast NGOs with other types of ‘‘third sector’’ groups such as trade unions, organizations concerned with arts or sport, and professional associations.

III. Foundations

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

- The cultural phenomenon of foundations can be traced back in human history as far as to pre-societal primate communities. With that said, neither the act of giving nor an endeavour to be remembered necessarily leads to a foundation nor does a foundation necessarily include such reasonings, however these seem to be the pervasive instincts of most foundations and are thus key for their understanding. - In modern organizational theory, foundations are classified as one of essentially two basic forms within civil society. While the majority of civil society organizations are associational in that members constitute the core structure (universitas personarum), a minority is defined by the will of its founder(s) and the assets the organization is entrusted with (universitas bonorum).

Foundations

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

- The cultural phenomenon of foundations can be traced back in human history as far as to pre-societal primate communities. With that said, neither the act of giving nor an endeavour to be remembered necessarily leads to a foundation nor does a foundation necessarily include such reasonings, however these seem to be the pervasive instincts of most foundations and are thus key for their understanding. - In modern organizational theory, foundations are classified as one of essentially two basic forms within civil society. While the majority of civil society organizations are associational in that members constitute the core structure (universitas personarum), a minority is defined by the will of its founder(s) and the assets the organization is entrusted with (universitas bonorum).

Foundations- Societal theory on occasion has had severe doubts as to whether the rule of the dead over the living as implied by the binding will of the founder is compatible with democracy and the rule of law (e.g., Kant), and governments have feared the alternative source of power vested in an institution equipped with considerable assets. Legislative action (viz. the US Tax Reform Act 1969) has aimed at curbing the power of foundations.- Foundations may pursue their goals by four distinct, albeit frequently overlapping functions: (a) Ownership (e.g., preserving a church building as a church in perpetuity) (b) Operational (managing an institution or operating projects) (c) Grant-making (to a prescribed beneficiary or by a selective mechanism) (d) Individual aid (e.g., to individuals in need).

FoundationsThe matter is complicated by the fact that in most languages, both the act of giving, if intended as a longterm investment, on one hand, and the institution as such, on the other hand, are termed a foundation (fondation/ fondazione/Stiftung, etc.), thus blurring the issue whether the term applies to a process or an institution. This is clearer when applying the word Trust, traditionally used in English law in describing the legal status. The concept of foundations shares some commonalities with the concept of philanthropy. But they are not synonyms, foundations being a wider organizational form, while philanthropy includes a wider view of giving, most especially giving of time, which foundations do not. In defining a foundation, three distinct concepts of human planning need to be analyzed: (a) the concept of giving, (b) the concept of memory, (c) the concept of binding an institution to the will of its founder.

Foundations- Despite the known existence of other models in the literature, the model of the foundation created by the will of a wealthy, philanthropically minded individual became the dominating definition in the public arena.

- In modern civil society, given the notion developed over the past 20 years, foundations have acquired a position as one expression of self-determined engagement for public benefit. not all foundations are by this definition part of civil society, belonging instead to the government or private sphere. At the beginning of the 21st century, foundations are more popular with the citizenry and their political leaders worldwide than they have been for a long while.

IV. Cooperatives

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

- Cooperatives have evolved significantly over the last 200 years. Despite becoming increasingly important to economies of a plethora of levels of socioeconomic development, they remain peripheral to contemporary scholarly analyses. This is largely due to the perception of cooperatives as inefficient and relatively ineffective organizational types whose presence is typically transient and of some importance in times of crises and to marginal socioeconomic participants. - In general, a cooperative comprises a voluntary network of individuals who own or control a business that distributes benefits on the basis of use or ownership where ownership is largely weighted equally across individual members. Members control the cooperative on the basis of one member, one vote, with a guaranteed platform to exercise voice.

Cooperatives

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

There are various types of cooperatives, most notably: Workers’ cooperative Consumer cooperative Credit union Supply and purchasing cooperative Marketing cooperative New generation cooperative Multi-stakeholder cooperative Social cooperative

V. Mutual Organisations/Mutual Societies

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

- According to a very broad definition of the European Commission in 2003, mutual organizations/societies ‘‘are voluntary groups of persons (natural or legal) whose purpose is primarily to meet the needs of their members rather than achieve a return on investment.’’ This broad definition includes self-help groups, friendly societies, cooperatives, mutual insurance companies, mutual benefit societies, credit unions, building societies, savings and loans associations, micro-credit, burial associations, Freemasons, etc. This definition presumes the following principles about the structure of mutual organisations/societies: ● Absence of shares● Free membership● Solidarity among members● Democratic governance● Independence ● Limited profit sharing

Mutual Organisations/Mutual Societies

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

The core organizations examined here will be mutual insurance companies and mutual benefit societies. In that sense, mutual societies are insurance companies run by their members for protecting them against property, personal, and social risks on a voluntary and non-compulsory basis. Mutual insurance companies deal with property and life risks, while mutual benefit societies protect their members against social risks such as illness, disability, and old age mainly. - As operating on the same markets as corporations, mutual societies are facing a global competition challenging their historical values. As forerunners or complements to the social security schemes, they have to find innovating responses to new social needs and to the crisis of the welfare state.

Mutual Organisations/Mutual SocietiesMutual societies are prototypes of social enterprises, an emerging form of enterprise. In postindustrial societies, personal services, difficult to standardize, offering a wide range of quality and asymmetric information are able to be provided by mutual as well as nonprofit organizations. A democratic management fits the well-educated youth who dislikes the authoritarianism of standard firms and advocates the social responsibility of enterprise. A mutual form fits also high-technology services at least at their very beginning, when partners are supposed equal: the wiki movement for example shows it. A mutual could also run pension funds with a better financial solidity and a more ethical choice of investments than for-profit pension funds. So in the future, preindustrial forms of mutuals in developing countries could coexist with postindustrial forms, well adapted to the knowledge economy.

VI. Clubs and Clans

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

- Clubs and clans are common forms of associational life globally and are significant components of civil society but in academic and popular usage, both concepts suffer from a lack of conceptual clarity in their definition and measurement. Clubs and clans each represent a distinct form of collective action, varying in their structure, membership attributes, and goals. These different features may affect the impact of each form of association on civic engagement and civil society. - The term ‘‘clan,’’ is also used in different ways by different disciplines, but these definitions share a common core. Clans are networks of individuals who typically know each other personally and transact face-to-face.

Clubs and Clans

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

Kinship-based clans are closed, nonvoluntary systems in which individuals are linked by ties based on ascriptive characteristics (such as ethnicity, religion, or caste) that are relatively immutable, at least in the short-run. By this definition, clans are not voluntary organizations, since an individual cannot choose which clan to join. As Collins points out, a clan is both an organization and an identity.Alexis de Tocqueville emphasized how face to- face interactions in civic associations undergirded American democracy in the mid-nineteenth century. Tocqueville argued that participation pulled people away from the closed, binding ties of family and kinship and encouraged them to develop habits of association and to work for the common good. Since then a number of ‘‘neo-Tocquevillians’’ have proposed a number of pathways through which associational life contributes to civil society and several characteristics of associational form and purpose that may matter for these contributions.

Clubs and Clans

Dr Agon Demjaha2012

- Finally, association goals matter because associational life has a dark side and social capital can easily be ‘‘unsocial’’ in nature. Members of the Aryan Brotherhood or the Ku Klux Klan all attend meetings, elect officers, and make decisions democratically within the group, but without the external pursuit of democratic ends. Thus associational life can act to defend the status quo against demands for greater civic engagement or to undermine civil society through the pursuit of narrow group goals. - Clubs and clans are forms of association in constant flux. Since the mid-nineteenth century, voluntary clubs in the United States have reinvented themselves numerous times and proliferated in many countries around the world. In the new century, new forms of cyber-connection may replace older face-to-face forms of association, but with as yet unknown impact.