The Civil Society in Eastern Europe

1
The Civil Society in Eastern Europe

• Constanze Braun Eva Gottschalk
  Christian Motz

2
Overview

• Research topic
• What is Civil Society?
• Relevance of topic
• Reasoning for case selection
• Civil Society in Poland, Hungary and Romania
• Theories of Civil Society
• Discussion

3
Research topic

• Which factors influence the development of Civil
  Society in Eastern Europe?
• Main source publications of The Johns Hopkins
  Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project.

4
What we are going to do

• We will analyze the political, economic, legal
  and cultural/historical contexts of 3 CEE
  countries (Poland, Hungary, Romania).
• By using a comparative approach we will try to
  identify common factors that might influence the
  development of Civil Society.

5
Definition of Civil Society

• The independent self-organization of society,
  the constituent parts of which voluntarily engage
  in public activity to pursue individual, group,
  or national interests within the context of a
  legally defined state-society relationship.
• (Weigle and Butterfield, 1993)

6
Structural-operational Definition (Potucek,
according to Salamon, 1999)

• - Institutionalized to some extent (formal)
• - Institutionally separate from government
  (private)
• - Not dedicated to generating profits for their
  owners (non-profit-distributing)
• - Equipped to control their own activities
• (self-governing)
• - Involving a meaningful level of voluntary
  participation, either in conducting the agencys
  activities or in managing its affairs (voluntary)

7
Relevance of Civil Society in the EU-context

• gt the Political Criteria of Copenhagen (1993)
  for joining the EU
• stability of institutions guaranteeing
  democracy, the rule of law, human rights and
  respectfor and protection of minorities.
• Democracy shall not be prescribed but
  understand as an organic process that takes place
  in public and a pluralistic forming of opinion
  enables and supports. (Conze, 1972)

8
Reasoning for case selection

• Poland, Hungary and Romania
• gt All 3 countries experienced a communist regime
  but have different historical roots of Civil
  Society

9
Polish CS before 1989

• Civic efforts have a long standing tradition in
  polish society
• -Occidental Christianity secular
  philantrophic traditions (Charitable
  brotherhoods) in the Middleage.
• Loss of sovernigty as a big influence on Polish
  CS
• 1795-1918 occupated by Preussen, Austria and
  Russia.
• 1918-1939 Independent Polish Republic.
• 1939-1945 occupated by the Nazi-Regime.
• 1945-1989 under Communist control.
• gtgtgt CS church, unions, army etc.
• gtgtgt Values patriotism, social justice,
  freedom and religiousness.

10

• Important influences on CS in late 70ies and
  beginning of the 80ies
• Czeslaw Milosz noble price in literature in
  1980.
• John Paul II election in 1978 visited Poland in
  1979.
• Lech Walesa Chairman of the trade union
  Solidarity founded 1980 and 10 million memebers
  in 1981.

11
Polish CS after 1989

• Nowadays the CS and its values is still existing
  (98.000 paid workers in NGOs in 1997) but
  sometimes there are difficulties in strengthen
  the importance of NGOs in a democracy.

12
Hungarian CSbefore 1989

• CS tradition reaches back to 13th c.
• Associations as vehicle for independence from
  Austria. Aristocracy tried to hold them down.
• Almost all associations were abolished after the
  failed revolution in 1848/49? until 1867 age of
  despotism and absolutism
• 19th c. cooperation with the government
• 1932 14365 voluntary associations with nearly 3
  million members (of 8.7 million people).

13
Hungarian CSbefore 1989

• Sharp cut by WWII communist rule foundations
  were liquidated, voluntary associations banned in
  1950s or moved under government control? social
  organizations
• 1956 revolution Atmosphere of distrust,
  prosecution of voluntary groups but no banning.
• Hungary under Kádár "the happiest barrack
  Gulash communism,adaptation through
  opposition
• Communist Party not much repulsion from
  society, had a reformist camp
• 60/70s control was loosened but legal
  regulations became more strict.
• Democratization through economic reform,
  non-confrontational

14
Hungarian CS after 1989

• Significant growth of the NGO sector, significant
  economic force
• Difficult role for social organizations, because
  they were blamed for their past
• Culture and recreation organizations dominate the
  nonprofit scene in Hungary
• 1990 Highly favorable conditions, 1995 no
  comprehensive legal and economic framework, 2002
  implementation of a comprehensive strategy
  towards development of NGO sector
• Trends decline in recreation, culture and
  social services, strong trend of growth in
  education, philantropic intermediaries, health,
  community development and housing. Also stronger
  diversification. Public sector payments are
  increasing.

15
Rumanian CS before 1989

• Democratic period
• Law of 1923 Freedom of association
• Growth of associations
• Much smaller CS than other CEE countries due to
• political instability and late unification
• Orthodox Church
• extreme economic and political suppression

16
Communism and the dictatorship of Nicolae
Ceausescu (1965-1989)

• Liquidation of all NGOs that were founded in the
  democratic period
• Some associations for labor and science and the
  Red Cross survived -gt gave up autonomy, strictly
  controlled
• Compulsory membership in the communist party and
  communist association for labor and associations
  for teenagers gt served for legitimation
• In the 70ies strict administrative controls and
  liquidation of the first freely founded trade
  union
• gt until 1989 there was no chance to establish
  structures of CS. Lack of history of resistance
  .

17
Trends of the CSafter 1989

• CS reemerged, but remained hampered economically
  by a lack of domestic recourses and an outdated
  and insufficient legal framework
• Culture and Recreation are the fields that
  clearly dominate the nonprofit scene in Romania
• Half of nonprofit income comes from foreign
  resources
• By end of 1996 about 12000 NGOs (37,000 full-time
  paid workers)
• BUT smallest Non-Profit-Sector of all CEE
  countries
• gtStruggling to meet the overwhelming
  humanitarian cultural, environmental and
  developmental needs of Romanian society without
  yet having a firm domestic support structure in
  place.

18
Market / Government Failure Theory

• If market and government fail in providing
  public goods the role of the Non-Profit-Sector
  increases.
• (e.g. Weisbrod, 1977)

19
Supply-Side Theory

• Constructed on the basis of the Market/Government
  Failure Theory
• The greater the level of religious competition
  (e.g. clergy as a social entrepreneur) the
  larger the nonprofit sector.
• (e.g. James, 1987)

20
Trust Theories

• Because of the "nondistribution constraint,"
  nonprofit organizations may be more trustworthy,
  and more likely to serve client needs, since they
  are not in a field just for the profits.
• The higher the level of trust in business in a
  society, the smaller the nonprofit sector.
• (e.g. Hansmann, 1987)

21
Welfare State Theory

• Traditional welfare state theory leads us to
  expect that the greater level of economic
  development, the more extensive the state
  provision of social welfare services and the
  more extensive the state provision of social
  welfare services, the smaller the nonprofit
  sector.
• The higher the level of income per capita, the
  smaller the nonprofit sector in a country.
• (e.g. Flora and Alber, 1981)

22
Interdependence Theory

• Potential interdependence and partnership of
  government and Non-Profit-Sector. Government as a
  potential source of financial, and not just
  political, support.
• The greater the government social welfare
  spending the larger the nonprofit sector.
• (e.g. Salamon, 1987)

23
Social Origins Theory

• Central to this line of thinking is the notion
  that complex social phenomena like the emergence
  of the "welfare state" or "democracy" cannot
  easily be understood as the product of the
  unilinear extension of a
• single factor, such as industrialization or
  working class movements. Rather, much more
  complex inter-relationships among social classes
  and social institutions are involved.

24

• The relationship between government social
  welfare spending and the scale of the nonprofit
  sector is affected by the type of nonprofit
  regime that exists.
• (e.g. Esping-Andersen, 1990)

25
Discussion

• Which theory does best account for the
  development of the Civil Sector in CEE?
• Which are crucial factors that influence Civil
  Society?