Citizenship and Civil Society: A Framework of Rights and Obligations in Liberal, Traditional, and Social Democratic Regimes

1999 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 456
Author(s):  
Richard Madsen ◽  
Thomas Janoski
2018 ◽  
pp. 233-251
Author(s):  
Nicole Bolleyer

In the last part of the study, ideal-typical representatives of three ‘sufficient paths’ identified by the QCA analysis were chosen for in-depth analysis. After explaining the case selection, this chapter analyses the evolution of the legal framework in Sweden representing the ‘voluntarist’ path towards a permissive environment for voluntary organizations. Despite various initiatives towards the adoption of legal regulation of voluntary organizations, reforms were usually considered not sufficiently beneficial for the organizations targeted, or legislation was considered unsuitable as an instrument to address the problem at hand, tendencies rooted in the informality of historically grown relations between the state and organizations in this social democratic voluntary sector regime. If legislation was adopted, it echoed characteristics of Scandinavian civil law by tending towards broad principles that impose few direct constraints on the organizations targeted, leaving plenty of room for interpretation, while putting an emphasis on benefit allocation.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuele Ferragina ◽  
Martin Seeleib-Kaiser ◽  
Thees Spreckelsen

After three decades of welfare state crisis, change and transformation can we still speak of welfare state regimes when looking at their outcomes? The analysis of outcomes provides a picture of ‘the real worlds of welfare’ and is of considerable importance to understanding political legitimacy across countries. We use aggregate longitudinal data for West European countries in order to map welfare outcomes and cluster countries. The cluster results are also assessed for their sensitivity to the choice of different countries, years or indicators. All European welfare states have a significant capacity for reducing poverty and inequality. However, the degree of this reduction varies considerably, especially when examining different social groups, i.e. unemployed people, children, youths or the elderly. Outcomes cluster countries largely in line with previous institutionalist literature, differentiating between conservative, liberal, Mediterranean and social-democratic regimes. As the main exception, we identify Germany, which can no longer be characterised as the proto-typical conservative welfare state. When analysing old social risks such as unemployment and old age, Europe appears to be characterised by two groups, i.e. one consisting of liberal and Mediterranean countries and a second made up of social-democratic and conservative countries. New social risks such as child and youth poverty, by contrast, replicate very closely the theoretical four-cluster typology. Our sensitivity analyses reveal that our clusters tend to be stable over time. Welfare regimes continue to serve as a useful analytical tool and relate to outcomes experienced by European citizens.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 269-297
Author(s):  
Lars Pelke

AbstractWhat effect does economic inequality in authoritarian regimes have upon the political participation of its citizens? Do individual income and repression each have a greater effect than economic inequality? Three prominent theories, namely the Conflict, Relative Power, and Resource Theories address the inequality-participation puzzle in the context of democracies. However, theoretical arguments and empirical evidence for non-democratic regimes are scarce. I argue that it is individual income and the level of repression rather than economic inequality that explain political participation in autocracies. Using three-level hierarchical models that combine micro and macro level data for 65,000 individuals covering a various set of 31 authoritarian regimes and 54 country-years, this analysis demonstrates that higher levels of economic inequality hardly suppress political participation among all citizens. However, individual income has a more powerfully effect on civil society participation, while the level of repression decreases the voting likelihood more powerful than income. These findings suggest that the Resource Theory generates the greatest empirical support for autocracies.


Author(s):  
Karl Kraus

This chapter shows that the purveyors of culture have completely adjusted to this situation. They ignore everything that does not concern them directly lest they endanger what does, helpless against what has already cost them dear in the expectation that everything will still turn out for the best. Faced by the strong-arm tactics of a coercive force that compels people to abandon their honour, no revolt seems conceivable within the restricted world of German politics, either by the nominal representatives of an imploding civil society or by a Social Democratic movement that was feeble and contemptible in its exercise of power, but every one of whose members now deserves sympathy. (Still, among the exceptions one needs to differentiate between workers who die under torture rather than pay lip service and leaders who are “fighting” after taking refuge abroad.) No protest was to be expected against the clampdown on journalistic prostitution from those engaged in it.


This chapter provides a description and critique of neoliberalism with reference to both its Chicago School and Austrian varieties. At neoliberalism’s core is the adoption of market solutions to social as well as economic problems. The Introduction outlines the growing global impact of neoliberalism as an economic, political and cultural ideology with particular reference to the United States and Britain. It then reviews alternative approaches to neoliberalism: social democratic, Marxist, and a range of policies and ideas emerging from social movement activism, including feminism and the green movement. In summary the chapter argues that neoliberalism has disrupted the trilateral balance of the state, markets and civil society and calls for a ’rebalancing’ in favour of the re-empowerment of civil society.


Journalism ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 817-834 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Ciaglia

Public service broadcasting is the terrain par excellence within today’s media systems on which political power and media logic interact and overlap. This study will argue that public service broadcasting politicization arising in certain democratic regimes cannot be effectively explained if attention is uncritically paid to the same theoretical grounds upon which media scholars rely to study the corresponding phenomenon in the West. By relying on content and legal analysis of the proceedings concerning five terrestrial channels by the Broadcasting Complaint Commission of South Africa between 1994 and 2014, and on three interviews with civil society representatives, the article will discuss the concept of entrenched politicization as a more proper analytical tool to assess subtler forms of media politicization.


2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Sidel ◽  
Ming Hu

Abstract In China, the story of Covid-19 and the relationship between government and civil society is not a sharp break from the past. China has long guided and controlled the development of civil society organizations, and that has not changed in the Covid era. Instead, the Covid era is a story of a continuation in restrictive policy, and responses to Covid have utilized those existing policies and regulatory framework rather than developing new policies for the Covid era. The Chinese story may thus somewhat different from others in this special issue. China is certainly not a story of, in the words of our issue editors, when “pluralist and social democratic visions fade.” The Chinese Party-state’s permission for the reemergence of some kinds of civil society organizations in China since the early 1980s has never been marked by pluralist and social democratic visions. Instead, it has been marked by Party and state control, and clear choices on what kinds of organizations to facilitate and which kinds to repress. That control-based framework has accelerated since the current administration came into office in 2012. Covid has neither upset that restrictive framework nor substantially altered it. Instead, the framework of differentiation and constraint employed by the Chinese state has adapted, in some ways, to the need to control Covid and to control public mobilization on it and against the Party-state. In this brief article we outline the framework of differentiation and constraint that the Chinese Party-state uses to control the Chinese nonprofit sector, and mention a few ways in which that framework has been used in the Covid era.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document