Response to Stephanie McNulty’s review of The State and Civil Society: Regulating Interest Groups, Parties, and Public Benefit Organizations in Contemporary Democracies

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 1145-1146
Author(s):  
Nicole Bolleyer
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
The State ◽  
Public Benefit

scholarly journals The Evolving Structure of Civil Society and the State in Pakistan

1997 ◽  
Vol 36 (4II) ◽  
pp. 743-762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Qadeer
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Special Interest ◽  
The State ◽  
Intermediate Level ◽  
Special Interest Groups ◽  
Three Phases

The 'Civil Society' is the newest factor in the development equation, and the strengthening of civil society is• the latest addition to the agenda of development. This emphasis necessitates a probe into the structure of Pakistan's civil society. The civil society in Pakistan-or anywhere else-has both the traditional and modern components. It is made up of institutions and organisations that stand between the state and the individuals as well as communities. They regulate the collective life at the intermediate level and act as mobilisers of people's opinions and actions. Pakistan's civil society is not entirely constituted by NGOs and special interest groups. It has Beradaris, bazaar associations, and NGOs. The .paper offers two conclusions: (I) Pakistans civil society has evolved through three phases .and is divided in the traditional. and modern tracks. In recent times, it has fractured along ethnic and sectarian lines and the denominational interests have come to dominate. (2) The state and the civil society evolve in tandem. Without an effective state, there can not be a strong and democratic civil society.

The Legal Regulation of Organized Civil Society

2018 ◽  
pp. 3-32
Author(s):  
Nicole Bolleyer
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Voluntary Organizations ◽  
Public Benefit ◽  
National Studies ◽  
Cross National

This introduction specifies the central questions addressed in this study—namely, what are the legal environments (as constituted by binding legal regulation) that have been created in long-lived democracies to steer the behaviour of membership-based, voluntary organizations—interest groups, parties, and public benefit organizations—that constitute organized civil society? And why do democracies adopt more or less constraining regulation in this sphere, in which state intervention is generally considered contentious? Having done so, it addresses three fundamental issues stressing the importance of these themes: first, why bother writing a book-length study on the legal regulation of voluntary organizations in particular? Second, why not focus on one particular type of organization (for example, interest groups or parties), as earlier cross-national studies have done? And, finally, what do we gain substantially and analytically by comparing the nature of legal regulation not only across a variety of countries but also across distinct organizational types and why focus on the three types of interest groups, parties, and public benefit organizations and not others?

scholarly journals The dualistic nature of lobbying in modern democracies

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 125-134
Author(s):  
P. S. Kanevskiy
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
The State ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Xxth Century ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Democratic Regimes ◽  
Political Interests

The development of lobbying in the modern world is directly related to the dynamics of democratic regimes. The interaction between interest groups and the state is inherent in the nature of constitutional democracies. However, as shown in this article, lobbying in a democracy can be viewed from two opposite perspectives — as a continuation of the spirit of democracy and the development of a dialogue between the civil society and the state and as a deviation from the principles of representative democracy. The article analyzes the categories of public and private interests and it is shown that the interpretation of the role of interest groups and lobbying in a society depends on how we understand the interest and whom we consider as carriers of political interests. It is shown how in the XXth century a classical discussion was developing around the role of interest groups in politics and that this discussion has not lost its relevance today.

The State and Civil Society

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Bolleyer
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Qualitative Comparative Analysis ◽  
State Regulation ◽  
Civil Society Organizations ◽  
Voluntary Organizations ◽  
Public Benefit ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Voluntary Membership

State regulation of civil society organizations such as interest groups, parties, and public benefit organizations is expanding yet widely contested, often portrayed as illegitimate intrusion. Despite ongoing debates about the nature of state–voluntary relations in various social science disciplines, we know surprisingly little about why long-lived democracies adopt more or less constraining legal approaches in this sphere. Drawing on insights from political science, sociology, and comparative law as well as public administration research, this book addresses this important question, conceptually, theoretically, and empirically. It addresses the conceptual and methodological challenges related to developing systematic, comparative insights into the nature of complex legal environments affecting voluntary membership organizations, by simultaneously covering a wide range of democracies and the regulation applicable to different types of voluntary organizations. Proposing the analytical tools to tackle those challenges, it studies in depth the intertwined and overlapping legal environments of political parties, interest groups, and public benefit organizations across nineteen long-lived democracies. After presenting an innovative interdisciplinary theoretical framework theorizing democratic states’ legal disposition or disinclination to regulate voluntary membership organizations in a constraining or permissive fashion, this framework is empirically tested. Applying Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), the comparative analysis identifies three main ‘paths’ accounting for the relative constraints in the legal environments democracies have created for organized civil society, defined by different configurations of political systems’ democratic history, their legal family, and voluntary sector traditions. Providing the foundation for a mixed-methods design, three ideal-typical representatives of each path—Sweden, the UK, and France—are selected for the in-depth study of these legal environments’ long-term evolution, to capture reform dynamics and their drivers that have shaped group and party regulation over many decades.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document