242

C

Civil Society and Social Capital in China

Kamp, M. (1994). Between women and the state: Mahalla committees and social welfare in Uzbekistan. In P. J. Luong (Ed.), The transformation of Central Asia: States and societies from soviet rule to independence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2006). Competitive Authoritarianism: The origins and evolution of hybrid regimes after the cold war. Toronto/Canada: Manuscript. Marden, S. (1995). Islam and civil society. In J. A. Hall (Ed.), Civil society: Theory, history, comparison. Cambridge: Polity Press. McFaul, M. (2005, July). Transitions from postcommunism. Journal of Democracy, 16(3), 5–19. Megoran, N. (2005, March). Preventing conflict by building civil society: Post-development theory and a Central Asia-UK policy success story. Central Asian Survey, 24(1), 83–96. Pottenger, J. R. (2004, March). Civil society, religious freedoms and Islam Karimov: Uzbekistan’s struggle for a decent society. Central Asian Survey, 23(1), 55–77. Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. Roy, O. (1997). The new Central Asia: The creation of nations. New York: New York University. Roy, O. (2005). The predicament of ‘civil society’ in Central Asia and the ‘Greater Middle East. International Affairs, 81(5), 1001. Ruffin, M. H., & Waugh, D. (Ed.) (1999). Civil society in Central Asia. Seattle/London: University of Washington Press. Sajoo, A. (Ed.) (2002). Civil society in the Muslim world: Contemporary perspectives. London: I.B. Tauris. Shagdar, B. (2006). Human capital in Central Asia: Trends and challenges in education. Central Asian Survey, 25(4), 515–532. Stevens, D. (2005, September 28). Whither civil society in Central Asia? Open Society Institute Audio Recording. New York: OSI. Tismaneanu, V. (1995). Political culture and civil society in Russia and the new states of Eurasia (Vol. 7). The International Politics of Eurasia Seminar. Armonk, NJ/London: ME Sharpe. Uhlin, A. (2006). Post soviet civil society. London/New York: Routledge. Weinthal, E. (2000). Central Asia: Aral sea problem. Foreign Policy in Focus, 5(6). Woolcock, M. (1998, April). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27(2), 151–208.

Civil Society and Social Capital in China KIN-MAN CHAN The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Introduction The concept of civil society is somewhat foreign to most Chinese people, although a relatively autonomous societal space, minjian shehui, existed in traditional China until the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. During Mao’s rule, independent social groups were either banned or absorbed into the party-state structure.

The idea of civil society was introduced into China after the launch of reforms in the late 1970s, as the Chinese state gradually withdrew from the economic and social arenas. There has been phenomenal growth in the number of civic groups in China, especially business, professional, and academic associations, although Unger and Chan (1995) query whether these groups constitute a system of corporatism rather than civil society. Recent studies of grassroots nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), however, reveal that many of these groups are devoted to providing services to the underprivileged, poverty alleviation, rural education, public health, and environmental protection. They are relatively autonomous and are paving the way toward civil society (Chan, 2005; Chan et al, 2005; Ma, 2006). Social capital is understood as the resources embedded in social networks, and the Chinese are famous for making use of guanxi, or instrumental-personal ties (Walder, 1986), to acquire the resources that they need. This article, however, investigates whether civic groups, rather than personal networks, can create social capital in China. It discusses whether vertical networks hamper the development of horizontal networks, and whether civic groups can provide an institutional basis for social integration in China.

Civil Society Civil society is often defined as a societal structure composed of autonomous civic organizations located between the state and the family (Frentzel-Zagorska, 1990; Cohen & Arato, 1995). This concept of civil society is rooted in a liberal tradition that pits society against the state. Huang (1993) argues that in traditional Chinese society, the public arena was understood as the ‘‘third realm’’ where state and social groups such as kinship organizations met and cooperated, and hence should not be mistaken for civil society, or the public sphere, in the Western sense of these terms. The idea of civil society was not directly transplanted into Chinese soil, given the notion’s cultural and political baggage. Chinese scholars are exceedingly cautious about constructing a discourse of civil society. According to Ma (1994), the first Chinese publication related to the subject appeared in 1986 with an article by Shen Yue, who unearthed the concept of ‘‘townspeople’s rights’’ (shimin quanli) from the classical writings of Marx (Shen, 1986). The term refers to the right of equal exchange of commodities that is available to all townspeople, both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. It had been mistranslated as ‘‘bourgeois rights’’ (zichangjieji quanli) in Chinese, and these rights were thus regarded as a kind of improper

Civil Society and Social Capital in China

privilege. Shen (1990) also argues that the term used by Marx and Engels, ‘‘burgerliche Gesellschaft,’’ had been mistranslated as ‘‘bourgeois society’’ (zichanjieji shehui). The correct translation, according to Shen, should be ‘‘townspeople’s society’’ (shimin shehui), which implies the universality of civil rights for different classes and is a concept that is remarkably similar to the idea of civil society. Fully aware of the political effect of the translation of the term ‘‘civil society,’’ Deng (Deng & Jing, 1992), one of the foremost thinkers on this subject, also adopts the term ‘‘townspeople’s society’’ (shimin shehui) in advocating for the construction of civil society in China. Ma (1994) argues that the concept and theory of civil society borrowed by most Chinese scholars in this period focus on the making of a modern citizenry that consists of law-abiding and civil members of society, and that the existence of this entity does not exclude the active involvement of the state. Since the 1990s, however, the translation of the term ‘‘civic groups’’ has evolved, from ‘‘social organizations’’ (shehui tuanti) and ‘‘intermediate organizations’’ (zhongjian tuanti) (Wang et al., 1993) to ‘‘people’s organizations’’ (minjian zuzhi). In 1995, many Chinese learned for the first time the term ‘‘non-governmental organization’’ (NGO) because of the prominent presence of NGOs at the Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing. The first research institute in China in this field, the NGO Research Center of Tsinghua University, was established in 1998. However, Peking University was the pioneer in using the term ‘‘civil society’’ (gongmin shehui) in setting up a similar institute, the Center for Civil Society Studies, in 2005. In 2006, the Institute for Civil Society was established at Sun Yat-sen University, signifying the growing acceptance of the idea of civil society in the Chinese academic world. Civil society has acquired a wide range of meanings in China. In the broader sense, it can mean a society constituted by people in their role as citizens. This notion of civil society, or ‘‘civilized society,’’ emphasizes the citizenry and civic virtue of people, and is appealing to Chinese because in the past, they were defined as ‘‘people’’ (renmin) in the political sense while without due legal protection of their rights. The Cultural Revolution further demoralized a generation of Chinese who had once been committed to ‘‘serve the people’’ but was finally traumatized by a series of political struggles. The idea of citizenship speaks to many Chinese who now demand proper protection of civil rights and value the genuine expression of social obligations, such as volunteering. Scholars usually use a more narrow definition of civil society, referring to an autonomous social structure composed of NGOs or

C

non-profit organizations (NPOs) that not only provide services but also promote participation and social change. However, as the establishment of an NGO is still under stringent state control in China, informal networks and cyberspace are seen as alternative structures through which civic action can take place.

Social Capital The idea of social capital has begun to take root in China although Chinese have a long tradition of cultivating social relationships. The concept of social capital was introduced by Bourdieu (1977), who defines it as ‘‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.’’ Coleman (1990) defines social capital as a productive structure of social relationships. The concept calls for analysis at the individual and the collective level. Scholars investigating the individual level of social capital such as Lin (1999) and Burt (1992), focus on the social resources that one can assess in social networks and the instrumental utility of such resources (Lin, 1999). In contrast, those examining the collective level of social capital focus on how groups or associations develop and maintain social capital in terms of trust and norms of reciprocity. According to Putnam, social capital of this kind is crucial for maintaining effective democracy and capitalism (Putnam, 1993). The importance of social capital was recognized in China before the concept gained popularity in the West. However, the emphasis has mainly been on the individual rather than the collective aspect of social capital. Guanxi or instrumental-personal ties (Walder, 1986) is perceived to be important in Chinese society in terms of the social resources within social networks that one can access and utilize. Little attention has been paid to social capital at the collective level until recently. The influence of participation in social groups on the overall social and economic development in China is unclear as yet.

Empirical Data A special issue of Modern China (April, 1993) was devoted to a debate on whether civil society existed in traditional China. It was agreed that a relatively autonomous social sphere existed in the past because of the limited capacity of the state to penetrate into the vastness of rural China. Huang (1993), however, argues that this ‘‘third realm’’ should not be seen as a liberal sphere aiming at taming state power. Madsen (2002) argues that even the word ‘‘society’’ was transplanted from the West into China through Japan in the nineteenth century. Madsen (1986)

243

C

244

C

Civil Society and Social Capital in China

found that by translating a public domain such as a village into a private domain, that is, family, traditional society could motivate people to contribute to the public good through Confucian (family) ethics. However, a number of studies show that a nascent civil society emerged in the late Qing and early Republican periods, that is, during the late nineteenth and the early twentieth century (Rankin, 1986; Strand, 1989). Chambers of Commerce, guilds, kinship organizations, charity groups, and intellectual associations were established for fostering not only economic and cultural activities but also social and political participation. Intellectual salons, teahouses, and temples became part of a public sphere in which people could discuss public matters. This surge in associations and the development of a public sphere was partly due to rapid commercialization and the rise of urban centers in this period. It was also caused by the waning of the imperial state, which led to a relaxation of political control and an increasing need for local self-governance (White et al., 1996). These associations continued to participate in social and political affairs in the Republican period, but after the Nationalist government was set up in Nanjing in 1927, the party changed its strategy. It no longer sought to develop strong civic associations (to support its bid for national power) but rather to consolidate its rule by empowering the state through a combination of repression and incorporation. Radical organizations suspected of having a Communist background were suppressed or disbanded. After the Chinese Communist Party took power in 1949, associational life was further curtailed as spontaneous social forces were seen as a threat to the new regime. Society was organized by the party-state based on a principle of vertical rule. People were incorporated into hierarchically organized institutional systems through danwei (work units). The horizontal links of individuals and organizations across these danwei were restricted, and people’s lives were encapsulated within these systems. During this period, civic organizations were either banned or incorporated into official organizations such as the Women’s Federation and Federation of Industry and Commerce. The reforms that began in the late 1970s have brought dramatic changes to China. The gradual withdrawal of the Chinese state from the economic sector has resulted in the development of a strong market economy over the past 3 decades, but the promotion of ‘‘small government, big society’’ since the 1990s has yet to make a comparable impact. Immediately following the democracy movement of 1989, the Regulation on the Registration and Management of Social Organizations was enacted. After a screening period, the number of social groups was cut down to

107,304 in 1991. By 2007, however, the number had grown exponentially to 386,916, including 211,661 social organizations (shuhui tuanti or associations with membership), 173,915 ‘‘non-governmental non-enterprise danwei’’ (minban feiqiye danwei or public services agencies), and 1,340 foundations. The sector hired more than 4.5 million people (official website of the Ministry of Civil Affairs: www.chinanpo.gov.cn). Impressive as these numbers may appear, these are mainly organizations established under state policy guidance. In 2005, according to official statistics, 32% of social organizations were business organizations, such as trade associations or guilds, 30% were professional groups, such as accountant associations, and 23% were academic associations. The rest were friendship, sport, hobby, and cultural groups. They were established to enhance market transition, provide services to the needy, and enrich people’s cultural lives. Religious, environmental, and public health groups were relatively few in number, not to mention advocacy or human rights groups. Looking at their governance structure, many of these groups were far from non-governmental. A study in the late 1990s in Guangzhou found that in only 20% of these groups was the board of directors made up of everyday citizens. The board of directors of the majority was partly or completely made up of officials (Chan, 2005). Hence, most of these social organizations are called GONGOs (government-organized nongovernment organizations) in China. Scholars such as Unger and Chan (1995) argue that these groups constitute a system of corporatism – interest representation in which a limited number of constituent units are created and recognized by the state as monopolizing representatives of respective sectors. In the past decade, however, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of civic groups outside the state registration system. Community-based groups, such as book discussion clubs, choral societies, hiking clubs, amateur sports clubs, literary circles, religious groups, hobby groups, elderly associations, friendship groups, student associations, patient groups, and the like, flourish in every corner of Chinese society. Wang and He (2004) estimate that these civic groups may number as many as 30,000–50,000 nationwide (2004). Unable to fulfill the legal requirements for registration, many of these groups are forced to operate without legal protection. Some, however, have chosen to become ‘‘patronized groups’’ (guakao organizations) or to register as commercial entities to acquire quasi-legal status to continue their operations (Chan, 2005; Chan et al., 2005). Patronized groups are groups that are sheltered by government units, state or private enterprises, mass organizations, or registered

Civil Society and Social Capital in China

social organizations. For example, universities shelter numerous volunteer organizations. Many groups exist as virtual organizations by setting up websites and communicating through email and discussion forums. The extensive use of the Internet not only cuts organizational costs but is also a way to avoid political risk. However, groups providing services in the community need to avoid bringing trouble on local governments by operating in the ‘‘safe zone’’ on projects such as poverty alleviation, gender issues, and education. When working in sensitive areas such as labor, NGOs need to be careful not to overstep the tacit boundaries (e.g., not try to organize trade unions) that have been laid down by the government. As concluded in the Civicus Civil Society Index Report (NGO Research Center of Tsinghua University, 2006), a nascent civil society has developed in China. The environment for this development is not particularly friendly given the legal and political restrictions. The structure of this civil society is rather fragile given the limited participation of citizens (37% of the population are members of at least one civic group; 57% of the population are volunteers in loose sense, meaning giving hand to others without pay) and lack of sustainable resources. Chinese civil society, however, exhibits a good degree of commitment to universal values such as equity, non-violence, and tolerance. It has also had a remarkable impact on poverty eradication and environmental causes. Can the civic groups discussed above create social capital in China? In fact, quite a number of studies have investigated the individual level of social capital in China, and most of them relate social networks with social mobility and social stratification (Lin, 1999; Bian, 1997). Of those examining the collective level, Chan and Qiu (1999) are among the first to apply Putnam’s theory to the context of China. Their study shows that many registered social organizations lack autonomy and demonstrate over-reliance on government. The vertical control of government over associations has also hindered them from developing horizontal connections with peer associations, and such connections are regarded as a key component to fostering trust and norms of reciprocity within a society. This finding, however, is far from conclusive. Wang and He (2004) argue that associations with good connections with the state may be more resourceful and still capable of producing social capital. Another important study is that of Tsai (2007), which addresses the question of how social capital can have an impact on governmental performance in countries such as China where strong democratic and bureaucratic institutions are absent. Her research in rural China reveals that Chinese officials still organize and provide public goods

C

when there are local encompassing and embedding solidary groups. Solidary groups refer to groups based on shared moral obligations and shared interests; an encompassing structure means that the group is open to everyone under the local government’s jurisdiction; and an embedding structure means that the group has local officials as members. The magic of solidary groups, such as temples and lineage groups, lies in the informal rules and norms embedded in the groups that can award local officials moral standing if they provide public goods. Because of solidary groups, local officials have stronger incentives to provide public goods. Thus, Tsai’s (2007) research demonstrates the importance of social capital in holding local governments responsible, even when the general accountability of formal institutions is absent. Other research attempts to study the relationship between social capital and political participation. Sun et al. (2007) find that only political trust (perception of local government) has a significant impact on participation in elections, and that social capital (people’s participation in informal organizations and interpersonal relationships among village people) does not have a significant influence on political participation. Hu (2006) also finds that the correlation between social trust and political participation is insignificant but that participation in societal organizations and a sense of belonging to the local community do have a significant impact on people’s participation in village elections. In sum, community embedded with strong social capital is found to be able to exert an influence on local governance but not necessarily in the form of formal political participation such as voting in elections.

Outlook/Concluding Assessment In the 2006 Civicus Civil Society Index Report for China, China received a score of 1 for civil society structure and 1.2 for the environment (out of 3). The value dimension received a score of 1.8 and the impact of Chinese civil society, 1.6. The overall level of development was low, and China’s environment was deemed unfriendly and its structure fragile. Among the many civil society issues that China faces, two are particularly pressing. 1. Resources. At present, China has no statistics of the total amount of donation citizens contributed while it is clear that many NGOs complain that they lack resources. Civic groups relying on state resources face the problem of maintaining autonomy, whereas NGOs receiving funds from foreign foundations shoulder political risk. Many grassroots NGOs are unable to solicit resources or obtain funding from either source, which greatly constrains their development. The difficulty of developing

245

C

246

C

Civil Society and Social Capital in China

philanthropy in China has to do with the problem of trust. Hsu (2008) argues that China has no history of organizations such as Western donation-style charities. How one can trust strangers (general trust) beyond the circle of familiar people (specific trust) is a cultural or social capital issue that needs to be addressed in China, especially as rampant corruption in the government and its affiliated structures means that people are naturally suspicious of where their donations to official charity organizations will go. Project Hope, a charitable organization that supports rural education, was the pioneer in breaking through these cultural and institutional barriers to soliciting donations from the public. In the past two years, NGOs and foundations established by successful entrepreneurs, including SEE (Society Entrepreneur Ecology), the Narada Foundation, and the China Social Entrepreneur Foundation, have not only made significant contributions to environmental protection, education, and poverty eradication but also become important local funding sources for many grassroots NGOs. Another important advance in the development of local philanthropy is the case of Jet Li’s One Foundation, which was established with the support of the Red Cross Society of China, a major relief GONGO. Because of this connection, the Foundation is allowed to independently solicit donations from the public. It not only devotes its resources to disaster relief but also aids in building a stronger charity sector by funding exemplary NGOs. To better mobilize local resources to support civil society, China desperately needs to relax the legal and administrative controls over foreign and local foundations related to the raising of funds from the public. Improving the governance of NGOs, such as their transparency, and their capacity in service provision are equally important in gaining people’s trust in this sector. 2. Political control. The Regulation on the Registration and Management of Social Organizations that was promulgated in 1989 and amended in 1998 stipulates that only one association of the same kind is allowed to register within an administrative region, which has resulted in the creation of a monopoly by some GONGOs in their respective areas. In addition, the Regulation stipulates the practice of ‘‘dual supervision’’ over civic groups. Each organization needs to find a related state unit (government department or official social organization) to be its ‘‘business supervisory unit’’ (yewu zhuguan danwei), and must register with civil affairs departments at different levels. These supervisory units have political responsibility for inspecting

the activities and finances of civic groups, and thus government units have little incentive to sponsor such applications except when there are material interests or personal connections involved. This is the most common reason that NGOs fail to register with the authorities. The Regulation also stipulates the number of members, the amount of funding, and the availability of premises as conditions for registration, which have become registration hurdles for many grassroots NGOs. The main reason for setting up such stringent laws is political in nature. The Chinese state is ambivalent toward the rise of civil society. On the one hand, the state needs the third sector to supplement the provision of public services. On the other hand, it is worried that civil society may turn into an independent political force that threatens communist rule. The state established a system of state corporatism with GONGOs as monopoly representatives of societal interests but has realized that a nascent civil society has emerged. In the near future, the Chinese government will be reforming the registration system to allow more community-based NGOs to acquire semi-legal status through connecting with local state structures. The development of service-oriented NGOs will be encouraged through state financial support in the form of purchasing services from NGOs, as has already happened in Shenzhen and Shanghai. However, advocacy groups and NGOs working on labor or other human rights issues, particularly those receiving foreign funding, will still be closely monitored and at times, suppressed.

Cross-References ▶ Bourdieu, Pierre ▶ CIVICUS ▶ Coleman, James Samuel ▶ Corporatism ▶ Fundraising ▶ Government-Nonprofit Sector Relations ▶ Government Organized Nongovernmental Organizations (GONGOs) ▶ Harmonious Society ▶ Law, Nonprofit Associations ▶ Putnam, Robert

References/Further Readings Bian, Y. (1997). Bringing strong ties back. In Indirect connection, bridges, and job search in China. American Sociological Review, 62(3), 36–385. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (Richard Nice Trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Civil Society and Social Capital in East Africa Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Chan, K. (2005). The development of NGOs under a post-totalitarian regime: The case of China. In R. Wellner (Ed.), Organizing between family and state: Non-governmental organizations, globalization and political change in Asia (pp. 20–41). New York: Routledge. Chan, K., & Qiu, H. (1999). She Tuan She Hui Zi Ben Yu Zheng Jing Fa Zhan (Social Organizations, Social Capital, and Political and Economic Development). She Hui Xue Yan Jiu (Sociological Research), 4, July 20, 64–74. Chan, K., Qiu, H., & Zhu, J. (2005). Chinese NGOs strive to survive. Social transformations in Chinese societies, 1, 131–159. Cohen, J. L., & Arato, A. (1995). Civil society and political theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Deng, Z., & Jing, Y. (1992). Jian Gou Zhong Guo De Shi Min She Hui (Constructing Civil Society in China). Zhong Guo She Hui Ke Xue Ji Kan (Chinese Social Science Quarterly), 4(5), 88–102. Frentzel-Zagorska, J. (1990). Civil Society in Poland and Hungary. Soviet Studies, 42(4), 759. Hsu, C. L. (2008). Rehabilitating charity in China: The case of Project Hope and the rise of non-profit organizations. Journal of Civil Society, 4(2), 81–96. Hu, R. (2006). Social capital and villagers local autonomous participation in rural China – An analysis of factors influencing villagers’ participation in village elections. Sociological Studies, 2, 61–85. Huang, P. C. C. (1993). ‘Public sphere’/‘Civil society’ in China? Modern China, 19(2), 216–240. Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467–87. Ma, Q. (2006). Non-governmental organizations in contemporary China. New York: Routledge. Ma, S-Y. (1994). The Chinese discourse on civil society. China Quarterly, 137(March), 180–193. Madsen, R. (1986). Morality and power in a Chinese village. Berkeley: University of California Press. Madsen, R. (2002). Confucian conceptions of civil society. In S. Chambers, & W. Kymlicka (Eds.), Alternative conceptions of civil society Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. NGO Research Center, Tsinghua University. (2006). CIVICUS Civil Society Index Report China (Mainland): A nascent civil society within a transforming environment. Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rankin, M. B. (1986). Elite activism and political transformation in China: Zhejiang Province, 1865–191. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Shen, Y. (1986). Zichangjieji Quanli Ying Yi Wei Shimin Quanli (Bourgeois Rights should be translated as Townspeople’s rights). Tianjin Shehui Kexue (Tianjin Social Science), 4. Shen, Y. (1990). Shimin Shehui’ Bian Xi (An examination of ‘Townspeople’s Society’). Zhexue Yanjiu (Philosophy Study), 1, 44–51. Strand, D. (1989). Rickshaw Beijing: City people and politics in the 1920s. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sun, X., Xu, Z., Tao, R., & Su, F. (2007). Impacts of political trust and social capital on villagers’ committee election participation in China. Sociological Studies, 4, 165–245. Tsai, L. L. (2007). Solidary groups, informal accountability, and local public goods provision in rural China. American Political Science Review, 101(2), 355–72.

C

Unger, J., & Chan, A. (1995). China, corporatism, and the East Asian model. The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, 33, 29–53. Walder, G. A. ( 1986). Communist neo-traditionalism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wang, S., & He, J. (2004). Associational revolution in China: Mapping the landscapes. Korea Observer, 35(3), 485–533. Wang, Y., Zhe, Y., & Sun, B. (1993). Intermediate sphere in society: Reforms and Chinese social organizations. Beijing: China Development Press (in Chinese). White, G., Howe, J., & Shang, X. (1996). In search of civil society: Market reform and social change in contemporary China. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Civil Society and Social Capital in East Africa KARUTI KANYINGA University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

Introduction In the last 2 decades, civil society everywhere has expanded at a rate that authors such as Salamon et al. (1999) have described as a ‘‘global associational revolution.’’ Growth of civil society has taken place alongside global disillusionment with state institutions as agents of change in developing countries and as agents of channeling development assistance from the North. East Africa has witnessed this ‘‘associational revolution’’: countries that comprise East Africa – Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania – have witnessed an increase in the number and activities of civil society organizations in the last 2 decades. Partly responsible for the growth of Civil Society in East Africa is also disillusionment with the failure of the state to promote development and improve democratic conditions. Starting from the 1980s, this disillusionment occasioned donors to shift their attention towards private non-state institutions as agents for promoting development and democratic governance. Civil society agencies, of which Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) were well known and most visible in the development space, evolved as most viable for complementing government development efforts and countermanding bad governance. NGOs became even more important from the early 1990s when countries in the region were experiencing social-economic difficulties brought about by adoption of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs). This resulted in reduced role of the state in the delivery of basic services. Civil society filled the gaps. Civil society in the region has been significant in another respect: facilitating expansion of the democratic space for enjoyment of rights and freedoms as well as

247

C