Manufacturing Civil Society

Principles, Practices and Effects

T. Brandsen, W. Trommel, B. Verschuere, T. Brandsen, W. Trommel, B. Verschuere

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137351630
• Topic: Politique et relations internationales
• Subtopic: Politique comparée

Faced with falling social cohesion governments have sought to revitalise society by trying to reconstruct local communities, civil society and citizenship. As a result, civil society is increasingly brought within the realm of public management, subject to accountability and embedded in hierarchies the impact and origins of which this book explores

1

Manufacturing Civil Society: An Introduction

Taco Brandsen, Bram Verschuere and Willem Trommel

1.1 Governments and civil societies changing

Civil society is dead; hurrah for civil society! This simple statement describes the sociopolitical debate in many modern welfare states. Traditional forms of (ideologically or religiously driven) social organisation have gradually declined. Various drivers behind this development have been identified, notably individualisation and changing life patterns, a point to which we will come back later in this chapter. But states have also arguably played a role in this. Welfare-state growth propelled an era of ‘big government’ during the 1970s and 1980s. Although the ‘crowding out’ thesis of a direct trade-off between the size of government and the size of civil society has been largely disproven (see e.g. Salamon, 1995), the collaboration between civil society and the state in the provision of social services has led many organisations to lose contact with their traditional member groups and, by implication, their original legitimacy.

And yet, at the same time, civil society looms large in the public debate. A large collection of buzzwords accompanies this resurrection of the civil society discourse: social responsibility, citizenship, big society, activation, participation, horizontalisation, to name only a few. A firm belief in civil society as a solution, as a more effective alternative to welfare state and market arrangements is feeding the current debate on how to solve pressing social problems.

Yet of course there is a paradox here. If civil society is indeed in decline, how can it be the answer to the problems of our time? How can it possibly deal with complex issues such as unemployment, social vulnerability, or social disintegration? The answer is as simple as it is puzzling: civil society should be raised back to life, revitalised, reinvented. States have started encouraging citizen participation, co-production, and self-organisation; involving civil society organisations in public service delivery; encouraging civil engagement and good behaviour in publicity campaigns. It brings states and civil society into a new kind of relationship, one of which many will be suspicious.

This grand ambition – the manufacturing of a new civil society – raises numerous issues that will be dealt with in the studies presented in this volume. Core issues concern agency (Who is actually involved in manufacturing civil society?), object (What is actually being manufactured?), and results (Is a reshaping of civil society indeed taking place and how does it work?). Closely related to these issues is the overarching question of ‘public governance’. Contemporary governments aim to shift responsibilities to civil society, yet this also seems to imply that the latter’s activities must be redirected towards the policy objectives of central government (an echo of what was happening under New Public Management). This balance between civic responsibility and governmental ‘greed’ will be a major theme in this study (Trommel, 2009).

Although of course some of the issues at stake are old and even timeless, it is important to locate our discussion on the relationship between civil society and government in the specific social context where it originated. Arguably, the discussion over the relationship between government and civil society is as old as scholarship itself and there is a high risk of overstating the similarity between present and past debates. For a start, the sharp distinction between the two concepts presupposed in our present discussion is of relatively recent origin. Traditionally, civil society and political society were regarded as more integrated. In the Aristotelian view of politics, participation in civil society inevitably meant participation in political life and the only alternative was to withdraw to a secluded existence. There was no public life separate from politics. The notion of a third domain next to state and market originated in the political philosophy of the 18th century, with an increasing emphasis on that domain’s autonomy – especially from the state (Hall & Trentmann, 2005). Also, the notion of government is now very different from how it had been perceived during most of history. It is no overstatement to say that in the past century the role of governments has changed fundamentally. Despite measures towards re-privatisation, they are still more dominant in society than they have been at any time in human history. Although past issues keep recurring, the current conditions of government and civil society relationships are quite distinct and have given rise to a new type of debate.

Roughly, there are two different developments woven together here. One is the evolution of governance paradigms from a centralist to a more pluralist approach. The other is the liquefaction of social life as described by prominent sociologists. Both developments link to various disciplinary and interdisciplinary traditions; both are more complex and contradictory than we could here do justice to by any measure. The point of this book is that they come together in a specific way, creating a new dynamic in government–civil society relations that is specific to our time. To demonstrate this, let us first give a brief overview of each of the two developments.

1.1.1 From public administration to public governance

The first development is a change in approaches to governance. In traditional bureaucratic public administration models, it is government (or the ‘public sphere’) that has a quasi-monopoly in policymaking and public service delivery. This approach to government came simultaneously with the growth of the welfare state in many countries in the post–World War II period, characterised by an explosion of government responsibilities in domains like social services, welfare, education, economic policy, and so forth. These ‘new’ governmental responsibilities also led to large governmental bureaucracies and increased public budgets.

The role of civil society in the welfare state has varied enormously. Previous research has shown that the role civil society plays in the public sphere, or the impact civil society has, differs strongly between countries (Salamon et al., 2004). In corporatist countries like Germany, the Netherlands, or Belgium, many parts of public service delivery have traditionally been entrusted to civil society. In other countries, for example in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, governmental bureacracies traditionally deliver these services, and only a ‘small’ civil society in domains like education and welfare was observed. In the United States, civil society has always been a prominent force in social service delivery, but mainly as a separate sphere, independent from government, and relying on volunteer work and private gifts. This implies that when studying civil society as political scientists or public management scholars, the path dependence of government–civil society relationships in public service delivery should be taken into account. Likewise, as we have argued above, the public administration paradigm in which the relationship between civil society and government is structured (or, in a normative sense, should be structured) should be taken into account.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the economic growth of the previous decades slowed down, and also the limits of the large and bureaucratic welfare state became apparent. An increasing number of observers and policymakers made an argument for another ‘kind of’ government that was smaller and played another societal role. This movement, under the large umbrella of New Public Management (NPM), argued for a more business like governmental machinery with the introduction of concepts such as performance management and measurement, market-type mechanisms (competition), and outsourcing. It should not surprise that this movement also affected many quasi-governmental organisations, like the private non-profit organizations (NPOs) that deliver public services. More and more, these NPOs were expected to prove performance – efficiency, effectiveness, quality – in return for the governmental subsidies they were working with. In the heartland of NPM – the Anglo-Saxon world – many NPOs that previously had a quasi-monopoly in social service delivery and health care, now also have to compete with commercial suppliers.

This movement has led to a fundamental shift in thinking about civil society organisations like NPOs: their trust-based legitimacy as nonprofit-seeking suppliers of common goods is not taken for granted any longer. They have to proof performance and quality in return for tax money. NPM has also led to a shift in thinking and working within civil society organisations: the expectations with which they are confronted – from performance management and measurement to introduction of competition in markets that were previously monopolised by civil society – has inevitably introduced a ‘managerial’ culture in organisations that were previously dominated by a ‘softer’ culture, for example in caring for the vulnerable, educating young people, shaping and promoting the arts (see e.g. Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004).

The latest stage in thinking about government and the public sector can be labelled ‘New Public Governance’ (NPG) (e.g. Osborne, 2006, 2010). This paradigm is based on the assumption that government alone can no longer address social and societal problems, and that for effective policymaking and service delivery, government should act together in networks with many other actors. Complex problems in a complex world can only be dealt with in cooperation. According to NPG, public value can only exist in a co-production between government, citizens, associations, entrepreneurs, and firms. In terms of civil society, this implies that the relationship with the traditional and (previously) pillarized service delivering NPOs, which was first established in the early stages of the welfare state, needs to be rethought. But – and this is new – we also observe initial attempts of government to reach out to a so-called ‘new’ civil society that emerges around new societal issues such as the environment, multicultural society, mobility, and public safety. Whereas this relationship was previously rather ‘adversarial’, with the new civil society mainly opposing governmental policy or trying to influence it, today we see some attempts from government to engage these organisations and associations in a more cooperative relationship. For example, the whole literature on co-production that has emerged in the last couple of years has pointed at this issue (Verschuere et al., 2012).

It speaks for itself that this is neither a linear nor homogeneous development. Different manifestations of the ‘new’ public governance exist; old and new paradigms exist alongside one another; and distinctions that are theoretically clear are not so in practice. However, the general direction of current development seems to be towards a more pluralist approach that sees a role for civil society, not simply as adversaries or contractors of public policy, but as intrinsic collaborators.

1.1.2 Social liquefaction and the role of government

This coincides interestingly with another development, the decline of (traditional) civil society. Modernity has entered a permanent state of turbulence, according to influential social theorists like Beck (risk society), Giddens (manufactured uncertainty), and Bauman (liquid modernity). The solid, defined, territorialised, and state-bound concept of modern life is melting down, industrial stabilities and certainties are staggering.

This manifests itself in many areas of life. At the level of work and welfare, the traditional social ties (labour relations, community solidarity) become weaker and more fragile as flexible contracting grows in numbers. The living environment is increasingly an urban one, with increasing anonymity. The effects of economic individualisation, migration, and information technology lead to cultural fragmentation and the decline of traditional communities. We assume that readers are familiar with the basics of these developments, as they have not only been recurring in academic debates, but have also been highly visible on the political agenda. Whether or not this makes the current period late modernity or postmodernity, or whether new bonds appear to replace the old ones, we will leave to others to discuss.

In any case, what has not changed over the past century is that many tend to see social fragmentation as a problem (e.g. Putnam, 2001), mirroring Tonniës’s nostalgic lament over the loss of Gesellschaft: our churches are empty, villages and communities are disappearing, our values and bonds are slipping away. The role of governments in relation to such developments has been contradictory, but at this point in time the dominant discourse is certainly one of restoration (or regeneration, reconstruction, revitalisation, and so forth). In this discourse, social liquefaction is a problem to which governments should seek answers. When government and society are seen as separate, and society is failing, it is only government that can come to the rescue.

1.2 Manufacturing civil society

Public authorities are therefore increasingly inclined to define social relations and responsibilities as something that can be manufactured and/or managed. Is this new? Fear of weakening or changing social relations and loss of values is at the core of 2,500-year-old plays and is presumably as old as man himself, so that is hardly historically unique. Nor is it unusual for governments in any part of the world to try to regulate social life and turn society away from what is seen as moral degeneration. In that sense, the work in this volume presents a new phase in a continuous process. There are two respects in which it attains a historically distinct, if not unique, character. First, as we noted above, the role of government has essentially changed. Barring some exceptions, it has rarely been as powerful as it is today. Second, its ambition is not only to co-opt or integrate, but also to recreate civil society. To put it provocatively, public governance in modern welfare states is now looking for methods to reinvent (or revitalise) ‘the social’. Ambitions include a large-scale reconstruction of local communities, civil society, and citizenship by giving public responsibilities to citizens and third-sector organisations. Simultaneously, relationships with citizens, communities, and third-sector organisations are cast within the mould of public management.

Of course, this restoration is fraught with complications. For a start, government is not separate from society but part of it, if only because its own mechanisms of control rest partly on the social relations that are in ‘meltdown’. The solid state, intervening in society with powerful social technologies, is there no more. Governance instruments that rely on authority, hierarchy, and bureaucracy increasingly suffer from lack of effectiveness and legitimacy. As a consequence, we have witnessed the emergence of new modes of public governance, aiming at the recovery of solid ground for public steering and intervention. One of the strategies involved in this process is the use of social capital as a source for public governance. Community initiatives, local social practices, and third-sector organisations are appointed to positions and function within public governance. This is a paradox: If social and cultural erosion is the problem, how can it be launched as part of the solution?

A second complication is that it is unclear how relations that are inherently built bottom up can be constructed with help from the top down. The search for civil society from above may lead to what Trommel has described as ‘greedy governance’ (2010) aiming at manufacturing a civil sphere by means of public interventions. This may easily destroy what it wants to promote: a lively, self-governing civil society. The recreated communities may not be able to exist without government support.

A related complication is that emerging social initiatives may not be in line with the values of the government itself. A well-known example is the tension between equality and exclusion. If new civil society networks are too closed, they may resemble ‘gated communities’ that are at odds with public values of open access and equality. Other issues of so-called ‘voluntary failure’ may occur (Anheier, 2005): lack of resources; too narrow a scope of action with a focus on single issues or target groups while ignoring others; lack of accountability that leads to focus on particular interest while neglecting larger social needs; and lack of professionalism. Yet when government interference to prevent such dynamics is too strong, such initiatives may not come off the ground at all. From a policy perspective, civil society may lose its critical voice from which an intelligent government may benefit.

A further problem is that, as noted before, different paradigms of governance continue to coexist. New Public Management also involves civil society, but with a narrower focus on performance and management. The risk is that government (and society) starts to overemphasise management indicators to judge civil society organisations or that civil society organisations are forced into competition with commercial organisations. Ultimately this may lead to mission drift and goal displacement (from ‘care’ to ‘management’, for example).

That brings us to the heart of this book. To examine government–civil society relations in our time, we must move beyond the simple ‘adversarial versus integrated’ distinction that still informs much of the literature. The effects of efforts to recreate or reshape civil society hinge on the interfaces between the institutional architecture of modern society (with a dominant position for government and quasi-governmental institutions), and the emerging dynamics...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1  Manufacturing Civil Society: An Introduction
• 2  Youre Either with Us or against Us: Manufacturing Civility in the Netherlands
• 3  Diversity and Ambiguity in the English Third Sector: Responding to Contracts and Competition in Public Service Delivery
• 4  How Viable Is the Big Society? Perceptions from Environmental NGOs in the United Kingdom
• 5  Civil Society Organisations as a Government Steering Mechanism: A Comparison between Sport Associations and Patient Organisations in the Netherlands
• 6  New Forms of Dependency in Central and Eastern Europe? Reflections on StateThird Sector Relations in Public Service Provision in Post-Communist Countries
• 7  New Challenges for the Cooperation between Civil Society and the Public Sector: The National Voluntary Service in Germany
• 8  Public Governance of Welfare Services in Italy
• 9  The Autonomy of Organised Civil Society in Strategic Policy Decision-Making: A Resource-Dependence Perspective
• 10  Controlling or Empowering Non-Profit Organisations?: Dimensions of Accountability in Singapore
• 11  Active Citizenship: From Panacea to Political Program In Search of an Appealing Narrative
• Index