Search results

In this chapter, the authors argue that the performance and dynamic of civil society in Brazil has been fundamentally guided by local institutions, but that the issues, approaches and political decisions that gained publicity, and thus helped to strengthen civil society mobilization, have been strongly influenced by the agendas of the so-called “global civil society.” It would be wrong to classify them as foreign issues or declassify them based on the argument that they consider largely external interests or the reality of developed countries. The authors will attempt to show how the issues on the civil society agenda that are supported in arenas of public debate in Brazil are filtered by local institutions and are only considered relevant if they mirror the reality of the country and correspond to the aspirations, demands and challenges of certain segments of society.

Purpose – The discourse about civil society is closely tied to the role of collective action in general, and of social movements in particular. Yet the origins of the recent emphasis on civil society are located in the 1980s – the time period during which the wave of neoliberalism began its rise and spread.

Design/methodology/approach – In order to properly situate the concept of civil society and related debates, they must be linked to efforts to delegitimate and demonize the state that also started gaining momentum during that decade.

Findings – The historical context of its emergence suggests that civil society may not be so much an analytical category for purposes of social research, but a theoretical category that is imbued with political content, both positively and negatively – both as a means to promote progressive ends, and as an expression of the context in which those ends started to face mounting resistance.

Research limitations/implications – At the very least, the concept of civil society has a tendency to distract – both by design and by default – from important questions and challenges, such as those related to the role and persistence of structures of inequality in early 21st century global civilization.

Originality/value – A promising starting point to circumnavigate the counterproductive consequences of the use and abuse of the civil society concept and debate for social research may be its explicitly dynamic conceptualization.

This chapter reviews the history of civil society engagement on drug policy at the UN. Despite the challenging beginnings characterised by small numbers of civil society attendees at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, coupled with government mistrust, in the last two decades, civil society representatives have made visible progress in advocating for policy reform and changing the terms of the debate.

Efforts by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the lead up to, as well as during the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS), best illustrate this increase in impact and engagement. Reform-orientated civil society strategised heavily on how to bring ‘comprehensive, diverse, balanced, and inclusive’ representation to the UNGASS and achieved this through the Civil Society Task Force, which was carefully balanced in terms of geographic, gender and ideological diversity, and included nine representatives from affected populations, including people who use drugs, people in recovery from drug use disorders, families, youth, farmers of crops deemed illicit, harm reduction, prevention, access to controlled medicines and criminal justice.

The 2016 UNGASS saw the fruition of greater civil society engagement. Eleven speakers were chosen to speak in the forum showcasing the calibre and diversity of civil society representatives. They made powerful, at times poignant statements and pleas for better, more compassionate treatment of people who use drugs, farmers of crops deemed illicit, as well as respect for human rights, sustainable livelihoods and the need to approach the issue through a public health and human rights lens.

The chapter concludes with the finding that reform-orientated civil society had a significant impact on the UNGASS – both on the gains in the Outcome Document and at the actual event, while noting that the most impactful ways to influence has nonetheless been through reform advocacy efforts outside of the official civil society mechanisms. Civil society engagement remains a serious challenge. International solidarity and global networking remain a central part of the drug policy reform movement’s strategy to advocate for change at the national, regional and global levels.

The issue of citizens’ participation in civil society in Europe is perceived as crucial for the democratization and the legitimacy of the European Union (EU) as well as for the development of a European identity. There are at least three reasons for the increasing attention devoted to the role played by civil society in the European integration process (Rumford, 2003). Firstly, by providing knowledge and plural inputs in decision-making processes, civil society is a necessary component in efficient and “good” governance. Secondly, civil society demarcates the space for the enactment of citizenship rights and participation (the turn from formal citizenship to citizenship practice). This is essential since the notion of a European citizenship requires, in addition to a set of formal rights and obligations, a public space for active participation by the citizens beyond the arenas offered by the nation-state. Thirdly, civil society can serve as a source of legitimacy, possibly reducing the much-debated democratic deficit of the EU. The rather imprecise term “democratic deficit” encompasses issues such as the lack of democratic anchorage of EU institutions and decisions as well as the gap between policy-makers and citizens. Hence, the belief that to reduce the democratic deficit, the EU democratic institutions have to become more accountable to its citizen and that European citizens need to get a sense of “ownership” of the EU democratic institutions.

This chapter examines the relations between local civil society organizations and the European Union as a way to assess the functioning of multi-level governance in the field of employment policy.

The chapter draws on primary organizational survey data collected in the EU FP7 funded project entitled ‘Youth, Unemployment and Exclusion in Europe’ (Younex, grant agreement n.216111) and for the approach it places itself in the tradition of critical civil society–EU relations research.

For more than two decades, civil society has occupied a prominent position in the rhetoric of European Union multi-level governance. The EU rhetoric conceives of the inclusion of civil society in policy making as a necessary step towards linking the various levels of government (from local to European) as well as the different societal and institutional actors implied by a multilevel governance approach. Moreover, the rhetoric of civil society also serves the goal of tackling the multi-faceted issues of a democratic ‘deficitaire’ EU. This chapter, however, offers a critical appraisal of such a rhetoric by confirming what other studies had unveiled: access to European institutions requires substantial human (‘capital in knowledge’) and economic resources and as such the link existing between the European Union and local civil society organizations is a very thin one, one which is limited to a very few, rich in resources, organizations. The rhetoric of civil society as the connector of levels and types of actors in the multi-level governance approach promoted by the EU should thus be mitigated. The European policy process should be conceived of more pragmatically as an arena where European institutions and member states still act as gate keepers that select and decide which societal interest and voice should have a place within the European agenda. What consequences this has for the overall democratic quality of the European policy process is an issue which should concern us all.

The chapter allows scrutinizing horizontal and vertical dimensions of multi-level governance while expanding knowledge on civil society at both local and European level. Although multi-level governance has become a popular concept it still lacks a consistent empirical assessment, which is something the data discussed here do. Thus, the chapter has implications for research on civil society and citizens’ engagement in public affairs but it is also relevant for scholars working on EU policy-making issues.

Civil society organizations could contribute improving the quality of policies at European level as well as strengthening EU legitimacy to rule. The findings contribute explaining which factors limit civil society access to EU institutions and how these could be overcome.

The chapter corroborates critical views of the EU–civil society relations, the findings suggest that the EU should work with further commitment to offer local civil society organizations and citizens groups real opportunities for their voices and expertise to be heard and considered.

The chapter adopts a critical view of EU–civil society relations challenging the EU multi-level governance rhetoric and discusses the features obstructing civil society actors’ engagement with policy making at the EU level.

This introductory chapter sets the overall context of global civil society in today’s global world. The authors will firstly provide a definition of civil society from social and political science perspectives. Then secondly, the authors provide a contemporary overview of global civil society debates in the current social and political environment; they also offer a short examination of COVID-19 and how this global pandemic has developed new spheres of contestation and collaboration. In the final part of the chapter, the authors present a brief overview of each chapter contributed to this volume.

Purpose – This chapter on global civil society provides a definition of global civil society, and also provides a historical and theoretical overview of social movements. This chapter also presents a taxonomy of non-state actors and demonstrates at the theoretical level that actions and initiatives by non-state actors since the 1990s’ globalisation. In this chapter, the concept of civil society is presented as a form of globalisation from below, and its role in the participatory governance of societal processes implies forms of soft regulation and moral authority which transcend the role of states as enforcers.Design/methodology/approach – This chapter is based on an extensive literature review.Findings – Actions and initiatives by non-state actors in the current age of globalisation have been increasing. This increase has become more evident with the more stringent traceability of processes associated with the development of information and communication technologies (ICT), and private forms of organisation networking at the local and transnational level. This has re-defined geographical boundaries, creating proximity between individuals which goes beyond physical constraints, and it has extended definitions of communities to multiple levels of identification and convergence, but also divergence.The concept of civil society and its role in the participatory governance of societal processes implies forms of soft regulation and moral authority which transcend the role of states as enforcers. The idea of civil society opens a space for non-traditional actors to actively participate and engage in the political processes of change in society, for the betterment of marginalised groups, the environment or social justice in general. The diversity of roles that single individuals have in society allows them to participate from different angles.Although the concept of civil society has limitations due to its breadth, manifestations of a global civil society can be understood as forms of globalisation that occur outside traditional institutional settings.Originality/value of chapter – This chapter provides a general overview on civil society, and its relevance for analysing contexts of international business, and MNES's relations with community and non-governmental groups. Within this chapter, it is also conceptually describe how multinationals as non-state actors have increasingly playing a role in providing welfare.

The United Nations recognizes “civil society” as the “third sector” of society, along with public (governmental) and private sector organizations. The term global “third sector” comprises the worldwide reach of civil society organizations (CSOs). In this chapter, we discuss how technological advancements could influence global civil society. Humans and machines will increasingly interact and collaborate closely in the future. The Industry Revolution (IR) 5.0 brings new challenges, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, which pose significant opportunities but also important risks to the role of CSOs. Regarding opportunities, it can be highlighted the potential of the IR 5.0 to better work with big data and to increase knowledge in support of the participation of CSOs in global governance and debates, more precisely by increasing their capabilities in knowledge production and practical implementation. One example is the role of AI in making sense of the large volume of data recorded by satellites, drones, and sensors throughout the planet to better inform environmental policies and debates. Risks are also significant, particularly for an incipient and pioneering technology that takes time for the governance systems to understand and regulate. Another example is the misuse of technology and algorithms to generate targeted misinformation and propaganda to influence public opinion and elections. Governments around the world and leading high-tech companies should define a framework that regulates IR 5.0. Global civil society could play an important role in demanding and lobbying the creation of this framework. For this goal, CSOs need to understand how stakeholders see and adapt to technological challenges.

This chapter is organized as follows. The introduction will discuss the key characteristics of the so-called “global civil society,” as well as identify the major challenges emerging from the transition from IR 4.0 to IR 5.0. Then the authors will discuss the impact of these technological advancements on global civil society from the specific perspectives of: (1) how international organizations and governments refer to them; (2) how bilateral and multilateral development partners (BMDP) are challenged by them; and (3) how higher education institutions adapt to them.

In the first section – “IR 5.0 and Human Social Capital: Diverse discourses for the same phenomena?” – we will study how the different discourses penetrated the international public sphere. International organizations, such as the European Union and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, mentioned it officially and entered the discussion, while others, such as the International Labour Organization, seem to skip it and maintain their focus in the IR 4.0. However, the discourse on AI is not restricted to international organizations. Some states, like Japan and China, have already positioned themselves, producing their discourses. More specifically, the authors examine the official discourses in the national and international public arena, and identify the different topics, perspectives, and absences in each of them, understanding the existence of gaps or complementarity between them. In the second section – “How do bilateral and multilateral development partners look into the role of AI and CSO?” – we will examine, likewise, the concept of AI, then address how international organizations and national governments are incorporating or ignoring its consequences, to discuss the main benefits and risks that AI represents for the global civil society. In the third section – “The academic new syllabi of the future: The tandem solutions” – we will study the impact on the way the students’ syllabi in the institutions associated with higher education are designed to accommodate the forthcoming challenges in terms of the construction of human social skills. The last section concludes. Methodologically, this research is supported by inductive comparative qualitative analysis, non-participated observations, and empirical international experience, combined with discourse analysis and interviews.