Search results

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.

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.

Much potential has been ascribed to the emergence and possibilities of a “global civil society,” one that takes the concept of civil society and civic activism and involvement beyond the traditional confines of the nation-state, and moves it instead into a globalized and increasingly politically integrated context. In general, the concept of global civil society has been treated as a positive development, with considerable attention being paid to the emancipatory and participatory opportunities that it presents. This essay explores the other side of the equation, i.e., the marginalization of national and European-level civil society and these participatory and emancipatory benefits in Central and Eastern Europe during a process of globalization and EU integration. Drawing from the emerging literatures on global civil society, this paper compares the normative and empirical emphases of that literature with the experiences and opinions of Central and Eastern European environmental NGOs. It examines how Central and Eastern European environmental movements have moved toward becoming more interconnected both in Europe and worldwide, yet are marginalized in favor of a style of environmental policy-making emerging from Brussels that emphasizes technocracy, scientific over public knowledge, and a top-down approach to the policy-making process. As a result, many of the democratic elements of civil society found at the national level have became neglected at the European and the global levels, replacing democratic politics (at least in the form of social movements) with the emergence of supranational technocratic institutions.

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.

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.

In the final chapter of this edited book, the authors provide a summary of the key messages of civil society in a globalized world. To do this, the authors firstly discuss the future direction of civil society, and then examine the enhancement of social movements in contemporary society. In the final part of this chapter, the authors provide some observations regarding the recent global health crisis (COVID-19) and why civil society is vitally important in a globalized world.

This chapter will examine the interplay among actors who took part in the process of consensus building towards a post-2015 education agenda via different channels of global governance, including both formal and informal channels.

Most of the forums and entities established as part of the global governance structure are composed of representatives from UN or UNESCO member states, civil society organizations (CSOs) and UN agencies. However, each of these categories has diverse constituent groups; representing these groups is not as straightforward a task as the governance structure seems to assume. Therefore, based on interviews and qualitative text analysis, this chapter will introduce major groups of actors and their major issues of concern, decision-making structure, mode of communication and relationship with other actors. Then, based on an understanding of the characteristics of the various channels and actors, it will present the structural issues that arose during the analysis of post-2015 discourse and the educational issues that emerged as the shared concerns of the ‘education community’. While most of the analysis to untangle the nature of discourse relies on qualitative analysis of texts and interviews, the end of this chapter will also demonstrate the trends of discourse in quantitative terms.

What was the post-2015 discourse for the so-called education community, which in itself has an ambiguous and virtual existence? The keywords post-2015 and post-EFA provide us with an opportunity to untangle how shared norms and codes of conduct were shaped at the global scale.

In the United Kingdom and elsewhere, the move from government to governance has been well documented (Stoker, 1998; Rhodes, 1996, 1997). In the global North, governance is understood as a response to complexity and a recognition that many problems cannot be solved by government alone, whereas in democracies across the North and South, there is a concern to address the democratic deficit and [re]legitimize the state. In both contexts, new governance spaces and opportunities have emerged for non-governmental actors to engage in the process. Interest in community or “third sector” participation has spread around the globe, albeit with very different expressions in different contexts, and in many cases at the insistence of international financial institutions. Deacon (2007, p. 15) describes such global trends as “the contested terrain of emerging global governance” in which he includes both international non-governmental organizations and transnational social movements. Although this shift represents new opportunities, the extent to which the spaces for participation offer a new vision of the public domain is contested (Fung & Wright, 2003; Cornwall & Coelho, 2007).

Explores a number of the debates and justification used to support and advance non‐state governance of the Internet in the USA. Reviews public reports released leading up to the formation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Concludes that the scope herein is restricted to the jurisdictions and reasoning stated in the policy papers leading to the formation of the ICANN.

Many scholars and practitioners consider development to be as much an institutional and organizational phenomenon as it is an economic one. Among other elements, civil society is a key determinant of a country’s level of social capital. Important links appear to exist between a robust associational milieu and the effective operation of democracy. However, the role of civil society organizations in human development has only recently gained attention.