Search results

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.

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.

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.

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).

The purpose of this paper is to discuss, theoretically and practically, the role of civil society groups in eco‐innovation.

Starting from a discussion on the emergence of “triple helix twins”, “quadruple helix” and “N‐tuple helices”, this paper discusses the role of civil society groups in eco‐innovation by addressing the following research questions: Why is it necessary to stress that civil society groups are as important as university, industry and government in eco‐innovation? What inspiration can “triple helix twins” and “quadruple helix” provide when arguing for a fourth actor of civil society groups in eco‐innovation? How are civil society groups affecting eco‐innovation practice and what does it tell us about the relation between civil society groups and the triple helix actors? In addressing the “How” question the authors draw on examples of eco‐innovation activities in Denmark and China.

Theoretically, the authors find that eco‐innovation has peculiarities of “intents toward environmental benefits”, “double externality problem” and “regulatory push/pull”. These peculiarities call for an explicit focus on civil society groups in eco‐innovation studies. Practically, eco‐innovation practices from Danish and Chinese companies show that: non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) play an important role as external expert knowledge providers, mediators and supporters of green business; the practices of the Danish case company indicate that civil society groups are not only foundations for developing innovation – they can be actors themselves; the existence of semi‐governmental organizations in the Chinese case company, which is categorized under the concept of NGOs, shows the limitations of the concept of civil society groups in exposing important actors and indicates the importance of analysing “mixed” organizations representing by linkages between the four actors.

The peculiarities of eco‐innovation indicate that eco‐innovation policy and strategy making should take civil society groups into consideration, as they are helpful not only to provide pressure and push industry onto a green track, but also as supporters and carriers of green business. Corporate social responsibility is proposed as a stepping‐stone to engage civil society groups in broader eco‐innovation activity.

The paper starts an important and novel discussion on the importance of worldwide acceptance of civil society groups as important actors in eco‐innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effectiveness of civil society in providing higher levels of employment and earnings compared to what labour contractors usually offer.

Based on the primary survey data the authors have estimated econometric models to capture who is likely to join the civil society and whether joining actually improves the earnings.

The authors observe that a civil society not necessarily is able to provide employment opportunities on a large scale nor it is able to take a lead role in multiple activities. The binomial logit model is indicative that women from large households with greater domestic burden tend to join the civil society and subsequently their earnings increase. However, the lack of work consignment forces many workers to operate through the contractors. Not necessarily the functioning of a civil society ensures optimal outcomes.

The survey was conducted on the members of only one civil society.

For a civil society to be successful active operation and a large scale coverage are important. The government and civil society closely may have to operate in order to reap better outcomes. Otherwise like government failures civil society failures can also be rampant.

A direct evaluation of civil society participation is done in comparison to those who do operate through the contractors.

Approaches to the sociology of culture have largely been constituted around the long tradition of functionalism in sociology. This has hampered the field greatly. Among other shortcomings, this intellectual foundation has led to a limited understanding of ideology and civil society, a conservative political orientation and an overdeterministic view of social action and the actor. In this paper, I explore and then apply a new approach to the sociology of culture, one that attempts to conceptualize more robustly the dynamics of ideology, ideological conflict and civil society. As part of this project, I endeavor to map out a critical cultural perspective that establishes a multidimensional understanding of the contingency of social action.

During recent years, the concept of civil society, particularly global civil society, has come to the fore in both academia and policy circles. A key component of recent theoretical and policy research is the attempt to do international comparative research on the meaning of civil society. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the language and the terminology used to describe the agents of civil society are reflective of cultural and historical contexts of societies, have distinct meanings and cannot be used interchangeably.

In different national contexts, the key agents of civil society are referred to differently; nonprofit sector, voluntary and community sector, third sector and social economy. In comparative studies, scholars often list these concepts to indicate that they recognise that the agents of civil society are referred to differently in different societies. The article offers a socio‐historical analysis of each concept. It is concluded that teasing out the differences, as well as the similarities, between the nonprofit sector, voluntary and community sector, third sector and social economy, is crucial to robust comparative research on civil society.

This paper exposes a number of limitations of each of the terminologies used to describe civil society. They all present a much more limiting notion of civil society than that proposed by the founding fathers. None seem to capture the range of civil associations in any society. Yet, assumptions are made that the terminologies used have similar meanings rather than attempting to clarify and define exactly what is being written or described. This is exacerbated by the interchangeable usage of nonprofit/third sector/community and voluntary sector/social economy. In order to progress beyond culturally specific understandings of civil society, it is necessary to examine the terminology used and how it emanates from a specific cultural and political context. Having a clear understanding of the language used and what it signifies is crucial to robust cross‐national comparative research.

This paper examines context specific understandings of civil society and the terminology used to define it; a question not previously addressed. It is hoped that this article will generate much needed further debate on cross‐national meanings of civil society.

The chapter will examine the emergence and influence of the restorative justice movement as a bridge between communities, civil society and the state in Ireland. The chapter will focus on the Republic of Ireland, but will also examine restorative conferencing in Northern Ireland. This will be divided into a number of sections, each reflecting the emergence of a movement dedicated to the promotion of restorative justice as a vehicle for a holistic form of community-based justice in Ireland. This chapter covers the history, scope, and philosophical-political background of the restorative justice movement, providing specific examples of the interchange between this restorative justice movement and civil society in Ireland, Northern Ireland and the United States. The wider potential of the restorative justice movement will be highlighted.

This potential is demonstrated in the restorative movement’s challenge to understandings of failed punitive approaches, and through its socially redemptive alternative which emphasises collective responsibility for crime amongst all of the community. The chapter will also examine the international background to restorative justice, and its theoretical understandings, with a focus on key theorists such as Strang and Braithwaite, amongst others. It will examine salient issues that underpin social justice and social control in Ireland, including the potential impacts of restorative justice policy and practice for the wider community and the state.