Theoretical Grounding of Civic Driven Change
The current ‘civil society discourse’ often falls short to understand complex change processes driven by civic action. A recent initiative has been exploring civic agency as an entry point for both better understanding and acting on socio-political processes that are driven by an image of a world without wicked problems and social dilemmas, such as inequality and reaching decisions about dealing with climate change. A result is a series of empirically-based cases and publications within an overarching lens of civic driven change (CDC). Theoretically, CDC rests on a novel, coherent connection between theories associated with citizenship, civil society, power, empowerment and collective action. In consort, these perspectives sharpen and deepen analysis of why, when and how socio-political change occurs under contemporary conditions of globalisation. Irrespective of their institutional location or ‘sector’, the outcomes of CDC analysis are of practical use to activists, strategists and policy makers.
Two consecutive panels are proposed. The first would establish the conceptual landscape and the theoretical provenance of civic driven change. It will invite critical discussion on the key concepts underlying CDC and the ability of a CDC perspective to contribute insights around contentious issues, such as the role of market-based actors. The second panel would present case illustrations of CDC applications oriented towards the overall conference theme of democracy, marketization and the third sector, both from Latin America and Africa.
References:
Biekart, K. and Fowler, A. (eds), 2011, El cambiodirigidopor la accióncivica, Icaria, Madrid.
Berkhout, et al., 2011, Civic Driven Change: synthesis implications for policy and practice, Context International Cooperation, Utrecht.
Fowler, A. and Biekart, K., 2011, "(Re)locating Civil Society in the Politics of Civic Driven Change", paper presented at the Development Studies Association and European Association of Development Institutions Conference, York University, 19-22 September.
2
Fowler, A. and Biekart, K. (eds), 2008, Civic Driven Change: Citizen's Imagination in Action, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague.
Monga, C., 2009, "Uncivil Societies: A Theory of sociopolitical change", Policy Research Working Paper, No. 4942, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Ostrom, E., 2010, "A Polycentric Approach to Coping with Climate Change", Policy Research Working Paper, No. 5095, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Porter, M. and Kramer, M., 2006, "Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility", Harvard Business Review, pp. 78-93, December, Harvard University, Boston.
Clayton, A. (ed.), 1996, NGOs, Civil Society and the State: Building Democracy in Transition Countries, INTRAC, Oxford.
Edwards, M., 2004, Civil Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Heinrich, F., 2004, "Studying Civil Society: Exploring the Thorny Issue of Conceptualisationand Measurement", Journal of Civil Society, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 211-228.
Howell, J. and Pearce, J., 2001, Civil Society and Development: A Critical Exploration, Lynne Reiner, London.Kamat, S., 2004, “The privatization of public interest: theorizing NGO discourse in a neoliberal era”, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 155-176.
Ottaway, M. and Carothers, T. (eds), 2000, Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion, Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, Washington, DC.
Salamon, L., 2010, "Putting the Civil Society Sector on the Economic Map of the World", Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Vol. 81, No. 2., pp. 167-210.
vanRooy, A. (ed.), 1998, Civil Society and the Aid Industry, Earthscan, London.
Paper Title (Panel Paper)
Civic Driven Change and New Domains for Civic Energy
Author
Alan F. Fowler, ; Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University, T (Presenter)
KeesBiekart, ; Institute of Social Studies (ISS) (Presenter)
Abstract
Civic Driven Change is a newly developed narrative, as well as a theoretical framework to understand socio-political processes of change. It has been generated following the need to look for broader change processes beyond the social actors that are generally thought to populate civil society. A further disaggregation of civil society has led to explore the driving force of citizenship and civic agency, which can be labelled ‘civic energy’.
A key motivation in searching for a new narrative is the gradual erosion of the ‘civil society discourse’ that has been prominent in development thinking over the past two decades (e.g., Van Rooy, 1998; Clayton, 1996; Ottaway and Carothers, 2000; Edwards, 2004). As we know, from the mid-1990s onwards international aid agencies started to embrace ‘civil society’ as a new panacea to development. The link between civil society and development was picked up and amplified because it appeared to give new legitimacy to the increasing role of NGOs premised on their advantages over states and markets for effective, participatory poverty reduction.
The ‘civil society discourse’ was soon adopted and applied by proponents of neoliberal adjustment policies in which NGOs are seen as ideal transmission belts for privatising government services (Howell and Pearce, 2001; Kamat, 2004) and improving governance. Meanwhile, results of evaluations were making NGOs vulnerable to criticism that many of their comparative advantages remained ‘articles of faith’. This breadth of NGO criticism added to the popularization of the civil society discourse, which propelled the emergence of a new general category of development actors: ‘civil society organisations’, or ‘CSOs’.
Various meanings of civil society seem to co-exist without major conflict (Edwards, 2004). But one could also argue that, due to multiple interpretations, civil society has lost its meaning as a concept for understanding the political processes involved in societal change. Some use the concept in a singular fashion, arguing that there is a ‘civil society position’ or a ‘civil society interest’, thereby ignoring those that disagree with this position (the so called ‘non-civic’ part of civil society). Others apply international comparisons but only point at civil society as a range of organisations to be counted and their economic value computed (e.g., Salamon, 2010 ), or look at their configurations and expressions within a given context as a dualistic knowledge generation and civic energising process (Heinrich, 2004).
The application of civil society as a third ‘sector’, next to the state and the market, as the location for all activity which is ‘social’ and ‘non-profit’, also increasingly has become problematic. This ‘third sector’ is often portrayed as a harmonious sphere in which all the anomalies of the market and the state are compensated, while conflicts between interests and anti-social behaviour are ignored. The particular ‘civic role’ which makes civil society such a unique realm, is often taken for granted or subordinated. The portrayal of civil society as one constituent in a tri-sector society model serves to either de-politicise or to tightly frame discourse towards existing dominant definitions of reality. In this sense, civil society discourse has become stuck.
4
The paper explores how recent thinking has moved away from civil society to focus more on the ‘citizenship’ and ‘civic agency’. Central to the civic-driven change narrative is the idea that civic agency can operate in several societal sectors at once, whilst focusing its civic energy in a common ‘domain of change’. The paper explores the implications of this approach for the current civil society discourse, and proposes a conceptual redefinition of citizenship, providing a theoretical basis for the other papers in the two panels.
Paper Title (Panel Paper)
Exploring the Civic Energy of Market-based Actors
Author
KeesBiekart, ; Institute of Social Studies (ISS) (Presenter)
Peter Knorringa, ; Institute of Social Studies (Presenter)
Abstract
The neo-liberal idea that only states are ‘political’, whilst markets are ‘politically neutral’, has been challenged (Chang, 2002). Within markets we also find political agency, or better: a wide array of political agencies, due to the existence of politically unequal relationships. Each agency is trying to control a certain amount of political resources in order to pursue a set of common interests. This paper will explore these political or ‘civic’ interests in market settings, whilst emphasizing the fundamental difference with the common economic notion of ‘individual needs satisfaction’. The paper will explore the role of civic agency in markets, and in particular the tension between the economic and the political perspectives on the role of civic values within markets.
The debate on the role of civic agencies within market settings broadly can be characterized by three different strands (Knorringa, 2010): (1) the role of standards and civic values in markets, (2) the publicly exposed social consciousness of larger firms, often abbreviated as ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR), and (3) the ‘countervailing’ role of social entrepreneurs. These strands are not necessarily contradictory or complementary. However, the basic assumption is that civic agencies do have a role to play in markets; moreover, the normative view holds that this has a positive impact on social equity.
These views are complemented by a set of new ideas on the role of civic actors in change processes, elaborated within the concept of ‘civic driven change’ (Fowler and Biekart, 2009). This narrative proposes a different way of looking at the role of civic agency in markets, government and civil society. Civic agency is, in this narrative, triggered by civic energy that is potentially present in all realms of society. Hence, there is not necessarily a ‘political realm’ or a ‘social realm’ where civic energy is activated. This is important, as it is often argued that civil society alone would be able to give a social turn to market imbalances. However, the paper argues that it is too simple to assume that civil society alone would be giving a social angle to market imperfections. After all, there are also uncivic elements active in civil society.
If it is assumed that there is something that is driving market actors to pursue social values, it is proposed to call this ‘civic energy’. This feature will be elaborated more in detail in the paper in order to understand the dynamics of social change in all realms of society, but especially in the for-profit sphere. If we can agree this is indeed a centrally emerging issue, a possible central question to address in this paper is: how to understand the role of civic energy in markets? If we take the three strands identified above as leading threats in the paper, we can elaborate on three examples that explain this question. These examples will include (a) one on standards and values:, possibly related to fair trade campaigns (chocolate or coffee cooperatives), (b) on the role of civic energy in corporate social responsibility (for example, illustrated with Shell’s current role in Nigeria, and finally (c) on the civic energy emanating from new innovations in social entrepreneurship. On the basis of these three examples conclusions will be drawn about the adequacy of the CDC framework for market-based actors.
References
Beuningen, C. and Knorringa, P (2009) Inclusive Improvement: Standards and Smallholders. The Hague: Hivos-ISS.
Chang H J. (2002). Kicking away the ladder? Economic development in historical
perspective. London: Anthem.
Fowler, A. and Biekart, K. (2009) Civic Driven Change: Citizen’s Imagination in Action. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies.
Fowler, A. and Biekart, K. (2011) ‘Relocating civil society in a politics of civic driven change’. Paper presented at the International EADI/DSA Conference, York: York University, 19-22 September.
Knorringa, P. (2010) ‘A balancing act: Private actors in development processes’. Inaugural Lecture Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, 4 November.