Christopher J. Koliba
“Good Governance” Functions of
Civil Society Organizations in the United States
This chapter will look at how civic society organizations function in relation to a number of “good governance” activities that will be defined. Drawing upon the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) classification scheme, organizational types with a tendency toward consciously supporting good governance functions will be identified. Additional trends that impact good governance not captured by the NTEE will be presented.
INTRODUCTION
The question of whether civil society in the United States is experiencing a period
of decline or renewal is a question being asked by many academics, politicians and activists as of late. Judging from the evidence collected by researchers such as Robert Putnam[i], Robert Bellah and his colleagues[ii], and others, the character of civil society has, at least, changed since the era when Alexis de Tocqueville[iii] first made his observations about the civic character of the country back in 1831-1832.
Indeed, the number of bowling leagues has declined in recent years, along with membership in many of the mainstays of U.S. civil society.[iv] Yes, Americans are watching more television and are less likely to meet formally or informally outside of work.[v] And it does appear that American “individualism” trumps collective action more often than not.[vi] At the heart of these assertions lies the concern that Americans are becoming less inclined to become involved in "networks of civic engagement” than they once were. Such networks, Putnam claims, "facilitate coordination and communication, amplify reputations, and thus allow dilemmas of collective action to be resolved."[vii]
Garry Wills, in a critique of Putnam’s work, asserts that, “Putnam should look harder as major social and economic reconfigurations affecting urbanization, education, professionalization, information technology, the family, and the workforce.”[viii] The American “independent sector” of non-profit organizations and groups, what some may understand as the backbone of civil society in the United States, has seen its share of the U.S. economy than other sectors in the economy over the last twenty years. The number of charitable organizations has nearly doubled from 1977 to 1992.[ix] Attendance at religious services has remained steady as well.[x] These statistics give fuel to a more optimistic view of civil society in the United States, with some claiming that it is as healthy as ever.
In this chapter we will set aside judgements about civil society’s health, as there appears to be ample commentary in this regard. Instead, we will set out to dissect how civic society functions. In this volume authors have been talking about “civil society organizations” (CSO) and their impacts on “good governance.” Just what counts as a “civil society organization” and accounts for “good governance” are questions that we will be addressing in this chapter.
The typology of good governance functions presented below was generated after
a “mapping exercise” had been conducted to identify possible trends presently occurring within U.S. civil society. The initial phase of research involved an extensive search for organizational web sites using keywords such as: “civil society,” “citizen participation,” “government accountability,” “democracy,” “voter education,” and “good governance”. Directories and links found on web sites of foundations, university research centers, and other national organizations were used as well.[xi] Approximately 2,500 web sites were reviewed, 900 of which were downloaded and analyzed. These sites provided information on about 1,650 organizations and projects.
A typology of good governance functions was derived out of the analysis of these web sites, the reading of some of the other chapters in this volume, participating in an international conference on civil society related to this volume, Mark Warren and Virginia Hodgkinson’s summary for this volume, the National Civic Leagues’ “Civic Index,” and various articles relating to citizen involvement.[xii] The functions derived out of this process include: “precursors to citizenship;” impacting the outcome of elections; influencing public policies and laws; ensuring government accountability and transparency; and actions leading to substantial political and social reforms.
Drawing upon the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE), organizational categories will then be presented in a matrix created to assess and acknowledge organizational impacts on good governance activities. Robert Merton’s distinction between “manifest” and “latent” functions will be used to refine our examination. Organizational types that possess effecting good governance as a manifest or primary function will be highlighted in the matrix. Other organizational types that impact good governance falling outside of the NTEE categorization scheme will be discussed as well.
“GOOD GOVERNANCE” FUNCTIONS
We must preface a discussion of the types of good governance functions that
organizations take on by laying out a distinction between “good governance” and “good government.” Imbedded in good governance functions are the virtues of liberal democracy: “accountability,” “transparency,” “responsiveness to needs,” “openness,” free from corruption”, “bound by the rule of law,” etc. Good governance implies a government “of the people, for the people and by the people.” However, it is not difficult for any student of American politics to recognize that “good government” implies a different set of assumptions, mainly centered around the appropriate role of government, which may mean little or no government, as in the case of conservative or libertarian perspectives, or a responsive or just government, as in the case of liberal or progressive perspectives. Good government and good governance will overlap. Good governance functions will be shaped in practice by an organization’s assumptions about good government. They are also shaped by an organization’s disposition toward civil society. Jean L. Cohen and Andrew Arato, in their book, Civil Society and Political Theory, point out that civil society can be understood through a variety of lens: elite or participatory models of democracy, varying perceptions of individual and collective rights and responsibilities, and the appropriate role of government in society.[xiii] A conservative policy think tank, for example, may take a “neo-conservative” outlook on the role of government and advocate for political reforms that seek to limit government’s ability to act. While a neighborhood association may be seeking to include local government policies, acting on the assumption that government needs to be more responsive. Both organizations may believe that they are promoting “good governance.”
A second factor to consider pertains to the blurring of the subjects of “good governance” efforts. “Civil society represents a sphere of dynamic and responsive public discourse between the state, the public sphere consisting of voluntary organizations, and the market sphere…”[xiv] We will focus the bulk of our attention on the relationship that organizations have on or toward the “state” or “government” sector. However, good governance functions significantly impact the other sectors of society as well: including the “market” and nonprofit organizations. Civil society organizations are aiming their attention to more than one sector. Examples include recent efforts by some CSOs to influence the regulations of genetically modified foods or tobacco might be aimed at both government regulators and industry heads, where political pressure may get applied at the legislative level as well as at the consumer level.
The presentation of “good governance” functions to follow will focus on governments (at local, state, federal and international levels) as the subject of good governance activities. Although good governance functions are usually geared toward government sectors, the internal governance structures of corporations, schools and even non-profits can become the focus of attention for some civil society organizations. Issues such as workplace democracy, union organizing, school reform efforts geared toward localizing decision-making, and increasing the accountability of non-profit organizations all resonate with the themes of good governance, despite the fact that the attention is directed to sectors outside of government. Space and time preclude a deeper assessment of these multi or intra sector activities.
Good governance functions directed at (although not exclusively) the government sector will be presented under five headings ranging from functions that serve as precursors to citizenship to functions that seek to promote or hold back certain reforms to political and social systems.
I. Precursors to good governance
In synthesizing the case studies represented in this volume, Warren and
Hodgkinson have identified a number of issues that have emerged, some of which are particularly helpful in defining particular good governance functions. In discussing case studies written by Bhaumik, Steinbach, Van Til, Alperovitz and Howard, Egan, and Portney and Berry, Warren and Hodgkinson assert that these studies raise the question: “Can civil society develop or enhance capacities of citizenship?” They add that, “Our cases suggest that civil society’s contributions to good governance are much more robust here than in other areas.” This assertion mirrors the results of the mapping exercise, as it was found that organizations professed to impact the capacities of citizenship in a number of ways. Organizations were identified that intend to: cultivate some form of civic disposition or social responsibility in others; teach people civic and leadership skills; and/or inform and educate citizens about voting and public policies.
The heading “precursors to citizenship” may imply that the socializing and educating functions represented here must precede the practicing of other functions. These functions are understood as precursors for citizenship because they deal with individuals and not social systems, implying that individual citizens must be motivated, skilled and informed to be very effective in the public sphere. With this said, the process of motivating, educating and informing individuals is a process that never ends, to be renewed again and again. Although we are calling this section “precursors” to citizenship, they are functions that that are ongoing and crucial to all of the other functions listed.
Organizations are intentionally attempting to create opportunities for students,
clients, and constituency bases to acquire a sense of social responsibility and assume civic dispositions that gear them to be active citizens. Studies of activists and volunteers have shown[xv] that people who are involved in their communities (socially or politically) most often believe they are doing so out of a sense of social responsibility. Just how this sense of social responsibility is acquired has been historically understood as the sanctum of families, schools and higher education institutions.[xvi]
At one time “moral philosophy” or “ethics” classes was a required subject in school. These academic studies in concerns about morality and civic virtue evolved into what is now commonly referred to as “character education.” Classes on the fundamentals of government and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship have been understood as “civic education.” In more recent times, efforts to not only teach students about civics or moral virtue, but give them opportunities to actually practice them have become popular. These opportunities have become understood as “service-learning.”
The capacities of educational institutions to socialize students in the
democratic practices embodied in citizenship can best be understood as the “civic mission” implied in the American public education system and professed by many educational institutions. Schools, universities and colleges, along with other educational organizations and groups have been placing renewed attention on their civic mission, particularly their roles in educating students to be good citizens. Coinciding with the recent rise in interest in national and community service, elementary, secondary schools, as well as colleges and universities are beginning to offer “service-learning,” “curriculum of place,” and “community-based learning” opportunities. Such educational experiences are often understood in terms of civic education and preparing students for participating within a democracy (see Mattson).
The socializing effects of organizational life, be it the workplace, the family or a civil society organization, have a direct bearing on a person’s likelihood of participating in any one of the functions listed below. Likewise, those elected and non-elected individuals who comprise the “government,” namely politicians and public administrators, obtain experience and a drive for public service by working within civil society organizations that consciously perform good governance functions. These CSO’s perform a function of preparing, encouraging and educating public servants. Conceivably, then, any organization can promote a civic disposition and sense of responsibility. The matter then becomes one of whether such activities are a conscious part of the organization’s mission or objectives. Specific colleges and majors found within higher education, for instance, often view themselves as developers of future public servants. Law firms and policy think tanks often serve this function as well.
Organizations are offering curriculum, trainings and publications designed to develop community leaders and provide ordinary citizens with skills that will help them have a stronger voice in public matters. In their work around “mobilizing a community’s assets,” John Kretzmann and John McKnight suggest the existence of two paradigms through which communities may be understood.[xvii] Focusing particularly on poor, inner city neighborhoods, they pose an alternative way of understanding communities. Instead of looking at communities as bundles of needs and social problems: unemployment, broken families and illiteracy, etc., they propose a “capacity-focused” approach to communities understanding them from the standpoint of “community assets.” In this approach, the importance of community leadership drawn from people living in the neighborhood is stressed. Some of these community leadership initiatives draw upon notions of “popular education,” in which emerging leaders “learn to value their own experience, to analyze their own experience and to know how to make decisions.”[xviii]
It is this capacity-focused approach to community leadership that is driving many organizational efforts to develop community leaders by providing them with skills and knowledge designed to give them a greater voice in the governance of their communities. “Community leadership” entails a set of skills ranging from organizational development, mapping community “assets,” building partnerships, public relations, collaborative decision-making, recruiting and motivating volunteers, understanding legal issues, etc. Organizations with activities related to capacity-building include federally funded service corps, technical support and educational groups that focus on leadership development and capacity building, environmental groups, religious groups (see M. R. Warren), community development organizations, and even hospitals that seek to support community health initiatives involving “lay health educators.”
For citizens to be active in public matters and participate in efforts that promote
good governance they need to be motivated, skilled and informed. Few people can deny that the volume of information that is being produced is growing exponentially. Indeed the information age is providing citizens with unprecedented access to information concerning all facets of social and political life. From the latest discoveries in science to the newest theories about human behavior to updated opinion polls, people can find information about most anything if they know where to find it. Organizations are helping people obtain information, with some aiming to impact public opinion by mounting public relations campaigns. The lines between “providing information,” “educating,” and “swaying opinions,” are often blurry.