Advocacy Compromised: How Financial, Organizational and Institutional Factors Shape Advocacy Strategies of Civil Society Organizations

Abstract

Key functions of civil society organizations (CSOs) are to criticize governments and to hold them to account. Recent trends of privatization and contracting out challenge CSOs' opportunities to voice such criticism. The purpose of this article is to analyse whether and why CSOs 'hold back their criticism' of public authorities, and how a compromised advocacy can be linked to financial, organizational and institutional factors. The article draws on an original survey of 2678 Swedish CSOs. The analyses show that certain levels of funding make CSOs more likely to hold back in their criticism, but also organizational and institutional factors play a role. The results identify the importance of distinguishing between objective and subjective factors related to how dependency is framed. It is the felt needs, experiences and perceptions of CSOs themselves that make hem prone to the strategic choice to hold back criticism of public authorities.

Multilevel Strategies for Political Influence: How and Why Do Domestic Civil Society Organisations Seek Political Influence at National and EU Levels?

“…While these perspectives have their benefits, following Ruzza and Bozzini (2008), we argue that it is of importance to differentiate between the 'locus' and 'target' of a political advocacy strategy, particularly when addressing strategies for political influence in a European context (Table 1). Research into why domestic CSOs seek political influence at the national or the EU level has not only understood such activities as responses to changing political opportunity structures or related to institutional arrangements, but also emphasised organisational factors (Arvidson, Johansson and Scaramuzzino 2017;Scaramuzzino and Wennerhag 2015). Four sets of factors dominate the discussions and form the basis for our analytical framework and construction of dependent variables.…”

The Participatory and Responsiveness of Local Budget Policy in Malang, Indonesia

“…The partnership between FMPP and MCW is a testament to the vision and mission of ensuring good governance for the benefit of society, i.e., the public interest. Regarding this explanation, Arvidson, Johansson, & Scaramuzzino (2018) assert that the pivotal roles of civic groups are to criticize the government for social welfare and social justice take account to people and communities. In this context, civic groups can push the government to arrange the budget policy for society and regional improvement.…”

Organizing service delivery on social media platforms? Loosely organized networks, co-optation, and the welfare state

“…Civil society actors that pursue too autonomous or radical agenda run the risk of being co-opted by the state (Coy and Hedeen 2005). The complementary and adversarial lenses are compatible with the Swedish tradition as they both function within a communicative, even dialectical, relationship with the state, upholding the distinction between voice and service (Johansson, Arvidson, and Johansson 2015;Lundberg 2017;Trägårdh 2010;Arvidson, Johansson, and Scaramuzzino 2017;Dahlberg 2005). However, the supplementary lens can be understood as challenging the status quo by acting beyond or differently than the state, and raises the potential of co-optation by the state to neutralize such initiatives.…”

“…To understand the relationship of LONs to the Swedish state, we must situate the civil society sector in the context of the Swedish welfare regime. Swedish research often employs a dichotomous distinction between service and voice (protest), where the increase in the former is described as leading to a decrease of the latter (Johansson, Arvidson, and Johansson 2015;Lundberg 2017;Arvidson, Johansson, and Scaramuzzino 2017;Dahlberg 2005). Its historical legacy has meant that Swedish civil society largely sees itselfand is seenas a partner rather than a competitor to the state (Lundström and Svedberg 2003), and increased welfare service production is generally taken to mean declining political advocacy (Herz 2016;Arvidson, Johansson, and Scaramuzzino 2017).…”

“…Swedish research often employs a dichotomous distinction between service and voice (protest), where the increase in the former is described as leading to a decrease of the latter (Johansson, Arvidson, and Johansson 2015;Lundberg 2017;Arvidson, Johansson, and Scaramuzzino 2017;Dahlberg 2005). Its historical legacy has meant that Swedish civil society largely sees itselfand is seenas a partner rather than a competitor to the state (Lundström and Svedberg 2003), and increased welfare service production is generally taken to mean declining political advocacy (Herz 2016;Arvidson, Johansson, and Scaramuzzino 2017). As the public sector began to detract in the wake of the 1990s reforms, civil society shifted to assume more welfare service production functions (Amnå, 2006;Stryjan and Wijkström 1996;Johansson, Arvidson, and Johansson 2015).…”