The Roots of Civil Society: A Model of Voluntary Association Prevalence Applied to Data on Larger Contemporary Nations

Abstract

Based on a literature review, a theory of voluntary association prevalence in nations of the world is proposed. Greater associational prevalence is hypothesized to result from certain societal background factors (greater population size, and more favorable historical/cultural/environmental interface), aspects of basic societal structure (more permissive political control, greater modernization, more developed non-associational organizational field, and greater ethno-religious heterogeneity), and societal mobilization factors (aggregate resource mobilization for associations, aggregate social cohesion). Archival data on larger contemporary nations strongly confirm most of the model independently for two separate time periods, the 1970s and early 1990s. The ethno-religious heterogeneity variable is not confirmed as significant. No suitable data were available to test aggregate social cohesion as part of the empirical model tested. The results have important policy implications for the roots of civil society, political pluralism, and participatory democracy, partially as manifestations of social capital in a society.

Community Variations in the Size and Scope of the Nonprofit Sector: Theory and Preliminary Findings

“…Americans may or may not have a greater penchant for forming voluntary associations (Curtis, Grabb, & Baer, 1992;Tocqueville, 1835Tocqueville, /1961 compared to other societies, but knowing whether they do-and comprehending the reasons why-would deepen our theoretical understanding of societal dynamics (Smith & Shen, 2000). Similarly, a better appreciation of regional or community variations in the nonprofit sector would enhance our understanding of the role nonprofits play in contemporary American society.…”

“…Given the theoretical and policy relevance of these types of questions, systematic efforts to carefully document and explain variations in the size and scope of the nonprofit sector across communities or societies have been surprisingly few, with findings that are often contradictory and not easily reconciled (Ben-Ner & Van Hoomissen, 1992;Gamm & Putnam, 1999;James, 1987;Salamon & Anheier, 1998;Scherr, 1999;Skocpol, Ganz, & Munson, 2000;Smith & Shen, 2000). Nor is it clear how observed patterns apply to the various components of the nonprofit sector, not just the charitable service nonprofits usually examined but the full range, including advocacy, membership, and religious organizations that are integral to the development of social capital and local civic structures.…”

“…Other perspectives have emerged out of community studies in sociology and political science (Lincoln, 1977;Lynd & Lynd, 1929;Putnam, 1993;Smith & Shen, 2000;Warren, 1975;Wolch & Geiger, 1983).…”

Relations between the Government and Nonprofit Organizations in China and the USA: An Overview

“…While not as powerful as the result found by Smith and Shen (89% for two different panels of nations), this level of explanation is outstanding. The result is especially meaningful because it has causal implications, being based on time series (panel) regressions, not on one-time regressions as in Smith and Shen (2002).Note that the foregoing results, as with Smith and Shen, do not include the time-lagged dependent variable as a predictor (which would raise the variance explained to 83%).…”

“…This is clearly demonstrated by Smith and Shen for two large panels of nations of the world. [6] They used archival data on 84 larger nations (1,000,000 plus population) in 1977 and on 107 nations in 1994 with the dependent variable association measure being the number of international associations that people or groups in a given nation belong to. In an OLS multiple regression analysis, their theoretical model with eight predictor/explanatory variables accounts for 89% of the variance in both panels independently, corrected for sample size.…”