A number of societal and institutional factors enhance the development of a vibrant civil society, such as a country’s socioeconomic traditions and societal structure, political institutions, or foreign influence. But the question of which one of these factors contributes most to a vibrant civil society still remains unanswered. Using ordinary least square techniques, this article statistically tests the competing factors with a large-N design that includes 42 countries. Our dependent variable is the new Civil Society Index, composed of a structural and a value dimension of civil society. The results show that a country’s quality of political institutions and a high degree of religious fragmentation have the strongest impact on the development of a vibrant civil society. In order to examine the causal relationship, we reassess our findings by conducting two case studies on Chile and Russia. The case studies corroborate the causal direction from the quality of political institutions to a stronger civil society.
AlesinaADevleeschauwerAEasterlyW. (2003) Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth8(2): 155–94.
2.
AndersonCJPaskeviciuteA (2006) How ethnic and linguistic heterogeneity influence the prospects for civil society: A comparative study of citizenship behavior. Journal of Politics68(4): 783–802.
3.
AndersonCThompsonL (2004) Affect from the top down: How powerful individuals’ positive affect shapes negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes95(2): 125–39.
4.
AnheierHK (2001) Measuring global civil society. In: AnheierHGlasiusMKaldorM (eds) Global Civil Society Yearbook 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 221–30.
5.
AnheierHKStaresS (2002) Introducing the Global Civil Society Index. In: GlasiusMKaldorMAnheierHK (eds) Global Civil Society Yearbook 2002. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 241–54.
6.
BiekartK (1999) The Politics of Civil Society Building: European Private Aid Agencies and Democratic Transitions in Central America. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute.
7.
BiekartK (2008) Measuring civil society strength: How and for whom?Development and Change39(6): 1171–80.
8.
BoehmkeFJBowenDC (2010) Direct democracy and individual interest group membership. Journal of Politics72(3): 659–71.
9.
BollenK (1993) Liberal democracy: Validity and method factors in cross-national measures. American Journal of Political Science37(4): 1207–30.
10.
ChandhokeN (2001) The ‘civil’ and the ‘political’ in civil society. Democratization8(2): 1–24.
CleurenH (2007) Local democracy and participation in post-authoritarian Chile. European Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies83: 3–18.
13.
CostaDKahnME (2004) Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: An economist’s perspective. Perspectives on Politics1(1): 103–11.
14.
CrottyJ (2009) Making a difference? NGOs and civil society development in Russia. Europe-Asia Studies61(1): 85–108.
15.
CurtisJEBaerDEGrabbEG (2001) Nations of joiners: Explaining voluntary association membership in democratic societies. American Sociological Review66(6): 783–805.
16.
DiamondL (1994) Rethinking civil society – toward democratic consolidation. Journal of Democracy5(3): 4–17.
17.
FisherJ (1998) Nongovernments: NGOs and the Political Development of the Third World. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
18.
FowerakerJ (2001) Grassroots movements and political activism in Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies33(4): 839–65.
19.
FoxJ (1997) How does civil society thicken? The political construction of social capital in rural Mexico. In: EvansP (ed.) State–Society Synergy: Government and Social Capital in Development. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 119–49.
20.
FreitagM (2006) Bowling the state back in: Political institutions and the creation of social capital. European Journal of Political Research45(1): 123–52.
21.
GesthuizenMVan Der MeerTScheepersP (2009) Ethnic diversity and social capital in Europe: Tests of Putnam’s thesis in European countries. Scandinavian Political Studies32(2): 121–42.
22.
HadeniusAUgglaF (1996) Making civil society work, promoting democratic development: What can states and donors do?World Development24(10): 1621–39.
23.
HeinrichVF (2005) Studying civil society across the world: Exploring the thorny issues of conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Civil Society1(3): 211–28.
24.
HeinrichVFFioramontiL (2007) CIVICUS Global Survey of the State of Civil Society: Comparative Perspectives. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
25.
HellerP (1997) Social capital as a product of class mobilization and state intervention: Industrial workers in Kerala, India. In: EvansP (ed.) State–Society Synergy: Government and Social Capital in Development. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 48–84.
26.
HestonASummersRAtenB (2002) Penn World Table, version 6.1. Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices, University of Pennsylvania.
27.
HowardM (2003) The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-communist Europe. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HowellJPearceJ (2002) Civil Society and Development: A Critical Exploration. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
29.
HuntingtonS (1992) The clash of civilizations?Foreign Affairs72(3): 22–49.
30.
InglehartRWelzelC (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
31.
JamesE (1987) The nonprofit sector in comparative perspective. In: PowellW (ed.) The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 397–415.
32.
JamesE (1989) The private provision of public services: A comparison of Sweden and Holland. In: JamesE (ed.) The Nonprofit Sector in International Perspective: Studies in Comparative Culture and Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 31–60.
33.
KääriäinenJLehtonenH (2006) The variety of social capital in welfare state regimes – a comparative study of 21 countries. European Societies8(1): 27–57.
34.
KaufmannDKraayAMastruzziM (2006) Governance Matters V: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators for 1996–2005. Washington, DC: World Bank.
35.
KingGTomzMWittenbergJ (2000) Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44(2): 347–61.
36.
LipsetS (1959) Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review53(1): 69–105.
37.
MarshallMJaggersK (2002) Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2002. Dataset Users’ Manual. Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland.
38.
MatsunagaYYamauchiNOkuyamaN (2010) What determines the size of the nonprofit sector? A cross-country analysis of the government failure theory. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations21(2): 180–201.
39.
MendelsonS (2000) The Putin path: Civil liberties and human rights in retreat. Problems of Post-Communism47(5): 3–12.
40.
MuukkonenM (2009) Framing the field: Civil society and related concepts. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly38(4): 684–700.
41.
NorrisP (2002) Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
42.
O’ConnellB (2000) Civil society: Definitions and descriptions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly29(3): 471–8.
43.
ParboteeahKCullenJLimL (2004) Formal volunteering: A cross-national test. Journal of World Business39(4): 431–41.
44.
PetrovaTTarrowS (2007) Transactional and participatory activism in the emerging European polity: The puzzle of East-Central Europe. Comparative Political Studies40(1): 74–94.
45.
PutnamR (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
46.
PutnamRLeonardiRNanettiR (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47.
RichterJ (2009) Putin and the Public Chamber. Post-Soviet Affairs25(1): 39–65.
48.
RuiterSDe GraafND (2006) National context, religiosity, and volunteering: Results from 53 countries. American Sociological Review71(2): 191–210.
49.
SakwaR (2008) Russian Politics and Society, 4th edn.London and New York: Routledge.
50.
SalamonLAnheierHK (1998) Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations9(3): 213–48.
51.
SalamonLSokolowskiS (2004) Measuring civil society: The Johns Hopkins Global Civil Society Index. In: SalamonLSokolowskiS. (eds) Global Civil Society, Volume 2: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, 61–92.
52.
SchoferEFourcade-GourinchasM (2001) The structural contexts of civic engagement: Voluntary association membership in comparative perspective. American Sociological Review66(6): 806–28.
53.
SchoferELonghoferW (2005) The structural sources of associational life. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Philadelphia, PA.
54.
SerbinAFioramontiL (2007) Civil society in Latin America: Between contentious politics and participatory democracy. In: HeinrichFVFioramontiL (eds) Civicus Global Survey of the State of Civil Society, Volume 2: Comparative Perspective. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
55.
SilRChenC (2004) State legitimacy and the (in)significance of democracy in post-communist Russia. Europe-Asia Studies56(3): 347–68.
56.
SkocpolT (2003) Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Oklahoma City, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
57.
SundstromL (2005) Foreign assistance, international norms, and NGO development: Lessons from the Russian campaign. International Organization59(2): 419–49.
58.
TeorellJCharronNSamanniM. (2010) The Quality of Government Dataset, Version 27May2010. Gothenburg: Quality of Government Institute, University of Gothenburg.
59.
TusalemR (2007) A boon or a bane? The role of civil society in third- and fourth-wave democracies. International Political Science Review28(3): 361–86.
ValdiviesoP (2006) Zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen, Strafjustiz und politische Bildung in Chile. In: BetzJMerkelW (eds) Neues Jahrbuch Dritte Welt 2005. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 255–74.
62.
Van OorschotWArtsW (2005) The social capital of European welfare states: The crowding out hypothesis revisited. Journal of European Social Policy15(1): 5–26.
63.
Van OorschotWFinsveenE (2010) Does the welfare state reduce inequalities in people’s social capital?International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy30(3/4): 182–93.
64.
WhiteG (1994) Civil Society, democratization and development: Clearing the analytical ground. Democratization1(3): 375–90.
65.
WimmerACedermanLEMinB (2009) Ethnic politics and armed conflict: A configurational analysis of a new global data set. American Sociological Review74(2): 316–37.
66.
World Bank (2010) World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank.
67.
World Values Association (2009) World Values Survey, 1981–2008 v. 20090901. Madrid: World Values Association.
68.
ZieglerCE (1991) Environmental politics and policy under perestroika. In: SedaitisJBButterfieldJ (eds) Perestroika From Below. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 113–32.
