Which types of civil society organizations are politicized as indicated by regular political engagement and why? If they are, how wide-ranging are their political action repertoires? This article proposes an ‘organizational governance perspective’ on civil society organizations’ political engagement by arguing that organizations resembling traditional ‘voluntary associations’ are less likely to be politicized and to employ a broad political action repertoire than those resembling highly professionalized ‘voluntary agencies’. Applying event count regressions to new data from four recent population surveys widely substantiates the proposed perspective, thereby challenging prominent arguments about the detrimental effects of professionalization and state dependency on organizations’ ability to contribute to democratic representation.
AhrneG (1996)
Civil society and civil organizations. Organization3(1): 109–210.
2.
AlbaredaA (2018)
Connecting society and policymakers? Conceptualizing and measuring the capacity of civil society organizations to act as transmission belts. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations29(6): 1216–1232.
3.
AliTMGullS (2016)
Government funding to NGOs: A blessing or a curse?International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science5(6): 51–61.
4.
BaraksoMSchaffnerBF (2007)
Exit, voice, and interest group governance. American Politics Research36(2): 186–209.
5.
BaroniLCarrollBChalmersA, et al. (2014)
Defining and classifying interest groups. Interest Groups & Advocacy3(2): 141–159.
6.
BerkhoutJBeyersJBraunC, et al. (2018)
Making inference across mobilization and influence research: Comparing top-down and bottom-up mapping of interest systems. Political Studies66(1): 43–62.
7.
BerryJMWilcoxC (2009) The Interest Group Society.
London:
Routledge.
8.
BeyersJ (2004)
Voice and access: Political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics5(2): 211–240.
9.
Beyers J, Bernhagen P, Braun C, et al. (2016) Comparative Interest Group Survey Questionnaire. Belgium: University of Antwerp.
10.
BeyersJEisingRMaloneyWA (2008)
Researching interest group politics in Europe and elsewhere: Much We study, little We know? West European Politics31(6): 1103–1128.
11.
BillisD (1991)
The roots of voluntary agencies: A question of choice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly20(1): 57–69.
12.
BillisD (2010) Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector: Challenges for Practice, Theory and Policy.
London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
BinderkrantzA (2005)
Interest group strategies: Navigating between privileged access and strategies of pressure. Political Studies53(4): 694–715.
14.
BinderkrantzA (2008)
Different groups, different strategies: How interest groups pursue their political ambitions. Scandinavian Political Studies31(2): 173–200.
15.
BinderkrantzAChristiansenPMPedersenHH (2015)
Interest group access to bureaucracy, parliament and the media. Governance28(1): 95–11.
16.
BloodgoodETremblay-BoireJ (2017)
Does government funding depoliticize non-governmental organizations? Examining evidence from Europe. European Political Science Review9(3): 401–424.
17.
BolleyerNWeilerF (2018)
Why groups are politically active: An incentive-theoretical approach. Comparative Political Studies51(12): 1628–1660.
18.
BolleyerNCorreaP (2020)
Self-Maintenance versus goal attainment – Drivers of mortality anxiety in organized civil society. European Political Science Review12(3): 271–288.
19.
BossoCJ (2003)
Rethinking the concept of membership in nature advocacy organizations. Policy Studies Journal31(3): 397–411.
20.
CornforthC (2012)
Nonprofit governance research: Limitations of the focus on boards and suggestions for new directions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly41(6): 1116–1135.
21.
CinalliMGuigniM (2014) The impact of political opportunity structures on the politicization of civil society organizations in the field of unemployment and precarity. In: BaglioniSGuigniM (eds) Civil Society Organizations, Unemployment, and Precarity in Europe.
London:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 85–106.
22.
ChavesMStephensLGalaskiewiczJ (2004)
Does government funding suppress nonprofits’ political activity?American Sociological Review69(2): 292–316.
23.
ChildCDGrønbjergKA (2007)
Nonprofit advocacy organizations: Their characteristics and activities. Social Science Quarterly88(1): 259–281.
ClarkPBWilsonJQ (1961)
Incentive systems: A theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly6(2): 129–166.
26.
De BruyckerI (2017)
Politicization and the public interest: When do the elites in Brussels address public interests in EU policy debates?European Union Politics18(4): 603–619.
27.
DürAMateoG (2014)
The europeanization of interest groups: Group type, resources and policy area. European Union Politics15(4): 572–594.
28.
DürAMateoG (2016) Insiders versus Outsiders: Interest Group Politics in Multilevel Europe.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
29.
EisingR (2007)
Institutional context, organizational resources and strategic choices: Explaining interest group access in the European Union. European Union Politics8(3): 329–362.
30.
EnjolrasBSivesindKH (2018) The roles and impacts of the third sector in Europe. In: EnjolrasBSalamonLMSivesindKH, et al. (eds) The Third Sector as a Renewable Resource for Europe: Concepts, Impacts, Challenges and Opportunities.
London:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 95–124.
31.
FoleyMWEdwardsB (2002) How do members count? Membership, governance, and advocacy in the nonprofit world. In: ReidEJMontillaMD (eds) Nonprofit Advocacy and the Policy Process: Exploring Organizations and Advocacy.
Washington, DC:
The Urban Institute, pp. 19–33.
32.
FraussenB (2014)
The visible hand of the state: On the organizational development of interest groups. Public Administration92(2): 406–421.
33.
FroelichKA (1999)
Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly28(3): 246–268.
GrömpingMHalpin D (2019)
Does group engagement with members constitute a “beneficial inefficiency”?Governance32(3): 511–529.
36.
HalpinD (2014) The Organization of Political Interest Groups: Designing Advocacy.
London:
Routledge.
37.
HalpinDFraussenB (2017)
Conceptualising the policy engagement of interest groups: Involvement, access and prominence. European Journal of Political Research56(3): 723–732.
38.
HarrisM (1998)
Doing it their way: Organizational challenges for voluntary associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly27(2): 144–158.
39.
HayCStokerG (2009)
Revitalising politics? Have we lost the plot?Representation45(3): 225–236.
40.
HeylenFWillemsEBeyersJ (2020)
Do professionals take over? Professionalisation and membership influence in civil society organisations. Voluntas : International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations31(6): 1226–1238.
41.
HuM-CPavlicovaMNunesEV (2011)
Zero-Inflated and hurdle models of count data with extra zeros: Examples from an HIV-Risk reduction intervention trial. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse37(5): 367–375.
42.
HwangHPowellWW (2009)
The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly54(2): 268–298.
43.
JordanGMaloneyWA (1997) The Protest Business? Mobilizing Campaign Groups.
Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
KimberlinSE (2010)
Advocacy by nonprofits: Roles and practice of core advocacy organizations and direct service agencies. Journal of Policy Practice9(3–4): 164–182.
46.
KingGHonakerJJosephA, et al. (2001)
Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. American Political Science Review95(1): 49–69.
47.
KnokeD (1990) Organizing for Collective Action. The Political Economies of Associations.
New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
48.
Kreutzer K (2009) Nonprofit Governance During Organizational Transition in Voluntary Associations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership 20(1): 117–133.
49.
KreutzerKJägerU (2011)
Volunteering versus managerialism: Conflict over organizational identity in voluntary associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly40(4): 634–661.
50.
LeRouxKGoerdelHT (2009)
Political advocacy by nonprofit organizations. Public Performance & Management Review32(4): 514–536.
51.
LipskyMSmithSR (1989)
Nonprofit organizations, government, and the welfare state. Political Science Quarterly104(4): 625–648.
52.
LoweryDGrayV (2004)
Bias in the heavenly chorus: Interests in society and before government. Journal of Theoretical Politics16(1): 5–30.
53.
LuJ (2018)
Fear the government? A meta-analysis of the impact of government funding on nonprofit advocacy engagement. The American Review of Public Administration48(3): 203–218.
54.
LuJParkJ (2018)
Bureaucratization, professionalization, and advocacy engagement in nonprofit human service organizations. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership and Governance42(4): 380–395.
55.
MaloneyWA (2012) The democratic contribution of professionalized representation. In: van DethJWMaloneyWA (eds) New Participatory Dimensions in Civil Society: Professionalization and Individualized Collective Action.
London:
Routledge, pp. 84–97.
56.
MaloneyWARossteutscherS (2005) Welfare through organizations. In: RossteustcherS (ed.) Democracy and the Role of Associations.
London:
Routledge.
57.
MeyerMMaierF (2015) The future of civil society organisation governance: Beyond managerialism. In: LavilleJ-LYoungDEynaudP (eds) Civil Society, the Third Sector and Social Enterprise Governance and Democracy.
New York:
Routledge, pp. 45–57.
58.
MoeTM (1980) The Organization of Interests: Incentives and the Internal Dynamics of Political Interest Groups.
Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
59.
OlsonM (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.
Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
60.
OlsenJP (2017)
Democratic accountability and the terms of political order. European Political Science Review9(4): 519–537.
61.
PaineAEllisNOckendenJ, et al. (2010) Volunteers in hybrid organizations: A marginalized majority? In: BillisD (ed.) Hybrid Organisations and the Third Sector: Challenges for Practice: Theory and Policy.
London:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp.93–113.
62.
PekkanenRJSmithSR (2014) Nonprofit advocacy: Definitions and concepts. In: PekkanenRJRathgeb SmithSTsujinakaY (eds) Nonprofits and Advocacy.
Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 1–20.
63.
SalamonLAnheierH (1998)
Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations9(3): 213–248.
64.
SalamonLMLessans-GellerS (2008) Nonprofit America: A force for democracy? Communiqué No. 9, Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society Studies, New York.
65.
SalisburyRH (1984)
Interest representation: The dominance of institutions. American Political Science Review78(1): 64–76.
66.
SalgadoR (2010)
NGO structural adaptation to funding requirements and prospects for democracy: The case of the European Union. Global Society24(4): 507–527.
67.
SauruggerS (2012) The professionalization of the EU’s civil society: A conceptual framework. In: van DethJWMaloneyWA (eds) New Participatory Dimensions in Civil Society: Professionalization and Individualized Collective Action.
London:
Routledge, pp. 69–83.
68.
SchmitterPCStreeckW (1999) The organization of business interests: Studying the associate action of business in advanced industrial societies. Discussion Paper 99/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
69.
SchoutenBFannieCJelkeB (2009)
Indicators for the representativeness of survey response. Survey Methodology35(1): 101–113.
70.
SkocpolT (2003) Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life.
Oklahoma:
University of Oklahoma Press.
71.
van DethJWMaloneyWA (eds) (2012) New Participatory Dimensions in Civil Society: Professionalization and Individualized Collective Action.
London:
Routledge.
72.
WalkerJL (1983)
The origins and maintenance of interest groups in America. American Political Science Review77(2): 390–406.
73.
WarrenME (2001) Democracy and Association.
Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
74.
WeisbrodBA (1998)
Introduction: The nonprofit mission and its financing. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management17(2): 165–174.
75.
WilsonJQ (1973) Political Organization.
New York:
Basic Books.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
