Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
Civil Society and Mirror Images of Weak States

Part of the book series: Governance and Limited Statehood ((GLS))

  • 419 Accesses

Abstract

Civil society has remained a key term for both academics and international development practitioners throughout the past two and a half decades. Since the collapse of the authoritarian regimes of Eastern Europe, in which civil society actors supposedly played an instrumental role, studies focusing on the USA and Europe, whether theoretical or empirical in nature, have emphasized the importance of civil society for the functioning of democracy (Edwards 2004, pp. 1-17; for examples see Cohen and Arato 1992; Klein 2002; Putnam 2000; Schmalz-Bruns 1994). Similarly, transformation theory and studies on newly democratized countries have investigated the role that civil society actors can play in the context of democratic transition and democratic consolidation (e.g. Croissant et al. 2000; Diamond 1999, pp. 218-260, esp. 233-250; Linz and Stepan 1996, esp. pp. 7f.).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abella, C.T., and A.L. Dimalanta. 2003. Philippines. NGOs as Major Actors in Philippines Society. Paper presented at the APPC Conference, Manila, September 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, A. 2014. Bangladesh in 2013: Year of Confusion, Confrontations, Concerns. Asian Survey54(1): 190–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alagappa, M. (ed.). 2004. Civil Society and Political Change in Asia: Expanding and Contracting Democratic Space. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, J.C. 1998. Introduction: Civil Society I, II, III: Constructing an Empirical Concept form Normative Controversies and Historical Transformations. In Real Civil Societies: Dilemmas of Institutionalization, ed. J.C. Alexander, 1–20. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, L. 2006. Security Sector Reform in Fragile States. DIIS Working Paper, 2006/15. Copenhagen: DIIS, Danish Institute of International Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anheier, H.K., E. Priller, and A. Zimmer. 2000. Zur zivilgesellschaftlichen Dimension des Dritten Sektors. In Die Zukunft der Demokratie: Herausforderungen im Zeitalter der Globalisierung, ed. H.-D. Klingemann and F. Neidhardt, 71–98. Berlin: Edition sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anheier, H.K., K. Helmut, and M. Freise. 2004. Der Dritte Sektor im Wandel: zwischen New Public Management und Zivilgesellschaft. In Zivilgesellschaft—national und transnational, WZB-Jahrbuch 2003, ed. D. Gosewinkel, D. Rucht, W. van den Daele, and J. Kocka, 129–150. Berlin: Edition sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, C. 2013. A Vibrant and Independent Civil Society is an Essential Ingredient of Effective and Stable Democracy,http://civicus.org/news-and-resources-127/1637-a-vibrant-and-independent-civil-society-is-an-essential-ingredient-of-effective-and-stable-democracy, date accessed 12 April 2016.

  • Bailer, S., T. Bodenstein, and V.F. Heinrich. 2007. What Makes Civil Society Strong?: Testing Bottom-Up and Top-Down Theories of a Vibrant Civil Society. In CIVICUS Global Survey of State and Civil Society. Volume 2: Comparative Perspectives, ed. V.F. Heinrich and L. Fioramonti, 235–254. Bloomfield CT: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, N., and D. Hulme. 2012. The Role of NGOs and Civil Society in Development and Poverty Reduction. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper No. 171, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2072157, date accessed 28 April 2016.

  • Banks, N., D. Hulme, and M. Edwards. 2015. NGOs, States, and Donors Revisited: Still Too Close for Comfort? World Development66: 707–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beisheim, M., A. Liese, and J. Lorch. 2014. Introduction: Transnational Partnerships for Sustainable Development. In Transnational Partnerships: Effectively Providing for Sustainable Development? ed. M. Beisheim and A. Liese, 3–16. Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Biró, D. 2007. The (Un)bearable Lightness… of Violence. In State Failure Revisited II: Actors of Violence and Alternative Forms of Governance Report 89/2007, ed. T. Debiel and D. Lambach, 7–49. Duisburg-Essen: INEF, Institut für Entwicklung und Frieden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, H. 2015. Civil Advocacy in Bangladesh and the Philippines: A Comparative Exploration with the Tsukuba Survey. In Civil Society in Asia: In Search of Democracy and Development in Bangladesh, ed. F. Quadir and Y. Tsujinaka, Franham, 143–177. UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T. 2012. How Much Statehood Does it Take: And What For? SFB-Governance Working Paper Series 29. Berlin: Sonderforschungsbereich (SFB) 700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carment, D. 2003. Assessing State Failure: Implications for Theory and Policy. Third World Quarterly24(3): 407–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carment, D., S. Prest, and Y. Samy. 2010. Security, Development and the Fragile State: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Policy. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, T., and D. de Gramont. 2013. Development Aid Confronts Politics: The Almost Revolution. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, T., and M. Ottaway. 2000. The Burgeoning World of Civil Society. In Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion, ed. M. Ottaway and T. Carothers, 3–20. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J.T. 2005. It’s the Process Stupid! Process Tracing in the Study of European and International Politics. Working Paper No. 26. Oslo: University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesterman, S., M. Ignatieff, and R. Thakur. 2004. Making States Work: State Failure and the Crisis of Governance. New York: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • CIA WFB (CIA World Fact Book) Philippines. 2016. People and Society, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html, date accessed 1 April 2016.

  • CIA WFB (CIA World Fact Book) Bangladesh. 2016. People and Society, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bg.html, date accessed 28 April 2016.

  • Clapham, C. 1982. Clientelism and the State. In Private Patronage and Public Power: Political Clientelism in the Modern State, ed. C. Clapham, 1–36. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham, C. 2003. The Challenge to the State in a Globalized World. In State Failure, Collapse, and Reconstruction, ed. J. Milliken, 25–44. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • CODE-NGO (Caucus of Development NGO Networks). 2009. Assessing the Philippines NGO Environment: Regulation, Risks and Renewal. Manila: CODE-NGO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffé, H., and B. Geys. 2006 Towards an Empirical Characterization of Bridging and Bonding Social Capital. Discussion Paper SP II 2006–11. Berlin: WZB, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J.L., and A. Arato. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coronel, S.S. 2007. The Philippines in 2006: Democracy and its Discontents. Asian Survey47(1): 175–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croissant, A. 2000. Zivilgesellschaft und Transformation in Ostasien. In Systemwechsel 5. Zivilgesellschaft und Transformation, ed. W. Merkel, 335–372. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croissant, A., H.-J. Lauth, and W. Merkel. 2000. Zivilgesellschaft und Transformation: Ein internationaler Vergleich. In Systemwechsel 5. Zivilgesellschaft und Transformation, ed. W. Merkel, 9–49. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debiel, T. 2005. Fragile Staaten als Problem der Entwicklungspolitik. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 2005(28–29): 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P. 2004. The Sphere of Voluntary Associations and the Ideals of Civil Society: A West-European Perspective. Korea Observer35(3): 391–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dialogue, P.B.S. 2014. A New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States. Paris: PBS Dialogue, International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. 1999. Developping Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doornbos, M. 2003. State Collapse and Fresh Starts: Some Critical Reflections. In State Failure, Collapse, and Reconstruction, ed. Jennifer Milliken, 45–62. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowst, M. 2009. Working with Civil Society in Fragile States. Policy Briefing Paper 23 International NGO Training and Research Centre (INTRAC), http://www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/621/Briefing-Paper-23-Working-with-Civil-Society-in-Fragile-States.pdf, date accessed 12 April 2016.

  • EC (European Commission). 2012. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The Roots of Democracy and Sustainable Development: Europe’s engagement with Civil Society in External Relations (Brussels: EC), 492, 12 September 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. 2004. Civil Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M., and D. Hulme (eds.). 1996a. Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountability in the Post-Cold War World, 1–20. Sterling: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M., and D. Hulme. 1996b. Beyond the Magic Bullet? Lessons and Conclusions. In Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountability in the Post-Cold War World, ed. M. Edwards and D. Hulme, 254–266. Sterling: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englehardt, N. 2011. What Makes Civil Society Civil? The State and Social Groups. Polity43: 337–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, S. 2005. The Politics of State Formation: Contradictions and Conditions of Possibility. European Journal of Development Research17(3): 396–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EU (European Union). 2014. Philippines. EU Roadmap for Engagement with Civil Society 2014–2017, http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/philippines/documents/more_info/publications/eu_country_stategy_cso_engagement.pdf, date accessed 1 May 2016.

  • Feldman, S. 2015. Bangladesh in 2014: Illusive Democracy. Asian Survey55(1): 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FHI (Freedom House Index). 2015. Freedom in the World 2016: Anxious dictators, wavering democracies: Global freedom under pressure. Freedom House Index, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2016, date accessed 28 April 2016.

  • FSI (Fragile States Index). 2015. http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/, date accessed 1 May 2016.

  • George, A.L., and A. Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Götze, C. 2004. Die Bedeutung von Staatsversagen und Anomie für zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen: Beispiele aus Bosnien-Herzegowina und Albanien. In Zivilgesellschaft—national und transnational, ed. D. Gosewinkel, D. Rucht, W. van den Daele, and J. Kocka, 201–222. Berlin: Edition sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosewinkel, D. 2003. Zivilgesellschaft—Eine Erschließung des Themas von seinen Grenzen her. Discussion Paper No. SP IV 2003–505. Berlin: WZB, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosewinkel, D. and D. Rucht. 2004. “History meets sociology”: Zivilgesellschaft als Prozess. In Zivilgesellschaft—national und transnational, WZB-Jahrbuch 2003, ed. D. Gosewinkel, D. Rucht, W. van den Daele, and J. Kocka, 11–28. Berlin: Edition sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosewinkel, D., D. Rucht, W. van den Daele, and J. Kocka. 2004. Einleitung: Zivilgesellschaft—national und transnational. In Zivilgesellschaft—national und transnational, WZB Jahrbuch 2003, ed. D. Gosewinkel, D. Rucht, W. van den Daele, and J. Kocka, 11–28. Berlin: Edition sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, S., N. Lemay-Hébert, and O. Nay. 2014. ‘Fragile States’: Introducing a Political Concept. The Third World Quarterly35(2): 197–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, L.H. 2004. Introduction: Civil Society in Southeast Asia. In Civil Society in Southeast Asia, ed. L.H. Guan, 1–26. Singapore: NIAS Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heng, R.H.-K. 2004. Civil Society Effectiveness and the Vietnamese State: Despite or Because of the Lack of Autonomy. In Civil Society in Southeast Asia, ed. L.H. Guan, 144–166. Singapore: NIAS Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, N. 2011. Civil Society amid Civil War: Political Violence and Non-violence in the Burmese Democracy Movement. Global Society25(1): 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. 1999. Manufacturing Civil Society from the Outside: Some Dilemmas and Challenges. Paper presented at the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) Conference, September 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, M. and J.M. Weinstein. 2006. Who Rebels? The Determinants of Participation in Civil War. UCLA Comparative Politics Workshop 27 January 2006, http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/cpworkshop/papers/weinstein.pdf, date accessed 12 April 2016.

  • ICG (International Crisis Group). 2008. Restoring Democracy in Bangladesh. ICG Asia Report No. 151. Brussels: ICG.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICG (International Crisis Group). 2012. Bangladesh: Back to the Future. ICG Asia Report No. 226. Brussels: ICG.

    Google Scholar 

  • INTRAC (International NGO Training and Research Centre). 2013. Evaluation Insights: Support to Civil Society—Emerging Evaluation Lessons (INTRAC United Kingdom).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamali, M. 2001. Civil Society and Islam: A Sociological Perspective. European Journal of Sociology42(3): 457–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karim, A.T., and C.C. Fair. 2007. Bangladesh at the Crossroads. United States Institute of Peace (USIP) Special Report No. 181. Washington, DC: USIP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M.H. 2002. State Failure in Developing Countries and Strategies of Institutional Reform. Paper for the World Bank ABCDE Conference Oslo, July 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, G., and L. Zeng. 2001. Improving Forecasts of State Failure. World Politics53(4): 623–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, A. 2002. Der Diskurs der Zivilgesellschaft. In Die Bürgergesellschaft: Perspektiven für Bürgerbeteiligung und Bürgerkommunikation, ed. T. Meyer and R. Weil, 7–61. Bonn: Dietz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knöbl, W. 2006. Zivilgesellschaft und staatliches Gewaltmonopol: zur Verschränkung von Gewalt und Zivilität. Mittelweg 3615(1): 61–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopecky, P., and C. Mudde (eds.). 2003. Uncivil Society? Contentious Politics in Post-Communist Europe, 114–133. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R.M. 2000. A Third Sector in the Third Millenium? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations11(1): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambach, D., and F. Bethke. 2012. Ursachen von Staatskollaps und fragiler Staatlichkeit. INEF-Report 106/2012. Duisburg-Essen: INEF, Institut für Entwicklung und Frieden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauth, H.-J. 2003. Zivilgesellschaft als Konzept und die Suche nach ihren Akteuren. In Die Praxis der Zivilgesellschaft. Akteure, Handeln und Strukturen im internationalen Vergleich, ed. A. Bauerkämper, 31–56. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, M., and W. Verkoren. 2012. Complexities and Challenges for Civil Society Building in Post-Conflict Settings. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development7(1): 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemarchand, R. 1981. Comparative Political Clientelism: Structure, Process and Optic. In Political Clientelism, Patronage and Development, ed. S.N. Eisenstadt and R. Lemarchand, 7–34. Beverly Hills, CA/London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonhard, J. 2004. Zivilität und Gewalt: Zivilgesellschaft, Bellizismus und Nation. In Ambivalenzen der Zivilgesellschaft. Gegenbegriffe, Gewalt und Macht. Discussion Paper No. SP IV 2004–501, ed. D. Gosewinkel and S. Reichardt, 26–41. Berlin: WZB, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. 2001. Civil Society in Non-Western Contexts: Reflections on the ‘Usefulness’ of a Concept. Civil Society Working Paper Series 13. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz, J.J., and A. Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, J. 2006. Civil Society under Authoritarian Rule: The Case of Myanmar. Südostasien aktuell25(6): 3–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, J. 2008. The (Re)-Emergence of Civil Society in Areas of State Weakness: The Case of Education in Myanmar. In Dictatorship, Disorder and Decline in Myanmar, ed. M. Skidmore and T. Wilson, 151–176. Canberra: ANU E-Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, S. 2002. Die Globalisierung privater Gewalt. Kriegsherren, Rebellen, Terroristen und organisierte Kriminalität, SWP-Studie S, 10 April 2010. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP).

    Google Scholar 

  • Migdal, J.S. 1988. Strong Societies and Weak States: State-Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Migdal, J.S., and K. Schlichte. 2005. Rethinking the State. In The Dynamics of States: The Formation and Crises of State Domination, ed. K. Schlichte, 1–40. Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, J., and K. Krause. 2003. State Failure, State Collapse and State Reconstruction: Concepts, Lessons and Strategies. In State Failure, Collapse & Reconstruction, ed. J. Milliken, 1–24. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitra, S.K. 2003. Collective Violence and the Making of Civil Society: India in European Perspective. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Political and Social Transition in India and Europe. Leipzig: Leipzig University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monga, C. 2009. Uncivil Societies: A Theory of Socio-Political Change. Policy Research Working Paper 4942. World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moniruzzaman, M. 2009. Party Politics and Political Violence in Bangladesh: Issues, Manifestation and Consequences. South Asian Survey16(1): 81–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montesano, M.J. 2004. The Philippines in 2003: Troubles, None of Them New. Asian Survey44(1): 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MSW (Ministry of Social Welfare) Website. 2009. http://www.msw.gov.bd/department_organization_msw.asp#1, date accessed 24 August 2009 (on file with the author).

  • Myrdal, G. 1968. Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations. New York, NY: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nay, O. 2014. International Organisations and the Production of Hegemonic Knowledge: How the World Bank and the OECD Helped Invent the Fragile State Concept. The Third World Quarterly35(2): 210–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, W.L. 2003. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 5th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGOAB (NGO Affairs Bureau). 2008. 18 Year of NGO Affairs Bureau. Dhaka: NGO AB.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGOAB WS (NGO Affairs Bureau Website). 2009. http://www.ngoab.gov.bd/, date accessed 24 July 2009 (on file with the author).

  • Nohlen, D. 2004. Vergleichende Methode. In Lexikon der Politikwissenschaft, ed. D. Nohlen and R.-O. Schultze, Band 2, 1042–1052. München: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2011. International Engagement in Fragile States. Can’t we do better? OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2013. Aid for CSOs. OCED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottaway, M. 2004. Civil Society. In Politics in the Developing World, ed. P.J. Burnell and V. Randall, 120–135. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottaway, M., and T. Carothers. 2000. Towards Civil Society Realism. In Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion, ed. M. Ottaway and T. Carothers, 292–310. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paffenholz, T. 2014. Civil Society and Peace Negotiations: Beyond the Inclusion–Exclusion Dichotomy. Negotiation Journal30(1): 69–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, S.M. 2006. Washington Quarterly: Weak States and Global Threats: Fact or Fiction?. Concil on foreign Relations, March 2006, http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/washington-quarterly-weak-states-global-threats-fact-fiction/p12080, date accessed 19 April 2016.

  • Patrick, S. 2011. Weak Links: Fragile States, Global Threats, and International Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Piattoni, S. 2001. Clientelism in Historical and Comparative Perspective. In Clientelism, Interests, and Democratic Representation: The European Experience in Historical and Comparative Perspective, ed. S. Piattoni, 1–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon &Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R.D., with R. Leonardi, and R.Y. Nanetti. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quadir, F. 2003. How “Civil” is Civil Society? Authoritarian State, Artisan Civil Society and the Struggle for Democratic Development in Bangladesh. Canadian Journal of Development Studies24(3): 425–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racelis, M. 2000. New Visions and Strong Actions: Civil Society in the Philippines. In Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion, ed. M. Ottaway and T. Carothers, 159–187. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C.C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichardt, S. 2004. Gewalt und Zivilität im Wandel: Konzeptionelle Überlegungen zur Zivilgesellschaft aus historischer Sicht. In Zivilgesellschaft—national und transnational, ed. D. Gosewinkel, D. Rucht, W. van den Daele, and J. Kocka, 61–81. Berlin: Edition sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, S.E., and S. Patrick. 2008. Index of State Weakness in the Developing World. Brookings Global Economy and Development (Brookings Institution).

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. 2012. Governance Configurations in Areas of Limited Statehood: Actors, modes, institutions, and resources. SFB-Governance Working Paper Series 32. Berlin: Sonderforschungsbereich (SFB) 700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T., and S. Krasner. 2014. External Actors, State-Building, and Service Provision in Areas of Limited Statehood. Governance, published online 6 JAN 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. 2015. Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood. In The Oxford Handbook of Governance, ed. D. Levi-Faur, (2012), 699–715. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizvi, G. 1991. Bangladesh: Towards Civil Society. The World Today08(09): 155–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rombouts, H. 2006. Civil Society Participation in Fragile States: Critical Thoughts on the New Development Paradigm and its Implementation. Discussion Paper 2006.06. Antwerpen: University of Antwerpen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roniger, L. 1994a. The Comparative Study of Clientelism and the Changing Nature of Civil Society in the Contemporary World. In Democracy, Clientelism and Civil Society, ed. L. Roniger and A. Günes-Ayata, 1–19. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roniger, Luis. 1994b. Conclusions: The Transformation of Clientelism and Civil Society. In Democracy, Clientelism and Civil Society, ed. Luis Roniger and Ayse Günes-Ayata, 207–214. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotberg, R.I. 2002. The New Nature of Nation State Failure. The Washington Quarterly25(3): 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotberg, R.I. 2004. Failed States, Collapsed States, Weak States: Causes and Indicators. In When States Fail: Causes and Consequences, ed. R.I. Rotberg, 1–25. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schade, J. 2002. “Zivilgesellschaft”—eine vielschichtige Debatte. INEF Report No. 59/2002. Duisburg-Essen: INEF, Institut für Entwicklung und Frieden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalz-Bruns, R. 1994. Die Konturen eines neuen LiberalismusP: Zur Debatte um Liberalismus, Kommunitarismus und Civil Society. Politische Vierteljahresschrift33(4): 662–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneckener, U. 2006. States at Risk: Zur Analyse fragiler Staatlichkeit. In Fragile Staatlichkeit.“States at Risk” zwischen Stabilität und Scheitern, Internationale Politik und Sicherheit, ed. U. Schneckener, Band 59. 9–40. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seckinelgin, H. 2002. Civil Society as a Metaphor for Western Liberalism. Civil Society Working Paper 21. London: London School of Economics.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, K. 2009. Fragile States or Failed Policies: some donor-induced dilemmas, Policy Briefing Paper 19, Oxford: International NGO Training and Research Centre (INTRAC), http://www.intrac.org/resources.php?action=resource&id=120, date accessed 28 April 2016.

  • Shah, S. 2008. Civil Society in Uncivil Places: Soft State and Regime Change in Nepal. Policy Studies 48. Washington, D.C.: East–west Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidel, J.T. 2014. The Philippines in 2013: Disappointment, Disgrace, Disaster. Asian Survey54(1): 64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidel, J.T. 2015. The Philippines in 2014: Aquino Fights Back. Asian Survey55(1): 220–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skocpol, T. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. 2004. State-Building. In Politics in the Developing World, ed. P.J. Burnell and V. Randall, 155–170. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, S., and M. Meyer. 2005. Civil Society and Violence: A Research Agenda. Journal of Civil Society1(2): 181–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tandon, R. 1996. Board Games: Governance and Accountability in NGOs. In Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountability in the Post-Cold War World, ed. M. Edwards and D. Hulme, 53–62. Sterling: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tansey, O. 2007. Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A Case for Non-probability Sampling. Political Science & Politics40(4): 765–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanvir, A. 2012. Civil Society in Muslim Contexts: The Problématique and a Critique of Euro-American Perspectives. Islamic studies51(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M.R. 1995. The Anti-Marcos Struggle: Personalistic Rule and Democratic Transition in the Philippines. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M.R. 2013. Presidents and People Power in the Philippines. In Dynasties and Female Political Leaders in Asia: Gender, Power and Pedigree, vol. 16, ed. C. Derichs and M.R. Thompson, 151–190. Münster: LIT Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2012. UNDP Strategy on Civil Society an Civic Engagement, 1 October 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2014. Stand with Civil Society: Best Practices. USAID Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance: Civil Society and Media Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verkoren, W., and M. van Leeuwen. 2014. Civil Society in Fragile Contexts. In The Handbook of Global Security Policy, ed. M. Kaldor and I. Rangelov, 463–481, Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Weijer, F., and U. Kilnes. 2012. Strengthening Civil Society? Reflections on International Engagement in Fragile States. Discussion Paper No. 135. European Centre for Development and Policy Management (ecdpm).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wischermann, J. 2005. Towards Good Society? Civil Society Actors, the State, and the Business Class in Southeast Asia: Facilitators of or Impediments to a Strong, Democratic, and Fair Society? In Towards Good Society. Civil Society Actors, the State, and the Business Class in Southeast Asia. Berlin: Heinrich Böll Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • WB (World Bank) Philippines. 2016. http://data.worldbank.org/country/philippines, date accessed 28 April 2016.

  • WB (World Bank) Bangladesh. 2016. http://data.worldbank.org/country/bangladesh, date accessed 28 April 2016.

  • Würfel, D. 2006. Mining and the Environment in the Philippines: The Limits on Civil Society in a Weak State. Philippines Studies, Quezon City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, D.D.-H. 2004. Civil Society as an Analytic Lens for Contemporary China. China: An International Journal2(1): 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zartman, I.W. 1995. Introduction: Posing the Problem of State Collapse. In Collapsed States: The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority, ed. I.W. Zartmann, 1–14. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, Germany

    Jasmin Lorch

Authors
  1. Jasmin Lorch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lorch, J. (2017). Introduction. In: Civil Society and Mirror Images of Weak States. Governance and Limited Statehood. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55462-8_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation