![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
What impact does European Union (EU) funding of advocacy organizations have? To address this question our article turns to the post-communist Czech Republic, an ideal laboratory for studying externally dependent non-governmental organizations. Employing social network analysis, the main objective of this article is to analyse the effect of EU funding on the cooperation networks of Czech advocacy organizations. Our source of data is a survey of these organizations. We aim to figure out whether there is an association between the dependency of advocacy organizations on EU resources, and their cooperation with other organizations. Contrary to the prevailing interpretation based on the competition argument, our hypothesis is that the greater the dependency on EU funding, the greater the cooperation capacity on the part of advocacy organizations.
Notes on contributors
Ondřej Císař is Associate Professor at Charles University and also works at the Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic in Prague.
Jiří Navrátil is Post-doc Research Fellow at Masaryk University, Brno and Assistant Professor at Charles University in Prague.
Notes
1. Ekiert and Kubik, “Civil Society From Abroad,” 55.
2. Ibid., 35.
3. Jacobsson, “Fragmentation,” 367.
4. Baker and Jehlička, Dilemmas of Transition; Carothers, Aiding Democracy Abroad; Fagan, Environment and Democracy; Fagan, “Taking Stock”; Guenther, “The Possibilities and Pitfalls”; Howard, The Weakness of Civil Society; Jacobsson, “Fragmentation”; McMahon, “Building Civil Societies”; Mendelson and Glenn, The Power and Limits; Narozhna, “Foreign Aid.”
5. Tarrow and Petrova, “Transactional and Participatory Activism”; Bernhagen and Marsh, “Voting and Protesting”; Pridham, Designing Democracy.
6. Pridham, Designing Democracy, 204; see also Howard, The Weakness of Civil Society.
7. Fagan, Environment and Democracy.
8. But see Bruszt and Vedrés, “Associating, Mobilizing, Politicizing”; Stark, Vedres, and Bruszt, “Rooted Transnational Publics.”
9. Andrews and Edwards, “Advocacy Organizations,” 481.
10. See Carothers, Aiding Democracy Abroad.
11. See Frič et al., “The Czech Republic.”
12. For example, Fagan, Environment and Democracy; Fagan, “Taking Stock”; Guenther, “The Possibilities and Pitfalls”; Henderson, Building Democracy; McMahon, “Building Civil Societies.”
13. Jacobsson, “Fragmentation,” 354; Navrátil, “Between the Spillover.”
14. Carothers, Aiding Democracy Abroad; Fagan, “Taking Stock”; Guenther, “The Possibilities and Pitfalls”; Henderson, Building Democracy; Howard, The Weakness of Civil Society; McMahon, “Building Civil Societies”; Mendelson and Glenn, The Power and Limits; Narozhna, “Foreign Aid.”
15. Jacobsson and Saxonberg, Beyond NGO-ization, 7.
16. Fagan, “Taking Stock,” 534.
17. Tarrow and Petrova, “Transactional and Participatory Activism.”
18. Knoke and Yang, Social Network Analysis, 12.
19. Tarrow and Petrova, “Transactional and Participatory Activism,” 79.
20. Baldassarri and Diani, “The Integrative Power.”
21. Diani, “Social Movements,” 227.
22. Tarrow and Petrova, “Transactional and Participatory Activism.”
23. McCarthy, “Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.”
24. Ibid.
25. Pridham, Designing Democracy, 204; see also Carothers, Aiding Democracy Abroad.
26. Aksartova, “Why NGOs”; Baker and Jehlička, Dilemmas of Transition; Císař, “Externally Sponsored Contention”; Fagan, Environment and Democracy; Fagan, “Taking Stock”; Fagan and Carmin, Green Activism; Guenther, “The Possibilities and Pitfalls”; Howard, The Weakness of Civil Society; McMahon, “Building Civil Societies”; Narozhna, “Foreign Aid.”
27. Fagan, Environment and Democracy.
28. Stark, Vedres, and Bruszt, “Rooted Transnational Publics”, 330; also Dimitrova and Pridham, “International Actors”; Lavenex and Schimmelfennig, “EU Democracy Promotion.”
29. See Brooks, “Is there a Dark Side”; Brown and Troutt, “Funding Relations”; Chavesc, Stephens, and Galaskiewicz, “Does Government Funding”; Froelich, “Diversification of Revenue Strategies”; Gazley and Brudney, “The Purpose (and Perils)”; Jenkins, “Channeling Social Protest.”
30. Carothers, Aiding Democracy Abroad; Ekiert and Kubik, “Civil Society From Abroad”; Fagan, Environment and Democracy; Fagan, “Taking Stock”; Howard, The Weakness of Civil Society; Jacobsson, “Fragmentation”; McMahon, “Building Civil Societies”; Mendelson and Glenn, The Power and Limits; Narozhna, “Foreign Aid”; this is sometimes captured by the concept of NGO-ization; see Guenther, “The Possibilities and Pitfalls”; for a critical review see Jacobsson and Saxonberg, Beyond NGO-ization.
31. Henderson, “Selling Civil Society.”
32. Bruszt and Vedres, “Associating, Mobilizing, Politicizing”; Císař and Vráblíková, “Transnational Activism”; Stark, Vedres, and Bruszt, “Rooted Transnational Publics.”
33. Carothers, Aiding Democracy Abroad; McMahon, “Building Civil Societies”; Narozhna, “Foreign Aid.”
34. Carothers, Aiding Democracy Abroad.
35. Pridham, Designing Democracy, 204.
36. Greenwood, Interest Representation.
37. Carothers, Aiding Democracy Abroad; Pridham, Designing Democracy.
38. Cf. Guenther, “The Possibilities and Pitfalls”; Jacobsson, “Fragmentation.”
39. Interview with the head of an organization in the field of Roma rights.
40. Fagan, “Taking Stock,” 539.
41. McMahon, “Building Civil Societies,” 58.
42. For example Ekiert and Kubik, “Civil Society From Abroad”; Fagan, “Taking Stock.”
43. See Císař, “Externally Sponsored Contention”; Fagan, “Taking Stock.”
44. Bruszt and Vedres, “Associating, Mobilizing, Politicizing.”
45. Císař and Vráblíková, “Transnational Activism.”
46. Stark, Vedres, and Bruszt, “Rooted Transnational Publics.”
47. Císař and Vráblíková, “The Europeanization of Social Movements in the Czech Republic.”
48. Unlike these studies, we explicitly employ the tools of social network analysis (SNA) and focus primarily on inter-organizational cooperation.
49. Jenkins, “Channeling Social Protest,” 212.
50. Chavesc, Stephens, and Galaskiewicz, “Does Government Funding.”
51. Greenwood, Interest Representation.
52. Imig and Tarrow, Contentious Europeans.
53. Vermeersch, The Romani Movement. For the environment, cf. Marquart-Pyatt, “Environmental Concerns in Cross-National Context”; and Hadler and Wohlkonig, “Environmental Behaviours in the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany between 1993 and 2010.”
54. Škarabelová, Janoušková, and Veselý, Impacts of the Usage; Interview with the project manager of a human rights organization.
55. Diani, “Leaders or Brokers?,” 108–9; Van Dyke, “Crossing Movement Boundaries,” 229; Foster and Meinhard, “A Regression Model Explaining Predisposition to Collaborate.”
56. Carroll and Ratner, “Master Framing.”
57. Tarrow and Petrova, “Transactional and Participatory Activism.”
58. Jacobsson and Saxonberg, Beyond NGO-ization, Chapter 7.
59. Knoke and Yang, Social Network Analysis; Laumann, Marsden, and Prensky, “The Boundary Specification”; Wasserman and Faust, Social Network Analysis.
60. See Borgatti and Everett, “A Graph-Theoretic Perspective”; de Nooy, Wouter, and Batagelj, Exploratory Network Analysis; Freeman, “Centrality in Social Networks”; Wasserman and Faust, Social Network Analysis.
61. Cf. Hanneman and Riddle, Introduction.
62. Cf. Freeman, “Centrality in Social Networks,” 224; Knoke and Yang, Social Network Analysis, 65.
63. Bonacich, “Some Unique Properties,” 555.
64. Koschützki et al., “Centrality Indices.”
65. Borgatti, Everett, and Freeman, Ucinet for Windows.
66. Ibid.; Hanneman and Riddle, Introduction.
67. Hanneman and Riddle, Introduction; Lewis et al., “Tastes, Ties, and Time.”
68. Diani, “Leaders or Brokers.”
69. See also Císař, “Externally Sponsored Contention”; Tarrow and Petrova, “Transactional and Participatory Activism.”
70. For example Fagan, “Taking Stock”; Guenther, “The Possibilities and Pitfalls”; Henderson, “Selling Civil Society”; Henderson, Building Democracy; McMahon, “Building Civil Societies”; Mendelson and Glenn, The Power and Limits; Narozhna, “Foreign Aid.”
71. For this general argument, see McMahon, “Building Civil Societies.”
72. For example Fagan, “Taking Stock”; Guenther, “The Possibilities and Pitfalls”; Henderson, “Selling Civil Society”; Henderson, Building Democracy; Jacobsson, “Fragmentation”; McMahon, Building Civil Societies; Mendelson and Glenn, The Power and Limits.
73. Interviews.
74. Ministry of Regional Development of the Czech Republic, SROP Manual; Interview with a fundraising expert.
75. Interview with a fundraising expert.
76. Cheval, s. r. o., Assessment of Impact; Interviews.
77. For example Greenwood, Interest Representation; Mahoney and Beckstrand, “Following the Money.”