CSB in weak states
Related research interests include the following topics. Do you know of related publications or do you want to contribute?
Email us or
share your contributions (member login required).
A common assumption is that civil society building is good for society as it allows for ideas and opposing voices to be developed and exchanged. Although open political space is often assumed to be a pre-requisite for a fruitful civil society, at the same time it appears that CS participation in fact declines when this space is provided, and CSOs have no idea how to reposition themselves. How can this be addressed, in order to maintain the involvement of social movements in political discourse?
How do decentralization and democratization stand in relation to one another? Is decentralization a guarantee, a condition, a catalyst or an inhibitor for democracy?
Which processes do states in transition go through in terms of CSB and development?
Latin America is going through a political crisis in which states are weak or not present in a formal and functioning manner. The same can be said about certain regions in Africa. Comparing the two regions, can we identify which factors lead to this?
When CSO's want to exert influence on state policy they need formal power/ state structures/ institutions to address themselves to. Is it true (paper Sogge), that there is a need for a "strong state' to be in place for civil (society) voices to be heard? Where states are weak, unstable or recovering from conflict formal power structures are absent or at least very slippery and volatile. How does CSB work in such conditions?
