Civil society, cross-national comparisons and the problem of statistical capture

Journal of International Development

J. Int. Dev. 23, 959–979 (2011)

Published online 14 July 2010 in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jid.1729

CIVIL SOCIETY, CROSS-NATIONALCOMPARISONS AND THE PROBLEM OF

STATISTICAL CAPTURE

GERARD CLARKE*

Centre for Development Studies, Swansea University, UK

Abstract: Since the late 1980s, civil society has come to be regarded as a vital counterpart to

the state and market economy in developing and transitional countries, both as a source of vital

social services, and as an associational realm in which people organise to press political claims

and to hold power-holders to account. Yet statistical capture of the contours of civil society,

including cross-national comparisons, remains in its infancy. This article therefore considers

and compares three recent indices of the cross-national strength of civil society: the 2004 John

Hopkins Global Civil Society Index (JHGCSI), the 2007 CIVICUS Civil Society Index

(CCSI), and the International Social Survey Programme’s 2004 Survey of Global Citizenship

(ISSP-SGC). The resulting analysis points to significant remaining challenges to the mean-

ingful capture of the health of national civil societies around the world, especially in

developing and transitional countries. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: civil society; cross-national; indices; measurement

1 INTRODUCTION

Over the last 20 years, civil society has assumed a central place in the work of academics

and policy-makers concerned with international development. Civil society is now

regarded as a significant antidote to state and market failure in the provision of goods and

services to poor people, but more importantly, it has come to be seen as a vital associational

realm in which the poor can organise to challenge their disempowerment by mobilising

collective political claims and by holding power-holders, especially in government, to

account. As a result, civil society organisations (CSOs) have become vital actors in the

*Correspondence to: Gerard Clarke, Centre for Development Studies, School of Environment and Society,University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

960 G. Clarke

international aid chain, accounting for over 20 per cent of total aid flows to developing and

transitional countries.1

Most multi-lateral donor organisations including the World Bank and the United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP) now advise developing and transitional governments to

nurture and support independent civil societies as adjuncts to the state and the market

economy. In turn, a healthy civil society has come to be regarded as a sine qua non, both of

a functioning democracy that incorporates the concerns of the poor but also of a market

economy calibrated to deliver equitable, pro-poor growth.

Statistical capture of the health of civil society in different countries, however, remains

in its infancy and it remains difficult to identify evidence of the cross-national strength of

civil societies that lends itself to useful insights. As one leading exponent of the

comparative assessment of civil society observes,

conventional social science methodology has largely bypassed the field of civil

society as have statistical offices in most countries. As a result . . . civil society

institutions and organizations are among the least studied and frequently constitute

the terra incognit[a] of economic, social and political statistics (Anheier, 2004: 11).

This data gap has become especially evident amid progress in the development of

multi-dimensional indicators of the quality of governance. The World Bank’s

Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), for instance, have been compiled annually

since 1996 and draw on 31 data sources to assess governance in 200 countries and

territories against six aggregate headings: (1) Voice and accountability; (2) Political

stability and absence of violence; (3) Government effectiveness; (4) Regulatory quality;

(5) Rule of law; and (6) Control of corruption (World Bank, 2006).2 In addition, the

UNDP has established its own governance indicators, based on 35 data sources (cf.

UNDP, 2007),3 while the Mo Ibrahim Foundation has published the new Ibrahim Index

of African Governance since 2008, drawing on data for 58 individual measures for

48 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.4 These indices, the WGI in particular, have

delivered valuable comparative insights into the quality of governance across countries,

not least the important insight that good governance is not limited to developed

countries nor poor governance to developing or transitional countries (cf. World Bank,

2006: 5 and 7).

Like ‘governance’, however, ‘civil society’ is a large and malleable concept and not

readily amenable to statistical capture. Defining ‘civil society’ is a difficult process; most

theorists regard it as an institutional space distinct from the state and market economy and

as a realm of values that nurtures the norms of engaged citizenship in new and established

democracies, but disagree on its precise relationship to capitalism.5 Other difficulties

include the treatment of informal organisations that are not registered with state agencies

1According to one estimate, international development assistance channelled through CSOs increased from 11 percent in 1970 to 21.6 per cent in 1999 (Clark, 2003: 130).2Published in the World Bank’s annual Governance Matters series and accessible at: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp (accessed 2 July 2009).3See also: http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/flagship/democratic_governance_assessments.html (accessed 2 July2009).4For further details, see http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/the-index.asp (accessed 2 July 2009).5John Keane, for instance, has pointed to a profound debate between democracy-centred and political economy-centred conceptions of civil society (Keane, 1988, 2003). The latter tends to problematise the relationship betweencivil society and capitalism while the former focuses on relationships between civil society and the state, at theexpense of probing its relationship to the market economy.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Int. Dev. 23, 959–979 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/jid

Cross-National Strength of Civil Society 961

(and hence difficult to capture statistically) or of illegal or uncivic entities such as the Klu

Klux Klan (giving rise to more conceptual difficulties). Statistical capture of the cross-

national health of civil society also is undermined by the variable quality of statistics-

gathering capacity in low-income countries.

But as with the governance indicators noted above, these problems have not deterred

significant institutional efforts to develop methodologies for the statistical capture of civil

society. There are arguably three main pressures to develop such methodologies and

indices. First, CSOs in advanced, transitional and developing countries have become

important conduits of (domestic) government and (international) donor funding, leading to

pressure from such funders to document the macro-consequences of funding, including the

changing structure of national civil societies. Secondly, CSOs in many countries are

actively committed to coalition-building and to consolidating their influence with states. In

this context, statistical research helps them to define and underline the importance of civil

society in national life. And thirdly, academics can now draw on repeat studies such as the

World Values Survey or the International Social Survey Programme to develop new indices

of the cross-national strength of civil society. The confluence of these three factors has

promoted collaboration among official agencies, civil society coalitions and independent

academics to develop a new generation of indices which are now yielding interesting if

tentative results, including insights into the relationship between civil society and

‘development’, broadly construed.

Against this background, this article considers efforts to capture the comparative

strength of civil society, including in developing and transitional countries. It begins by

considering a number of significant national and international projects that map the

contours of civil society and at tentative attempts to develop an international system of

statistics. The article then considers three recent indices that capture the health of civil

society on a cross-national basis. Together, they represent a new generation of cross-

national indices of civil society vitality, replacing an earlier generation, including Almond

and Verba (1963, 1989), Curtis (1971) and Curtis et al. (1992). These earlier studies are

based on a smaller range of countries (primarily established liberal democracies), focus on

non-profit or voluntary organisations rather than civil society more broadly defined, and

draw on a limited range of data sources.6 The new generation of studies addresses each of

these problems to varying degrees.

From this new generation, this article first considers the work of the John Hopkins

Comparative Non-Sector Project and the 2004 John Hopkins Global Civil Society

Index. Secondly, it considers the Civil Society Diamond (CSD) research tool and its use

in the 2007 CIVICUS Civil Society Index (CCSI). Thirdly, it considers the International

Social Survey Programme (ISSP) and at some of the results from its Survey of Global

Citizenship in 2004.7 Other indices were considered and dismissed. The ‘Voice and

Accountability’ aggregate indicator in the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance

Indicators (see above) was dismissed because it was too broad and indirect a measure of

the strength of civil society. The NGO Sustainability Index produced annually

by the United States Agency for International Development was dismissed because

6Almond and Verba (1963, 1989) are limited to 5 countries; Curtis (1971) to 6, and Curtis et al. (1992) to 15. Thesestudies collectively include only one developing or transitional country, Mexico.7Data from ISSP 2004 considered below on the self-defined membership of CSOs is preferred here to similar datafrom the World Values Survey 2005, which looks at a different mix of countries, and at a greater range of CSOs butwhich considers a narrower range of options with respect to the nature of membership (see www.worldvalues-survey.org, accessed 6 June 2009). In other respects, however, the WVS 2005 data are an alternative to ISSP 2004.


DOI: 10.1002/jid

962 G. Clarke

non-governmental organisations are an insufficiently useful proxy indicator of the

strength of broader civil societies. The index is also limited to countries in Central and

Eastern Europe and Eurasia (cf. USAID, 2009). Using simple statistical tests, the article

then compares these indices and assesses the results that emerge. The conclusion

considers the need for further improvements in the quality of indices used to capture the

comparative strength of national civil societies.

2 MAPPING CIVIL SOCIETY: ESTABLISHED NATIONAL AND

INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS

A number of countries have relatively new and sophisticated systems for mapping civil

society and for capturing its contours in statistical terms. For the purposes of statistical

capture, a limited conception of civil society is usually employed in these systems,

limiting it to organisations that are: (i) registered with the government (and hence have a

formal character); (ii) are both voluntary and non-profit distributing; and (iii) have income

and/or assets. This conception stresses the inputs and outputs of CSOs, from staff

employed to services provided, that can be captured in economic terms but misses key

non-economic dimensions of civil society activity, for instance, the activities of informal

organisations or social movements which rely on volunteers and do no fund large

programmes but which nevertheless can have significant political impact. It includes,

however, two very different types of CSO vis. membership-based organisations which

serve the specific interests of members (such as sports clubs or micro-finance schemes)

and public-benefit organisations which serve larger social segments (for instance, large-

scale social service providers or advocacy-based organisations). A number of terms are

used to capture this limited conception of civil society, including the non-profit or third

sector in the United States, the voluntary sector in the United Kingdom and the social

economy in France.

In the United States, The Nonprofit Almanac, prepared by the National Center for

Charitable Statistics (NCCS), has been published intermittently since 2001. The most

recent, The Nonprofit Almanac 2008, suggests that the main component of US civil society

consists of 1.4 million non-profit organisations (NPOs) registered with the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS), ranging from neighbourhood associations with no paid staff to

multi-billion dollar hospitals and universities (Wing et al., 2008: 1). This includes 984 386

public charities (including religious congregations active in service provision), 116 890

civic leagues and social welfare organisations and 71 878 trade associations (Ibid: 2).

Together, US NPOs had revenues of US $661 billion in 2006, equivalent to 5.0 per cent of

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Ibid).8 The Almanac, however, notes substantial gaps in

available data, including data on informal organisations (i.e. non-IRS registered) and the

outputs (as distinct from the revenue) of most NPOs (Ibid: 9–10).9

In the United Kingdom, the National Centre for Voluntary Organizations has compiled

and published the UK Civil Society Almanac (or Voluntary Sector Almanac as it was

previously known) since 1997. According to the 2008 Almanac, civil society in the United

8This compares to estimated NPO expenditure of US$ 502 billion in 1995, equivalent to 6.9 per cent of GDP(Sokolowski and Salamon, 1999: 262–263).9It suggests, for instance, that NPO share of GDP increases to 8.1 per cent if wages, rather than revenue, is used asthe main comparator to the government and private sectors (Wing et al., 2008: 1).


DOI: 10.1002/jid


Kingdom consists of 865 000 organisations, employing 1 367 000 people and generating

income of £108.9 billion per year (roughly US $170 billion at mid-2009 exchange rates)

(Reichardt et al., 2008: 2–5).10 This includes 164 195 ‘general charities’ with income of

£31 billion (roughly US $60 billion), 193 trade unions with a combined income of £1.03

billion, co-operatives, with 11 million members and income of £26 billion, and housing

associations which house 5.3 million people in 2.3 million houses (Ibid). It also includes

600 000 informal organisations, in an attempt to broaden the definition of civil society but

the estimate is crude and NCVO acknowledges the problems of statistical capture with

respect to this important segment of civil society (Ibid: 7–10). NCVO’s research suggests,

in turn, that civil society accounts for 8.44 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the

United Kingdom.11

The US and UK Almanacs are compiled by large organisations with significant research

capacity and draw on a wide range of data sources and only a few other Western countries

can replicate them, leaving substantial gaps in our knowledge of the structure and vitality

of civil society in most other countries. Efforts to internationalise the systematic gathering

of national data on civil society are at an early stage with official (inter-governmental)

efforts led by the United Nations. In 2003, the UN published the Handbook on Non-Profit

Institutions in the System of National Accounts (UN, 2003), as an attempt to create a

uniform and cross-national data generation system. The Handbook is based on the

International Classification of Non-Profit Organisations (ICNPO)12 and since its

publication, the UN has worked to incorporate the ICNPO into the International Standard

Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC), a classification system used by

official statistics agencies in many UN member states (cf. UN, 2006). It will be some time,

however, before this new system produces robust outputs.

In parallel to the UN project, an ambitious university-based initiative seeks to map the

multi-dimensional contours of global civil society and to build a body of theory around it.

Established in 1999 and based at the London School of Economics (LSE), the Global Civil

Society initiative devised a significant cross-national index of the health of civil society in

2002 but it is not considered here as its 33-country coverage includes few developing

countries (cf. Anheier and Sates, 2002).13 Since then, the LSE research programme has

moved beyond the nation-state as a geographical unit of analysis (Anheier and Katz, 2003:

241) so, similarly, this innovative methodological work is not considered here.14 Instead,

this article considers three key indices that facilitate tentative cross-national comparisons

of the strength of national civil societies.

10Exchange rate used: £1¼ $1.577, as of 13 July 2009.11The figures from Reichardt et al., including the estimate of £108.9 billion for total income, are for 2005/2006.GDP in the UK for 2006 was £1,289.99 billion (United Kingdom Economic Accounts Q4 2006, National Statistics,2006), http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/UKEA_2006q4.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2008. TheNCVO study thus suggests that civil society organizations account for a larger share of GDP than previouslyestimated (Kendall and Almond, 1999: 182, for instance, estimated the total expenditure of the UK voluntarysector in 1995 as equivalent to 6.6 per cent of GDP).12The ICNPO was devised by Lester Salamon and Helmut Anheier of the John Hopkins Comparative NonprofitSector Project in the mid 1990s and adopted in subsequent JHCNSP research (cf. Salamon and Anheier, 1996).Developed partly in response to the National Taxonomy of Tax-Exempt Entities (NTTE), a cumbersome typologyof over 500 categories developed by the NCCS and employed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue in codingregistered NPOs, the ICNPO consists of 27 basic categories.13It includes three developing countries, all Latin American Newly Industrializing Economies: Argentina, Chileand Mexico. This limitation undermines its utility here.14For details of this research, see http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/researchgcsresearch.htm (accessed 6 June2009).


DOI: 10.1002/jid

964 G. Clarke

3 THE JOHN HOPKINS GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY INDEX

The first of these, the John Hopkins Global Civil Society Index (JHGCSI), represents a new

stage in the work of the John Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project (JHCNSP)

based at John Hopkins University in the United States.15 From its beginning in 1991, the

JHCNSP has become the most significant international programme in generating theory

and empirical data on the contours of the non-profit sector, and more recently of civil

society, around the world. The JHGCSI represents its most ambitious initiative to date,

covering 40 countries and building on JHCNPS cross-national studies published in 1995

(covering 12 countries) (Salamon and Anheier, 1995), in 1998 (6 countries) (Anheier and

Salamon, 1998) and in 1999 (covering 22 countries) (Salamon et al., 1999). A complex and

multi-dimensional indicator, the JGGCSI is based on three aggregate indicators of civil

society strength: capacity, sustainability and impact. Each of the three indicators, in turn,

consists of a number of sub-indicators (see Figure 1) and in some cases, these sub-

indicators are further sub-divided (for instance, the Legal Environment Scale).16 In turn,

the Index draws on four main data sources: (1) official economic statistics; (2) data

assembled by umbrella groups or intermediary associations; (3) specialised surveys of

CSOs and (4) population or demographic surveys (Salamon et al., 2004a: 12–13). It draws

primarily on quantitative data, but a few indicators involve the scoring of qualitative data

(for instance, the Legal Environment Scale and the field studies that capture the

performance of key roles).

The JHGCSI emphasises the economic over the social or political aspects of civil society

activity. The index, for instance, draws significantly on employment, volunteer and revenue

data, and uses them as proxy-indicators to capture complex phenomena such as civil

society capacity and impact. In turn, data generated suggest that civil society is a US $1.3

trillion industry, accounting for 5.4 per cent of the combined GDP of the 40 countries

surveyed, and the equivalent of the world’s seventh largest economy, ranked between Italy

and France (Ibid: 15–16). Importantly, the index makes a distinction between the service

and expressive functions of civil society (i.e. between the provision of social services such

as education and health care and other activities such as advocacy or the promotion of

solidarity or mutuality) (Ibid: 23–24). The service functions of CSOs, however, are much

easier to capture in statistical terms than the expressive, and it is therefore unsurprising that

the JHGCSI emphasises the latter (e.g. the finding that 64 per cent of CSO employees in 40

countries are employed in service organisations, against 32 per cent in expressive-based

organisations (Ibid: 25)).

The aggregate results from the 2004 JHGCSI are set out in Table 1.

4 THE CIVICUS CIVIL SOCIETY INDEX

The second index considered here, the CCSI, is the result of collaboration between Helmut

Anheier and CIVICUS: The World Alliance for Citizen Participation, an international

alliance of advocacy-based CSOs. Commissioned by CIVICUS, Anheier has designed a

15For an overview of the JHCNSP, see Salamon et al. (2004: 5–8).16The Legal Environment Scale involves a demand component with 6 dimensions capturing peoples’ trust in CSOsand a supply component with 14 dimensions capturing the ease with which CSOs can form and operate (Salamonet al., 2004a: 72).


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Figure 1. The component parts of the JHGCSI. Source: Salamon et al. (2004b: 67–77).


new research tool, the CSD, to underpin a new cross-national civil society index. Radically

different to the JHGCSI and its precursors, the CSD is designed to be an applied rather than

a basic research tool, and intended to empower civil society activists to better understand

their working environment, as well as to contribute to the compilation of official statistics

(Anheier, 2004: 14–15). It seeks to widen the conception of civil society beyond NPOs and

aims to capture non-economic as well as economic dimensions of civil society activity in

statistical terms. It seeks to present data visually and in a manner which is relatively simple

to interpret and use (Ibid: 43 and 18). The CSD groups data around four main variables:

structure (the size and scope of civil society in economic, social and organisational terms);

space (the legal and political space afforded to civil society by the regulatory environment);

values (the values, norms and cultural expectations that civil society represents) and impact

(the contributions of civil society in terms of voice, policy-making, service provision or

equity) (Ibid: 32).

Each variable generates a score between 0 and 5, and each score is then presented on a

two-dimensional plane with four axes. Drawing a line between each of the four scores

produces a distinct diamond shape as in Figure 2, the key visual representation of the

data.17

17There are a number of alternatives (of increasing complexity) to this basic application. See Anheier (2004: 44–56).


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Table 1. The John Hopkins Global Civil Society Index 2004

Ranking Country Capacity Sustainability Impact Total

1 Netherlands 79 54 89 222

2 Norway 55 82 59 196

3 United States 76 54 54 184

4 Sweden 58 56 67 181

5 United Kingdom 66 60 50 176

6 Belgium 65 45 60 170

7 Israel 70 42 50 162

8 Ireland 64 45 52 161

9 Australia 51 46 49 146

10 France 56 46 44 146

11 Finland 48 42 50 140

12 Germany 47 45 47 139

13 Spain 54 37 30 121

14 Argentina 48 35 36 119

15 Tanzania 45 32 38 115

16 South Africa 44 35 33 112

17 Uganda 44 37 30 111

18 Austria 35 42 34 111

19 Japan 38 34 35 107

20 South Korea 32 38 36 106

21 Italy 38 37 25 100

22 Kenya 41 28 29 98

23 Czech Republic 34 35 25 94

24 Hungary 38 32 20 90

25 Brazil 30 31 26 87

26 Columbia 37 26 22 85

27 Peru 32 30 22 84

28 Philippines 30 35 17 82

29 India 27 30 20 77

30 Poland 30 38 7 75

31 Slovakia 32 28 13 73

32 Mexico 23 29 19 71

33 Romania 27 26 14 67

34 Pakistan 26 19 12 57

Source: Salamon et al. (2004b: 78).

966 G. Clarke

Despite this intuitive simplicity at the heart of its conception, the CSD is also a complex

and multi-dimensional index. The tool is designed for use at macro, meso and micro levels,

that is at national level, at sectoral level (e.g. the human rights community within a country)

or at organisational level (e.g. case studies) (Ibid: 29–30). Anheier (2004) also prescribes a

wide range of indicators, classified as preferred, standard and optional. This leads to a

complex indicator structure; Table 2.5 in Anheier, 2004, for instance, lists more than 146

preferred, standard and optional indicators that can be used to assess structure, values,

space and impact of civil society at macro, meso and micro levels, while a 24 page annex

identifies data sources for these indicators (Ibid: 142–195).18

18Additional annexes provide advice on the gathering and interpretation of data, on further (international) sourcesof data and on possible additional indicators.


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Figure 2. The Civil Society Diamond. Source: Anheier (2004: 44–45).


Figure 3, for instance, lists the 23 indicators used to assess structure at macro level.

Many of these duplicate indicators in the JHGCSI, and echo the ethos of the JHGCSI.

Between 2003 and 2006, the CSD was applied by CIVICUS research teams in 44 states and

sub-state entities around the world and the results published in the first CIVICUS Global

Survey of the State of Civil Society (Heinrich, 2007). Due to resource constraints, the

research teams gathered a narrower range of data than prescribed in Anheier (2004). Most

teams collected primary data from population surveys, stakeholder questionnaires,

consultative meetings, a media review and expert interviews (Heinrich, 2007: xxiii–xxiv).

As a result, the final scores are based on qualitative as much as quantitative data and include

a significant normative element. Where resource constraints were even more severe, a

number of research teams used a Shortened Assessment Tool (SAT), based on secondary

data, further strengthening the qualitative and normative dimension of the data.19 Table 2

presents a composite index based on the 44 individual CSDs in which the scores for the four

key elements are presented in tabular form and added together to provide a total score.

5 THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SURVEY PROGRAMME’S SURVEY OFGLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

The third index considered here is derived from the International Social Survey

Programme’s Survey of Global Citizenship (ISSP-SGC) undertaken in 2004. A

collaboration between social research organisations in 43 countries, the ISSP was

established in 1985 to promote cross-national comparative social research and repeat time

series studies.20 It works by adding agreed ‘modules’ (i.e. series of questions on a particular

social issue) every year to established national surveys, such as the British Social Attitudes

Survey (BSA) or the US General Social Survey (GSS).21 Sample sizes in each country are

typically 800–2500 respondents. Results are collated by a secretariat currently based at the

19The research methods used in each country are summarised in an annex (see Heinrich, 2007: 453–454).20See www.issp.org or Smith (1992).21Although not every country conducts a social survey every year.


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Figure 3. CSD indicators to assess the structure of civil society at macro level. Source: Anheier(2004: 38–40).

968 G. Clarke

Leibniz Institute for Social Research in Germany and raw data posted online and made

available to researchers free of charge.22 In 2004, the ISSP added a module on Global

Citizenship to annual national surveys in 35 member countries.

Drawing on data from the ISSP-SGC 2004, a composite and weighted index of the

strength of civil society is composed, based on three aggregate indicators: the membership

of CSOs, activism in support of an autonomous civil society and the citizenship values that

underpin a healthy civil society. CSO membership is assessed using data from five

questions in which respondents were asked to identify their participation in a range of

organisations (see Figure 4). Responses are weighted positively according to the degree of

involvement, with ‘belong and actively participate’ scores multiplied by three, ‘belong but

do not participate’ by two and ‘used to belong’ by one. ‘Never belonged’ scores are

discarded. Annex 1 illustrates this weighted index with respect to the Philippines while

Annex 2 lists the resultant scores by organisational type and by country. Activism is

measured on the basis of three of the eight variables in ISSP 2004 concerned with socio-

political activity (see Figure 4) and responses are weighted, with ‘in the past year’ scores

multiplied by three, ‘in the more distant past’ by two and ‘have not done but might do’ by

one. ‘Have not done and would never do’ responses are discarded. Annex 1 illustrates this

scoring system with respect to the Philippines. Finally, the values dimension is captured by

examining three of the 10 variables in ISSP 2004 concerned with good citizenship, values

held here to be vital in supporting a healthy civil society (see Figure 4). Respondents were

asked to rate the importance to them of a particular value on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1

22See http://www.gesis.org/en/services/data/survey-data/issp/.


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Table 2. The CIVICUS Civil Society Index

Number Country Structure Environment Impact Values Total

1 Scotland (UK) 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.6 9.6

2 Wales (UK) 1.9 2.3 2.7 2.5 9.4

3 Germany 1.6 2.3 2.5 2.3 8.7

4 Italy 1.4 2.2 2.3 2.5 8.4

5 Northern Ireland (UK) 1.8 2.4 2.1 2.1 8.4

6 The Netherlands 2.1 2.5 1.7 2 8.3

7 Taiwan 1.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 8

8 Czech Republic 1.7 2.1 1.8 2.3 7.9

9 Chile 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.2 7.7

10 Uganda 1.8 1.4 2.3 1.9 7.4

11 South Korea 1.5 1.6 2 2.3 7.4

12 Cyprus 1.3 2.1 1.8 1.9 7.1

13 Crotia 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.9 7

14 Macedonia 1.6 1.4 1.8 2.1 6.9

15 Hong Kong (China) 1.3 1.6 1.9 2 6.8

16 Poland 1.2 1.7 1.8 2.1 6.8

17 Slovenia 1.4 2 1.5 1.9 6.8

18 Ghana 1.3 1.5 2 2 6.8

19 Argentina 1.4 1.7 1.9 1.7 6.7

20 Bolivia 1.8 1.4 1.8 1.7 6.7

21 Fiji 1.6 1.5 2.1 1.5 6.7

22 Romania 1.3 1.8 1.6 1.9 6.6

23 Ukraine 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.9 6.6

24 Indonesia 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.9 6.4

25 Greece 0.9 2.1 1.3 2 6.3

26 Lebanon 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.8 6.2

27 Honduras 1.3 1.1 1.8 1.9 6.1

28 Bulgaria 1.1 1.3 1.5 2.1 6

29 Nepal 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.7 6

30 Serbia 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.6 5.9

31 Uruguay 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.6 5.9

32 Vietnam 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.7 5.9

33 Georgia 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 5.9

34 Montenegro 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 5.8

35 Ecuador 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.4 5.6

36 China 1 1.2 1.5 1.8 5.5

37 Mongolia 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.7 5.4

38 Orissa (India) 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.5 5.4

39 Guatemala 1.5 1 1.3 1.5 5.3

40 Sierra Leone 1.3 0.8 1.6 1.5 5.2

41 Russia 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.5 5

42 Turkey 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.3 4.9

43 Egypt 1.2 1.1 1 1.5 4.8

44 Togo 1 0.7 0.8 1.4 3.9

Source: Extracted from data in Heinrich (2007).


means ‘not at all important; and 7 means ‘very important. Reponses are weighted with a

score on the 1-scale multiplied by 1 and so on up to scores on the 7 scale which are

multiplied by 7. Again, Annex 1 illustrates this scoring system with respect to the

Philippines. Finally, the values scores are divided by 100 and activism by 10 to roughly

calibrate them with the membership scores (see Annex 1).


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Figure 4. The structure of the ISSP-SGC 2004 Composite Index. Based on a sliding scale runningfrom 1 (not at all important) to 7 (very important). Table does not include the eight option (cannotchoose). Source: International Social Survey Programme 2004 data set. http://zacat.gesis.org/webview/index.jsp.

970 G. Clarke

Like the JHGCSI and the CCSI, the ISSP-SGC Index is multi-dimensional and offers a

broad perspective on the strength of civil society. In theory, however, it offers two

advantages over both. First, it is entirely quantitative, with no qualitative data. Second, it is

based on robust sample sizes and on a consistent methodology across countries. The ISSP-

SGC Index is presented in Table 3.

6 COMPARING THE INDICES

At first glance, the three indices are positively related, suggesting (i) that they are equally

well-placed in capturing the strength of civil society cross-nationally and (ii) that the


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Table 3. ISSP-SGC 2004 Composite Index

Rank Country Membership Activism Values Total

1 Spain 245 864 391 1500

2 Netherlands 514 681 269 1464

3 Denmark 707 519 183 1409

4 Norway 603 582 216 1401

4 Australia 500 602 299 1401

6 United States 568 565 246 1379

7 New Zealand 545 565 202 1312

8 Canada 647 463 197 1307

9 Sweden 574 453 188 1215

10 France 427 565 219 1211

11 Switzerland 490 466 162 1118

12 Finland 556 338 174 1068

13 Austria 493 417 153 1063

14 Ireland 575 308 170 1053

15 Mexico 435 398 209 1042

16 Brazil 257 456 325 1038

17 Portugal 226 535 266 1027

18 Uruguay 350 419 191 960

19 Venezuela 363 353 204 920

20 Taiwan 258 337 275 870

21 Israel 350 317 197 864

22 Cyprus 188 437 158 783

23 South Korea 268 300 206 774

24 Russia 194 303 262 759

25 Chile 248 267 241 756

26 Slovenia 389 215 151 755

27 Latvia 294 293 140 727

28 Slovak Republic 287 285 148 720

29 Great Britain 399 196 115 710

30 Czech Republic 280 239 164 683

31 Poland 278 190 192 660

32 Japan 193 283 181 657

33 Philippines 266 160 215 641

34 Bulgaria 127 189 152 468

35 Hungary 199 100 134 433

Source: Extracted from International Social Survey Programme 2004 data set. http://zacat.gesis.org/webview/index.jsp.Range of sample sizes in each country: 969–2449.


strength of civil society is amenable to statistical capture. Three countries feature in all

three indices: the Netherlands (an established welfare-state and liberal democracy) and the

Czech Republic and Poland (East European transitional economies). In Table 4, all three

indices rank the three countries in the same order, with the Netherlands at the head,

followed by the Czech Republic and Poland.

Further analysis, however, reveals a more ambiguous relationship. Figure 5, for instance,

compares the country rankings generated by the JHGCSI and the CCSI, based on the eight

countries that feature in both. The figure suggests a relatively weak correlation (i.e.

relationship between the two indices), which we can confirm statistically. Correlating the

JHGCSI and CCSI (i.e. testing the strength of the relationship between them) produces a


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Table 4. Comparing indices

Rank Country JHGCSI CCSI ISSP

1 Netherlands 74 8.3 1464

2 Czech Republic 31 7.9 683

3 Poland 25 6.8 660

Figure 5. Scatter-plot of the JHGCSI rankings against the CCSI rankings.

972 G. Clarke

Pearson’s correlation coefficient (rp) of 0.551,23 significant to the 0.15 level,24 suggesting a

medium-to-strong relationship at best. When we look at a graphic illustration of this

correlation (Figure 5), we see a pattern, with the Netherlands as a high-scoring outlier, two

distinct clusters of three countries each, and with Uganda as a distinct median outlier.

When we compare the 17 countries that feature in both the JHGCSI and the ISSP-SGC,

however, we see something significant. First, correlating the JHGCSI and the ISSP-SGC

results in a Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.596, significant to the 0.012 level,

indicating a large (i.e. statistically significant) relationship. Second, and examining the

correlations visually in Figure 6, we see two distinct clusters. The first cluster (the

Netherlands, the United States, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Israel, Ireland, Australia,

Finland and Spain) is based on relatively high rankings in both indices, while the second

(Japan, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Brazil, the Philippines, Poland and Slovakia) is

based on relatively low rankings in each of the indices. Some of these variations, however,

may be influenced by differing data collection procedures and differentials in relevant

23Where an rp score of 0.1–0.3 indicates a small (positive) relationship or effect; 0.3–0.5 a medium effect; and 0.5–1.0, a large effect (cf. Field, 2005: 111).24Meaning a low level of significance in the results produced. Thus, even if the rp score was higher, we could notplace much confidence in it. The low level of significance here results from the small sample size (n¼ 8).


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Figure 6. Scatter-plot of the JHGCSI rankings against the ISSP-SGC rankings.


capacity. But subject to this caveat, these clusters suggest that while the strongest and

healthiest civil societies are concentrated in economically prosperous liberal democracies,

weaker civil societies are not confined to developing and transitional countries (with Japan

figuring among a group of developing and transitional countries).

Figure 7. Scatter-plot of the CCSI rankings against the ISSP-SGC rankings.


DOI: 10.1002/jid

974 G. Clarke

Finally, when we correlate the rankings of the 11 countries that appear in both the CCSI

and the ISSP-SGC, we get a weak (i.e. medium) degree of correlation with a Pearson’s

correlation coefficient of 0.417, significant to the 0.202 level, a result captured visually in

Figure 7 which shows a similar picture to Figure 5, with a distinct cluster of countries with

median scores, the Netherlands as a high-scoring outlier and two transitional or developing

countries as low-scoring outliers.

7 CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the JHGCSI and the ISSP-SGC are both relatively robust

and comparable as indices of the health of civil society cross-nationally. Both are multi-

dimensional quantitative indicators based on robust data collection procedures (centred on

established networks of data collection agencies). Following its first application, however,

the CCSI is a useful but less robust index, largely because of the failure to properly adopt

the data collection protocols identified in Anheier (2004) (due largely, in turn, to resource

and capacity constraints among CIVICUS’s national partners).

Nevertheless, the three indices point to some interesting, if tentative, observations.

First, they provide a degree of empirical support for the thesis that a strong and vibrant

civil society is an important bulwark of a successful market economy and of a stable

liberal democracy, institutional regimes which provide, in utilitarian terms, the greatest

level of welfare to the greatest number of people. This thesis represents current

orthodoxy in international development policy and discourse, but these indices provide

tentative empirical support by extending the limited sample of countries that

characterised an earlier generation of studies to include developing and transitional

countries. The results suggest, in turn, that developing countries should aim to nurture

their national and sub-national civil societies as part of national development efforts.

Secondly, they reveal that strong civil societies are not an inevitable result of economic

prosperity and electoral democracy but rather are institutional edifices constructed over

significant periods of time and on the basis of institutional choices made over

generations. Figure 6, for instance, points to the relative weakness of civil society in

Japan, a successful market economy and liberal democracy. Japan, however, has a

relatively weak history of autonomous social organisation prior to the end of World War

II and has experienced a relatively tentative transition to multi-party democracy since

then, hindering the emergence of a strong civil society.25 Thirdly, they point to the

comparative strength of civil society in particular developing countries. Both the

JHGCSI and the CCSI, for instance, point to the strength of civil society in Uganda,

compared to other countries (developed, developing or transitional). This provides hope

that strong civil societies can be nurtured in the absence of a prosperous economy or an

established liberal democracy.

These observation aside, the three indices point to outstanding challenges in establishing

a robust system for the cross-national assessment of civil society, a vital exercise in the

design of effective policies to tackle relative poverty and social exclusion in developing and

25Japan is a liberal democracy but characterised by a dominant-party system, with little rotation of power betweenpolitical parties or coalitions. The Liberal Democratic Party has ruled since 1955, apart from a brief period of rulein 1993 by a coalition of opposition parties. In 2009, however, it was replaced as the governing party by theDemocratic Party of Japan.


DOI: 10.1002/jid


transitional countries. One challenge is to improve the statistical capture of the non-

economic dimensions of civil society and the activities of relatively informal organisations

and social movements, both in national surveys (such as the US Nonprofit Alamanac or

the UK Civil Society Almanac) as well as in cross-national surveys or indices considered

here.

A second challenge is to expand the range of developing countries covered by the

indices review here. The ISSP and its counterpart, the World Values Survey, for instance,

include few countries from Sub-Saharan Africa, while few African partners have

participated to date in the CCSI. These indices are implemented by non-governmental

agencies but a greater challenge is to convert governments around the world to the

systematic collection of data on the structure and activities of national and sub-national

civil societies and to the use of agreed international standards to generate comparative

data. The UN Handbook on Nonprofit Institutions in the System of National Accounts

(2003) offers a way forward in this regard. The uneven capacities and commitment of

implementing governments, however, will mean that data will be of variable and uncertain

quality for some time.26 This will enhance the continuing relevance of the indices

reviewed here. For the time being, these three indices provide useful insights into the

comparative strength of civil society around the world, including in developing and

transitional countries.

26The LSE Global Civil Society research initiative (see above) will be similarly affected by the poor or variablequality of national-level data from developing countries.


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Annex

1:CalculationofISSP-SGC

2004Composite

Index:TheCase

ofthePhilippines

(n¼1200)

(1)

Mem

ber

ship

of

civ

ilso

ciet

yo

rgan

isat

ion

s

%B

elo

ng

and

acti

vel

yP

arti

cip

ate

%B

elo

ng

bu

td

on

ot

par

tici

pat

e%

Use

dto

bel

on

g%

Nev

erb

elo

ng

edW

eig

hte

dA

gg

reg

ate

sco

res

Po

liti

cal

par

ties

5.2

4(5

.24�

3¼

15

.72

)3

.97

(3.9

7�

2¼

7.9

4)

5.4

9(5

.49�

1¼

5.4

9)

85

.29

(85

.29�

0¼

0)

29

.15

(15

.72þ

7.9

4þ

5.4

9)

Tra

des

un

ion

s,bu

sin

ess

or

pro

fess

ional

asso

ciat

ions

2.4

6(2

.46�

3¼

7.3

8)

2.9

7(2

.97�

2¼

5.9

4)

5.1

7(5

.17�

1¼

5.1

7)

89

.40

(89

.40�

0¼

0)

18

.49

(7.3

8þ

5.9

4þ

5.1

7)

Ch

urc

han

dR

elig

iou

s

Org

anis

atio

ns

25

.63

(25

.63�

3¼

76

.89

)1

1.4

7(1

1.4

7�

2¼

22

.94

)8

.35

(8.3

5�

1¼

8.3

5)

54

.55

(54

.55�

0¼

0)1

08

.18

(76

.63þ

22

.94þ

8.3

5)

Sp

ort

s,L

eisu

reo

rC

ult

ura

l

Gro

up

s

13

.44

(13

.44�

3¼

40

.32

)6

.68

(6.6

8�

2¼

13

.36

)1

0.2

3(1

0.2

3�

1¼

10

.23

)6

9.6

5(6

9.9

5�

0¼

0)6

3.9

1(4

0.3

2þ

13

.36þ

10

.23

)

Oth

ervo

lun

tary

asso

ciat

ion

s1

0.8

1(1

0.8

1�

3¼

32

.43

)4

.85

(4.8

5�

2¼

9.7

)5

.19

(5.1

9�

1¼

5.1

9)

79

.15

(79

.15�

0¼

0)

47

.32

(32

.43þ

9.7þ

5.1

9)

To

tal

26

6a

aT

ota

lsc

ore

bas

edo

nro

un

ded

indiv

idu

alsc

ore

s(i

.e.

29þ

18þ

10

8þ

64þ

47

)as

use

din

An

nex

2.

(2)

Act

ivis

min

sup

po

rto

fci

vil

soci

ety

Act

ivit

yIn

the

pas

ty

ear

Inth

ed

ista

nt

pas

tH

ave

no

td

on

ebu

tm

igh

td

oT

ota

l

To

ok

par

tin

ad

emo

nst

rati

on

35

(35�

3¼

10

5)

83

(83�

2¼

16

6)

11

7(1

17�

1¼

11

7)

38

8(1

05þ

16

6þ

11

7)

Att

end

eda

po

liti

cal

mee

ting

or

rall

y

16

7(1

67�

3¼

50

1)

12

5(1

25�

2¼

25

0)

13

0(1

30�

1¼

13

0)

88

1(5

01þ

25

0þ

13

0)

Do

nat

edm

on

eyo

rra

ised

fun

ds

for

a

soci

alo

rp

oli

tica

lac

tiv

ity

41

(41�

3¼

12

3)

48

(48�

2¼

96

)1

25

(12

5�

1¼

12

5)

34

4(1

23þ

96þ

12

5)

Init

ial

tota

l,fi

nal

tota

l

(/1

0an

dro

un

ded

dow

n)

16

13

,1

61


DOI: 10.1002/jid

976 G. Clarke

(3)

Val

ues

:C

om

mit

men

tto

bei

ng

ag

oo

dci

tize

n

Val

ue

12

34

56

7T

ota

l

Alw

ays

vote

inel

ecti

ons

16�

1¼

16

8�

2¼

16

14�

3¼

42

37�

4¼

14

86

7�

5¼

33

58

4�

6¼

50

49

66�

7¼

67

62

78

23

Be

acti

ve

inas

soci

atio

ns

64�

1¼

64

48�

2¼

96

92�

3¼

27

61

33�

4¼

53

21

42�

5¼

71

01

73�

6¼

10

38

52

3�

7¼

36

61

63

77

Hel

ple

ssp

riv

ileg

edci

tize

ns

38�

1¼

38

19�

2¼

38

41�

3¼

12

37

3�

4¼

29

28

0�

5¼

40

01

38�

6¼

82

87

96�

7¼

55

72

72

91

To

tal,

fin

alto

tal/

10

0an

d

rou

nded

up

21

49

1,

21

5

Bas

edo

na

slid

ing

scal

eru

nn

ing

fro

m1

(no

tat

all

imp

ort

ant)

to7

(ver

yim

po

rtan

t).

Tab

led

oes

no

tin

clu

de

the

eig

ht

op

tio

n(c

ann

ot

cho

ose

).Source:

Inte

rnat

ion

alS

oci

alS

urv

eyP

rogra

mm

e2

00

4d

ata

set.

htt

p:/

/zac

at.g

esis

.org

/web

vie

w/i

nd

ex.j

sp.


DOI: 10.1002/jid


978 G. Clarke

Annex 2: Self-defined Membership of Civil Society Organisations

Number

Copyright # 20

Country

10 John Wiley & Sons,

PP

Ltd.

TU
CRO SCG
J. Int. Dev.

OVA

23, 959–979 (

DOI: 10.10

Total

1
Denmark 31 173 190 181 132 707
2
Canada 59 128 176 153 131 647
3
Norway 54 140 134 154 121 603
4
Ireland 28 92 215 146 94 575
5
Sweden 37 159 139 160 79 574
6
United States 103 73 185 110 97 568
7
Finland 30 135 155 133 103 556
8
New Zealand 35 105 113 172 120 545
9
Netherlands 33 86 116 189 90 514
10
Australia 17 102 112 160 109 500
11
Austria 48 94 165 118 68 493
12
Switzerland 29 81 158 146 76 490
13
Mexico 39 48 234 86 28 435
14
France 21 75 65 154 112 427
15
Great Britain 30 79 110 112 68 399
16
Slovenia 22 88 90 119 70 389
17
Venezuela 59 36 142 85 41 363
18
Uruguay 81 43 102 86 38 350
19
Israel 59 66 60 92 73 350
20
Latvia 16 76 82 80 40 294
21
Slovak Republic 31 71 63 68 54 287
22
Czech Republic 31 61 50 83 55 280
23
Poland 10 48 158 42 20 278
24
South Korea 15 24 70 75 84 268
25
Philippines 29 18 108 64 73 266
26
Taiwan 38 66 48 57 49 258
27
Brazil 23 46 118 43 27 257
28
Chile 13 25 105 69 36 248
29
Spain 20 46 51 81 47 245
30
Portugal 18 44 82 50 32 226
31
Hungary 10 66 74 34 15 199
32
Russia 21 94 24 39 16 194
33
Japan 16 48 23 84 22 193
34
Cyprus 41 74 5 44 24 188
35
Bulgaria 32 56 11 18 10 127
PP, political parties; TU, trades unions and business/professional associations; CRO, Church or other religiousorganisations; SCG, Sports, Leisure or Cultural Groups; OVA, other voluntary associations.Source: Extracted from ISSP 2004 data. http://zacat.gesis.org/webview/index.jsp.

REFERENCES

Almond GA, Verba S. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes in and Democracy in Five Nations.

Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ.

Almond GA, Verba S (eds). 1989. The Civic Culture Revisited. Sage Publications: London.

Anheier HK, Salamon LM. 1998. The Nonprofit Sector in the Developing World: A Comparative

Analysis. Manchester University Press: Manchester.

Anheier H, Sates S. 2002. Introducing the Global Civil Society Index. In Glasius M, Kaldor M,

Anheier H (eds). Global Civil Society 2002. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Anheier H, Katz H. 2003. Mapping Global Civil Society. In Kaldor M, Anheier H, Glasius M (eds).

Global Civil Society 2003. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

2011)

02/jid


Anheier HK. 2004. Civil Society: Measurement, Evaluation, Policy. Earthscan: London.

Clark J. 2003. Worlds Apart: Civil Society and the Battle for Ethical Globalization. Earthscan:

London.

Curtis J. 1971. Voluntary association joining: A cross national comparative note. American

Sociological Review 36: 872–880.

Curtis JE, Grabb EG, Baer DE. 1992. Voluntary association membership in fifteen countries: A

comparative analysis. American Sociological Review 57: 139–152.

Field A. 2005. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage: London.

Heinrich VF (ed). 2007. CIVICUS Global Survey of the State of Civil Society, Vol. 1: Country

Profiles. Kumarian Press: Bloomfield, CT.

Keane J (Ed) 1988. Introduction. In Civil Society and the State: New European Perspectives. Verso:

London.

Keane J. 2003. Global Civil Society? Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Kendall J, Almond S. 1999. United Kingdom. In Salamon LM, Anheier HK, List R, Toepler S,

Sokolowski SW, et al. (eds). Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector. The John

Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies: Baltimore, MD.

Reichardt O, Kane D, Pratten B, Wilding K. 2008. The UK Civil Society Almanac 2008. National

Council for Voluntary Organizations: London.

Salamon LM, Anheier HK. 1995. The Emerging Nonprofit Sector: An Overview. Manchester

University Press: Manchester.

Salamon LM, Anheier HK. 1996. The International Classification of Nonprofit Organizations:

ICNPO Revision 1, 1996, Working Papers of the John Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector

Project, No. 19, Baltimore: The John Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies.

Salamon LM, Anheier HK, List R, Toepler S, Sokolowski SW, and Associates. 1999. Global Civil

Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector. The John Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies:

Baltimore, MD.

Salamon LM, Sokolowski SW, and Associates. 2004a. Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the

Nonprofit Sector, Vol. 2. Kumarian Press: Bloomfield, CT.

Salamon LM, Sokolowski SW, List R. 2004b. Global Civil Society: An Overview. In Salamon LM,

Sokolowski SW, et al. (eds). Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector, Vol. 2.

Kumarian Press: Bloomfield, CT.

Smith TV. 1992. The International Social Survey Program. International Journal of Public Opinion

Research 4(3): 1992.

Sokolowski SW, Salamon LM. 1999. The United States. In Salamon LM, Anheier HK, List R,

Toepler S, Sokolowski SW, et al. (eds). Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector.

The John Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies: Baltimore, MD.

UN. 2003. Handbook on Nonprofit Institutions in the System of National Accounts, ST/ESA/

STAT.SER.F/91. United Nations: New York.

UN. 2006. ISIC-Annex-ICNPO, TSG/9a. Statistics Division, Department of Economic and Social

Affairs, United Nations. New York.

UNDP. 2007. Governance Indicators: A User’s Guide, 2nd edition. United Nations Development

Programme: New York.

USAID. 2009. 2008 NGO Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia. United

State Agency for International Development: Washington, DC.

Wing KT, Pollak TH, Blackwood A. 2008. The Nonprofit Almanac 2008. The Urban Institute:

Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2006. A Decade of Measuring the Quality of Governance: Governance Matters. The

World Bank: Washington, DC.


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Documents

Civil society, cross-national comparisons and the problem of statistical capture