Which Civil Society Organizations Which Civil Society Organizations in Which Countries are Enjoying in Which Countries are Enjoying

Policy-Making Processes and Why:Policy-Making Processes and Why:Comparing 7 Countries (Japan, Korea, Comparing 7 Countries (Japan, Korea,

Germany, China, Turkey, Russia, Germany, China, Turkey, Russia, and the Philippines) in JIGS Surveysand the Philippines) in JIGS Surveys

Yutaka Tsujinaka, J.Y. Choe, T. Ohtomo, and H. Miwa

University of Tsukuba

2006

Introduction: Differences in SIS

2

- Enjoy?Philippine, Russia

- Manage?Germany, Korea, Japan

- Suffer?China, Turkey

Why is SIS different?Fig.1 Subjective Influence Score (mean)

2.742.60

2.23

1.74

1.52

1.01

0.82

0

1

2

3

Philippine(PH)

Russia(R)

Germany(G)

Korea(K)

Japan(J)

China(C)

Turkey(T)

SIS

(M

ean

)

Influential

Some what

Not

Subjective influence Score (SIS)

3

Subjective influence Score (SIS) Extremely influential=4, influential=3,

Some what influential=2, Not influential=1, Not at all influential=0

SIS (mean): Average score by country/ by sectors

When policy problems arise in the geographical areas suggested in Q6 （ 1 ． Village, town or city;

2. Prefecture; 3.A collection of prefecture regions; 4. National; 5. Global ） , how much influence does

your organization have on such problems?

4

･ Overview of CountriesSurveyed in JIGS Table 1 Overview of Countries Surveyed JIGS （capital city data*） GDP Freedom NPS Volunteering NGO Subjective Subjective % per House (CSS) Workforce Vitality Influence Influence of Capita(n.1) rating(n.1) (n.2) (n.2) (n.3) Score(n.4)ranking(n.4) SIS strong(n.4)

Germany 22,740 1-1 5.9% 10% - 2.23 3 47.6

Japan 34,010 1-2 4.2% 0.5% Low 1.52 5 16.0

South Korea 9,930 1-2 2.4% 3% High 1.74 4 17.4

Turkey 2,490 3-3 - - - 0.82 7 8.6

Russia 2,130 6-5 - - - 2.60 2 63.3

Philippine 1,030 2-3 1.9% 6% High 2.74 1 62.3

China 960 7-6 - - Low 1.0１ 6 9.5

U.S. 35,400 1-1 9.8% 22% - - -

Brazil 2,830 2-3 1.6% 6% -

Bangladesh 380 4-4 - - High

N. 1:Freedom in the world 2005,n.2: Johns Hopkins CNPS Project n.3: Shigetomi 04 n.4: JIGS1(Tsujinaka project)

5

1. Main Characteristic of JIGSThe International Survey of

Civil Society and Interest Groups 1997-

: Cross-culturally surveys direct the core (associations) of CS in 10 countries

:Different from Non Profit Sector Project (L. Salamon)and from Social Capital Group (R. Putnam)

I. Methodology & Hypotheses

6Table 2 Overview of JIGS Surveys

Country Year Data Source / Survey Method Population Sample

(a) Valid

Response(b) Return

Rate(%)(b/a) Regions

(Valid Return Sample)

1.Japan `97 classified telephone directory / mail

23,128 4,247 1,635 38.5 Tokyo (1,438) Ibaraki (197)

2.Korea `97 classified telephone directory / mail

11,521 3,890 4,93 12.7 Seoul (371)

Kyonggi (110)

3.USA `99 classified telephone directory / mail

7,228 5,089 1,492 29.3 Washington, D.C.

(748) North Carolina (752)

4.Germany `00 classified telephone directory, organization directory / mail

4,806 3,074 8,85 28.8 Berlin (643) Halle (154)

5.China `01, ‘03

“Social Groups” officially registered at the Municipal or District/Country Civil Affairs Bureau / mail

9,536 8,897 2,858 32.1 Beijing (627),

Xianju (1,782), Heilongjiang (449)

6.Turkey ‘03 Regional survey investigation based on telephone directory / interview

15,730 Appr. 1,500

841 - Ankara ( 334 ) Istanbul ( 507 )

7.Russia ‘03 Registered Organization（NGO） Database / mail

2,974 1,500 711 47.4 Moscow (411) Saint

Petersburg (300)

8.Philippine ’04

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Philippine Foundation Center (PFC) / interview

44,051 5,472 1,014 18.5 Manila (855) Cebu (159)

9.Brazil ‘05 Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) / interview

275,895 3,000 (est.)

1,500 (est.)

50 (est.)

Brasilia,Recife,Belem (Belo Horizonte)

10.Bangladesh ‘06 Telephone books, Directories TBC 1,500 (est.)

800 (est.)

50 (est.)

Dhaka, Rajshahi

7

- Civil society structure (sector composition) hypothesis

　　 - Resource hypothesis

- Political Activism hypothesis

- Administration connection hypothesis

2. Various Hypotheses

8

・ Relation between factors and SIS (mean)

　　 - Analysis through Scatter Diagram (Nation Level) ： linear or non-linear

　　 - Cross Tabulation Analysis (Nation Level) ： χ2-test

- Cross Tabulation Analysis (Sector Level) ： χ2-test(Profit Sector, Non Profit Sector, Citizen Sector, Other)

3. Method of Analysis

9

-Philippine ・ Russia (Enjoy?)

C.S ． ( 50%)≒ 　　　　　　　　　

　

・ 4 Sectors’ Proportion

FIg.2 The Proportion of Four Sectors

5.1

10.9

7.9

18.7

35.4

38.2

8.6

22.9

19.7

38.5

36.7

41.4

36.0

22.8

25.8

40.4

46.6

49.9

28.0

20.4

13.0

22.9

7.2

15.5

28.7

27.5

19.5

15.5

16.1

58.4

21.1

0.6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Philippine (PH)

Russia (R)

Germany (G)

Korea (K)

Japan (J)

China (C)

Turkey (T)

U.S.A. (U)

Profit Sector Non-profit Sector Citizen Sector Other (N.E.C.)

% 100%%%%%

-Japan ・ China(Manage?)

P.S ． ( 40%)≒ 　　　　　　　　　

　-Turkey (Suffer?)

Other ( 60%)≒ 　　　　　　　　　

　

II. Civil Society Structure (Sector Proposition) Hypothesis

-Korea ・Germany (Manage?)

N.P.S ． ( 40%)≒ 　　　　　　　　　　

10

-Positive Correlation: Citizen Sector’s % & SIS (mean)

-Negative Correlation: Profit Sector’s % & SIS (mean)

⇒ 　 CSS Hypothesis is Valid

・ 4 Sectors’ Proportion & SIS (mean)

Fig.3-1 Citizen Sector

K

GR

PH

T

JC

0

1

2

3

0 10 20 30 40 50%

SIS

(M

ean

)

Fig.3-2 Profit Sector

K

G

RPH

T

J

C

0

1

2

3

0 10 20 30 40 50%

SIS

(M

ean

)

11

1) Trend in Year Established and SISⅢ. Resource Hypothesis

･ Long History CSOJ, G, K > R, C, T, PH

･ Strong SIST, C < J, G, K < R, PH

0

10

20

30

40

50

-190

0

'05

'10

'15

'20

'25

'30

'35

'40

'45

'50

'55

'60

'65

'70

'75

'80

'85

'90

'95

2000

*

'01-

Fig.4 Year Established

%

Philippine (PH) Russia (R) Germany (G) Korea (K)

Japan (J) China (C) Turkey (T) U.S.A. (U)

* Until 1997 in Japan and Korea. Until 1999 in U.S.A. and Germany.

No RelationsBetween Year

Established and SIS

12

･ Profit Sector’s Year Established

･ Large Differencesamong Countries

as well as in Development Paths

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-190

0

'05

'10

'15

'20

'25

'30

'35

'40

'45

'50

'55

'60

'65

'70

'75

'80

'85

'90

'95

2000

*

'01-

Fig.5-1 Establishment Year: Profit sector

%Philippine (PH) Russia (R) Germany (G) Korea (K)

Japan (J) China (C) Turkey (T) U.S.A. (U)

* Until 1997 in Japan and Korea. Until 1999 in U.S.A. and Germany.

･ Developed Countries: Long History (Created before and after WWII)

･ Changed Political System & Developing

Countries: Short History

(since the late ’80s)

13

･ Citizen Sector’s Year Established

･ Sharp Rise in the 90s　： Regime ChangesVulnerability of C.S.

Fig.5-2 Establishment Year: Citizen Sector

0

10

20

30

40

50

-190

0

'05

'10

'15

'20

'25

'30

'35

'40

'45

'50

'55

'60

'65

'70

'75

'80

'85

'90

'95

2000

*

'01-

%

Philippine (PH) Russia (R) Germany (G) Korea (K)

Japan (J) China (C) Turkey (T) U.S.A. (U)

* Until 1997 in Japan and Korea. Until 1999 in U.S.A. and Germany.

･ Developed Countries (U, G, J)

： Established Earlier

14

･ Relation between Establishment Year and SIS

･ R, G, J: Relation between Establishment Year and SIS（ level of significance (0.05) ）

・ Negative Relation: Short History Strong SIS⇒

TABLE 3. Summary of Cross-tabulation analysis: Resource-Establishment Year

Country with significance Country/Sector with found in cross-tabulation significance found in

cross-tabulation

Variables: Country Name (n.1) Ph/R/G/K/J/C/T CN and Sector (n.2) P,NP,C,O

Establishment Year: R*G*J* (n.3) G:P,c/ J:o/R: C (n.4) (n.1) Ph：Philippine/ R: Russia /G: Germany/K: Korea/J: Japan/C: China/T: Turkey. (n.2) P: Profit sector/ NP: Non-profit sector/ C: Citizen sector/ O: Other, Not elsewhere classified. (n.3) ＠：under level of significance of 0.01 , * : under level of significance of 0.05. (n.4) large letter under the level of significance of 0.05, small letters under the level of significance of 0.10.

15

2) Organizational Resources

･ No Relation between Organizational Resources and SIS

TABLE 4. Summary of Cross-tabulation analysis: Organizational Resource

Variables Country Name (Ph/R/G/K/J/C/Tu) CN and Sector (P,NP,C,O) Member (individual) No significance No significance Member (organizational) No significance No significance Personnel Ph＠,R＠,G＠ No significance, but

Significant but not linear higher SIS confirmed (Correlation unclear) Ph: C,O when resources

are small Finance G@Tu@ G: P,O Turkey (and Philippines)

Significant but not liner (Correlation unclear)

Nat’l Gov’t Subsidy No significance found C:NP,O/Tu:O

⇒ 　 Resource Hypothesis is not Valid (Year Established and SIS, Organizational Resources and SIS)

16

IV. Political Activism Hypothesis

･ Relation between CSO’s Activities and SIS (mean)

-Contact with Political Parties-Contact Mass Media -Support Election Campaign-Influence Budget Formation-Lobbying (general)

-Policy Performance (formulation, blocking/revising)

17

･ Inference:Strong Relation Between CSO’s Activiti

es and SISin each country

and sector

Sector Level Significance

Japan, Germany>Turkey, Russia>Korea, China,

Philippine

18

･

Fig.6-1 Lobbying through Politicians

T

C

J

K

G

PH

R

0

1

2

3

0 20 40 60 80%

SIS

(M

ean

)

･ Relation between Lobbying and SIS (mean)

19

･

･ Relation between Providing Information (Mass Medias) and SIS (mean)

Fig.6-2 Providing Information: Mass Medias

T

C

J

K

G

PHR

0

1

2

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70%

SIS

(M

ean

)

20

･

･ Relation between Policy Performance (Formulation) and SIS (mean)

Fig.6-4 Policy Performance (Formulation)

T

C

J

K

G

PHR

0

1

2

3

0 10 20 30 40 50%

SIS

(M

ean

)

21

V. Administration Connection Hypothesis

･ Institutional Relation between Administration Connection and SIS (mean)

-Accrediting-Licensing-Administrative Guidance-Policy-Formation Cooperation-Opinion Exchange-Sending Advisory Board Member-Post Offering to the Ex-Bureaucrats …..

22

･ Relation between Administration Connection and SIS

TABLE 6. Summary of Cross-tabulation analysis: Relations with Administration. Linear

Adm. Connection Ph@,R@,G@,K*J@ Ph:C,NP,O/G:NP,C,O/J:P,C,NP/R:NP,C,P

（National）

Ph89.1%;R60.0%;G28.9%;K91.7%;J74.9%;Ch94.1%;Tu97.7% Non-Linear

Adm. Connection Ph@,R@,G@,J@ Ph:NP,O/G:NP,C/J:P,C,NP,O/R:NP,C/T:P,NP

（Local）

Adm. Consultation Ph@R@G@K@J@C@Tu@ G:NP,C,O/K:NP/J:P,NP,C,O/C:P,NP,C,O

R: P,NP,C/T:O.

Ph24.5%;R52.1%;G30.0%;K40.7%;J33.0%;Ch30.3%;Tu14.8% semi-Linear

･ No Relation (Linearity) between the National Administration and SIS

(Some Negative Relation)

･ Relation between the Local Autonomies and SIS(Weak Relation)

23(24)

･ Relation between Administration Connection and SIS (mean)

Fig.7-1 Relations with National Administration

T

C

J

K

G

PHR

0

1

2

3

0 20 40 60 80 100%

SIS

(M

ean

)

* China: No distinction between National and Local government in the Questionaire.

Fig.7-2 Relations with Local Autonomies

RPH

G

K

J

C

T

0

1

2

3

0 20 40 60 80 100%

SIS

(M

ean

)

* China: No distinction between National and Local government in the Questionaire.

Conclusion

25

1: Civil Society Structure Hyp. is valid(C.S. proportion strongly correlates with SIS)

Results of Tested Hypotheses

2: Resource Hyp. is not valid(Neither Y.E. nor Org. Res. Correlates with SIS)

3: Pol. Activism Hyp. is valid(Correlations strong in Japan & Germany)

4: Adm. Connect. Hyp. is unclear

5: “SIS” shows aggressiveness of C.S. as it affect CSO activism and performance (except Philippine)