The Convergence around Local Civil Society and the Dangers of Localism

Kristian Stokke · Giles Mohan

18 citations0/0 files storedSocial Scientist

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Development, Ethics, and Society Globalization and political ideologies Economic and Social Development

Abstract

Development studies and practice have recently undergone a transition that has yielded an unprecedented emphasis on local civil society (Mohan & Stokke, 2000). There is now a high level of agreement regarding the importance of popular participation for social change and empowerment. Behind the apparent consensus on the importance of local civil society in development, there are quite divergent views on the characteristics and functions of civil society. Two main strands of development thinking and intervention can be identified as particularly relevant in this regard. These can be described as revisionist neo-liberalism and post-Marxism. Revisionist neoliberalism sees institutions and actors in civil society as partners for enabling state institutions. Popular participation is seen as a means for making development interventions more cost-effective and efficient and also as a step towards privatisation of state services. PostMarxism, which may be seen as the. main counter-hegemonic position in contemporary development debates, sees civil society as a challenge to the hegemony of global economic liberalism and its associated political institutions. Social movements in civil society hold the potential for bringing about autocentric and socially relevant development in opposition to both the state and the market. Both agree that civil society has a crucial role to play as an alternative to exploitative, parasitic and inefficient states. This article seeks to address two main questions regarding the role of civil society: (1) What are the theoretical roots and main characteristics of these different views on civil society, and (2) What are the shortcomings of these perspectives? It will be argued that development theory has moved away from a polarised debate over

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

References

1995Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital 1985Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics 1995Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World 1995Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World.1998Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework 1993The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life 1999Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics 1996Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements

Cited by

2010A three-tiered approach to participatory vulnerability assessment in the Solomon Islands

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.