|
|
More information
|
| Title |
Civil Society: A Critical Interrogation |
| Region |
|
| Countries |
United Kingdom |
| Project Information |
Background Paper for INTRAC’s 10th Anniversary
Conference, 13th-15th December 2001, Balliol College Oxford.
|
| Keywords |
Civil Society, NGOs, Non-Governmental Organizations,
Democracy, democratic, politics, |
| Organisations |
IDS (Institute of Development Studies), Department
of Peace Studies, |
| Author |
Jude Howell and Jenny Pearce |
| Document Type |
Background Paper |
| Date of Publication |
December 2001 |
| File Name |
View
File
|
| Abstract |
In its first encounter with development, civil
society was used in a very unsophisticated way by development
thinkers, practitioners and activists. It often meant NGOs,
for instance. Donors and NGOs used it quite instrumentally.
If it had remained there, the concept might have disappeared
rapidly. However, time and effort have been invested in its
meaning and importance since the early 1990s. A great deal has
been written on the concept, but this has not always helped
clarify why it could be considered an essential component to
development processes in the South.
The underlying premise of this paper is that there are two main
approaches to civil society, which we call the mainstream approach
and the alternative approach. Each selectively draws upon distinct
intellectual traditions and finds expression in particular development
agencies and practices. For multilateral banks, international
development institutions, governments, and, it should be noted,
some large international NGOs, poverty and inequality are recognised
problems of the global economy today. But they are problems
which can be solved with the right set of policies. This mainstream
civil society thinking draws on a particular history of the
concept which makes it relevant to a problem-solving agenda
of this type. Increasingly it appeals for partnership in the
building of a consensual approach to development between civil
society, the market and the state. It is concerned with the
risk to social cohesion from the unfettered pursuit of individual
gain in the market, and has begun to talk in terms of “socially
responsible capitalism.”
|
|
|
|
