When Do Liberal Governments Restrict Civil Society?

IF 3.1 3区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions Pub Date : 2025-01-13 DOI:10.1111/gove.12913
Nicole Bolleyer, Adam Eick, Milka Ivanovska Hadjievska, Leonhard Grevesmühl
{"title":"When Do Liberal Governments Restrict Civil Society?","authors":"Nicole Bolleyer,&nbsp;Adam Eick,&nbsp;Milka Ivanovska Hadjievska,&nbsp;Leonhard Grevesmühl","doi":"10.1111/gove.12913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Liberal democracies increasingly restrict civil society organizations (CSOs), a trend frequently linked to illiberal governments. But when do ideologically liberal governments resort to such restrictions? Linking research on state traditions, party ideology and crisis governance, we theorize factors enhancing liberal governments' propensity to adopt normatively contentious CSO restrictions. Distinguishing formal-legal restrictions on CSO voice from those on CSO existence, we show that nearly 90 such restrictions were adopted by 17 cabinets in France and the United Kingdom over the last 2 decades. In line with theoretical expectations, restrictions on CSO existence are more prominent in statist France, while governments in the United Kingdom tend to restrict CSO voice. More right-wing governments adopt more CSO restrictions, while restrictions go up with government crisis pressure. Overall, understanding how liberal governments use CSO restrictions requires considering contextual opportunity structures and ideological dispositions in conjunction.</p>","PeriodicalId":48056,"journal":{"name":"Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gove.12913","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gove.12913","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Liberal democracies increasingly restrict civil society organizations (CSOs), a trend frequently linked to illiberal governments. But when do ideologically liberal governments resort to such restrictions? Linking research on state traditions, party ideology and crisis governance, we theorize factors enhancing liberal governments' propensity to adopt normatively contentious CSO restrictions. Distinguishing formal-legal restrictions on CSO voice from those on CSO existence, we show that nearly 90 such restrictions were adopted by 17 cabinets in France and the United Kingdom over the last 2 decades. In line with theoretical expectations, restrictions on CSO existence are more prominent in statist France, while governments in the United Kingdom tend to restrict CSO voice. More right-wing governments adopt more CSO restrictions, while restrictions go up with government crisis pressure. Overall, understanding how liberal governments use CSO restrictions requires considering contextual opportunity structures and ideological dispositions in conjunction.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自由政府何时限制公民社会?
自由民主国家越来越多地限制公民社会组织(cso),这一趋势经常与不自由的政府联系在一起。但是什么时候意识形态自由的政府会采取这样的限制呢?结合对国家传统、政党意识形态和危机治理的研究,我们将促使自由主义政府倾向于采用规范争议性的公民社会组织限制的因素理论化。区分对公民社会组织发声的正式法律限制和对公民社会组织存在的限制,我们发现,在过去20年里,法国和英国的17个内阁采取了近90项此类限制。与理论预期一致,中央集权的法国对公民社会组织存在的限制更为突出,而英国政府则倾向于限制公民社会组织的话语权。右翼政府对公民社会组织的限制越多,限制越大,政府危机压力越大。总的来说,理解自由主义政府如何使用公民社会组织的限制,需要结合考虑上下文机会结构和意识形态倾向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
10.30%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Governance provides a forum for the theoretical and practical discussion of executive politics, public policy, administration, and the organization of the state. Published in association with International Political Science Association''s Research Committee on the Structure & Organization of Government (SOG), it emphasizes peer-reviewed articles that take an international or comparative approach to public policy and administration. All papers, regardless of empirical focus, should have wider theoretical, comparative, or practical significance.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating Authoritarian Performance: Historical Legacies and Contemporary Attitudes in Saudi Arabia Erosion of Competition Policy in the Age of Populism: Cases of Hungary, Mexico and Turkey The Generativity of Governance Configurations: How Governance Factors Coalesce to Spur Local Green Co-Creation “It's Who You Know:” Bureaucratic Responsiveness in the Rural South Opening the Black Box of EU Digital Sovereignty: A Macro-Level Analysis of the Concept's Development
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1