Recent government interventions support the objectives of collective markets through public policy rather than relying on traditional strategic cooperation between non-state actors. We ask when and how left-wing governments intervene in collectively-governed markets. We develop a novel theoretical framework at the intersection of public policy and comparative political economy. We build on public policy scholarship to mobilize a typology of policy instruments available to governments to shore up collective markets, including regulation (sticks), subsidies (carrots), and information (sermons). We embed this hierarchical classification in a political economy framework to outline under which conditions we expect policymakers to opt for different instruments. We illustrate the usefulness of this approach through a case study of least likely policy areas – labor market and training policy – nested within a least likely case – Germany.

African non-governmental organisations undergo various shifts in order to cope with diverse challenges. This article takes a longitudinal case study approach to analyse the identities and resilience of a small sample of NGOs in South Africa and Zimbabwe between 2009 and 2013. This article will rely on time period and the nature of the state in each site as independent variables. The nuances brought on by the different time periods and each organisation’s profile, and the two countries where the NGOs are set, are significant for contributing to the literature on the fluid and adaptive nature of African NGOs in their bid for survival. Through exploring these four diverse NGOs in the two states and time period where new challenges and opportunities are presented, the article will also highlight the variety of challenges and strategies each NGO engaged with when confronting crises specific to their settings and the identities each NGO adopted when developing and shifting their agendas.

In a lecture given in 1991, while working on the never finished third volume of his series on theories of justice, Brian Barry gave a rare glimpse into the ideas with which he was wrestling – twenty years ahead of present-day political theorists. What is the role of the state, how are we to conceptualize it, in a world if globalization, and against the background of a legitimate appeal for international distributive justice?

The Badan Keswadayaan Masyarakat (BKM—Board for Community Self-reliance) are organisations established by the state as implementing agents of a community-driven development programme in Medan, Indonesia. Members are elected from the local population, but they continue to be supported by, and associated with the state. They are therefore ‘straddler’ organisations: organisations that span the state–civil society divide. This paper seeks to answer two questions. First, can BKMs’ positioning between the state and civil society facilitate new forms of state/non-government organisations (NGO) collaboration, and if so, what is the nature of partnerships established through such collaborations? We find that straddle organisations offer a way for NGOs to collaborate with the state in the achievement of development objectives. Second what is the possibility and desirability of arrangements in which NGOs ‘channel’ funds to BKMs as a means to ensure the sustainability of the latter? We argue that while there is considerable promise in such arrangements, these should be designed around a model of ‘working together’ rather than merely ‘channelling’.

A Ph.D. is not a qualification to decide a country's foreign policy, but it should not be a disqualification from communicating with people whose choices are not entirely rational. Founders of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) learned to do this in occupied Europe during the Second World War. I learned it in libraries and working on newspapers. So, instead of talking about Iraq in an Oval Office meeting with President Bush I offered a parable about Northern Ireland, supported by quotations from Max Weber and Isaiah Berlin.

Although it has gained wide currency in the analysis of African politics, civil society remains a “mysterious” concept in need of proper grounding and understanding as an integral part of African social formation. This paper argues that one of the widely acclaimed canonical works in African studies, Peter Ekeh’s theory of colonialism and the two publics in Africa provides one of the most original perspectives for locating and understanding the character of modern civil society as a product of colonialism. In particular, the theory provides an explanation for why primordial attachments have remained fundamental to the structuration of civil society and why state–civil society relations have largely been fractured, instrumentalist, and dialectical in the post-colonial period.

There have been three major analytical reviews that have examined the voluntary- statutory relationship during the 1990s, one undertaken by government in 1990 and the other two independently in 1993 and 1996. This article suggests that an historical understanding of this relationship (especially in terms of its sociopolitical dimensions) is crucial, but was missing from the 1990 review and misrepresented by the 1993 review. The 1996 document has been subjected to harsh criticism, but it was arguably sounder in its understanding of this fundamental issue. The national compact between representatives of the voluntary sector and the state, launched at the end of 1998, has built upon the arguments put forward in 1996. However, the paper suggests that given the vexed history of “partnership” between the sectors and the extent to which the statutory sector has become the dominant partner at the end of the 20th century, it would be premature to be overly optimistic. The paper examines three major shifts in the voluntary-statutory relationship during the 20th century, before reviewing the 1990s’ documents in more detail.

In this study, we examine the key management and scientific traditions that inform the logical framework, a project planning and evaluation tool that is central to how many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) manage their projects and provide accounts to funders. Through an analysis of USAID reports from the 1960s and 1970s, interviews with the logical framework’s developers, and a close reading of seminal texts, we identify how systems theory, management by objectives, and scientific theory informed how USAID problematized its project planning and evaluation practices and how they came to be inscribed into the logical framework as a way to address such perceived problems. We argue that these traditions are important for understanding a particular strand of managerialization that informs international development NGOs, and, more generally, for understanding how funding agencies “see” through the logical framework.

Civil society organizations in Lebanon have a long history, pre-dating even the existence of the Lebanese state itself, which has directly shaped their major phases of development since its creation. Based on the social origins theory and using the framework developed by Marchetti and Tocci (Peace Secur Former Pac Rev Peace Secur Glob Chang 21:201–217, 2009), this paper analyses the relationships that have developed between the state and civil society organizations in Lebanon. The main argument presented in this paper is that the scope of work of civil society organizations, in addition to their freedom of action, is directly linked to the social, political and economic development of the state. The main conclusion of this paper is that a new social contract should be forged between associations and the state in Lebanon, one that would allow them to carry out their functions properly.

Hayek regards the liberal democratic model of public opinion as totalitarian. This aggregated majority opinion is, he claims, a disposition to change others’ behaviour. It operates directly or indirectly through the state’s coercive power. To resist totalitarianism Hayek proposes to replace public opinion by an alternative type of aggregate opinion: general opinion. I argue that his shift from public opinion to general opinion transforms the state into a problematic locus for the shaping and disseminating of opinions and thereby turns the content of general opinion into irrefutable dogma. Both consequences are, contra Hayek, more rather than less likely to encourage totalitarianism. In justifying this analysis, I challenge the assumptions, framework, and claims of Hayek’s political theory, offering fresh ways to understand Hayek’s questionable conception of the state and demonstrate that, in replacing public opinion with general opinion, Hayek departs from the liberal political tradition he purports to defend.

A new wave of transnational civil society campaigning has emerged since the last quarter of the twentieth century. Major changes in world order occurred over this period, which impacted on the context for transnational campaigning. These changes include the end of the Cold War, followed by the embedding of the concept of global governance, including the norm of civil society participation. This article examines the strategies of transnational debt campaigns against this background. It describes the shifts in strategies over time between more consensual engagement approaches and those seeking fundamental transformation, and considers the implications for the relationship between civil society campaigns and states/international decision-makers. It concludes that transnational debt movements fit better with a Gramscian perspective on civil society as containing consensual, and counter-systemic elements, than with a view of civil society as independent of official decision-making structures. It highlights, however, the need to grasp the on-going dynamic between these different elements within civil society.