Search results

This book argues that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have an important effect on political participation in the developing world. Contrary to popular belief, they promote moderate political participation through formal mechanisms such as voting only in democracies where institutions are working well. This is a radical departure from the bulk of the literature on civil society that sees NGOs and other associations as playing a role in strengthening democracy wherever they operate. Instead, Carew Boulding shows that where democratic institutions are weak, NGOs encourage much more contentious political participation, including demonstrations, riots, and protests. Except in extreme cases of poorly functioning democratic institutions, however, the political protest that results from NGO activity is not generally anti-system or incompatible with democracy - again, as long as democracy is functioning above a minimal level.

How do NGOs affect political participation in weakly democratic settings? We know that NGOs can be an important part of moderate civil society by building trust, facilitating collective action, and encouraging voter turnout. This paper explores these relationships in weakly democratic settings. NGOs stimulate political participation by providing resources and opportunities for association. Where voting is seen as ineffective, new participation can take the form of political protests and demonstrations. This paper presents results from an original local level dataset from Bolivia on NGO activity, voter turnout, and political protest, showing a strong relationship between NGO activity and political protest in weakly democratic contexts. Adapted from the source document.

This dissertation examines the political effects of NGOs in developing democracies. There is a large and contradictory literature on whether, how, and why NGOs affect politics. Some argue that NGOs are an essential component of a strong civil society necessary for democratic consolidation. Others argue that NGOs are co- opted by the existing hierarchy of political elites, and politicians claim credit for the services they provide, damaging democratic accountability. I argue that NGOs have systematic effects on politics in two realms: participation and voting behavior. First, I agree with the conventional wisdom that NGOs tend to boost participation of all kinds. However, I argue that - particularly in weakly democratic settings - NGOs are likely to encourage unconventional means of participation such as demonstrations and protest in addition to more conventional forms such as voting. This is a strong challenge to the common assumption in the literature that NGOs are the bulwark of moderate civil society. Second, I argue that the effects of NGOs on voting behavior are conditional on the size of the jurisdiction in question. Existing work predicts starkly contradictory political effects: Some claim NGOs should help incumbents by providing services for which politicians can claim credit, while others claim they should hurt incumbents by facilitating opposition. I argue that both these effects are possible, but in different contexts. In areas with very small populations, the associational effects of NGOs (their ability to bring people together, air common grievances, and build trust to help solve collective action problems) are much stronger, making it more likely that NGO activity will strengthen opposition politics. In larger population areas, however, the effects of increases in association are relatively much smaller. And, in the more impersonal setting of larger cities, credit-claiming for NGO services is easier. Thus, NGOs in larger cities are likely to help incumbents, rather than help the opposition. I test my argument and competing hypotheses from the literature using a new approach: an analysis of an original sub-national dataset comparing municipalities in Bolivia. The dataset includes measures of NGO activity, election returns, and protest, as well as a number of controls, for two time periods, 1999 and 2004

Understanding who participates in politics and in which kinds of activities is central to understanding how democracies work. This book offers the first large-scale empirical analysis of political participation in 18 Latin American countries, with a focus on understanding the political behavior of the region's poorest citizens. Poor people in Latin America vote, protest and contact government officials at surprisingly high levels, approaching or exceeding levels of activism of individuals with significantly more resources and schooling. To explain this puzzling finding, we argue that key institutions of democracy including civil society, political parties, and competitive party systems are especially important for understanding the activism of poorer citizens and, as a result, have profound effects on inequalities in political participation.

How do poor people in Latin America participate in politics? What explains the variation in the patterns of voting, protesting, and contacting government for the region's poorest citizens? Why are participation gaps larger in some countries than in others? This text offers the first large-scale empirical analysis of political participation in Latin America, focusing on patterns of participation among the poorest citizens in each country.