1 / 24

Yutaka Tsujinaka, J.Y. Choe, T. Ohtomo, and H. Miwa University of Tsukuba

Which Civil Society Organizations in Which Countries are Enjoying Policy-Making Processes and Why: Comparing 7 Countries (Japan, Korea, Germany, China, Turkey, Russia, and the Philippines) in JIGS Surveys. Yutaka Tsujinaka, J.Y. Choe, T. Ohtomo, and H. Miwa University of Tsukuba. 2006. 2.

lazar
Download Presentation

Yutaka Tsujinaka, J.Y. Choe, T. Ohtomo, and H. Miwa University of Tsukuba

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Which Civil Society Organizations in Which Countries are Enjoying Policy-Making Processes and Why:Comparing 7 Countries (Japan, Korea, Germany, China, Turkey, Russia, and the Philippines) in JIGS Surveys Yutaka Tsujinaka, J.Y. Choe, T. Ohtomo, and H. Miwa University of Tsukuba 2006

  2. 2 Influential Some what Not Why is SIS different? Introduction: Differences in SIS - Enjoy? Philippine, Russia - Manage? Germany, Korea, Japan - Suffer? China, Turkey

  3. 3 Subjective influence Score (SIS) When policy problems arise in the geographical areas suggested in Q6 （1．Village, town or city; 2. Prefecture; 3.A collection of prefecture regions; 4. National; 5. Global）, how much influence does your organization have on such problems? Subjective influence Score (SIS) Extremely influential=4, influential=3, Some what influential=2, Not influential=1, Not at all influential=0 SIS (mean): Average score by country/ by sectors

  4. 4 ･Overview of CountriesSurveyed in JIGS

  5. 5 I. Methodology & Hypotheses 1. Main Characteristic of JIGS The International Survey of Civil Society and Interest Groups 1997- : Cross-culturally surveys direct the core (associations) of CS in 10 countries :Different from Non Profit Sector Project (L. Salamon) and from Social Capital Group (R. Putnam)

  6. 6

  7. 7 2. Various Hypotheses - Civil society structure (sector composition) hypothesis - Resource hypothesis - Political Activism hypothesis - Administration connection hypothesis

  8. 8 3. Method of Analysis ・Relation between factors and SIS (mean) - Analysis through Scatter Diagram (Nation Level) ：linear or non-linear - Cross Tabulation Analysis (Nation Level)：χ2-test - Cross Tabulation Analysis (Sector Level)：χ2-test (Profit Sector, Non Profit Sector, Citizen Sector, Other)

  9. 9 II. Civil Society Structure (Sector Proposition) Hypothesis ・4 Sectors’ Proportion • Philippine・ • Russia (Enjoy?) • C.S．(≒50%) • Korea・ • Germany (Manage?) • N.P.S．(≒40%) • Japan・China • (Manage?) • P.S．(≒40%) • Turkey (Suffer?) • Other (≒60%)

  10. 10 ・ 4 Sectors’ Proportion & SIS (mean) -Positive Correlation: Citizen Sector’s % & SIS (mean) -Negative Correlation: Profit Sector’s % & SIS (mean) ⇒CSS Hypothesis is Valid

  11. 11 Ⅲ. Resource Hypothesis 1) Trend in Year Established and SIS ･Long History CSO J, G, K > R, C, T, PH ･Strong SIS T, C < J, G, K < R, PH No Relations Between Year Established and SIS

  12. 12 ･Profit Sector’s Year Established ･Large Differences among Countries as well as in Development Paths ･Developed Countries : Long History (Created before and after WWII) ･Changed Political System & Developing Countries : Short History (since the late ’80s)

  13. 13 ･Citizen Sector’s Year Established ･Sharp Rise in the 90s ：Regime Changes Vulnerability of C.S. ･Developed Countries (U, G, J) ：Established Earlier

  14. 14 ･Relation between Establishment Year and SIS ･R, G, J: Relation between Establishment Year and SIS （level of significance (0.05) ） ・Negative Relation: Short History ⇒ Strong SIS

  15. 15 2) Organizational Resources ･No Relation between Organizational Resources and SIS ⇒Resource Hypothesis is not Valid (Year Established and SIS, Organizational Resources and SIS)

  16. 16 IV. Political Activism Hypothesis ･Relation between CSO’s Activities and SIS (mean) -Contact with Political Parties -Contact Mass Media -Support Election Campaign -Influence Budget Formation -Lobbying (general) -Policy Performance (formulation, blocking/revising)

  17. 17 ･Inference: Strong Relation Between CSO’s Activities and SIS in each country and sector Sector Level Significance Japan, Germany> Turkey, Russia> Korea, China, Philippine

  18. 18 ･Relation between Lobbying and SIS (mean) ･

  19. 19 ･Relation between Providing Information (Mass Medias) and SIS (mean) ･

  20. 20 ･Relation between Policy Performance (Formulation) and SIS (mean) ･

  21. 21 V. Administration Connection Hypothesis ･Institutional Relation between Administration Connection and SIS (mean) -Accrediting -Licensing -Administrative Guidance -Policy-Formation Cooperation -Opinion Exchange -Sending Advisory Board Member -Post Offering to the Ex-Bureaucrats …..

  22. 22 ･Relation between Administration Connection and SIS ･No Relation (Linearity) between the National Administration and SIS (Some Negative Relation) ･Relation between the LocalAutonomies and SIS (Weak Relation)

  23. 23(24) ･ Relation between Administration Connection and SIS (mean)

  24. 25 5: “SIS” shows aggressiveness of C.S. as it affect CSO activism and performance (except Philippine) Conclusion Results of Tested Hypotheses 1: Civil Society Structure Hyp. is valid (C.S. proportion strongly correlates with SIS) 2: Resource Hyp. is not valid (Neither Y.E. nor Org. Res. Correlates with SIS) 3: Pol. Activism Hyp. is valid (Correlations strong in Japan & Germany) 4: Adm. Connect. Hyp. is unclear

More Related