1 / 11

THE STUDY

CIVIC CULTURES AND DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION Erik Amnå YeS – Youth & Society Örebro University, Sweden erik.amna@oru.se. WORK PACKAGE # 10 Civil society’s role in promoting citizenship among non EU-citizens Good practices from Sweden, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Italy. THE STUDY.

moanna
Download Presentation

THE STUDY

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. CIVIC CULTURES AND DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATIONErik AmnåYeS – Youth & SocietyÖrebro University, Swedenerik.amna@oru.se

  2. WORK PACKAGE # 10Civil society’s role in promoting citizenship among non EU-citizensGood practices from Sweden, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Italy

  3. THE STUDY • Inteviews with 23 NGOs • Two policy fields • Anti-discrimination • Refugees and asylum seekers • Different political contexts/welfare regimes • Sweden • Great Britain • The Netherlands • Italy • ”Good practices” – ordinary organisations´ experiences

  4. Delivered societal utilities • Services • Health care, legal aid, information, employment, networks, education, pronounced rights • Watch dog • Advocacy, representing non EU-citizens • Opinion formation • Review and critique, information, unofficial statistics, voice to marginalized groups • Mediation • Individuals – authorities • Between authorities

  5. Preconditions • Financial resources • Personell resources • Organisational resources

  6. Financial resources • Lack of funds – greatest NGO weakness • National and local public funding • Most important NGO income • Promotes cooperation with governments • Legitimizes and de-legitimizes NGOs • EU funding • Genereal weak contacts with EU institutions • Primarily an option for large NGOs

  7. Organisational resources • Inter-organisational learning • Smaller organisations, less attention • Importing strengths from each other • NGO adaptation and flexibility facilitated through network organization • Cooperation with national governments and the EU

  8. Personell resources • Target groups • Receiver of aid – experts and assistants • Volunteers • More directly crucial for smaller NGOs • Members • Ambigious role (due to selection of NGOs?) • Professionals • Important for big as well as small NGOs • External key persons • Politicians, experts

  9. Reflections on NGO policies • Diversity of civil society • Challenges and strengthens European standardization? • Financing • Ear-marked funding may jeopardize NGOs’ internal work and priorities • EU funding perceived as complicated • European funding favours strong NGOs • NGO as policy initiator & implementator • Uncritical self-understanding in GB & NL • Doubtful attitude in SE

  10. Policy implications • Create more participatory opportunities! • Be aware of diversity among NGOs – and across political contexts! • How can locked relationships where states and NGOs get stuck on each other be changed and altered? • Is the ’Active Citizen’ Policy of EU and its member states trustworthy as long as they hand over the realisation of basic citizen rights to NGO´s of various capacities? • Public institutions influence NGOs and civic culture – not only the other way around!

More Related