Research

By Mark Riboldi, 2024, Australian Journal of Political Science

Beginning explorations of civil society organisations (CSOs) from a democratic, political, or regulatory perspective potentially overlooks important aspects of CSO activity. Instead, this paper takes CSOs in action as its starting point – specifically, Australian CSOs responding to the needs of people and communities during the crisis of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. Working between reflections by Australian CSO leaders during the pandemic and selected literature, a multi-grounded theory approach is used to produce a novel theoretical contribution – a typology of 10 distinct CSO activities. These 10 activities are divided into three categories: (1) The ‘Big Three’ activities – advocate systemically, deliver service and build capacity; (2) ‘Business As Usual’ activities – engage community, manage organisation and work collaboratively; and (3) ‘Enabling’ activities – conduct research, coordinate network, hold space and provide funding. The final three activities are revealed as being less integrated into the broader CSO literature than their more commonly explored counterparts.

By Mark Riboldi, 2024, Interest Groups & Advocacy

This article constructs a framework for understanding the activities of interest groups and other civil society organisations (CSOs) in relation to their democratic connections with people and communities. This is achieved by considering whether CSOs engage with people in terms of decision-making in a manner that is centralised or decentralised, counterposed with the nature of the connection, be it relational or transactional. The resulting LOPAC (Loci of Power and Connection) framework highlights four types of CSO activity, each of which has potential democratic utility and drawbacks: (1) Bare Essentials—decentralised engagement, transactional connection; (2) Crowd Control—centralised engagement, transactional connection; (3) Honeycomb—decentralised engagement, relational connection; and (4) Closed Doors—centralised engagement, relational connection. The framework is connected to key discussions within the literature, in particular around the legitimacy of CSOs, how CSOs act as transmission belts for citizens’ interests to reach those in power, and the ongoing professionalisation of the sector. The framework aims to assist scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to understand the democratic implications of the complex decisions that CSOs make on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, the framework aids in understanding what areas CSOs can focus on when they find that their modes of engagement are inadvertently having impacts contrary to their democratic aims.