Civil society as a contested field of meanings

Purpose – During recent years, the concept of civil society, particularly global civil society, has come to the fore in both academia and policy circles. A key component of recent theoretical and policy research is the attempt to do international comparative research on the meaning of civil society. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the language and the terminology used to describe the agents of civil society are reflective of cultural and historical contexts of societies, have distinct meanings and cannot be used interchangeably.

Design/methodology/approach – In different national contexts, the key agents of civil society are referred to differently; nonprofit sector, voluntary and community sector, third sector and social economy. In comparative studies, scholars often list these concepts to indicate that they recognise that the agents of civil society are referred to differently in different societies. The article offers a socio-historical analysis of each concept. It is concluded that teasing out the differences, as well as the similarities, between the nonprofit sector, voluntary and community sector, third sector and social economy, is crucial to robust comparative research on civil society.

Findings – This paper exposes a number of limitations of each of the terminologies used to describe civil society. They all present a much more limiting notion of civil society than that proposed by the founding fathers. None seem to capture the range of civil associations in any society. Yet, assumptions are made that the terminologies used have similar meanings rather than attempting to clarify and define exactly what is being written or described. This is exacerbated by the interchangeable usage of nonprofit/third sector/community and voluntary sector/social economy. In order to progress beyond culturally specific understandings of civil society, it is necessary to examine the terminology used and how it emanates from a specific cultural and political context. Having a clear understanding of the language used and what it signifies is crucial to robust cross-national comparative research.

Originality/value – This paper examines context specific understandings of civil society and the terminology used to define it; a question not previously addressed. It is hoped that this article will generate much needed further debate on cross-national meanings of civil society.

Nature as historical protagonist: environment and society in pre-industrial England

This article compares chronologies reconstructed from historical records of prices, wages, grain harvests, and population with corresponding chronologies of growing conditions and climatic variations derived from dendrochronology and Greenland ice-cores. It demonstrates that in pre-industrial, and especially late medieval, England, short-term environmental shocks and more enduring shifts in environmental conditions (sometimes acting in concert with biological agencies) exercised a powerful influence upon the balance struck between population and available resources via their effects upon the reproduction, health and life expectancy of humans, crops, and livestock. Prevailing socio-economic conditions and institutions, in turn, shaped society's susceptibility to these environmental shocks and shifts.

Bridging and Linking in a Divided Society: A Social Capital Case Study from Northern Ireland

This paper reports the results of research into social capital levels in the Central Housing Community Network, part of the community consultation structure of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Membership of the forum increased the bonding, bridging and linking social capital of its members and appeared to improve community relations, although that was not its stated purpose. However, the empirical link between social capital and the quality of community relations remains unproven. The research provides an example of the state creating a positive space for interaction with civil society through consultation on service delivery issues. In an international policy environment where ‘mixed’ communities are the ideal, the potential of service-based forums to contribute to community cohesion may have been underestimated.