Civil society – a broader sphere than the community

This review is drawn from (Hasan, Sacha. 2012, Civil Society Participation in Urban Development in Syria).

The word ‘community’ is densely used in planning theory, policies and legislation. The most common use of ‘community’ is to refer to a territorial group (Johnston, et al., 2000 p. 101), while the more accurate use is to refer to a group which shares the same interests (Jenkins, 2007).

In ordinary speech, according to Young (1990), the term ‘community’ refers to “the people with whom one identifies in a specific locale. It refers to neighbourhood, church, schools. It also carries connotations of ethnicity, race, and other group identifications. For most people, a ‘community’ is a group that shares a specific heritage, a common self-identification, a common culture and set of norms” (Young, 1990 p. 343)

Healey (1996) gave two meanings to ‘community’.  “The first is spatially based, all those in a place who share a concern and/or are affected by what happens there. The second is stake based, that is, all those who, directly or indirectly, have an interest in or care about what the people in the first community are doing in a place” (Healey, 1996 p. 244).

But, there is still a less common usage of the word ‘community’ in de-constructing power relations, as “the second image carried in the word ‘community’ is as an opposition to a dominating force”. This image “draws individuals into a place-based moral order”.  It “draws individuals together into an aggregate interest, the citizens or ‘ordinary people’, versus powerful external force” (Healey, 2006 p. 124).

However, the concept of ‘community’ is now more difficult to pin down because of the broader spatial nature of planning issues and the fact that there is wider spatial interaction between places (Healey, 2006 pp. 122-126). Thus, the appeal of ‘community’ “can be reinterpreted to mean the assertion of the concerns of accomplishing life strategies and everyday life in the context of the forums and arenas in which political community finds expression, and in which collective activities are organized” (Healey, 2006 p. 126).

This researcher uses the term ‘community’ to refer to the group of people who share a spatial territory targeted by a certain development (the scale of the territory is decided by the scale of the development e.g. a local neighbourhood targeted for a regeneration project, a region targeted for a new transportation network,… etc), taking into consideration all the social differences this group may have (differences of interest). This definition is less complex and more relevant to the research purpose. This is because the research adopts a case study approach, where two developments are chosen for analysis and those are targeted to two areas. Thus, ‘community’ here refers to those targeted by the chosen developments. However, the social differences of people included are taken into account due to the effect these differences impose on the structure of society, formal and informal. Furthermore, they affect the institutional structure of the related urban development decision-making. These relations between the structure of civil society and urban development decision-making are further explained in this chapter.

On the other hand, the concept of ‘civil society’ is a much broader concept which might have been initiated by the recent complex spatial nature of planning under the circumstances of state disability and market competitiveness and self-interest vision of service production (Carley, et al., 2001; Douglass, et al., 1998). For Hall (1998) it is “a form of societal self-organization which allows for co-operation with the state whilst enabling individualism” (Johnston, et al., 2000 pp. 84-85; Hall, 1998).

Civil society exceeds the limits of the concept of ‘community’, to include all society segments which, in theory, lie outside both the sphere of production (private sector) and the state (Johnston, et al., 2000; Alexander, 2008). However, civil society economic components of non-profit and voluntary organisations form an active part of the production sphere of society, to an extent it is considered in some literature as an extension of the private sector (see Figure ‎2 1). Furthermore, civil society has a strong effect on the supply and demand of goods and services and, consequently, on the shape and function of the market. Thus, in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated (LSE, 2004). As such, civil society embraces “a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power” (LSE, 2004).

Civil societies are often populated by organizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community groups, women's organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups (LSE, 2004). Against this, civil society organizations are classified in many ways—by sector, focus, origins, scale, level of formality, values, or theoretical perspectives. These function in representation , technical expertise , capacity-building , service delivery  and various social functions . However, it is important to recognize that civil society organisations (CSOs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) differ in the degree to which they provide these functions (WB, 2000).

The diversity of places, actors, institutional forms, formality and power CSOs have and the differences in the degree of function provision is very much related to the structure of civil society. Carley et al (2001) identified two types of civil society structure, vertical (formal) and horizontal (informal). The first type is usually formally recognised among the other society forces and functions in the economic (cooperatives, companies limited by guarantee, not for profit organisations), social (trusts, charities, NGOs) and cultural (sport clubs, religious groups, music and cultural clubs) areas. However, the areas of function of formal CSOs intertwine and it is hard to define end boundaries of each area of function to such an extent that the economic based CSOs are considered in some literature to be an extension of the private sector sphere (Carley, et al., 2001).

The informal, or horizontal, structure of civil society has no formally recognised organisational form but is based on the relations of kinship among members of the society (Carley, et al., 2001). This form of civil society is very active especially in the countries of the South and provides all five functions discussed previously. However, (and this applies to this research case study context) this form is specifically active in the area of service provision especially when the formal CSOs are of limited power. This structure of civil society has proven to be well connected with the other two forces in the society, the state and the market, and also the formal structure of civil society, reflecting Jenkins (2007).

Governance as a concept

This review is drawn from (Hasan, Sacha. 2012, Civil Society Participation in Urban Development in Syria).

The dictionary of human geography identified two different uses of the term ‘governance’.  The first is consistent with the nature of organizations as it refers to “the involvement of a wide range of institutions and actors in the production of policy outcomes, including non-governmental organizations, quangos, private companies, pressure groups and social movements as well as the state institutions traditionally regarded as a formal part of the government. Here ‘governance’ is a broader category than ‘government’, with government being one component of governance among many” (Johnston, et al., 2000 pp. 316-317).


The second definition refers to the nature of the organizations’ relationships. Here, governance “refers to a particular form of coordination. In contrast with the top-down control in coordination through hierarchy and the individualized relationship in coordination through markets, governance involves coordination through networks and partnerships” (Johnston, et al., 2000 pp. 316-317).

International agencies, which promote ‘good’ governance (for example: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank), tend to adapt a normative definition which is confined in its focus on economic management issues rather than a more analytically and socially oriented one. Michel Camdessus (IMF managing director), for example, suggested that “good governance is important for countries at all stages of development. . . . Our approach is to concentrate on those aspects of good governance that are most closely related to our surveillance over macroeconomic policies—namely, the transparency of government accounts, the effectiveness of public resource management, and the stability and transparency of the economic and regulatory environment for private sector activity.” (IMF, 1997).

In contrast, UN agencies see good governance from a more socially oriented perspective . The UN defines ‘good governance’ as promoting “equity, participation, pluralism, transparency, accountability and the role of law, in a manner that is effective, efficient and enduring” (UN, 2011a). The UN system promotes good governance through many avenues. For example, The UN Development Programme (UNDP) actively supports national processes of democratic transition.  The programme focuses  on “providing policy advice and technical support and strengthening the capacity of institutions and individuals” by boosting advocacy and communications, public information campaigns and brokering dialogue. It also facilitates ‘knowledge networking’ and the sharing of good practice (UN, 2011a).

It is now widely accepted that “governance is much more than the formal institutions of government. Governance includes the whole range of actors within society, such as community based or grass-roots organizations, NGOs, trade unions, religious organizations and businesses, both formal and informal, alongside the various branches of government and governmental agencies, both national and local” (Devas, 2001 pp. 5-6). Here it is important to note that governance is different from government as it goes beyond governmental organisations to include other actors in society such as civil society and the private sector. Besides, it is more concerned with the nature of the relationships between these actors rather than being limited to the state’s way of managing the country. In recent research, governance is seen as the sphere of relationships between government, actors of civil society and the private sector, also referring to the processes of interaction between these (Carley, et al., 2001 pp. 16-30).

To conclude, ‘governance’ is an evolving and contested concept, which is a healthy issue as it invites the possibility for further development towards a wider definition of it.