Barry Mowell Macro-Regional Paerns of CSO Aliaon/Parcipaon within the UN-Civil-Society Framework: The Underrepresentaon of the Developing World

Macro-Regional Patterns of CSO Afﬁliation/

Participation within the UN-Civil-Society

Framework: The Underrepresentation of

the Developing World

Padrões Macrorregionais de Aﬁliação/Participação

de OSCs no Quadro ONU-Sociedade Civil: A Sub-

representação do Mundo em Desenvolvimento

Patrones macrorregionales de aﬁliación/participación de

las OSC en el marco de las Naciones Unidas y la sociedad

civil: la subrepresentación del mundo en desarrollo

Barry Mowell1

DOI: 10.5752/P.2317-773X.2023v11n1p65-85.

Recebido em: 15 de novembro de 2022

Aprovado em: 01 de fevereiro de 2024

ABSTRACT

The United Nations Integrated Civil Society database was utilized in empirical

case studies of UN-aliated civil society organizations (CSOs) in a spatial com-

parison as to whether they were headquartered in developed or developing na-

tions. The purpose was to gauge plurality/proportionality in the representation

of CSOs by world region within the UN-Economic and Social Council consulta-

tive status program. Findings indicate substantial variation in regional represen-

tation of CSOs within the UN consultative status framework with developed

regions represented to a greater degree proportionate to their populations. Both

Africa and Asia were underrepresented relative to their proportions of global

population. The ndings challenge perceptions that the UN relationship with

civil society reects regional pluralism as reected via proportional representa-

tion.

Keywords: civil society organizations; ECOSOC; nongovernmental organiza-

tions; pluralism; United Nations

RESUMO

O banco de dados da Sociedade Civil Integrada das Nações Unidas foi utiliza-

do em estudos de caso empíricos de organizações da sociedade civil (OSCs)

aliadas às Nações Unidas em uma comparação espacial para saber se estavam

sediadas em países desenvolvidos ou em desenvolvimento. O objetivo era aferir

a pluralidade/proporcionalidade na representação das OSCs por região do mun-

1. Associate Professor of International

Relations, American Military University,

bdmowell@gmail.

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 11, n. 1, (fev. 2023), p. 65-85

do dentro do programa de status consultivo do Conselho Econômico e Social

da ONU. Os resultados indicam uma variação substancial na representação

regional de OSCs dentro da estrutura de status consultivo da ONU com regiões

desenvolvidas representadas em maior grau proporcional às suas populações.

Tanto a África quanto a Ásia estavam sub-representadas em relação às suas

proporções da população global. Os resultados desaam as percepções de que a

relação da ONU com a sociedade civil reete o pluralismo regional reetido por

meio da representação proporcional.

Palavras-chave: organizações da sociedade civil; ECOSOC; organizações não

governamentais; pluralismo; Nações Unidas

RESUMEN

La base de datos integrada de la sociedad civil de las Naciones Unidas se utilizó

en estudios de casos empíricos de organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC) a-

liadas a las Naciones Unidas en una comparación espacial en cuanto a si tenían

su sede en países desarrollados o en desarrollo. El propósito era medir la plura-

lidad/proporcionalidad en la representación de las OSC por región del mundo

dentro del programa de estatus consultivo del Consejo Económico y Social de la

ONU. Los hallazgos indican una variación sustancial en la representación regio-

nal de las OSC dentro del marco de estatus consultivo de la ONU con regiones

desarrolladas representadas en un mayor grado proporcional a sus poblaciones.

Tanto África como Asia estaban subrepresentadas en relación con sus proporcio-

nes de la población mundial. Los hallazgos desafían las percepciones de que la

relación de la ONU con la sociedad civil reeja el pluralismo regional reejado a

través de la representación proporcional.

Palabras clabe: organizaciones de la sociedad civil; ECOSOC; organizaciones no

gubernamentales; pluralism; Naciones Unidas

INTRODUCTION AND TERMINOLOGY

A diverse range of civil society organizations (CSOs) has increasin-

gly been associated with the United Nations. This includes record num-

bers of CSOs also known as non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

which hold formal consultative status with the UN Economic and Social

Council (ECOSOC), the principle vehicle for UN interaction with inter-

national civil society. A primary goal of the UN has been to cultivate

a more eective, diverse and democratic institutional culture. A key

component of the latter objective has been the active inclusion of and

facilitation of interaction among civil society within the UN dynamic.

A primary purpose of such interaction is to augment the traditional role

of states as the primary actors within the framework of the world’s pree-

minent intergovernmental organization (IGO). Considerable progress

toward increased linkage with civil society has been achieved in recent

decades as the total number as well as regional and topical diversity of

organizations in association with the UN has grown exponentially.

This study seeks to identify spatial patterns of association of CSOs

within the UN-CSO dynamic via comparative analysis of the propor-

tional representation of world regions. Specically, this research seeks

to determine the degree to which UN-associated CSOs headquarte-

red in predominantly developing regions such as Africa and Asia are

Barry Mowell Macro-Regional Paerns of CSO Aliaon/Parcipaon within the UN-Civil-Society Framework: The Underrepresentaon of the Developing World

underrepresented within the UN-civil society dynamic compared to such

CSOs in developed regions. The research hypothesized that although

substantial progress has been made, civil society organizations head-

quartered in developing regions remain proportionally underrepresented

relative to their share of global population. Likewise, those based in de-

veloped regions are proportionally over-represented within the UN-civil

society framework.

This study is signicant for several reasons. The UN practice of

cultivating formal association with reputable CSOs has expanded substan-

tially in recent years and has been described as the most dynamic area of

growth and change within the UN framework (Alger, 2002,p.93). In 1946

when the practice was initiated, less than 50 such organizations held con-

sultative status with the UN, but presently the status is aorded to over

5,000 organizations of various types, representing a wide range of issues

across the globe (UN, 2018 ). Yet, it remains unclear what patterns of

participation exist among the diverse range of organizations which have

formal status with the UN. For example, what, if any, geographical pat-

terns of participation exist? Early in its history of direct association with

CSOs the UN cultivated relationships with western organizations almost

exclusively---largely reecting a dearth of such organizations based in the

developing world and also a comparatively smaller number of indepen-

dent states in regions such as Africa and Asia. In recent decades, large

numbers of CSOs have emerged in the developing world, many of which

have pursued ties with the UN and may have at least partially eroded the

dominance of the western-based organizations within the UN-ECOSOC

dynamic.

Other geographical patterns may be found to exist such as dispro-

portionate representation of some world (sub)regions relative to others---

e.g. to what degree are European and/or western CSOs better represent-

ed within the UN-civil society framework than those headquartered in

Africa or Asia? Such analysis of geographical and other patterns of partic-

ipation among UN-aliated CSOs is important in cultivating a general

understanding of the evolving dynamic between the UN and global civil

society. Importantly, most previous attempts to study such issues have

focused upon one or very limited numbers of such organizations or al-

ternatively, have been specic to a particular issue area such as human

rights or development rather than seeking to understand overall patterns

of civil society participation within an intergovernmental organization

(Tallberg; Sommerer; Sqautrito; Jonsson, 2013,p.11). Also, there is com-

paratively little literature examining the degree or nature of non-state ac-

tor’s inuences within international relations among developing nations/

regions, a gap which this analysis will in part help to address.

The concepts of civil society and civil society organizations are

key to this study. Linz and Stepan (1996, p.116) oer a frequently cited

description of civil society as being comprised of groups which freely

self-organized independently of government inuence and which seek

to “articulate values, create associations and solidarities, and advance

their interests.” Waisman (2006, p.49) dened civil society in similar light

stating that it is “a slice of society, whose core is the web of voluntary

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 11, n. 1, (fev. 2023), p. 65-85

associations that articulate interests and values, and their system of in-

teraction, as long as these units are not under the control of the state”. In

the broadest of senses, CSOs are all voluntarily organized associations

independent of direct government and/or market control. In a tripartite

division of societal activity, the realm of civil society is everything not

found in the domains of government or business/commercial activity,

wherein organizations pursue collective goals (Uhlin,2009,p.272). Early

concepts of civil society regarded it as comprising the mediating institu-

tions that bridged the gap between the individual and the state (Thiel,

2017, p.149). Some scholars have a broad and inclusive view of civil soci-

ety as being comprised of widely diverse professional and labor associa-

tions, religious organizations and perhaps most famously via his example

of bowling leagues and their decline as symptoms of broader waning of

American civil society, Putnam (2001) also includes recreational-related

organizations. The terms civil society and CSO may not be completely in-

terchangeable in the minds of many in that the former is a broader, more

general and inclusive reference than the latter which refers to a more

formally organized constituency which also has more dened agendas.

Nongovernmental organization (NGO) was popularized as a term via

its usage within the UN in the latter 20th century. The original UN char-

ter sought to make a distinction between participation rights for coun-

tries or IGOs as opposed to non-state entities, commonly described at

the time as transnational private organizations (Willetts, 1996). The term

NGO presently is preferred within ECOSOC, whereas other UN bodies

as well as many other IGOs and international actors continue to use the

term CSO, with both terms remaining in common use and often used

interchangeably. This research uses the term CSO, for the sake of consis-

tency and clarity, while both terms are regarded as synonymous.

While the concept of CSOs and the perception of the latter as

one element of democratic society slowly emerged and expanded in the

late 19th century, the most substantial growth in the total number and

global nature of civil society has occurred since the mid-20th century. The

post-colonial era in the decades following WWII was an important time

for the growth of CSOs and civil society internationally, as in the pre-

ceding colonial period, governments customarily did not encourage the

growth of such groups, seeing them as threats to the traditional political

power structure (Kwesiga; Namasi, 2006, p. 86). In the decades following

decolonization, CSOs acquired an increasingly prominent role in deve-

loping countries via the provision of services and distribution of aid, as

evidenced in the tenfold increase in developmental aid dispersed by inter-

national organizations between 1970-1985 for example (Jokic, 2013, p. 51).

Whereas such organizations emerged in developing states to supplement

the role of government, in much of the developing world, the emergence

of CSOs was to ll a void---as a substitute for programs and services that

were inadequate or that were not provided at all by governmental actors

(Kajimbwal, 2006; Makoba, 2002, p.53-54)

During the late Cold War era of the 1980s and early 1990s, a signi-

cant expansion in the number and inuence of CSOs occurred internatio-

nally. This upsurge---particularly in organizations related to human and

Barry Mowell Macro-Regional Paerns of CSO Aliaon/Parcipaon within the UN-Civil-Society Framework: The Underrepresentaon of the Developing World

political rights or free market economic reform---is often credited with

playing a role in the decline in authoritarianism and movement toward

democracy characteristic of the era. Increasing numbers of CSOs with in-

ternational focus were founded in many countries/regions in an eort to

meet community needs or promote interests, with one estimate claiming

that some 25,000 organizations could reasonably be classied as inter-

national CSOs/NGOs (INGOs---those with aliates/programs in multi-

ple countries) by the year 2000, up from 6,000 in 1990 and less than 400

a century earlier (Paul, 2000). The Union of International Associations’

Yearbook of International Organizations lists over 38,000 active and

some 30,000 dormant CSOs/NGOs that operated in 2 or more countries

and obtained nancial support from more than one state, their denitio-

nal criteria for being an INGO (UIA, 2016).

The UN’s interest in cultivating relationships with a diverse ran-

ge of CSOs was essentially twofold: (1) to increase the diversity of voices

heard within international arenas beyond traditional state-actors and (2)

to cultivate partnerships transcending state-actors in the implementation

of UN initiatives such as aid programs. Arguably, the UN’s eorts to cul-

tivate such relationships in some regions (e.g. SubSaharan Africa) may

be due to the organization’s failure to facilitate adequate security and

humanitarian standards and thus reect a concomitant desire to improve

its image in such regions and to at least in part accomplish through civil

society partners what it has failed to achieve otherwise. The type and

degree of CSO involvement with the UN has evolved over time, with the

principle venue of formal interaction being the UN Economic and Social

Council. Hundreds of organizations were in attendance at the conference

establishing the UN at the end of WWII, setting a precedent for conti-

nuing cooperation and by 1950 formal consultative arrangements with

CSOs and a framework of rules regulating such ocial aliations were

established (Willetts, 2011, p. 34-42). Article 71 of the UN Charter serves

as the primary vehicle for UN relations with transnational civil society

and as the basis of the formal CSO consultative status program. It states

that ECOSOC “may make suitable arrangements for consultation with

non-governmental organizations which are concerned with matters wi-

thin its competence. Such arrangements may be made with international

organizations and, where appropriate, with national organizations after

consultation with the Member of the United Nations concerned” (United

Nations, 2017).

While an in-depth examination of this issue was not the focus of

this research, it would be useful to the discussion to draw a distinction

between the concepts of international actors as opposed to transnational

actors relative to studying CSOs and pluralism in the international arena.

In both cases, the scope of activities of the institution/actor would pre-

sumably transcend the connes of a single state. In the narrowest of sen-

ses, international actors conform to the traditional state-centric dynamic

and would include not just state-actors themselves, but IGOs comprised

of state members and many CSOs that are direct or indirect organs of

or nancially dependent upon states. In contrast, transnational institu-

tions are those that supersede and transcend the traditional state-centric

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 11, n. 1, (fev. 2023), p. 65-85

international dynamic and would include entities such as (non-state ow-

ned/directed) international MNCs and those CSOs that are truly autono-

mous from state control and not merely organs of state policies. It is not

always clear to what degree CSOs are independent of the agendas of the

states which often at least partially nance them and in which they are

based. The spirit underlying Article 71 of the UN Charter and the eorts

undertaken by the UN to cultivate formal relations with CSOs implies a

desire to associate with transnational civil society organs that are inde-

pendent of state control and inuence, otherwise no real pluralism or

diversication distinct from the traditional state-centric dynamic would

be achieved.

PERSPECTIVES WITHIN THE LITERATURE

Inclusivity and the equitable distribution of power and inuence

within the UN and other international institutions are cornerstone con-

cepts of pluralism within the international order. Pluralism within IGOs

has been regarded as a model for democratic institutions (DeMars and

Dijkzuel, 2015; Risse-Kappen, 1995; Willetts, 2011) or for the diversi-

cation and legitimization of authority (Bolin and Thomas, 1999; Gotz,

2008). Throughout much of its existence, the UN has been a forum al-

most exclusively for state actors, which bore near sole responsibility for

agenda-setting and implementation (e.g. peace keeping) within the orga-

nization. The rapid expansion in the number and inuence of CSOs with

an international scope not only presented opportunities to diversify UN

initiatives through collaborations with such grassroots organizations, but

also to potentially diversify the sources of input received at the UN with

regard to policy making and implementation. While state actors ostensi-

bly represent the interests of their populations, they may often reect the

agendas of those who govern the state---i.e. the ruling elite. CSOs have

been perceived as possessing a more “bottom-up” nature wherein the

views of broader segments of society potentially including historically

marginalized groups may be better represented. Additionally, pluralism

within the UN ostensibly increases with a greater diversity of representa-

tion among the CSOs with which the UN aliates.

Among other things, pluralism can entail weighing degrees of

cultural and geographical diversity within egalitarian democratic insti-

tutions in that it advocates that all groups can maintain their distincti-

ve identities and still be aorded opportunities to participate and have

their voices heard without being marginalized (Abu-Laban, 2008, p. 1-2).

In the latter sense, pluralism can be perceived as a principle of respect

which places priority upon diversity in all its forms (GCP, 2018). The UN

is a proponent of pluralism and the increasing role of evermore diverse

types of CSOs within ECOSOC and other UN bodies reects an institu-

tionalized commitment to pluralist ideals. Specic bodies such as the UN

Population Fund have invested sustained eort to actively engage a diver-

se range of CSOs in multilateral deliberations, advocacy including youth

networks, and faith-based organizations, etc. (UN Oce of the High

Commissioner, 2019). The UN has sought to facilitate such pluralism

Barry Mowell Macro-Regional Paerns of CSO Aliaon/Parcipaon within the UN-Civil-Society Framework: The Underrepresentaon of the Developing World

within ECOSOC via encouraging the aliation/participation of CSOs

representing the historically marginalized (e.g., developing nations, hu-

man/indigenous rights-related organizations) and in albeit limited ins-

tances providing funds to permit CSOs from developing nations/regions

to participate in UN functions (Mowell, 2018, 231-232).

It remains unclear whether such eorts have actually yielded im-

provements in the diversity of representation in practice or whether the

eorts undertaken by the UN in support of pluralism are largely sym-

bolic in nature (Kymlicka, 2008, 152). For example, the increased prole

of CSOs may be more reective of good intentions and window dres-

sing rather than substantive change in terms of the balance of inuence

which overwhelmingly remains with state actors at the UN and within

other IGOs (Mowell, 2021). Civil society representation at the UN may

also be more symbolic than substantive regarding the degree of CSO en-

gagement/input. McKeon (2009), Mowell (2020) and Omelicheva (2009)

contend that although the UN has ostensibly embraced international ci-

vil society, many UN bodies do not have vehicles for meaningful CSO

involvement and the UN agencies which at least in theory have establi-

shed programs to facilitate CSO interaction, customarily restrict the de-

gree of access and participation aorded to CSOs. They further note that

logistical obstacles such as limited nancial and/or personnel resources

also impede participation and due to such considerations, the UN has

largely failed in eorts to eectively integrate civil society into the global

political process. Such views have also been expressed by other scholars

(Carpenter, 2010; Anderson, 2012; Willetts, 2000) who note that although

CSO access to the UN has broadened in theory, UN access is not available

to all organizations and that various obstacles such as the cost of atten-

ding UN conferences serve as signicant barriers to widespread, diverse

participation, particularly for CSOs in developing nations. Whether or

not pluralism is being achieved would also be reected in whether the

goals and undertakings of the UN-aliated CSOs more closely reect

the interests of the UN and developed countries or the developing states

in which the CSOs are based, a question which may prove dicult to

answer denitively and is beyond the scope of this research.

At the time of the UN’s founding and the implementation of

Article 71 facilitating formal association with CSOs, options for geogra-

phical plurality/diversity among the CSOs with which the UN could as-

sociate was limited, particularly with regard to Africa, Asia and other de-

veloping regions. In 1945, there were only 51 founding member states of

the UN. Of these states, the vast majority were western nations including

European colonial powers which still directly controlled much of Africa

and Asia and accordingly did not desire the emergence of autonomous

civil society---and a correspondingly strengthened national identity---in

their possessions abroad. In the next decades, as the process of decoloni-

zation advanced, the number of sovereign states increased signicantly

(particularly in Africa and Asia), as did the number of UN members---144

by 1975. The rapid expansion the number of international/transnational

CSOs did not begin in earnest until the 1990s and initially entailed rapid

growth in the number of CSOs headquartered in developed, rather than

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 11, n. 1, (fev. 2023), p. 65-85

developing nations/regions. By around the turn of the 21st century, CSOs

were growing rapidly in developing regions as well and reecting the

increasing numbers of CSOs with international scope, in recent years the

UN has endeavored to expand its linkages with the organizations.

Article 71 of the UN Charter authorizes the UN Economic and

Social Council (ECOSOC) to form formal consultative arrangements

with CSOs. This collaborative relationship established by the UN Charter

serves as the primary vehicle for UN interaction with international civil

society. The most substantive element of the UN-ECOSOC consultative

status program are the UN conferences which intentionally place state

parties adjacent to CSOs in parallel conferences in order to impart a per-

ception of pluralism and democracy and ostensibly provide accredited

CSOs with an opportunity to present input (Anderson, 2012, p. 59-60).

Eort has been made by the UN to increase CSO participation in the

consultative status program. For example, in 1996 CSOs with a national

or sub-national scope (rather than international scope) were for the rst

time considered for formal accreditation with the UN, with the goal of

further opening and diversifying access to UN bodies, particularly for

organizations based in developing nations (McKeon, 2009, p. 152). Such

eorts designed to increase formal CSO association with the UN, combi-

ned with the explosive growth in the number of CSOs across the globe,

has resulted in a signicant increase in the number of organizations in the

consultative status program. In 1948 a modest total of 40 CSOs held con-

sultative status with UN-ECOSOC, only increasing to 180 CSOs by 1968

and to 1,505 by the program’s 50th year in 1998 with the large majority

of participating CSOs headquartered in developed/western nations---pri-

marily Europe and the Americas (Statistica, 2019). By December 2018 a

total of 5,161 CSOs held formal consultative status with UN-ECOSOC

and although this is the most organizations ever in formal association

with the UN and also likely the most diverse in terms of their countries

and regions of origin, spatial patterns reect proportional over-represen-

tation of CSOs from developed nations/regions and under-representation

of those from the developing world (UN, 2018).

This exploration of pluralism entails assessments of the degree

of proportional and equitable representation by world region within the

UN-CSO dynamic, particularly its main vehicle, the ECOSOC consulta-

tive status program. Specically, the study seeks to determine the degree

to which major regions of the world are represented in the UN-civil soci-

ety dynamic relative to the regions’ proportion of global population. The

theoretical perspective underpinning this study is a critical exploration of

pluralist assumptions relative to the expanding role of CSOs within the

United Nations, specically perceptions related to geographically equity

and egalitarianism within the UN-civil society dynamic. Proponents of

democratic pluralism within the United Nations framework regard the

expansion of CSO representation and inuence within the UN as an ap-

propriate means of diversifying input and for further democratizing glob-

al governance.

Barry Mowell Macro-Regional Paerns of CSO Aliaon/Parcipaon within the UN-Civil-Society Framework: The Underrepresentaon of the Developing World

RESEARCH PARAMETERS

This study proposes that the expansion of the number and role of

CSOs in association with the UN does not necessarily achieve the ideals

of pluralism in that stark regional imbalances in proportional represen-

tation exist. Analysis of patterns of CSO participation with the UN will

reveal gaps with regard to representation favoring developed regions/sta-

tes and concomitantly, under-representation of developing regions/sta-

tes. Previously, most empirical studies of CSOs at the UN have focused

upon a limited number of organizations within a single issue area (Clark;

Friedman; Hochstetler, 1998, p. 2-3). A strength of this study is that its

breadth of scope in seeking to analyze macro-scale patterns of participa-

tion of CSOs in association with the UN will reveal broader patterns wi-

thin the institutional dynamic. This study is organized around a research

hypothesis related to substantially imbalanced spatial patterns among

organs of transnational civil society with which the UN is associated: the

CSOs of developed regions are better represented than those of develo-

ping regions relative to the regions’ proportion of global population. To

the best of the researcher’s knowledge this is the rst comprehensive stu-

dy of macro-level spatial patterns of CSOs in association with the UN.

The research design utilizes an empirical case study involving

descriptive statistics to examine the hypothesis. Data obtained from the

extensive UN Integrated Civil Society Organizations (ICSO) online data-

base is analyzed for macro-scale spatial patterns of aliation/represen-

tation among CSOs within the UN framework. The publicly available

ICSO database ostensibly lists all CSOs with connections to the UN in-

cluding organizations currently or formerly a part of the UN Economic

and Social Council’s consultative status program and also organizations

that have been directly involved with a UN initiative---distribution of

UN aid, etc. The database is the most comprehensive listing of interna-

tional/transnational civil society organizations with which the UN has

some form of association and was deemed the best means of gauging

proportional representation of world regions. The following provides a

summary overview of the ndings revealed via analysis of the database

as related to the research hypothesis.

ICSO DATABASE ANALYSIS

As reected in Tables 1 through 3, the UN’s ICSO database con-

tains signicantly more entries for organizations headquartered in pre-

dominantly developing regions than for historically dominant higher-

-income regions. Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean had

9,524, 8,083 and 3,850 database entries respectively and a collective total

of 21,457 entries, meaning 62.8% of all region-specic entries (34,168 en-

tries had a regional categorization, several thousand others were catego-

rized as “no region specied”) according to organizational type were for

those headquartered in developing regions. Europe, Anglo-America and

Oceania had 6,096, 5,698, and 917 entries respectively for a combined total

of 12,711 entries or 37.2% of all regions according to organizational type.

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 11, n. 1, (fev. 2023), p. 65-85

It appears that both in terms of total number of entries and percentage

of all such entries, developing regions are better represented within the

fabric of UN-civil society relations than at any prior point in history.

It is also worth noting that within the ICSO database categori-

zations by organizational type, developing regions have the largest total

number of organizations listed in 11 of 15 categories. As reected in Table

2, Asia leads in 6 categories: disability, foundations, institutions, media,

ageing, and cooperatives. Latin America leads in 3 categories: indigenous,

local government, and private sector. Africa has the largest number of en-

tries in the 2 categories of associations and CSOs. As is illustrated in Table

1, among developed regions, Europe had the largest number of entries in

the categories of associations and IGOs and Anglo America led in number

of entries for academics. Oceania, with its comparatively small popula-

tion, led no category in total number of entries. The remaining topical

category “others” was fairly evenly divided among most world regions.

While such statistics derived from the ICSO database do not ad-

dress depth or substance of participation (phenomenon which may prove

dicult to analyze objectively), numerically they indicate record degrees

of parity and plurality between civil society organizations among deve-

loped and developing nations and among most world regions. In short,

CSOs headquartered in developing nations are at least on paper better re-

presented within the UN framework than at any point in history and are

trending toward increased levels of participation. However as indicated

by the data, parity/equity does not exist in proportion to share of global

population in each region and in contrasting the developed with the de-

veloping world.

As noted in Table 3, the three predominantly developed regions

of Anglo-America, Europe and Oceania (the latter was classied as a pre-

dominantly developed region within this study due to the overwhelming

dominance of CSOs from Australia and New Zealand within the Oceania

region) collectively constitute just 15.3% of the world’s population but

they are headquarters to 37.2% of all institutional entries by organizatio-

nal type in the ICSO database. Conversely, Asia, Africa and Latin America

and the Caribbean collectively comprise 84.7% of the world’s population

but are home to just 62.8% of institutional entries listed in the database.

Such disproportional representation was also found in other categories

analyzed in the ICSO database including topical areas/elds of CSO ex-

pertise as can be seen in the data tables.

Analysis of ICSO data along regional lines revealed interes-

ting patterns related to CSO elds of activity/expertise. As can be seen

in Tables 4 and 5, with 65.7% of the total, LDC regions had the largest

number of overall entries and also had the most entries in each of the

11 subcategories. Entries for Asian-based CSOs led in the 4 subcatego-

ries Economic and Social, Public Administration, Social Development,

and Statistics, with entries for African-based NGOs leading in all 7 remai-

ning areas. Among both developed and developing regions, entries were

most numerous for the 4 subcategories of Economic and Social, Social

Development, Sustainable Development, and Gender Issues/Women.

The subcategories with the smallest number of entries were also the

Barry Mowell Macro-Regional Paerns of CSO Aliaon/Parcipaon within the UN-Civil-Society Framework: The Underrepresentaon of the Developing World

same for both developed and developing regions: Statistics, and the 3

region-specic subcategories of Peace/Development in Africa, Conict

Resolution in Africa, and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development

(NEPAD). Among developed regions, Europe had the most entries in

10 of 11 subcategories, with Anglo-America leading in entries related

to Gender Issues/Women as the lone exception. In all 11 subcategories,

Latin America and the Caribbean ranked 5th and Oceania last among the

6 world regions analyzed. Analysis of the scope and scale of organizatio-

nal operations revealed similar regional variations/disparities.

Table 1 - ICSO Entries - Organizational Type by Predominantly Developed Region

Org. Type Overall Total (%)2 Europe Anglo-America3 Oceania 4 (MDC Total/%)

Academics 1389 (3.5%) 260 405 44 (709/51.0%)

Associations 2287 (5.8%) 652 162 45 (859/37.6%)

Disability 731 (1.9%) 95 103 24 (222/30.4%)

Foundation 1126 (2.9%) 231 183 23 (437/38.8%)

Indigenous 2385 (6.1%) 116 430 135 (681/28.6%)

Institution 395 (1.0%) 73 50 9 (132/33.4%)

I.G.O. 355 (0.9%) 116 35 10 (161/45.4%)

Local Govt. 255 (0.6%) 29 21 4 (54/21.2%)

Media 172 (0.4%) 28 27 5 (60/34.9%)

N.G.O. 28361(72.2%) 4126 3922 558 (8606/30.3%)

Others 819 (2.1%) 161 158 18 (337/41.1%)

Private Sector 720 (1.8%) 135 147 21 (303/42.1%)

Trade Union 88 (0.2%) 28 7 4 (39/44.3%)

Ageing 118 (0.3%) 23 24 10 (57/48.3%)

Cooperative 128 (0.3%) 23 24 7 (54/42.2%)

Totals: 39329 6096 (15.5%) 5698 (14.5%) 917(2.3%) (12711/32.3%)

Source: Mowell (2017).

Table 2 - ICSO Entries: Organizational Type by Predominantly LDC*5 Re-

gion

Org. Type Overall Total Africa Asia Lat. Am. & Carib. (LDC Total/%6 )

Academics 1389 5 233 238 (476/34.3%)

Associations 2287 753 300 375 (1428/62.4%)

Disability 731 171 217 67 (455/62.2%)

Foundation 1126 192 275 221 (688/61.1%)

Indigenous 2385 333 340 472 (1145/48.0%)

Institution 395 62 110 91 (263/66.6%)

I.G.O. 355 85 76 32 (193/54.4%)

Local Govt. 255 44 40 87 (171/67.1%)

Media 172 40 46 25 (111/64.5%)

N.G.O. 28361 7610 6111 1888 (15609/55.0%)

Others 819 132 158 134 (424/51.8%)

Pvt. Sector 720 137 103 169 (409/56.8%)

Trade Union 88 17 17 16 (50/56.8%)

Ageing 118 19 29 13 (61/51.7%)

Cooperative 128 24 28 22 (74/57.8%)

Totals: 39329 9524 (24.2%) 8083 (20.6%) 3850 (9.8%) (21557/54.8%)

Source: Mowell (2017).

2. Overall totals and percentages

include entries for which no region was

speciﬁed

3. The UN ICSO Database denotes

“North America” as 1 of 6 regional ca-

tegories, but only provides data for the

2-country region of Canada and the Uni-

ted States. The geographically correct

term for the Canada/U.S. sub-region of

North America is “Anglo America”. The

database provides statistics for Mexico

and the countries of the Caribbean and

Central America---all of which are loca-

ted on the North American continent-

---within the regional category “Latin

America and the Caribbean”.

4. The region known as Oceania is cus-

tomarily regarded as being comprised of

Australia, New Zealand, and numerous

Paciﬁc Island microstates and depen-

dencies. Nearly all NGOs identiﬁed

within the Oceania category of the ICSO

database were in either Australia or

New Zealand and accordingly data for

this region was regarded as representa-

tive of MDCs rather than LDCs.

5. The terms LDC (Less/Least Develo-

ped Countries) and MDC (Most/More

Developed Countries) are used in this

study to draw a basic distinction betwe-

en regions characterized predominantly

by more highly developed economies as

opposed to those primarily characterized

by emerging economies. It should be

stressed that such distinctions may be

at least partly subjective in nature and

that homogeneity does not exist within

each region concerning development

levels. Less developed nations exist

within MDC regions (e.g., Moldova

in Europe) and many countries within

regions broadly classiﬁed as predomi-

nantly LDC/developing are highly deve-

loped (e.g., Japan in Asia). Also, given

the rapid economic growth experienced

in recent decades by many emerging

nations such as China and India, the

development status of many historically

LDC nations has improved markedly

and may be better characterized as

gradations between such dichotomous

classiﬁcations such as MDC vs. LDC or

developed vs. developing. However,

within regional studies it remains

customary to classify Africa, Asia, and

Latin America and the Caribbean as

(primarily) LDC/developing regions and

Anglo-America, Europe and Australia/

Oceania as (primarily) MDC regions

(Getis, Bjelland and Getis, 2014).

6. Overall totals and percentages

include entries for which no region was

speciﬁed

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 11, n. 1, (fev. 2023), p. 65-85

Table 3 - UN-Afﬁliated Civil Society Organizations by World Region

World Region Number of ICSO Database

Entries by Org. Type (%)7

Population of World Region (%

of 2016 World Pop.)8

Africa 9,524 (27.9%) 1,216.1 million (16.4%)

Asia 8,083 (23.6%) 4,436.2 million (59.7%)

Anglo America 5,698 (16.7%) 360.5 million (4.9%)

Europe 6,096 (17.8%) 738.8 million (9.9%)

Latin America & Caribbean 3,850 (11.3%) 641.0 million (8.6%)

Oceania 917 (2.7%) 39.9 million (0.5%)

Totals 34,168** 7,432.5 million

Source: Mowell (2017).

Table 4 - UN-Afﬁliated Civil Society Organizations by Fields of Activity/Expertise and

Correlated by MDC Regions

Field of Activity/Expertise (Totals) Europe Anglo-America Oceania MDC Totals (%)

Economic and Social (18939) 3643 3413 501 7557

Financing for Devt. (3962) 706 570 75 1351

Gender Issues/Women (11719) 1741 1743 251 3735

Population (4016) 708 510 73 1291

Public Administration (4260) 746 592 79 1417

Social Development (14106) 2270 1986 316 4572

Statistics (2797) 451 384 47 882

Sustainable Devt. (14062) 2352 2006 336 4694

Peace/Devt. in Africa (2761) 460 431 8899

Conict Res. in Africa (1777) 281 252 6539

NEPAD (2041) 278 220 14 512

Totals: (80440) 13636(17.0%) 12107(15.1%) 1706(2.1%) 27449(34.2%)

Source: Mowell (2017).

Table 5 - UN-Afﬁliated Civil Society Organizations by Fields of Activity/Expertise and

Correlated by LDC Regions

Field of Activity/Expertise (Totals) Africa Asia Lat. Am. & Carib. LDC Totals (%)

Economic and Social (18939) 4331 4689 2056 11076

Financing for Devt. (3962) 1219 1068 331 2618

Gender Issues/Women (11719) 3869 3280 865 8014

Population (4016) 1205 1152 379 2736

Public Administration (4260) 1092 1292 468 2852

Social Development (14106) 3860 4197 1499 9556

Statistics (2797) 728 928 260 1916

Sustainable Devt. (14062) 3959 3773 1643 9375

Peace/Devt. in Africa (2761) 1587 264 36 1887

Conict Res. in Africa (1777) 1029 205 22 1256

NEPAD (2041) 940 524 83 1547

Totals: (80440) 23819(29.6%) 21372(26.6%) 7642(9.5%) 52833(65.7%)

Source: Mowell (2017).

8. Total and percentages do not include

CSO/NGO entries for which no region

was speciﬁed

7. (Worldometers, 2017)

Barry Mowell Macro-Regional Paerns of CSO Aliaon/Parcipaon within the UN-Civil-Society Framework: The Underrepresentaon of the Developing World

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AMONG REGIONS/COUNTRIES

WITHIN THE UN-ECOSOC CONSULTATIVE STATUS PROGRAM

Proportionality is an element of plurality important to this study in

that understanding the degree to which regions are proportionally repre-

sented is a signicant reection of the degree of spatial parity in the re-

lationship between the UN and international/transnational CSOs. Data

displayed in Table 3 illustrated that ICSO database entries organized by

organizational type were proportionally imbalanced in that the number

of entries for all developed regions were greater relative to their share of

global population than entries for developing regions. Analysis of data

specic to entries for organizations with consultative status revealed an

even greater degree of disproportionate dominance of western-based or-

ganizations as reected in Table 6.

While the predominantly developed regions of Europe, Anglo

America and Oceania collectively comprise only 15.3% of the world’s

2016 population, they are the headquarters of 61.2% of organizations that

presently hold consultative status with UN-ECOSOC. The later statistic

reects that organizations based in predominantly developed regions are

represented at a rate four times greater than their proportion of the global

population. Europe comprises 9.9% of the global population yet is home

to 32.5% of CSOs holding consultative status, Oceania comprises 0.5%

of the population yet hosts 2.2% of CSOs with consultative status---of 96

Oceania-based organizations identied as having consultative status, 70

(73.0%) were in Australia or New Zealand, a reection as to why Oceania

was regarded as an MDC region in this study. Anglo America was the

most disproportionately dominant as it constitutes only 4.9% of the glo-

bal population but is headquarters to 26.5% of CSOs holding consultative

status with UN-ECOSOC.

Developing regions comprise 84.7% of the world’s population yet

are home to only 38.7% of the organizations listed as holding consulta-

tive status. Africa constitutes 16.4% of the global population yet is head-

quarters to a comparable, though slightly smaller 15.3% of CSOs with

consultative status. Latin America and the Caribbean comprise 8.6% of

the world’s population yet are home to just 5.4% of organizations with

consultative status. By far the largest proportional under-representation

among developing regions is for Asia which constitutes 59.7% of the glo-

bal population yet was identied as headquarters to only 18.0% of those

CSOs presently holding consultative status. Such ndings clearly support

the hypothesis that signicant imbalances exist with regard to propor-

tional parity among countries and regions and also between developed

and developing areas---both within the ICSO database in general and also

among the organizations within the ECOSOC consultative status pro-

gram, the primary vehicle within the UN-civil society framework.

It is worthy to note that disparities also exist among developed

versus developing regions with regard to the type/level of consultative

status held. General consultative status is the highest level of accreditation

and aords the greatest degree of access and input. Of the 6 world regions

delimited within the ICSO database the 3 with the smallest percentage

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 11, n. 1, (fev. 2023), p. 65-85

of general status CSOs were all predominantly developing regions: only

1.2% of Africa-based CS organizations held general status, only 2.8%

of Asia-based CS organizations, and 2.5% among those based in Latin

America and the Caribbean. While no general status organizations were

identied as being based in Oceania, 5.4% of Europe-based CSOs holding

consultative status were accredited at the general level and 3.2% for tho-

se headquartered in Anglo America. However, the largest percentages

by far among CS organizations for roster status, presumably the most

restrictive accreditation level in terms of opportunities to participate in

ECOSOC processes, were also for CSOs based in Europe (20.2% of CS

organizations held roster status) and Anglo America (19.1%), perhaps mi-

tigating any real or perceived dominance the latter regions potentially

possess via having a greater proportion of CSOs in general consultative

status. The increased prevalence of roster status organizations from deve-

loping regions also likely reects the UN’s relatively recent shift toward

allowing CSOs (primarily from developing nations) with a national or

sub-national scope of operations to obtain ECOSOC consultative status,

though their association would presumably be restricted to this lowest

level of accreditation.

Using the ICSO database, a case study analysis was undertaken

to identify variations among countries in terms of degree of proportional

representation/parity within the ECOSOC consultative status program.

Table 7 presents data from the case study of the world’s 20 most populous

countries---more logistically practical than examining all of approxima-

tely 200 countries in the world---relative to the number of organizations

holding consultative status headquartered in each and the percentage

of the latter relative to the total (global) number of CS organizations

for which a regional association was specied in the ICSO database. Of

the countries, 11 were in Asia, 4 in Africa, 2 each in Europe and Latin

America, and 1 in Anglo America. Many of the same patterns related to

proportional equity (or lack thereof) as previously presented in Tables 3

and 6. Countries within developing regions were in general underrepre-

sented relative to the proportion of population they contain---with Asia-

based CS organizations the most underrepresented, and most countries

in developed regions disproportionately over-represented.

Table 6 - Parity of ECOSOC Consultative Status Organizations by World Region and

Relative to Proportion of Global Population

General Status Special Status Roster Status Total / % of all CS orgs % of WorldPopulation

Africa 8624 42 674 / 15.3% 16.4%

Asia 22 704 68 794 / 18.0% 59.7%

Europe 78 1066 289 1433 / 32.5% 9.9%

LA/Carib. 6198 34 238 / 5.4% 8.6%

Anglo Am. 37 909 223 1169 / 26.5% 4.9%

Oceania 083 13 96 / 2.2% 0.5%

Total 151 3584 669 4404

Source: Mowell (2017).

It should be noted that the under-representation of CSOs based

9. (Worldometers, 2017)

10. Number reﬂects those organizations

holding Consultative Status identiﬁed by

region within the ICSO database. Over

300 organizations with Consultative

Status were classiﬁed as “no region

speciﬁed” within the database.

Barry Mowell Macro-Regional Paerns of CSO Aliaon/Parcipaon within the UN-Civil-Society Framework: The Underrepresentaon of the Developing World

in developing regions is not unique to the consultative status program of

United Nations Economic and Social Council. For example, the World

Association of Non-Governmental Organizations (WANGO) was foun-

ded in 2000 to facilitate networking and collaboration among internatio-

nal CSOs. WANGO maintains a detailed database of over 54,000 member/

aliated organizations. As reected in Table 7, analysis of NGO spatial

distributions with aliations to the organization revealed patterns stri-

kingly similar to those of NGO aliations within the UN-ECOSOC pro-

gram. As of 2019, the Americas---principally the US and Canada---(45.2%)

and Europe (32.9%) combined were headquarters to 78.1% of WANGO-

aliated NGOs. Despite containing the majority of the global popula-

tion, Africa and Asia served as headquarters to only 8.8% and 11.9% of

WANGO-aliated CSOs respectively.

Table 7 - Regional Distributions of Organizations Afﬁliated with the World Associa-

tion of Non-Governmental Organizations, 2019

Number of Global

Region Organizations Percentage

Africa 4,778 8.8%

Americas 24,577 45.2%

Asia 6,488 11.9%

Europe 17,921 32.9%

Oceania 653 1.2%

Source: WANGO (2019).

INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS

The total number of CSOs headquartered in developing regions has

increased substantially in recent decades and many developing nations in

Africa and Asia presently have large numbers of such organizations. For

example, as of 2019 over 5,000 nonprot organizations existed in Nigeria

and some 200,000 in South Africa (NNNGO, 2019; ICNL, 2019). Most such

organizations are small in size and local in scope of operations. Thus, the

exponential growth in total number of CSOs in many developing nations

does not translate to a commensurate increase in organizations with

international/transnational scope or a voice or role within the interna-

tional arena including the United Nations consultative status program.

Such patterns concerning the proportional under-representation of the

developing world among international CSOs likely reect a combination

of factors including the external and internal organizational dynamic of

the organizations, as well as economic and political constraints they face.

A parallel can be drawn with the legacy of neocolonialism which

has arguably left many developing states in continuing positions of eco-

nomic dependency via conditional trade and aid agreements that cons-

train options. The dynamic between international CSOs in donor nations

and many such organizations in developing regions may reect a similar

hierarchical framework in which state actors and IGOs and CSOs based

in donor nations often regard CSOs headquartered in developing nations

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 11, n. 1, (fev. 2023), p. 65-85

as merely the recipients of their largess (and as dependents/subordinates)

rather than as partners working in collaborative eort to address interna-

tional problems. Such a dichotomous, top-down dynamic would not be

conducive to empowering African or Asian-based CSOs possessing a lo-

cal or national scope to strive for a more global voice or operational focus.

Western-based organizations by often utilizing partner organizations in

developing nations as little more than service providers for externally -

nanced programs may have contributed to CSOs in the global south retai-

ning identities as local or national rather than international organizations

(Dicklitch, 1998, p. 16).

Economic considerations also likely factor heavily in the lack of

international reach/voice of many CSOs in the developing world. Many

such organizations lack the funds necessary to grow beyond the con-

nes of the localities or countries in which they operate or to participate

in conferences and training abroad. Additionally, specic economic and

infrastructure barriers likely limit the scope of activities for many CSOs

based in developing countries. For example, shortcomings related to lo-

gistical infrastructure including no or limited availability of high-speed

internet access and impeded ability of the organizations to communicate

and network remains a limiting factor for many organizations. Shumate

and DeWitt (2008, p. 427) concluded that a sharp distinction remained

in terms of frequency and capability of communication among organi-

zations based in developed versus developing regions in that the organi-

zations based in predominantly developing regions were often severely

limited in their capacity to exchange information and maintain active

lines of communication internationally. The degree to which commu-

nication barriers serve as limiting factors in the international growth/

eectiveness of CSOs has been addressed in other research. A 2014 study

of human rights CSOs concluded most organizations based in developing

countries lack the communications resources to network or to eectively

get their messages out beyond a local reach and that contemporary inter-

net access/capability was a largely ineective vehicle for many such orga-

nizations to overcome communications barriers and evolve as anything

more than a locally-based institution (Thrall; Stecula and Sweet; 2014, p.

157-158).

Political considerations likely also weigh heavily. The majority of

the world’s undemocratic or quasi-democratic regimes remain concen-

trated in predominantly developing regions. The most recent Freedom

House (2019) assessment of the state of democracy globally classies most

nations in Africa and Asia as either “not free” or only “partly free”. Debate

remains as to whether the presence of CSOs and other vestiges of civil

society serve as catalysts for facilitating democracy or whether they are

the byproducts of democratic processes and institutions already establi-

shed (Kamat, 2003, p. 67). What is clear is that nations with the strongest

democratic institutions and traditions usually also have more vibrant ci-

vil society institutions---including the presence of CSOs with internatio-

nal stature/reach. Conversely, many authoritarian or quasi-democratic

states place various types of restrictions upon CSOs that serve to stie

their growth and operations. For example, the Ethiopian government,

Barry Mowell Macro-Regional Paerns of CSO Aliaon/Parcipaon within the UN-Civil-Society Framework: The Underrepresentaon of the Developing World

wary of foreign inuences in its internal aairs, limits foreign funding

of its CSOs to a maximum 10% of the organizations’ total budget, a po-

licy which starves organizations of external support and concomitantly

serves to keep the organizations small, localized and limited in terms

of international connections and networking (Anderson, 2017). In short,

the over-representation of the world’s authoritarian regimes within the

developing world appears to correlate closely in terms of the proportional

under-representation of civil society headquartered in those states on the

international stage.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Throughout much of the 20th century what few examples exis-

ted of international civil society were principally located in developed

regions, but the explosive growth of CSOs globally over the course of re-

cent decades has facilitated improvements in the numerical balance, dis-

tribution and inuence of civil society organizations. Just as the govern-

ments of developing regions have become increasingly active within civil

society in recent decades, civil society in the global south has also become

increasingly visible within the global arena (Tandon and Kak, 2008). By

the 1990s, CSOs and other manifestations of civil society in developing

regions were rapidly emerging and were becoming comparable in total

number to their counterparts from more developed areas, though CSOs

in the global south often remained overshadowed politically within inter-

national forums by counterparts based in western nations which were of-

ten better organized and nanced (Ibid). Tandon and Kak (2008, p.80-81)

elaborate on the challenges faced by CSOs based in the developing world

as the organizations have attempted to obtain a voice within the UN and

international community, culminating in the CIVICUS framework---an

attempt at further empowering international civil society:

Emerging civil society in Asia, Africa and Latin America (initially) had weak capa-

city in the areas of intellectual material, institutional capacities, and local/regio-

nal coordination, as well as a lack of regulatory frameworks in many countries.

Most governments of these southern countries had a “suspicious” orientation

toward CSOs and it was therefore necessary to create a modern framework of

regulation for government- CSO relations…In 1991, the idea of strengthening ci-

vil society by uniting CSOs on a global stage manifested in CIVICUS: the World

Alliance for Citizen Participation which (facilitated) unprecedented strength and

global outreach for participating organizations.

Issues such as freedom to operate independently of government

inuence, political parity (I.e. clout) domestically and abroad, and fun-

ding/resource availability may in some instances continue to favor orga-

nizations based in western nations within the framework of contempo-

rary global civil society. Yet progress toward parity has been made and

the CSOs of the developing world continue to expand and may at present

be more vibrant than at any previous point in history. For example, in

recent decades communist China has witnessed substantial growth in

the total number and variety of CSOs. Yet continued progress is needed

as compared with counterparts in many other regions, Chinese-based

organizations have not fully matured and many have a reputation for

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 11, n. 1, (fev. 2023), p. 65-85

corruption or perhaps more commonly, poor leadership and ineective-

ness (Xiaoguang and Li, 2006, p. 144-145). A further example can be evi-

denced in Indonesia in which civil society is vibrant and thriving today,

in sharp contrast with the status of civil society under decades of the

Soeharto dictatorship which viewed CSOs with suspicion and actively

sought to control and limit their inuence (Antlov, Ibrahim and Van

Tuijl, 2006, p. 164-165).

Rates of progress have not been uniform, particularly when com-

paring circumstances in democratic versus non-democratic countries.

For example, the dearth of democracy in much of the Middle East and

North Africa has impeded the advance of organized civil society which

has often struggled for the mere right of free association more so than

working toward achieving specic policy objectives such as human right-

s---a situation which has not been helped by the breakdown or absence of

popular movements such as organized labor, often a catalyst for civil so-

ciety in other world regions (Sayed-Said, 2004, p. 61). Not only have many

developing states restricted the growth and expansion of civil society in-

ternally, but such restrictions have also contributed to the isolation of

groups from interacting with each other and at the international level

(Samad and Mohamadieh, 2008, p. 112). Even under such circumstan-

ces an often more muted form of civil society has played an increasingly

important role in observing and reporting on compliance with human

rights, environmental and other initiatives in many countries around the

world. Accordingly such organizations are rightly regarded as elements

of the international contract helping to regulate behavior in those policy

areas (Lake, 2000, p. 51-52).

Interestingly, such uneven patterns of civil society development

could be seen in data gleaned from this research. Imbalances in repre-

sentation and participation of CSOs were consistently visible in statistics

derived from the UN’s ICSO database. Civil society in developed regions

was usually over-represented to a signicant degree relative to proportion

of population, while CSOs headquartered in developing regions were of-

ten underrepresented proportionally. At least some of the latter disparity

can be attributed to contrasts in economic prowess between developed

and developing regions, as organizations in developing nations may often

lack the nancial resources to fully participate in international conferen-

ces, etc. Other factors such as democratic versus authoritarian political

climate in the host country can also be seen within the data presented in

this research as potentially impacting the degree of participation of CSOs

within international forums such as the UN-ECOSOC consultative status

program.

Given the relative scarcity of research into the plurality of civil

society representation within the UN or other IGOs, this research can

be regarded as a preliminary study into the latter phenomenon rather

than a comprehensive or denitive treatment. Future research into the

issue could entail weighting CSO representation not merely proportional

to the population of a country/region but also relative to the number of

transnational organizations present in each state/region---though a clear

and objective inventory of such organizations in each state may prove

Barry Mowell Macro-Regional Paerns of CSO Aliaon/Parcipaon within the UN-Civil-Society Framework: The Underrepresentaon of the Developing World

logistically dicult. More detailed examination of the issue could also

delve into identication of sub-regional and national patterns of parti-

cipation/aliation in order to cultivate a clearer picture of the spatial

dynamic and such research would likely reveal wide variations among in-

dividual states and sub-regions. In particular, the depth and substance of

the UN-civil society dynamic is worthy of study though will likely prove

problematic to gauge in a comprehensive or objective manner. Research

is also needed as to ways in which civil society in developing regions

such as Africa and Asia can potentially value their agencies within the

framework of international relations. Also, the data utilized in this study

provides a snapshot of the UN-civil society dynamic at a particular point

in time. The latter dynamic has evolved and expanded rapidly in recent

years and this trend seems poised to continue, necessitating future eorts

to reappraise the status and plurality of representation of transnational

civil society within the UN framework.

REFERENCES

ABU-LABAN, Y. Pluralism as Process: The Role of Liberal Democratic Institutions. In: GLO-

BAL CENTRE FOR PLURALISM EXPERT ROUNDTABLE, 2008. Accessed February 28, 2022.

Available at: http://www.pluralism.ca/images/PDF_docs/pluralism_papers/abu_laban_pa-

per_pp6.pdf

ALGER, C. The Emerging Roles of NGOs in the UN System: From Article 71 to a People’s Mil-

lennium Assembly. Global Governance v. 8, n. 1, p. 93-117, 2002.

ANDERSON, K. Living with the UN: American Responsibilities and International Order.

Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2012. ISBN: 0817913440.

ANDERSON, M. NGOs: Blessing or Curse? The Africa Report. November 29, 2017.

ANTLOV, H.; IBRAHIM, R.; VAN TUIJL, P. NGO Governance and Accountability in Indone-

sia: Challenges in a Newly Democratizing County. In: JORDAN, L.and VAN TUIJL, P (Eds.)

NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations. London, UK: Earthscan, 2006. p.

147-166. ISBN: 1-84407-368-8.

BOLIN, J.; THOMAS, G. (Ed.) Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental

Organizations Since 1875. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999. ISBN: 0804734224.

CARPENTER, R. Governing the Global Agenda: ‘Gatekeepers’ and ‘Issue Adoption’ in Transna-

tional Advocacy Networks. In: AVANT, D., FINNEMORE, M. and SELL, S. (Eds.) Who Gover-

ns the Globe? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010. p. 202-237. ISBN: 1877462764.

CLARK, A.; FRIEDMAN, E.; HOCHSTETLER, K. The Sovereign Limits of Global Civil So-

ciety: A Comparison of NGO Participation in UN World Conferences on the Environment, Hu-

man Rights and Women. World Politics v.51, n. 1, p. 1-35, 1998.

DEMARS, W.; DIJKZUEL, D. Introduction: NGOing. In: DEMARS, W. and DIJKZUEL, D.

(Eds.) The NGO Challenge for International Relations Theory. New York, NY: Routledge -

Global Institutions Series, 2015. p. 1-28. ISBN: 978-1-138-84530-5

DICKLITCH, S. The Elusive Promise of NGOs in Africa: Lessons from Uganda. New York,

NY: St. Martin’s, 1998.

FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom in the World 2018: Democracy in Crisis. https://freedomhou-

se.org/report/freedom-world/2018/democracy-crisis Accessed October 13, 2019.

GETIS, A.; BJELLAND, M.; GETIS, V. Introduction to Geography. New York, NY, US: Mc-

Graw-Hill, 2014.

GLOBAL CENTRE FOR PLURALISM. Dening Pluralism, Global Centre for Pluralism: Plu-

ralism Papers - No. 1. Available at: http://www.pluralism.ca/images/PDF_docs/dening_plu-

ralism_EN.pdf. Accessed February 27, 2021.

GOTZ, N. Reframing NGOs: The Identity of an International Relations Non-Starter. Euro-

pean Journal of International Relations. v. 14, n.2, p. 231-258, 2008.

estudos internacionais • Belo Horizonte, ISSN 2317-773X, v. 11, n. 1, (fev. 2023), p. 65-85

INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR NOT-FOR-PROFIT LAW. Civic Freedom Monitor. Avai-

lable at: http://www.icnl.org/research/monitor/southafrica.html. Accessed October 12, 2019.

JOKIC, A. Go Local: Morality and International Activism. Ethics and Global Politics. v. 6, n.

1, p. 39-62, 2013.

KAJIMBWAL, M. NGOs and Their Role in the Global South. The International Journal of

Not-for-Prot Law. v. 9, n. 1 (December), 2006.

KAMAT, S. NGOs and the New Democracy: The False Saviors of International Development.

Harvard International Review. v. 25, n. 1, p. 65-69, 2003.

KOTZIAN, P. Holding International Governance to Account: Do Civil Society Organizations

Have a Chance to Exert Accountability? Journal of International Organizations Studies. v.5,

n. 6, p. 5-25, 2015..

KWESIGA, J.; NAMISI, H. Issues in Legislation for NGOs in Uganda. In: JORDAN, L.and VAN

TUIJL, P (Eds.) NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations. London, UK: Ear-

thscan, 2006. p. 81-92 ISBN: 1-84407-367-X

KYMLICKA, W. Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the New International Politics of Di-

versity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN: 0199280401.

LAKE, D. Global Governance: A Relational Contracting Approach. In: PRAKASH, A. and

HART, J. (Eds.) Globalization and Governance. London, UK: Routledge, 2000. p. 31-53. ISBN:

0-415-24249-5.

LINZ, J.; STEPAN, A. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Eu-

rope, South America, and Post-communist Europe. Baltimore, MD, US: Johns Hopkins Uni-

versity Press, 1996. ISBN: 0801851580.

MAKOBA, J. Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) and Third World Development: An Al-

ternative Approach to Development. Journal of Third World Studies. v. 19, n. 1, p. 53-63, 2002).

MCKEON, N. The United Nations and Civil Society: Legitimizing Global Governance –

Who’s Voice? New York, NY, US: Zed Books, 2009. ISBN: 1848132751

MOWELL, B. Degree and Patterns of Formal NGO Participation within the United Nations

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC): An Appraisal of NGO Consultative Status

Relative to Political Pluralism. Doctoral Dissertation - Florida International University, 2017.

MOWELL, B. Pluralism and Proportionality in the Representation of European International

Civil Society within the UN Framework: A Sub-regional Comparison. European Politics and

Society. v. 19, n. 2, p. 230-245, 2018.

MOWELL, B. NGO Goal-Setting/Attainment and Perceptions of Benets Derived within the

Framework of the UN-ECOSOC Consultative Status Program. Open Political Science. v. 3, p.

97-116, 2020.

MOWELL, B. Barriers to UN-Civil Society Collaborations: A Case Study of CSOs within the

UN-ECOSOC Consultative Status Program. International Studies. v. 58, n. 4, p. 466-490, 2021.

NIGERIA NETWORK OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. About us. Available

at: https://nnngo.org/about-us/ Accessed October 10, 2019.

OMELICHEVA, M. Global Civil Society and Democratization of World Politics: A Bona Fide

Relationship or Illusory Liason? International Studies Review. v. 11, n. 2, p. 109-132, 2009.

PAUL, J. NGOs and Global Policy-Making, Global Policy Forum. Available at: https://www.

globalpolicy.org/empire/31611-ngos-and-global-policy-making.html.Accessed February 21, 2018.

PUTNAM, R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. London,

UK: Simon and Schuster, 2001.

RISSE-KAPPEN, T. (Ed.) Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Do-

mestic Structures and International Institutions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press, 1995.

RUBENSTEIN, J. The Cultural Landscape: Introduction to Human Geography. New York,

NY, US: Prentice-Hall, 2014.

SAMAD, Z.; MOHAMADIEH, K. The Arab NGO Network for Development: A Case Study on

Interaction between Emerging Regional Networking and Global Civil Society. In: JAMES, W.

and THOMPSON, A. (Eds.) Critical Mass: The Emergence of Global Civil Society. Waterloo,

ON, CA: The Centre for International Governance Innovation and Wilfrid Laurier University

Press, 2008. p. 111-128 ISBN: 1554580226.

Barry Mowell Macro-Regional Paerns of CSO Aliaon/Parcipaon within the UN-Civil-Society Framework: The Underrepresentaon of the Developing World

SAYED-SAID, M. Global Civil Society: An Arab Perspective. In: ANHEIER, H., KALDOR, M.

and MARLIES, G. (Eds.) Global Civil Society. London, UK: Sage Publications, 2004. p. 60-73

ISBN: 9781412903073

SHUMATE, M.; DEWITT, L. The North/South Divide in NGO Hyperlink Networks. Journal

of Computer-Mediated Communication. v. 13, n. 2, p. 405-428, 2008.

STATISTICA. Changes in the number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with

consultative status with ECOSOC - 1948 to 2010. Available at: https://www.statista.com/sta-

tistics/268357/changes-in-the-number-of-ngos-worldwide-since-1948/ Accessed January 5, 2019.

TALLBERG, J.; SOMMERE, T.; SQUATRITO, T.; JONSSON, C. The Opening Up of Interna-

tional Organizations: Transnational Access in Global Governance. Cambridge, UK: Cam-

bridge University Press, 2013. ISBN: 9781107325135.

TANDON, R.; KAK, M. Amplifying Voices from the Global South: Globalizing Civil Society.

In: Critical Mass: The Emergence of Global Civil Society. Waterloo, ON: The Centre for In-

ternational Governance Innovation and Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2008. p. 75-88. ISBN:

1554580226

THIEL, M. European Civil Society and Human Rights Advocacy. University Park, PA: Penn

State University Press, 2017. ISBN: 0812249364

THRALL, A.; STECULA, D.; SWEET, D. May We Have Your Attention Please? Human-Rights

NGOs and the Problem of Global Communication. The International Journal of Press/Poli-

tics. v. 19, n.2, p. 135-159, 2014.

UHLIN, A. Which Characteristics of Civil Society Organizations Support What Aspects of

Democracy? Evidence from Post-Communist Latvia. International Political Science Review.

v. 30, n. 3, p. 271-95, 2009.

UNION OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS. Yearbook of International Organizations.

Available at: http://www.uia.org/yearbook. Accessed August 12, 2017.

UNITED NATIONS. Charter of the United Nations - 2017. http://www.un.org/en/sections/

un-charter/chapter-x/index.html Accessed March 15, 2018.

UNITED NATIONS. Brief Statistics about ECOSOC Status. Available at: https://csonet.

org/?menu=100. Accessed December 30, 2018.

UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER. UNFPA Input: Enhanced

and Strategic CSO Engagement at the UN. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/

AboutUs/CivilSociety/Procedures/UN/UnitedNationsPopulationFund.pdf. Accessed January

9, 2019.

WAISMAN, C. Autonomy, Self-Regulation, and Democracy: Tocquevillean-Gellnerian Per-

spectives on Civil Society and the Bifurcated State in Latin America. In: FEIBERG, R., WAIS-

MAN, C. and ZAMOSC, L. (Eds.) Civil Society and Democracy in Latin America. New York,

NY, US: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. p. 17-33. ISBN: 1403972281.

WILLETTS, P. (Ed.) The Conscience of the World: The Inuence of Non-governmen-

tal Organizations in the UN System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1996. ISBN:

0815794193

WILLETTS, P. From ‘Consultative Arrangements’ to ‘Partnership’: The Changing Status of

NGOs in Diplomacy at the UN. Global Governance v. 6, n. 2, p. 191-212, 2000.

WILLETTS, P. Non-Governmental Organizations in World Politics: The Construction of

Global Governance. New York, NY, US: Routledge, 2011. ISBN: 0415381258

WORLD ASSOCIATION OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. https://www.

wango.org/ Accessed October 5, 2019.

WORLDOMETERS. 2017. World Population by Region. http://www.worldometers.info/worl-

d-population/#region Accessed November 1, 2017.

XIAOGUANG, K.; LI, F. 2006. NGO Governance in China: Achievements and Dilemmas. In:

JORDAN, L.and VAN TUIJL, P (Eds.) NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innova-

tions. London, UK: Earthscan, 2006, p. 129-146 ISBN: 1-84407-367-X