• Agenda
  • Initiatives
  • Reports
  • Events
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Leadership and Governance
    • Our Members and Partners
    • Communities
    • History
    • Klaus Schwab
    • Media
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
    • World Economic Forum USA
    • Privacy and Terms of Use
  • EN ES FR 日本語 中文
  • Login to TopLink

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. By using our website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Notice.

I accept
    Hamburger
  • World Economic Forum Logo
  • Agenda
  • Initiatives
  • Reports
  • Events
  • About
  • TopLink
  • Search Cancel

Report Home

<Previous Next>
  • Report Highlights
    • The Risks-trends Interconnections Map 2017
    • The Global Risks Interconnections Map 2017
    • The matrix of top 5 risks from 2007 to 2017
    • The Global Risks Landscape 2017
    • Global Risks of Highest Concern for Doing Business 2017
      • Appendix C: The Executive Opinion Survey 2016: Views of the Business Community on the Global Risks of Highest Concern for Doing Business
    • Benchmarking Global Risks to Businesses 2017
  • Blogs and Opinions
  • Shareable Infographics
  • Video
  • Press Releases
  • FAQs
  • [–––Divider–––]
  • Preface
  • Foreword
  • Executive Summary
  • Introduction
  • Part 1 – Global Risks 2017
  • Part 2 - Social and Political Challenges
    • 2.1 Western Democracy in Crisis?
    • 2.2 Fraying Rule of Law and Declining Civic Freedoms: Citizens and Civic Space at Risk
    • 2.3 The Future of Social Protection Systems
  • Part 3: Emerging Technologies
    • 3.1 Understanding the Risk Landscape
    • 3.2 Assessing the Risk of Artificial Intelligence
    • 3.3 Physical Infrastructure Networks and the Fourth Industrial Revolution
  • Conclusion
  • [–––Divider–––]
  • Appendices
    • Appendix A: Description of Global Risks, Trends and Emerging Technologies 2017
    • Appendix B: Global Risks Perception Survey and Methodology 2016
  • Acknowledgements
  • Download as PDF
Global Risks Report 2017 Home Previous Next
  • Report Home
  • Report Highlights
    • The Risks-trends Interconnections Map 2017
    • The Global Risks Interconnections Map 2017
    • The matrix of top 5 risks from 2007 to 2017
    • The Global Risks Landscape 2017
    • Global Risks of Highest Concern for Doing Business 2017
      • Appendix C: The Executive Opinion Survey 2016: Views of the Business Community on the Global Risks of Highest Concern for Doing Business
    • Benchmarking Global Risks to Businesses 2017
  • Blogs and Opinions
  • Shareable Infographics
  • Video
  • Press Releases
  • FAQs
  • [–––Divider–––]
  • Preface
  • Foreword
  • Executive Summary
  • Introduction
  • Part 1 – Global Risks 2017
  • Part 2 - Social and Political Challenges
    • 2.1 Western Democracy in Crisis?
    • 2.2 Fraying Rule of Law and Declining Civic Freedoms: Citizens and Civic Space at Risk
    • 2.3 The Future of Social Protection Systems
  • Part 3: Emerging Technologies
    • 3.1 Understanding the Risk Landscape
    • 3.2 Assessing the Risk of Artificial Intelligence
    • 3.3 Physical Infrastructure Networks and the Fourth Industrial Revolution
  • Conclusion
  • [–––Divider–––]
  • Appendices
    • Appendix A: Description of Global Risks, Trends and Emerging Technologies 2017
    • Appendix B: Global Risks Perception Survey and Methodology 2016
  • Acknowledgements
  • Download as PDF

Part 2 - Social and Political Challenges:

2.2 Fraying Rule of Law and Declining Civic Freedoms: Citizens and Civic Space at Risk

Share

A new era of restricted freedoms and increased governmental control could undermine social, political and economic stability and increase the risk of geopolitical and social conflict.1 Empowered by sophisticated new technological tools in areas such as surveillance, governments and decision-makers around the world are tightening control over civil society organizations, individuals and other actors.

Over the past 10 years, multiple sources from within and outside the civil society sector have pointed to deteriorating rule of law and declining respect for basic civil and political rights at the global level.2 New regulations and restrictions are ostensibly intended to protect against increased security threats, but potentially threaten the existence of an open and free society and the stability of the environment in which businesses invest and operate.

Civil society actors have historically been integral to driving progress and innovation in the political, social and economic spheres – by advancing human rights, the rule of law and sustainable development – and they are currently at the forefront of efforts to tackle global challenges such as the migration crisis, implementing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and promoting transparent governance. Closing space for civil society reduces the chances that these challenges will be effectively addressed.

This chapter will explain the current challenges of a closing space for civic freedoms and solid rule of law, casting a light on the triggers and contextual factors that are contributing to the phenomenon. A separate focus on the implications for businesses and society at large is also provided to highlight the medium-to-long term impact of this trend and the issues at stake in the global context of a fraying rule of law.

Analysing the Closing Space for Civic Freedoms

“Closing civil society space” refers to actions by governments and others that, intentionally or otherwise, result in the prevention, limitation or eradication of civil society activities. This is something that can occur for very different reasons. In some cases repressive laws have been introduced in order to reduce dissent and silence opposing voices. In others, civil society freedoms have been unintentionally restricted as a consequence of other democratically agreed policies. This is testament to the fact that the compromise between security and liberty is still a difficult one to tread for many policy-makers. In the current context of heightened security concerns and terrorist threats, many governments have promulgated regulatory frameworks that entail greater scrutiny of all economic and societal actors – but trade-offs between security and the protection of civic freedoms have not always been managed in a balanced way, and some of these measures have had a disproportionate impact on civil society organizations in certain parts of the world.3 

Closing space is difficult to quantify because restrictions are different in each country and impact each actor in different ways.4 In some countries, for example, businesses and civil society actors have different reporting requirements – for example, civil society actors may be prohibited from receiving foreign donations, while businesses are encouraged to seek foreign investment.5  However, civil society organizations, media and corporate actors have all expressed growing concern about the closing of civic space.6 In 2015, CIVICUS found serious threats to one or more civic freedoms – including the freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression – in 109 countries, up from 96 in 2014.7 Restrictions on press freedom are intensifying around the world, with a range of methods from physical violence to legal intimidation to new laws criminalizing speech being widely used by a number of actors to undermine freedom of expression and free flow of information.8

The trend is accelerating and expanding globally, to encompass countries that have traditionally been open and inclusive. According to the CIVICUS Monitor, 3.2 billion people live in countries where the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly are repressed or closed, with only nine countries out of the 104 analysed globally being rated as open in terms of enjoyment of rights and adherence to the rule of law (Figure 2.2.1).9 

Restrictions affect both organizations and individual citizens, including journalists and media outlets – particularly those who challenge economic and political elites.10 Methods of restrictions include verbal and physical actions (vilification of civil society groups,11 crackdowns on protest,12 violence against individual activists);13 regulatory measures (burdensome reporting requirements such as on the management of foreign funding);14 and technological intrusions (e.g. digital rights restrictions).15
Some organizations have closed down or reduced their operations as a result.16 Furthermore, in addition to human rights and advocacy organizations, academic, philanthropic and humanitarian entities, as well as journalists, have also been affected by closing civic space.17

Triggers and contextual factors

Factors behind the closing space for civil society vary per region, though Table 2.2.1 summarizes some common dynamics. In some cases, security concerns, protectionism and the changing global aid landscape have been used as reasons for reducing dissent. In other cases, restrictions on freedom have been unintended byproducts of well-intentioned security packages. While it is possible to try to distinguish between the trend in authoritarian or semi-authoritarian and democratic countries, worrying trends are seen even in democratic countries. Genuine problems among a subset of civil society actors – such as a lack of transparency and links to terrorism – do exist, but responses are drafted widely enough to affect reliable organizations delivering benefits to society. 

Table 2.2.1: Contextual Factors

Security concerns and counter-terrorism measuresThe sensitive geopolitical context, the rise of cyberattacks and major data breaches and hacks, as well as the global insurgency of violent extremism and radicalization have led many countries to adopt security measures and counter-terrorism laws that have increased scrutiny and restrictions on the participation of societal actors, including civil society and individual citizens, sometimes including restrictions on dissenting voices.¹
Rising nationalismCivil society actors often challenge decision-makers on issues tied to security and identity, such as the response to terrorism or the refugee crisis, or the treatment of minorities. Nationalist sentiment has fuelled the closing of civic space in an attempt to reduce such criticism.² The argument against foreign funding also has nationalistic undercurrents: some non-governmental organizations that take foreign funding have been accused of being unpatriotic or anti-development.³
Changing scene of development aidDeveloping and emerging countries are often less dependent on foreign aid than they have been in the past, and less tolerant of external influence over the spending of aid money.⁴ Claiming ownership of development aid is an important step towards reducing aid dependence – but some governments have used it to exert control over civil society activities in their country.⁵
“Market fundamentalism”At times the push for economic growth has contributed to restricting the civic space by nurturing in certain geographical contexts the distrust and repression of civil society actors who have criticized business or foreign investors, and who have consequently been labelled “anti-development” or “anti-national interest”.⁶


1
Carothers and Brechenmacher 2014, p. 9; Greenslade 2011; OHCHR 2014b.
2 Palumbo-Liu 2016; Sokatch 2013. 
3 Such accusations have been made in several countries, including India, Pakistan, and Malawi (see Doane 2016; ICNL 2016a; Jafar 2011, p. 133).
4 Green 2015. 
5 Rutzen 2015, p. 7. 
6 Doane 2016; Funders’ Initiative for Civil Society 2016, p. 9; United Nations Special Rapporteur 2016. In India, the Intelligence Bureau claimed, in a leaked report, that civil society prevents GDP growth by 2–3% per year.

The Role of Technology

Technological advances have expanded civic space by providing citizens and organizations with new opportunities to make their voices heard, express their grievances and demand their rights, and innovative ways to hold decision-makers to account. They offer virtual platforms for citizens to engage and mobilize on issues they care about. At the same time, ICT and other technological tools benefit individuals or groups seeking to leverage technology for the spreading of hate, misinformation and extremism, and present challenges for law enforcement and other governmental authorities attempting to monitor terrorist activity. 

Technological tools are also being used to increase surveillance and control over citizens, whether for legitimate security concerns or in an attempt to eradicate criticism and opposition.18 Restricting new opportunities for democratic expression and mobilization,19 and by consequence the digitally enabled array of civil, political and economic rights (such as the right to work and education; freedom of expression)20– just as citizens have become more connected and engaged – creates a potentially explosive situation. 

Implications for Citizens and Society 

Closing the space for civil society not only reduces the number of actors and operations that are protecting and promoting the common good in society, but it also potentially increases the likelihood and impact of the risks, including: 

  • diminishing public trust in institutions;
  • more resources devoted to national interests over citizens’ well-being, in a context where governments pursue specific agendas without ample prior consultation with societal actors;21
  • corruption, as quantitative and qualitative studies attest to the contribution of civil society organizations in reducing illicit activities;22, 23   
  • polarization of views, due to misinformation or asymmetry of information across countries and societal groups;24 and
  • socio-political and economic instability as discontent around governance systems that are not participatory and accountable manifests as protests. 

A world with limited freedoms and closing civil space is additionally deprived of the important economic value contributed by civil society organizations. The economic importance of civil society organizations is under-researched,25 but some studies find evidence of impact that could be lost as their space to operate shrinks. Back in the 1990s, the Johns Hopkins Comparative Non-profit Sector Project quantified the non-profit sector’s economic contribution in the 22 nations examined as $1.1 trillion, with nearly 19 million full-time employees and average expenditure totalling 4.6% of the gross domestic product. These figures are likely to be larger now.26

Implications for Business

Civil society actors are increasingly looking to the private sector for support expanding their space to operate.27 The case for business leaders to promote openness is not always immediately apparent, because shrinking civil society space may not directly impact their core business in the short term. But studies show a long-term link between democratic systems and increases in GDP per capita,28 and most of the top performers in the World Bank’s Doing Business ranking are free countries (Figure 2.2.2). 

Societal freedom is economically beneficial for several reasons. Data suggest it reduces corruption,29 which imposes costs on business: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) puts the annual cost of bribery alone at around US$1.5 to US$2 trillion, nearly 2% of global GDP, and this is only one form of corruption.30 Additionally, it is often the case that restrictions on civil society represent just the initial sign of more authoritarian systems impacting all economic and societal actors.31 

Civil society helps to hold economic actors to account for respecting basic rights, promoting competition by creating a more equal playing field. Indeed, in some countries with less open societies, companies are collaborating with civil society actors to facilitate human rights compliance reporting and demonstrate compliance with international standards even if this is not required by domestic legislation. Companies operating in countries where human rights are not respected and civil society is suppressed run a potentially high reputational risk from being associated with environmental or human rights violations in supply chains or at production sites.32 

Evidence shows that workforce diversity is good for business,33 implying that busineses benefit from being located in societies that value diversity. Brain drain fuelled by unstable and corrupt environments means that business loses out on the country’s top human potential.34 From a talent management perspective, it can only be good for companies to be able to freely move their human capital across countries, knowing their staff will not be held back by legal and/or cultural restrictions challenging global corporate diversity policies.35

Finally, against the backdrop of ongoing pressure on economic and societal actors to deliver on the SDGs through partnerships and cooperation, it is in the interest of corporations to promote an open space where civil society actors can thrive and cross-sectoral partnerships develop. Restrictions to the civic space risks endanger the ability of businesses to achieve their SDG targets. 

How Could Business Help to Keep the Civic Space Open?

It is not always straightforward for business leaders to understand the nature of their contribution to promoting open and democratic systems. There are, however, some interesting examples of businesses promoting an inclusive civic space. Business leaders can promote space for civil society “behind the scenes”, for example through lobbying in meetings with governmental authorities. At the local level, business associations – which are also affected by closing civic space – can help to coordinate actions such as awareness raising and lobbying the government.36 In some cases, companies have assisted civil society groups by providing in-kind support, such as meeting space for activists, or indirect support, including quietly resisting discriminatory local practices.37

There are also examples of businesses publicly working against specific attempts to limit civil society activities, as illustrated by technology companies pulling out of countries over internet censorship; diamond companies speaking out against the prosecution of activists; sportswear manufacturers publicly supporting the work of human rights defenders;38 and food associations bailing out civil society leaders who had been investigating abuses in the food industry.39 

Considering the complex nature of this challenge, some businesses have preferred to come together in coalitions to collectively raise their voice for the promotion of rights and freedoms in the contexts they operate. Examples include the Open for Business coalition,40 which supports LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) diversity across the world. 

Increased international solidarity with affected civil society and stronger coalitions of businesses to advance and advocate for human rights promotion are concrete recommendations that have been identified by many organizations as priorities for action.41

Conclusions

Despite the global nature of closing civil society space, there is still not much awareness among businesses, decision-makers and a good part of societal actors about this worrisome pattern and the potential risks it can engender: increased social and economic instability, augmented social polarization, more fragile governance, and major detriment to basic civil and political rights that have been gainfully acquired by many countries in the past 50 years. More investment should be put to further study this phenomenon and quantify it in terms of lost economic and social opportunities. With technological innovation creating new opportunities for social inclusion and civic empowerment, time is ripe for all actors to come together and enable an open civic space by collectively taking measures and engaging technology to address this risk effectively. 

Chapter 2.2 was contributed by Silvia Magnoni, World Economic Forum, and Kira Youdina, World Economic Forum.

References

ACT Alliance and CIDSE. 2014. Space for Civil Society: How to Protect and Expand an Enabling Environment. Geneva and Brussels: ACT Alliance and CIDSE. https://www.cordaid.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/06/SpaceForCivilSociety.pdf 

adidas Group. 2016. “The adidas group and human rights defenders”. http://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/f0/c5/f0c582a9-506d-4b12-85cf-bd4584f68574/adidas_group_and_human_rights_defenders_2016.pdf 

Article 19. 2015. “Statement: Malaysia: Blocking websites to prevent protest violates international law”. Article 19, 27 August 2015. https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38089/en/malaysia:-blocking-websites-to-prevent-protest-violates-international-law

Assis, C. 2015. “Salesforce.com bans travel to Indiana to protest ‘religious freedom’ bill”. MarketWatch, 26 March 2015. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/salesforcecom-bans-travel-to-indiana-to-protest-religious-freedom-bill-2015-03-26 

Bequelin, N. 2014. “The Price of China’s Uighur repression: Jailing of Ilham Tohti will radicalize more Uighurs”. The New York Times OpEd, 25 September 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/26/opinion/nicholas-bequelin-china-jailing-of-ilham-tohti-will-radicalize-more-uighurs.html https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/why-space-civic-engagement-shrinking

Boon, J. 2015. “Pakistan shuts down Save the Children offices in Islamabad”. The Guardian, 12 June 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/12/pakistan-shuts-down-save-the-children-offices-in-islamabad

CAF (Charities Aid Foundation). 2016. Beyond Integrity. https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2016-publications/beyond-integrity-report

Carothers, T. and S. Brechenmacher. 2014. Closing Space: Democracy and Human Rights Support under Fire. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/closing_space.pdf http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-speech-are-growing-tighter-it-time-speak-out-under-attack

CIVICUS. 2016a. State of Civil Society Report 2016. CIVICUS. http://www.civicus.org/images/documents/SOCS2016/summaries/SoCS-full-review.pdf 

———. 2016b. State of Civil Society Report 2016: Executive Summary. CIVICUS. http://www.civicus.org/images/documents/SOCS2016/summaries/State-of-Civil-Society-Report-2016_Exec-Summary.pdf . Indexes can also be found in USAID’s CSO Sustainability Indexes for Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Europe and Eurasia, and Middle East and North Africa. 

———. 2016c. SOCS 2016 Year in Review: Civic Space – Rights in Retreat, Civil Society Fighting Back. CIVICUS. http://www.civicus.org/documents/reports-and-publications/SOCS/2016/summaries/YIR_Civic-Space.pdf

CIVICUS Monitor. 2016. Findings Report. CIVICUS. October 2016. http://www.civicus.org/images/CIVICUSMonitorFindingsReportOctober2016.pdf 

De Lombaerde, P. and L. J. Garay. 2006. “New regionalism in Latin America and the role of the US”. OBREAU/EULARO Background Paper 2006. http://www19.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2009/03385.pdf 

Dimant, E., T. Krieger, and D. Meierrieks. 2013. “Corruption, migration and the brain drain”. Anti-Corruption Research Network, 5 September 2013. http://corruptionresearchnetwork.org/resources/frontpage-articles/corruption-migration-and-the-brain-drain

Doane, D. 2016. “The Indian government has shut the door on NGOs”. The Guardian, 7 September 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/sep/07/the-indian-government-has-shut-the-door-on-ngos

The Economist. 2014. “Donors: Keep out”. The Economist, 13 September 2014. http://www.economist.com/news/international/21616969-more-and-more-autocrats-are-stifling-criticism-barring-non-governmental-organisations. 

———. 2016. “Free speech under attack: Curbs on free speech are growing tighter. It is time to speak out”. The Economist, 4 June 2016. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-speech-are-growing-tighter-it-time-speak-out-under-attack http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-speech-are-growing-tighter-it-time-speak-out-under-attack

Enjolras, B. 2015. “Measuring the impact of the third sector: From concept to metrics”. TSI Working Paper No. 5, Seventh Framework Programme (grant agreement 613034), European Union. Brussels: Third Sector Impact. 

Florini, A. M. and P. J. Simmons. 2000. “What the world needs now?” In The Third Force: The Rise of Transnational Civil Society, Ann M. Florini, ed. Tokyo and Washington, DC: Japan Center for International Exchange and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, pp.1–15. 

Forero, J. 2016. “Venezuelans, facing food shortages, rally behind vilified conglomerate”. The Wall Street Journal, 3 June 2016. http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelas-biggest-private-company-fights-for-survival-1464964360 

Funders’ Initiative for Civil Society. 2016. Challenging the Closing Space for Civil Society: A Practical Starting Point for Funders. May 2016. https://ihrfg.org/sites/default/files/ClosingSpaceReport_May2016_DigitalVersion.pdf 

Griffin, C. 2016. “How businesses are standing up for LGBT rights”. World Economic Forum Agenda. Blogpost. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/how-businesses-are-standing-up-for-lgbt-rights

The Global NPO Coalition on FATF. No date. Concerns. TEDx talk. http://fatfplatform.org/civil-society-concerns/ 

Green, D. 2015. “5 trends that explain why civil society space is under assault around the world”. From Poverty to Power: How Active Citizens and Effectives States Can Change the World. https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/5-trends-that-explain-why-civil-society-space-is-under-assault-around-the-world/

Green, S. N. 2016. “Adapt or perish: The new normal for civil society”. OpenDemocracy, 4 January 2016. https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/shannon-n-green/adapt-or-perish-new-normal-for-civil-society

Greenslade, R. 2011. “Ethiopia uses anti-terror laws to silence critical journalists”. The Guardian, 29 September 2011. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16709&LangID=E 

Holodny, E. 2014. “Russia’s brain drain is astounding”. Business Insider UK, 2 December 2014. http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-brain-drain-putin-ukraine-crimea-2014-12?r=US&IR=T 

Hungary Matters. 2015. “Amnesty yearly report notes smear campaign against NGOs in Hungary”. Politics.hu, 25 February 2015. http://www.politics.hu/20150225/amnesty-yearly-report-notes-smear-campaign-against-ngos-in-hungary/ 

Hunt, V., D. Layton, and S. Prince. 2015. “Why diversity matters”. McKinsey & Company. Adapted from the report Diversity Matters. http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters 

ICNL (The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law). 2016a. Civic Freedom Monitor: Malawi. http://www.icnl.org/research/monitor/malawi.html 

———. 2016b. Global Trends in NGO Law 7 (3). http://www.icnl.org/research/trends/Global%20Trends%20Vol.%207%20Iss.%203%20
Challenges%20to%20Development%20Organizations%20final.pdf
 

IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2016. “Corruption: Costs and mitigating strategies”. IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN/16/05. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2016/sdn1605.pdf 

intrac for civil society. 2014. Legal Frameworks and Political Space for Non-Governmental Organisations: An Overview of Six Countries. June 2014. https://www.intrac.org/resources/legal-frameworks-political-space-non-governmental-organisations-overview-six-countries-phase-ii/ 

ISHR (International Service for Human Rights). 2015. “Angola: Drop charges against journalis and corporate accountability activist Rafael Marques”. ISHR, 28 April 2015. http://www.ishr.ch/news/angola-drop-charges-against-journalist-and-corporate-accountability-activist-rafael-marques

Jafar, A. 2011. Women’s NGOs in Pakistan. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Kerry, J. F., US Secretary of State. 2015. “Secretary’s Preface: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015”. http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper 

Lazala, M. 2015. “Despite the odds: Businesses speaking out for human rights”. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Blogpost. https://business-humanrights.org/en/despite-the-odds-businesses-speaking-out-for-human-rights https://business-humanrights.org/en/despite-the-odds-businesses-speaking-out-for-human-rights https://business-humanrights.org/en/despite-the-odds-businesses-speaking-out-for-human-rights

Mavhinga, D. 2016. “Dispatches: Zimbabwe blocks internet amid police crackdown”. Human Rights Watch: Dispatches, 6 July 2016. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/07/06/dispatches-zimbabwe-blocks-internet-amid-police-crackdown

McCoy, J. and H. Heckel. 2001. “The emergence of a global anti-corruption norm”. International Politics 38 (1): 65–90. 

Mendelson, S. E. 2015. Why Governments Target Civil Society and What Can Be Done in Response. A Report of the CSIS Human Rights Initiative. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic & International Studies. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/CivilSociety/ReportHC/67_CSIS-MendelsonGovTargetCivilSocietyNewAgenda-2.pdf 

Minder, R. 2016. “Crackdowns on free speech rise across a Europe wary of terror”. The New York Times. 24 February 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/world/europe/spain-europe-protest-free-speech.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/world/europe/spain-europe-protest-free-speech.html

OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights). 2014a. A Practical Guide for Civil Society: Civil Society Space and the United Nations Human Rights System. Geneva: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

———. 2014b. “UN experts urge Ethiopia to stop using anti-terrorism legislation to curb human rights”. 18 September 2014, Geneva. http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15056&LangID=E 

———. 2016. “Freedom of expression and the private sector in the digital age”. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/Privatesectorinthedigitalage.aspx 

Omidyar, P. 2014. “Social media: Enemy of the state or power to the people?” The Huffington Post, 27 February 2914. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pierre-omidyar/social-media-enemy-of-the_b_4867421.html 

Otis, J. 2014. “Venezuela tries to suppress reports of economic upheaval”. Blogpost. Document2 https://cpj.org/x/57aa  

Oxfam International. 2016. “Rich country goverments put national interests ahead of world’s poorest”. Media Reactions, 19 February 2016. https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/reactions/rich-country-governments-put-national-interests-ahead-worlds-poorest 

Palumbo-Liu, D. 2016. “India’s crackdown on ‘anti-nationalism’ on campus and how it can affect universities here”. The Huffington Post, 17 February 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-palumboliu/indias-crackdown-on-anti-nationalism-on-campus-and-how-it-can-affect-universities-here_b_9251262.html 

Ralchev, P. 2004. “The role of civil society in fighting corruption and organized crime in Southeast Europe”. Journal of Southeast Europe and Black Sea Studies 4 (2): 325–31. 

Ramdani, N. 2011. “Algeria tried to block internet and Facebook as protest mounted”. The Telegraph, 12 February 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/algeria/8320772/Algeria-tried-to-block-internet-and-Facebook-as-protest-mounted.html 

RFE/RL (RadioFreeEurope and RadioLiberty). 2016. “Kazakh journalists, activists detained and websites blocked”. RFE/RL, 21 May 2016. http://www.rferl.org/a/kazakhstan-protests/27748591.html 

Roth, K. 2016. “The great civil society choke-out”. Foreign Policy, 27 January 2016. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/27/the-great-civil-society-choke-out-human-rights-democracy-india-russia-china-kenya/ 

Rutzen, D. 2015. “Aid barriers and the rise of philanthropic protectionism.” International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law 17 (1): 1–41. 

Salamon, L. M., H. K. Anheier, R. List, S. Toepler, S. Wojciech Sokolowski, and Associates. 1999. Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies. http://ccss.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/08/Global-Civil-Society-I.pdf 

SARN (Scholars at Risk Network). 2016. Universities in a Dangerous World: Defending Higher Education Communities & Values. 2016 Global Congress Report. Montreal, Canada, 8–10 June. https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SAR-2016-Global-Congress-Report.pdf

Sherwood, H. 2015. “Human rights groups face global crackdown ‘not seen in a generation’”. 26 August 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/aug/26/ngos-face-restrictions-laws-human-rights-generation 

SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). 2016. “World military spending resumes upward course, says SIPRI”. SIPRI for the media, 5 April 2016. SIPRI Military Expenditure Database attests an increase in world military spending

Smedley, T. 2015. “Risks abound as companies export their pride globally”. Financial Times, 20 October 2015. https://www.ft.com/content/ddc082ba-71b2-11e5-9b9e-690fdae72044

Sokatch, D. 2013. “Anti-NGO legislation in Israel: A first step toward silencing dissent”. OpenDemocracy: Open Global Rights, 23 December 2013. https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/daniel-sokatch/anti-ngo-legislation-in-israel-first-step-toward-silencing-dissent 

Sriskandarajah, D. 2016. “The business case for civic space”. BRINK 28 January 2016. http://www.brinknews.com/the-business-case-for-civic-space/

Stone, C. 2015. “Why the space for civic engagement is shrinking”. Voices 21 December 2015. Open Society Foundations. Document2 https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/why-space-civic-engagement-shrinking

Sutter, J. D. 2012. “Google reports ‘alarming’ rise in government censorship requests”. CNN, 19 June 2012. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/18/tech/web/google-transparency-report/ 

Themudo, N. S. 2013. “Reassessing the impact of civil society: Nonprofit sector, press freedom, and corruption”.Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 26 (1): 63–89.

Treisman, L. 2014. “Citizen empowerment: New technology gives a voice to the voiceless”. The Huffington Post, 5 September 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/loren-treisman/citizen-empowerment-new-technology-gives-a-voice-to-the-voiceless_b_5293704.html 

United Nations General Assembly. 2015. Seventieth Session: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association. Rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association: Note by the Secretary-General. 4 August 2015. http://freeassembly.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/A_70_266_ENG.pdf

———. 2016. Human Rights Council, Thirty-Second Session: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Practical recommendations for the creation and maintenance of a safe and enabling environment for civil society, based on good practices and lessons learned. 11 April 2016. http://www.icnl.org/OHCHR%20report.pdf

United Nations Special Rapporteur. 2016. “Fundamentalism’s impact on peaceful assembly and association rights”. Human Rights Council Report June 2016. http://freeassembly.net/reports/fundamentalism/ 

Unmüßig, B. 2016. “Civil socity under pressure – shrinking – closing – no space”. Berlin: Heinreich Böll Foundation. 

Document2UN News Centre. 2016. “UN experts urge Mexido to counter current ‘smear campaign,’ support right defenders”. UN News Centre, 6 April 2016. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53622#.V-VNdSF95D8http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53622 – .V-VNdSF95D8

Wasow, B. 2011. “Freedom and corruption: Do the data suggest that there is any stable relationship between democracy and corruption?” The Globalist: Rethinking Globalization, 17 May 2011. http://www.theglobalist.com/freedom-and-corruption/ 

Webb, T. 2014. “Two reasons companies need campaigning NGOs, and how they can support them when under attack”. Sustainablity = Smart Business Blogpost, 11 July 2014. http://sustainablesmartbusiness.com/2014/07/why-companies-need-campaigning-ngos-and/ 

Wilshaw, R. 2015. “What would loosen the roots of labour exploitation in supply chains?” Ethical Trading Initiative blogpost 27 March 2015. http://www.ethicaltrade.org/blog/what-would-loosen-roots-labour-exploitation-in-supply-chains 

World Bank. 2013. “Defining Civil Society”. http://go.worldbank.org/4CE7W046K0 http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-speech-are-growing-tighter-it-time-speak-out-under-attack

1
1 The Economist 2016; Kerry 2015; Sherwood 2015; Stone 2015.
2
2 The World Bank definition for “civil society” refers to “the wide array of non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations that have a presence in public life, expressing the interests and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) therefore refer to a wide of array of organizations: community groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), labor unions, indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and foundations”. See World Bank 2013.
3
3 United Nations General Assembly 2016.
4
4 United Nations General Assembly 2015.
5
5 CIVICUS 2016c, pp. 5, 8.
6
6 Assis 2015; CIVICUS 2016a; Roth 2016;Unmüßig 2016. Resolutions regarding enabling civil society space have been adopted at the UN Human Rights Council, and the Officer of the High Commissioner for Human Rights created a handbook on enabling civil society space: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/AboutUs/CivilSociety/CS_space_UNHRSystem_Guide.pdf
7
7 CIVICUS 2016b; Sriskandarajah 2016. Indexes can also be found in USAID’s CSO Sustainability Indexes for Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Europe and Eurasia, and Middle East and North Africa.
8
8 The International Press Institute has recorded increased repression and hostilities towards critical and investigative reporting in the past few years, with journalists being detained and killed, or opposition newspapers suspended/shutdown; see http://www.freemedia.at/
9
9 CIVICUS Monitor 2016.
10
10 ISHR 2015.
11
11 There are many examples of the vilification of or smear campaigns against civil society organisation, painting them as working against the interest of citizens. See Green 2016; Hungary Matters 2015; UN News Centre 2016.
12
12 Widespread protest movements, empowered by new technologies, have threatened those in power, thus triggering clampdowns. See Green 2015; Minder 2016; Sherwood 2015.
13
13 The organisation Frontline Defenders currently has 220 active cases of actions taken against human rights defenders, including violence. https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/open-cases
14
14 Civil society actors do not deny the need for transparency, but regulations have made it impossible for some organisations to function due to an overload of reporting requirements. See ICNL 2016b. Restrictions on receipt of foreign funding have also ensured that organisations have to scale down or stop their activities; see The Economist 2014. The Financial Action Task Force requirements, an anti-terrorism response, has also limited the money that civil society organisations can receive: see the Global NPO Coalition of FATF at http://fatfplatform.org/civil-society-concerns/
15
15 Examples include interrupting the internet before or during protests, blocking certain websites, or mass surveillance impinge on digital rights. Numerous cases exist around the world: see Article 19 2015; Mavhinga 2016; Ramdani 2011; RFE/RL 2016; Sutter 2012.
16
16 Boon 2015; ICNL 2016b; Sherwood 2015.
17
17 As an example, the Scholars at Risk Network, which helps place scholars in universities around the world when they are under threat in their home countries, reports an increase in attacks on scholars: see SARN 2016 at https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SAR-2016-Global-Congress-Report.pdf
18
18 It has to be noted that available research on the incidence of NPO (non-profit organisations) abuse for terrorist financing and money laundering is limited and of low quality, and no study has been able to reliably quantify this risk of abuse.
19
19 Green 2015; Omidyar 2014; Treisman 2014. 
20
20 OHCHR 2016.
21
21 Oxfam International 2016; SIPRI 2016.
22
22 Themudo 2013.
23
23 Florini and Simmons 2000; McCoy and Heckel 2001; Ralchev 2004. 
24
24 Bequelin 2014. Reporting on political issues, corruption and economic trends becomes difficult (see Otis 2013).
25
25 Researchers are still debating and clarifying the methodological approaches to defining civil society and measuring its impact (see Enjolras 2015).
26
26 Salamon et al. 1999.
27
27 CAF 2016.
28
28 De Lombaerde and Garay 2006.
29
29 Wasow 2011.
30
30 IMF 2016. 
31
31 In Venezuela, for instance, a repressive and populist regime has, over time, imposed its controls on companies, seizing private businesses and farms and restricting the economic influence of major corporate actors. See Forero 2016.
32
32 Wilshaw 2015.
33
33 Hunt, Layton, and Prince 2015.
34
34 Such countries are mirred by corruption and political instability, which is linked to brain drain according to research (see Dimant, Krieger, and Meierrieks 2013 Brain drain, for instance, is heavily affecting Russia-based enterprises (see Holodny 2014).
35
35 Smedley 2015.
36
36 One such example includes the Bishkek Business Club, which lobbied the Kyrgyz government not to accept a “foreign agent” bill that aimed to restrict foreign funding for non-profit organisations. The club argued that the bill went against the Constitution, principles of good governance, and enabling conditions for sustainable economic growth.
37
37 In private interviews, activists indicate that they have been able to partner with progressive corporations in some of the most difficult environments. Other examples include businesses standing up for LGBT rights all over the world; see Griffin 2015.
38
38 adidas Group 2016.
39
39 Lazala 2015.
40
40 See https://www.open-for-business.org/
41
41 ACT Alliance and CIDSE 2014; intrac for civil society 2014; Mendelson 2015.
Back to Top
Subscribe for updates
A weekly update of what’s on the Global Agenda
Follow Us
About
Our Mission
Leadership and Governance
Our Members and Partners
The Fourth Industrial Revolution
Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Communities
History
Klaus Schwab
Our Impact
Media
Pictures
A Global Platform for Geostrategic Collaboration
Careers
Open Forum
Contact Us
Mapping Global Transformations
Code of Conduct
World Economic Forum LLC
Sustainability
World Economic Forum Privacy Policy
Media
News
Accreditation
Subscribe to our news
Members & Partners
Member login to TopLink
Strategic Partners' area
Partner Institutes' area
Global sites
Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Open Forum
Global Shapers
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship
EN ES FR 日本語 中文
© 2022 World Economic Forum
Privacy Policy & Terms of Service