Illiberal Norm Diffusion: How Do Governments Learn to Restrict Nongovernmental Organizations?

Abstract

Recent decades have witnessed a global cascade of restrictive and repressive measures against nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). We theorize that state learning from observing the regional environment, rather than NGO growth per se or domestic unrest, explains this rapid diffusion of restrictions. We develop and test two hypotheses: (1) states adopt NGO restrictions in response to nonarmed bottom-up threats in their regional environment (“learning from threats”); (2) states adopt NGO restrictions through imitation of the legislative behavior of other states in their regional environment (“learning from examples”). Using an original dataset on NGO restrictions in ninety-six countries over a period of twenty-five years (1992–2016), we test these hypotheses by means of negative binomial regression and survival analyses, using spatially weighted techniques. We find very limited evidence for learning from threats, but consistent evidence for learning from examples. We corroborate this finding through close textual comparison of laws adopted in the Middle East and Africa, showing legal provisions being taken over almost verbatim from one law into another. In our conclusion, we spell out the implications for the quality of democracy and for theories of transition to a postliberal order, as well as for policy-makers, lawyers, and civil-society practitioners.

Tempering Transnational Advocacy? The Effect of Repression and Regulatory Restriction on Transnational NGO Collaborations

“…Following the literature investigating government motivations for restrictions and repression (Dupuy et al, 2016;Glasius et al, 2020), we hold that while many governments legitimize their interventions in civil society as attempts to free domestic politics from foreign influence, in practice most regimes installing these restrictions and engaging in repression do so out of domestic political motivations. Restrictions and repression serve to keep regimes in power and silence or weaken political adversaries.…”

“…We now have a fairly good understanding of why countries have been increasing political repression of NGOs, as well as the trends in that repression (Bromley et al., 2020; Buyse, 2018; Christensen and Weinstein, 2013; Dupuy et al., 2014; Dupuy et al., this issue; Glasius et al., 2020; Howell et al., 2008). However, the effects of these new regulations on the entities they seek to constrain (NGOs) have been less well examined.…”

The Selective Closure of Civic Space

“…Specific objectives mentioned when restricting the space for women's rights organizations include the preservation of the traditional family model and traditional gender roles and maintaining national demographic sustainability (Krizs an and Roggeband, 2021). Diffusion and cross-national learning effects (Glasius et al 2020) contribute to the massive spread of restrictive legislation.…”

“…In the next part of the paper, we move to our three country cases to compare the different mechanisms used by governments to reorganize the space for civic activism, in our case by curtailing women's rights activism and promoting anti-gender campaigns. Our operationalization of curtailing civic space builds upon the distinction of Glasius et al (2020) between three types of legal restrictions affecting CSOs: barriers to entry, to resources and to advocacy, complemented with other measures used to curtail civic space identified by the literature (Carothers and Brechenmacher 2014). We define the three aspects of the reorganization of civic space: (1) access to the political arena, particularly civil participation in decision-making processes (providing information to the government, consultation, political voice); (2) access to resources, particularly access to state funding, foreign funding and ideologically motivated sanctions; and (3) access to advocacy space, where we consider measures that affect freedom of association, freedom of speech and space to share information and to protest.…”

The Mediation Dilemma of (Not) Talking to Terrorists

“…One example is the attention given to the liberal norm of inclusivity (von Burg 2015, Paffenholz 2010). However, a recent surge in interest in the diffusion of illiberal norms (Glasius et al 2020) has also been reflected in the peacebuilding and mediation literature. Julia Palmiano Federer (2018) explored the consequences of the illiberal norm of excluding armed groups proscribed as terrorist organisations on mediators’ normative agency.…”