Member Influence and Involvement in Civil Society Organizations: A Resource Dependency Perspective on Groups and Parties

Abstract

Which membership-based voluntary organizations constitutive of civil society such as parties, interest groups or service-oriented organizations keep their members active and which forms of activism do they cultivate? This article addresses this important question distinguishing two forms of ‘member activism’: ‘member involvement’, defined as members working for an organization, and ‘member influence’, defined as members’ participation in intra-organizational decision-making. Building on incentive-theoretical approaches to leader–member relations and resource dependency theory, we present a theoretical framework specifying distinct drivers of each form of member activism, which is tested using new data from four organization surveys conducted in four most different European democracies. None of the theorized factors has the same robust effect on both involvement and influence. Most notably, professionalization – reliance on paid staff – has a positive effect on involvement and a negative one on influence, stressing the need to distinguish carefully the different roles members play in civil society organizations.

The Representative Potential of Interest Groups: Internal Voice in Post-Communist and Western European Countries

“…This correlation supports the validity of our measurement for assessing the formal (opportunities for influence), behavioural (actual use of these opportunities), and anticipated (leadership expectations regarding the possible views of members) components of "internal voice." The correlation also increases our confidence that our operationalisation is comparable to that of earlier studies, such as those based on executive board elections (Stavenes & Ivanovska Hadjievska, in press), several formal organisational features (e.g., Albareda, 2018Albareda, , p. 1218, and some combination of statutory formal membership influence indicators and leadership perceptions regarding the involvement of members (e.g., Binderkrantz, 2009, p. 669;Bolleyer & Correa, 2022).…”

“…In this article, we extend earlier studies (e.g., Berkhout, Hanegraaff, & Maloney 2021;Binderkrantz, 2009;Bolleyer & Correa, 2022;Stavenes & Ivanovska Hadjievska, in press), further develop a so-called organisational view on interest group politics and situate interest groups more centrally in an understanding of the quality of democracy. This contribution of the study is especially relevant due to the process of democratic backsliding that is currently occurring across several EU countries.…”

“…We are not alone in our focus on voice practices as an important benchmark for the representative quality of interest groups (e.g., Albareda, 2018;Bolleyer & Correa, 2022;Fraussen et al, 2021;Heylen et al, 2020;Warren, 2001). Voice is understood to have both formal and behavioural components.…”

“…Several studies have identified professionalisation (e.g., Bolleyer & Correa, 2022;Heylen et al, 2020) and political accommodation as threats to (e.g., Schmitter & Streeck, 1999) or incentives for (e.g., Grömping & Halpin, 2019) membership involvement. Business and professional associations also seem to offer more voice to members than citizen groups do (Berkhout, Hanegraaff, & Maloney, 2021), and the multi-layered nature of EU politics creates particular challenges and opportunities regarding membership involvement (Albareda Sanz, 2021;Hollman, 2018;Ronit, 2018).…”

Party guests or party crashers? Non-members’ political engagement across party organizations

“…Several studies have explored empirically how parties manage affiliation (Kosiara-Pedersen et al 2017;van Haute & Gauja 2015;Bolleyer & Correa 2020). Yet, further empirical research on the involvement of non-members is needed in order to explore the degree to which this trend could help parties to strengthen the representational linkage between citizens and the state.…”