2022/01/01 by Suparna Chaudhry · 1 voice · 133 citations
Social Sciences · #Business #Civil society #Corporate governance #Development economics #Economics #Human rights #Law #Legitimacy #Peacebuilding and International Security #Political Conflict and Governance #Political economy #Political science #Politics #Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East #Sociology #State (computer science)
paper · doi:10.1017/s0020818321000473
published in International Organization 76(3), 549-590 (University of Cambridge)
openalex publication_date 2022/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/31
Abstract Nongovernmental organizations are central to contemporary global governance, and their numbers and influence have grown dramatically since the middle of the twentieth century. However, in the last three decades more than 130 states have repressed these groups, suggesting that a broad range of states perceive them as costly. When they choose to repress NGOs, under what conditions do states use violent strategies versus administrative means? The choice depends on two main factors: the nature of the threat posed by these groups, and the consequences of cracking down on them. Violent crackdown is useful in the face of immediate domestic threats, such as protests. However, violence may increase the state's criminal liability, reduce its legitimacy, violate human rights treaties, and further intensify mobilization against the regime. Therefore, states are more likely to use administrative crackdown, especially in dealing with long-term threats, such as when NGOs influence electoral politics. I test this theory using an original data set of administrative crackdowns on NGOs, as well as violent crackdown on NGO activists, across all countries from 1990 to 2013. To shed light on the strategic decision between violent or administrative crackdown, and how states may perceive threats from domestic and international NGOs differently, I provide a case study from India. I conclude by discussing the implications of this crackdown for the use of civil society actors by the international community, as well as donors and citizens in the global South.