BEBBINGTON, A.J.; Hickley, S.; Mitlin, D. C. (ed.)(2008) in: Can NGOs Make a Difference? The Challenge of Development Alternative, London: Zed Books. PriF http://www.email.cz/getAttachment?session=u%D4%839%60%9C%94%AF%034W%C9n%F7%8B%AF%F6%3EeQ%15%A7ZU%81 %A6%E5%99e%F0%F9%BCw%FFS%01%FA%8D%D5%DE%FF%B8b%06y%B0r5%21o%FDZCm%D1%B0%D6J%B7%E8%9E%C9%8E%40%C9%CA %B4%01%8F%8A%81%23%28q%86Co%D7%AF8%1C-%8C%26K%92J%BC%14%E9%AE%EA%D3k%D4X%ED%E9%23f%C5%DFUP%C1%E2WG% 3Fk%D2%F6 OPVK Inovace výuky geografických studijních oborů, CZ.1.07/2.2.00/15.0222 ž80s and 90s – market led- economies – tendency to move away from central government activities and decision-making to a more decentralized approach (Willis, 2005:96). žDecentralizing government – greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness ž- neo-liberal agenda transferring decision-making to the more local level – people would have a greater say in the decisions made about their services ž žMove away form the central state as the key player in the ´development´ žNGOs – panacea for ´development problems´ range of organizations - žOverview – one.world.net – links to a range of development organization (Willis, 2005:98) ž žThe term ‘civil society’ has a direct equivalent in Latin (societas civilis), and a close equivalent in ancient Greek (politike koinona). žWhat the Romans and Greeks meant by it was something like a ‘political society’, with active citizens shaping its institutions and policies. žIt was a law-governed society in which the law was seen as the expression of public virtue, the Aristotelian ‘good life’. ž žCivilisation was thus linked to a particular form of political power in which rulers put the public good before private interest. ž žThis also very clearly implied that, both in time and in place, there were people excluded, non-citizens, barbarians, who did not have a civil society. ž žThomas Hobbes - the state of nature was a ‘warre . . of every man against every man’ (1990: 88) and the main benefit of living in a civil society was physical security. žFor Locke, on the other hand, the state of nature was more prone to war than was civil society but its main characteristic was the absence of a rule of law. žLocke was concerned about restraints on arbitrary power; thus the rights enjoyed in civil society also included the right to liberty and to private property. žThe Scottish Enlightenment thinkers of the eighteenth century were the first to emphasise the importance of capitalism as a basis for the new individualism and a rights-based society. ž žOne of the most extensive treatments of civil society is by Adam Ferguson, in An Essay on the History of Civil Society ž(Ferguson 1995), first published in 1767. In this book he tried to resurrect the Roman ideal of civic virtue in a society where capitalism was taking the place of žfeudalism. In order to have a civil society, men — not women, of course, in that age — need to take an active interest in the government of their polit ž ž ž žIt gained more prominence when philosophers began to contemplate the foundations of the emerging nation state in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. žA key assumption for the concept of civil society was the Christian notion of human equality. žAt that time, it was linked to the idea of a rights-based society in which rulers and the ruled are subject to the law, based on a social contract. žLocation (North, N and S, S) žLevel of operation (international, regional national, community) žOrientation (welfare activities and service provision, emergency relief, development education, participation and empowerment, self-sufficiency, advocacy, networking) žOwnership – non-memebership support organization žMembership organizations žAnswer to perceived limitations of the state or market in facilitation development because ž1) can provide services that are more appropriate to local communities ž(work wt population at grassroot level) žAble to provide services more efficiently and effectively through drawing on local people´s knowledge žAble to react more quickly to local demands žNon-material aspects of development – empowerment, participation and democratization ž žLarge part of multilateral and bilateral aid channelled through NGOs žPart of New Policy Agenda (NPA) – neo-liberal approach within the international institutions (cf WB). žUp to 10% of ODA žAssesing the number of NGOs difficult – žDefinitional difficulties, differing registration practicess accross the globe žUNDP 2000 – 145,405 NGOs in the world ž ž žWhen population numbers are taken into account, the UNPD figures suggest that the vast majority of the world´s population has no opportunity to interact with an NGO in any meaningful way. ž žIndia – 2 million associations, however 1718 NGOs (Willis, 2005:100) žEcuador Viviendas del Hogar de Cristo Project, Guayaquil (1,6 population million) ž60% build their own dwelling žPoor quality and lack of access to basic services (water, sanitation) žSet up by a Catholic priest to help to address housing need in the city žWood frame with bamboo panels – can be constructe in a day žParticipant have access to credit throuth NGO žOfficial housing for over 138dollar / month žInformal sector – less than 100 žNGO – fund from donations alloving them to provide housing for free 1/3 ž ž ž žNGO ability to ´empower individuals´ (Willis, 2005102) – important part of the NGOs enthusiasm žIdea of having greater power and therefore more control over your life žDoes not recognize the different ways in which ´power´ can be defined žPower over - is associated with the process of marginalization and exclusion thought which groups are portrayed as pwoerless ž ž žPower over – the ability to dominate žThis form of power is finite, so that if someone obtains more power then it automatically leas to someone else having less power. žPower to – the ability to see possibilities for change žPower with – the power that comes form individuals working together collectively to achieve common goals žPower within – feeling of self-worth and self-esteem that come form within individuals. žA key element of empowerment as development outcome – interventions leading to empowerment. žOften claimed – NGOs empower communities – in reality not the case žEmpowerment is something that comes from within žNGOs can provide context within which a process of empowerment is possible, only individuals can choose to take opportunities and use them žOne of the key routes though which empowerment is meant to be achieved – through participation žGrassroots development - is often termed participatory žParticipation - umbrella term to refer to the involvement of local people in development activities žParticipation can take place in different stages in the setting up of development projects. ž ž ž žAppraisal – way of understanding the local community and their understandings of wider processes PRA, PUA žAgenda setting – involvement of local community in decisions about development policies, consulted and listened to from the start, not brought in once policy haws been decided upon ž žEfficiency – involvement of local community in projects – building schools žEmpowerment – participation leads to greater self-awareness and confidence; contributions to development of democracy ž žParticipation – new tyranny in development work žThe notion of participation is included in every dimension of development policy, but no recognition of: ž žThe time and energy requirement of local people to participate žThe heterogeneity of local populations meaning that community participation does not always involve all sectors of population ž žJust being involved does not necessarily lead to empowerment ž žFocusing at a micro level can often lead to a failure to recognize much wider structures of disadvantage and oppression ž žBebbington et al. žCowen and Shenton (1996) Doctrines of Development žDistinction between development as an immanent and unintentional process ( development of capitalism) žAnd intentional policies žDifference – small and big D - Development žHart( 2001:650) geographically uneven, profoundly contradicotry set of processes undarlying capitalist development ž žWhat is the impact of globalization on on inequality and social stratification? ž ž´project of intervention´ in the third world – that emerged in the context of decolonization and the cold was ž žMutual relationships but non-deterministic ž žOffers a means of clarifying the relationship between development policy and development practice žDiverse impact for different social groups (cf Bauman, Globalization) žAnd underlying process of uneven development that create exlusions and inequality for many and enhanced opportunities for others. ž žAlternatives – cf alternative ways of arranging microfinance, project planning, serives delivery žEg alternative ways of intervening žAlternatives can be conceived in relation to the underlying process of capitalit development (little development) ž emphasis is on alternative ways of organizing the economy, politics and social relationships in a society žRemormist – partial, intervention-specific, žRadical – systemic alternatives žWarning of too sharp distinction – NGOs can forge between apparently technocratic interventions (service delivery) and broader transformations žDissapointments Bebbington et al. – tendency to indentify more readily with alternative forms of interventions than with more systemic changes žStrong grounds for reversing this trend. ž žState, market and civil society žTripartite division – is often used to understand and locate NGOs as civil society actors žProblems: žA) excessively normative rahter than analytical – sources of ´good´ as opposed to ´bad´ - imputed to the state adn market ž žUnderstate the potential role of the state in fostering progressive chance žDownplaying the extent to thich civil society – also a real of activity for racist organizations, business-sponsoer research NGOs and other organization that Bebbingtal and al. do not consider benign žThe relative fluidity of boundaries + politics of revolving door – žgrowing tendency for people to move back and forth between NGOs, government and occasionally business žunderestimated in academic writing žNGOs – relatively recent organizational forms compared to religious institutions, political movements, government and transnational networks žExistence of NGOs – understood in terms of relationship to more cosntitutive actors in society ž1) level of ideology and theory – notion of civil society – flourishes most fruitfully withint either the neoliberal school of thoughts that is reduced role for the state žOr neomarxist and post/structural approach emphasizing the transformative potential of social movemtns within civil society. ž ž2) Conceptual level žCivil society – civil society treated in terms of associations or as an arena of contesting ideas about ordering of social life žProponents of both approches – civil society offering a critical path towards Aristotles´ s the good society´. ž žGramscian understanding of civil society žas constituting an arena in which hegemonic ideas concerning the organization of economic and social life are both established and contested ž žGramsci (1971) perceived state and civils society to be mutually constitutive rather than separate autonomus entities žWith both formed in relation to historical and structural forces žGlobalization – as the most potent force within late moderntiy žNGOs have increasingly become a transnational community, itself overlapping the other transnational networks and institutions žLinkages and networks disperse new forms of development discourse and modes of governance ž žSome southern NGOs – began to gain their own footholds in the North with their outposts in Brussels, Washington etc ž(Grameen Foundation, BRAC, breadline Africa) žDrawback - transnationalizing tendencies – exclusion of certain marginalized people and groups žTrasnationalizing tendencies – excluded certain actors for whom engagement in such process is harder žEmergence of international civil society elites žwho dominante the discourses and flows channelled through the transnational community žQuestion – as to whose alternatives gain greater visibilitiy in these processes !!!!!! ž ž žTransnationalizing Development (big D) – SAPs, proverty-reduction strategy papers) žGrowing importance of any alternative project žIncreasing channelling of state-controlled resources through NGOs žResources become bundled with particular rules and ideas žNGOs – increasingly faced with opportunities related to the dominant ideas and rules žNGOs – vehicle of neoliberal governmentality? žDisciplining local organizations and populations in much the same way as the Development has done it žUnderestimate the extent to which such pressure are resisted by some NGOs ž ž žNGOs – sustain broader funding base – tool to negotiate and rework some of the pressures žPotential ability of NGOs to mobilize the broader networks and institutions within which they are embedded žPotential for muting such disciplining effects žCf International Campaign to Ban Landmines; Jubilee 2000 ž can provide other resources and relationships of power – cf Jesuit community, bud also transnational corporate actors (sit on a number of NGOs boards) žNGOs – not necessarily characterized by uneven North-South relations žMore horizontal experience (Slum Dwellers International) Spatial reworking of development žincreased opprotunities for socially excluded groups žReconstruction of ActionAid – HQ in Johannesburg ž1980s NGOs decade žThese new actors - lauded as the institutional alternative to existing develpment approaches (Hirschman, Korten) ž ž ž žlargely muted, confined to expressing concerns – that NGOs - externally imposed phenomenon žFar from being alternative; they heralded a new wave of imperialism ž ž ž žNGOs under closer and more critical scrutiny žInternal debate how to scale up NGO activities žmore effectiveness of NGOs and to ensuring their sustainability ž žCloseness to the mainstream undermined their comparative advantage as agents of alternative development žWith particular attenton falling on problems of standardization and upwards accountability (discuss) ž žApparently limited success of NGOs as agents of democratization came under critique žThreatened the development of indigenous civil society and distracted attention from more political organization (Bebbington et al., 2008:10) ž ž ž žFirst period - long history of limited number of small agencies žresponding to the needs of groups of people perceived as poor who received little external professional support ž(Bebbington et al., 2008:11) ž ž ž žLargely issue-based organizations combined both philanthopic action and advocacy žNorthern based - against generaly embedded both in broader movements and in networks that mobilized voluntary contributions ž žOften linked to other organizations providing them with an institutional bnase and funding,, frequently linked to wider religious institutions and philantropists ž žAlso clear interactions with state around legal reform as well as with market - generated most recourses then transferred through foundations ž(model that continues through today on a far massive scale) ž žFrom the North - some interventions emereged from the legacy of colonialism žSuch as volunteer programmes sending expeerts of ´undercapacited´ counrries or organization that derived from missionary interventions (Bebbington et al., 2008:11) žMinor or no structural reforms ž ž ž žsome interventions were of organization whose mission adn/or staff recognized the need for structural reforms, only rarely was such work altenrative in any systemic sense, žOr in the sense that it sought to change the balance of hegemonic ideas, be these about the organization of society or the provision of services. ž(Bebbington et al., 2008:11) ž žconsolidation of NGOs co-financing programmes, žwillingness of Northern states and societies to institutionalize NGOs projects within their national aid portforlios (direct financing) ž ž žGeopolitical moment - sector became increasingly critical žNGOs imperative - to elaborate and contribute to alternative arrangements among state, market and civil society ž žDevelopment ( as a project) closely scrutinized, reflecting the intersection between NGOs and political struggles around national independence and various socialisms ž ž žStruggles between political projects and intellectual debates on dependency, stucturalist and Marxian intepretation of the development process žAlternative development – become a strong terms, intellectual backing – cf (Schumacher) ž ž žNumerous influences - awareness of the need for local institutional development, žreduction in the formal colonial presence and contradictions inherent in the Norhtern NGOs model – žsteady shift from operational to funding roles for Northern NGOs and the growht of a Southern NGOs sector ž žGrowth and recognition for NGOs ž80s - period of NGOS boom žcontradiction of NGO alternatives žincrease of NGO activity during the 80s was driven to a significant extent by unfolding neoliberal agenda - the very agenda that development alternatives have sought to critically engage ž žChallenges to Participation, Citizenship and Democracy: Perverse Confluence and Displacement of Meaning žBrazil – participation of civil society in the building of democracy and social justice žExistence of perverse confluence between participatory and neoliberal political projects žThe confluence charaterizes the contemporary scenario of this struggle for defending democracy in Brazil and LA ž žDispute over different meanings of citizenship, civil society and participation ž- core referents for the understanding of that confluence and the form that i takes in the the Brazilian conflict žThe process of democratic construction in Brazil – faces important dilemma because of this confluence žTwo different processes ž1) process of enlargement of democracy – creation of public spaces and increasing participation of civil society in discussion and decision making processes žFormal landmark – Constitution 1988 žConsecrated the principle of the participation of civil society žGrew out of a partticipation project constructed since 1980s around extension of citizenship and deepening democracy ž- project emerged from the struggle against the military regime žLed by sector of civil society among which social movements played and important role žTwo elements important: ž1) re-establishment of formal democracy žDemocracy taken into the realm of state power žMunicipal as well as state executives ž1990s actors making hte transition from civil society to the state žLed by belief in the possibility of joint action between the civil society and the state ž ž- reduced minimal state žProgressively exempts itself form its role as a guarantor of rights by shrinking its social responsibility žTransferring the responsibility to the civil society žThe pervesity – these projects points in opposite even antagonistic directions žEach of them requires as a proactive civil society žNotion of citizenship, participation and civil society are central elements žThis coincidence at the discursive level hides fundamental distinctions and divergence of the two projects žObscuring them through the use of common vocabulary ž žObscuring them through the use of a common vocabulary as well as of institutional mechanism that at first seemed quite similar žDiscursive shift – common vocabulary obscures divergences and contradictions ž- a displacement of meaning becomes effective žIn this process the perverse confluence creates image of apparent homogoneity among different interests and discourses žConcealing conflict and diluting the dispute between these tho projects. žIn practice unwilling to shapre their decision making with respect to the formation of public politices žBasic intention – have the organization of civil society assument the fucntiosn and responsibilities resptricted to the implementation and the realization of these policies žProviding services formely consideret to be duties of the state ž žSome CS organizations accept this circumscription of their roles and the meaning of participation žCS accept the circumscritpion of their roles and the meaning of participation žIn doing so they contribute to its legitimization žOthers react to these pervese confluence – regarding their political role ž žThe implementation of the neiliberal project – requires shrinking of hte social responsibilities of the state žAnd their transference to civil society žSignificant inflection of political culture žBrazilian case – implementation of neoliberal project - had to confront a concolidated participatory project maturing for more than 20 years Global civil society žspread of the term ‘global civil society’ reflects an underlying social reality. žWhat we can observe in the 1990s is the emergence of a supranational sphere of social and political participation žin which citizens groups, social movements, and individuals engage in dialogue, debate, confrontation, and negotiation with each other and with various governmental actors—international, national, and local—as well as the business ž ž žINGOs are not new. ž19th century -, term - during the League of Nations period. žThe earliest INGO is generally said to be the antislavery žsociety, formed as the British and Foreign žAnti-Slavery Society in 1839, žThe International Committee of the Red Cross ž(ICRC) was founded by Henri Dunant in 1864 after his žexperiences in the Battle of Solferino. ž ž1,083 by 1914 (Chatfield 1997). žINGOsgrew steadily after World War II but our figures show žan acceleration in the 1990s. ž1/4 of the 13,000 INGOs in existence today were created after 1990 žwell over 1/3 of the membership of INGOs joined after 1990. žThese figures include only NGOs narrowly defined as ž‘international’; they do not include national NGOs žwith an international orientation. ž žThe second proposition is that global civil society both feeds on and reacts to globalisation. ž In the social science literature it is usually defined as growing žinterconnectedness in political, social, and cultural spheres as well as the economy, something which has been greatly facilitated by travel and communication ž(see Held et al. 1999). ¨ žIt is also sometimes used to refer to growing global consciousness, the sense of a common community of mankind (Shaw2000; Robertson 1990). ž žGlobal civil society is best categorised not in terms of types of actors but in terms of positions in relation to globalisation. ž ž žThose groups and individuals who are enthusiastic about globalisation, žspread of global capitalism and interconnectedness or the spread of a global rule of law as well as global consciousness. žThey include the allies of transnational business, the proponents of ‘just wars for human rights’, and the enthusiasts for all new technological developments. žThese are members of civil society, close to governments and business, who think that globalisation in its present form is ‘a jolly good thing’ and that those who object just fail to understand the benefits. ž ž žRejectionists: those who want to reverse globalisation and return to a world of nation-states. žThey include proponents of the new right, who may favour global capitalism but oppose open borders and the spread of a global rule of law. žThey also include leftists who oppose global capitalism but do not object to the spread of a global rule of law. žNationalists and religious fundamentalists as well as traditional leftist anticolonial movements or communists who oppose interference in sovereignty are also included in this group. žThey think all or most manifestations of globalisation are harmful, and they oppose it with all their might. žOne might also think of this group as fundamentalists, but we rejected this term as being judgemental. ž ž ž žthe reformists, in which a large part of global civil society resides. žReformists are a large category, which includes those who want to make specific and incremental change as well as radicals who aim at bigger and more transformative change. žThese are people who accept the spread of global capitalism and global interconnectedness as potentially beneficial to mankind but see the need to ‘civilise’ the process. žfavour reform of international economic institutions and want greater social justice and rigorous, fair, and participatory procedures for determining the direction of new technologies, and who strongly favour a global rule of law and press for enforcement. ž ž žalternatives: these žare people and groups who neither necessarily oppose nor support the process of globalisation but who wish to opt out, to take their own course of action independently of government, international institutions, and transnational corporations. Their primary concern is to develop their own way of life, create their own space, without interference. This manifests itself in the case of biotechnology in growing and ž žKant and Hegel were among the readers ž Hegel had a great ždeal to say about civil society, not all of which is žeasily understandable, but one of the most important žpoints for the further development of the concept is žthat he saw civil society as something separate from, žalthough symbiotic with, the state (Hegel 1991). Civil žsociety for him consisted of men trading and ž žUNGA – UN General Assembly žUNEP – environmental programme žWCED – World Commission on Environment and Development ž ž INGOs became much more interconnected both to each other and to international institutions like the United Nations or the World Bank žGrowth of the global range of INGO presence grown during the last decade, but the networks linking these organisations are becoming denser as well. žIn Held’s terms (Held et al. 1999), our data suggest that global civil society is becoming ‘thicker’. ž žprivate giving has also increased from both foundations and corporations. žit is estimated that global civil society receives approximately $7 billion in development funds and $2 billion in funds from US foundations. žJohns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project show that the number of full-time equivalent employment in INGOs for France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom alone amounts to over 100,000 and that volunteers in INGOs represent an additional 1.2 million full-time ž jobs in these countries ž ž žglobal civil society is heavily concentrated in north-western Europe, especially in Scandinavia, the Benelux countries, Austria,Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. ž60 per cent of the secretariats of INGOs are based in the European Union žone third of their membership is in western žEurope žThis new form of activism takes place against the background of the ‘development industry’ and the spread of INGOs in the South for service delivery and development assistance. žactivism and developmentalism may explain why, after Europe, the figures on INGOs show the greatest membership densities not for other advanced industrial countries but for countries in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa ž žThe relatively low membership densities in East Asia, South Asia, and North America are to be explained, in the case of East Asia, by the relatively low degree of INGO organisation in general and, in the case of South Asia (particularly India) and the United States, by the relative lack of interest of local NGOs in global issues. ž žWhereas in 2002 we developed and introduced the Global Civil Society Index, and in 2003 examined aspects of geographical distribution by focusing on the spatial patterns of global civil society, žthe 2004 methodology chapter looks at the relational aspects of transnational interconnectedness. žIn other words, our focus is on global civil society as a transnational system of social networks and, methodologically speaking, on analysing global civil society through the lens of network analysis. ž žWe are interested in finding out how useful the various approaches and tools of network analysis are for describing, analysing and understanding global civil society. žexplores the utility of network analysis for examining patterns in global connectedness among non-contiguous, multisite entities, žusing interpersonal and interorganisational and other network ties as the basic unit of analysis. Given the space limitations of this chapter, we can only ž žNetwork analysis is not a theory but a set of related approaches, techniques and tools for describing and analysing relationships among individuals, organisations and other social entities. žWhat unites these different approaches is a basic focus on structure. žPut differently, network analysis measures social reality not by reference to people’s individual attributes (gender, class, age, values, and so on) but by looking at their social relationships, the patterns they form, and their implications for choices and behaviour. ž žFor network analysis it is important to know how people (or organisations) are connected and relate to each other, and what structural patterns emerge from such interconnectedness. žIt is connectedness, not attributes, that is at the focus of network analysis. žNetwork analysis is a highly technical field, yet has retained a very straightforward basic intellectual thrust, with three major approaches that take different, though complementary, paths: ž ž žI. micro-level view that looks at ego-centered networks and focuses on one particular individual or organisation and its connectedness; analysing personal and professional network and their mathematical properties such as reach, density, overlaps, and so on would be an example žII. macro-level perspective that addresses emergent structures among network members; for example, the patterns that can be identified in the relations from not only Akiko’s perspective but from those of all her colleagues and friends combined ž ž žhyper-networks that examine network structure generated by combining networks of the same or different kinds. žNGOs create links not only between members within the respective organisations but also among the organisations through joint or interlocking memberships, that is, the hyper-network. ž žnetwork analysis - useful irrespective of the relatively high level of technical and mathematical knowledge it requires:global civil society is a very relational, ‘networky’ phenomenon. žIndeed, globalisation research is rich in network metaphors, and many connote some notion of connectedness. ž žnetwork analysis - promising because - little affected by nation-state thinking and national traditions, žtherefore facilitates the analysis of non-contiguous social units that traverse the nation state, even regions and continents. žAs a field, it developed in a systematic way only from the mid-1970s with the publication of two seminal papers (White, Boorman, and Breiger, žIt initially emphasised small, local networks rather than the larger, macro-level units like the nation state, and disregarded the statistical systems that dominated conventional social science at that time žKeane (2001: 23–4) who describes global civil society as an ‘interconnected and multilayered social space’ comprised of ‘cross-border networks’ and ‘chains of interaction’ linking the local to the global; Roseneau(1995) who describes global governance as a framework of horizontal relations; žCastells’ (1996) argument that actors increasingly form metanetworks at the transnational level and create a system ž žits usefulness in analysing transnational´ phenomenon was unintentional, as its rapid development over the last 25 years was largely confined to an elite of American, European and Australian sociologists who cared about the structure of social relations independent of locale and circumstance. ž ž žLoosely organised around the Sunbelt Network Conference, they paid little attention to the cultural meanings and contents of social ties; instead, what seemed important was the explanatory power that combinatorics, Boolean algebra, and graph theory could bring to the analysis of complex social structures. ž žYet it is precisely this ‘acultural’ or somewhat ‘removed’ quality that makes network analysis attractive in examining the relational patterns of global civil society. žSince it is based on lower levels of aggregation and is not limited by geography or political units, network analysis is potentially a very promising tool for examining transnational phenomena like global civil society. ž žPut simply, for network analysis it primarily matters whether actors A and B are connected or not, and what their connections with others such as C, D or E might be; žthe fact that A might be French, B, Nigerian, C, American, D, Japanese and E, German or Israeli matters only secondarily. žThe structure of relations is key. ž žchapter explores the utility of network analysis for examining patterns in global connectedness among non-contiguous, multisite entities, using interpersonal and interorganisational and other network ties as the basic unit of analysis. ž ž žSince the 1970s, Castells points out, enabling technologies such as telecommunications and the Internet brought about the ascendancy of a ‘network society’ whose processes occur in a new type of space, which he labels the ‘space of flows’. This space, comprising a myriad of exchanges, came to dominate the ‘space of places’ of territorially defined units of states, regions and neighbourhoods, thanks to its greater flexibility and compatibility with the new logic of network society. ž ž ž ž