CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Nonprofit Sector and VolunteeringPolitical Theory and DemocracyGlobalization and political ideologies

Toward a Coherent Framework: A Typology and Conceptualization of CSO Regulatory Regimes

Open access
DeMattee, Anthony J.·2019·Nonprofit Policy Forum
DOI 10.1515/npf-2018-0011
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Scholarship and practitioners interested in civil society organizations (CSOs) around the world have drawn attention to the growing set of laws—both restrictive and permissive—governing CSO activities. To date, however, there have been limited efforts to typologize these regulations which hinders the ability to analyze their emergence and effects. This article seeks to move scholarship toward a coherent framework by first, introducing a broad typology of governance, formation, operations, and resources provisions that allows for a systematic study of CSO laws and policies across contexts; and second, proposing four ideal-types of regulatory regimes, rigid-conservatism, bureaucratic-illiberalism, permissionless-association, and legitimized-pluralism. These regulatory regimes are political institutions that consist of multiple laws and constitutional protections that govern and protect civil society. The article theorizes the effect of each ideal-type regulatory regime on CSOs’ organizational ecology. To provide a concrete example, I apply the typology to the case of Kenya to show how its regulatory regime has changed incrementally over time. Methodologically, the article uses an iterative, inductive review and analysis of academic articles, book chapters, and practitioner reports contributing to our understanding of the laws and policies that regulate CSOs, or what I call CSO regulatory regimes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/npf-2018-0011

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cybercrime and telecommunication laws contain provisions that pressure intermediaries to report prohibited content, store and provide access to data upon official request, or legalize interception of digital communication.

    “Cybercrime and telecommunication laws, in particular, contain provisions that pressure intermediaries, such as ISPs or content hosts, to report prohibited content, 111 store and provide access to data upon official request, 112 or legalize the interception of digital communication.113”

    From Legalizing control: the rise of restrictive internet regulation in sub-Saharan Africa (2026) · cites this paper as [111]

    Section 3.1.3 discusses reporting requirements for civil society organizations, but not obligations imposed on ISPs or content hosts. Searches for cybercrime, telecommunications, data access, and interception found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed provisions. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Chaudhry, Suparna 2016. "The Assault on Democracy Assistance: Explaining State Repression of NGOs." Ph.D., Political Science, Yale Univer- sity (Dissertation/thesis number 10583219).
  2. Cunningham, Andrew. 2018. "Law as Discourse: The Case of Ethiopia." In International Humanitarian NGOs and State Relations: Politics, Princi- ples and Identity. London: Routledge.
  3. Gerring, John. 2012. "Descriptive Arguments." In Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework, 141-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Gershman, Carl, and Michael Allen. 2006. "The Assault on Democracy Assistance." Journal of Democracy 17 (2): 36-51.
  5. Ndegwa, Stephen N. 1996. "NGOs and the State in Kenya." In The Two Faces of Civil Society: NGOs and Politics in Africa, 31-54. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
  6. Rutzen, Douglas. 2015. "Aid Barriers and the Rise of Philanthropic Protectionism." International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law 17 (1): 1-42.
  7. Salamon, Lester M., and Susan L. Q. Flaherty. 1997. "Nonprofit Law: Ten Issues in Search of Resolution." In The International Guide to Nonprofit Law, edited by Lester M. Salamon, and Stefan Toepler, 8-42. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
DeMattee, A. J.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Corresponding author
DeMattee, Anthony J.
ORCID
DeMattee, Anthony J.
Venue
Nonprofit Policy Forum
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Published
2019-01-15
Volume
9
Issue
4
ISSN
2154-3348 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1515/npf-2018-0011
OpenAlex
W2908755525
Cited by
20
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
4.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Nonprofit Policy Forum (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Globalization and political ideologies
Keywords
civil society organizations, nonprofit regulation, regulatory typology, ideal types, organizational ecology, Kenya, civil society governance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review