Civil Society Culture in Voluntary Organizations of Turkey

8/9/2019 Civil Society Culture in Voluntary Organizations of Turkey

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civil-society-culture-in-voluntary-organizations-of-turkey 1/42

Research SummaryJuly 7, 2010

YADA Foundation

Civil Society Culture in Voluntary

Organizations of Turkey



Summary

1. Scope

2. Main Distributions

3. Member Profiles

4. Organizational Infrastructure & Capacity

5. Activities

6. Attitudes & Dispositions

7. Observations



1. Scope: Project Information

Project Team:MesutYeğen (METU, Sociology), Fuat Keyman (Koç, IR) &YADA Research Division

Funding:

TUBİTAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey)

Timeline:November 2007-November 2009

Fieldwork:February 2008-July 2009



1. Scope: Framework & Methodology

• QUALITATIVE FINDINGS• Histories of establishment;

motivations of founders in establishingCSOs

• Declared CSO vision and mission

• Goals and target groups

CIVILTOPOGRAPHY

ANALYSIS

• QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS• Technical and financial capacities• Membership and member profiles• Repertoire of activities

CSOCAPACITIES

• QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS• Demographic properties of CSO board

members• Indicators on their relation to civil

society culture

BOARDMEMBERPROFILES

Organizations

Individuals




• Qualitative design• 50 “complex”

CSOs selected• Ethnographic

analysis

Phase 1

Case Studies

FieldworkPhases




• Questionnaire design;feedback from Phase 1• Pilot interviews; re-design• 2489 face-to-face

interviews with CSOs in 26cities

Phase 2CSO

Interviews




• Simultaneous withPhase 2; shorterquestionnaire

• 4903 interviews in26 cities

Phase 3

BoardMember

Interviews

Coding andAnalysis



• Civil Society

• Civil Society Associations (CSO)

• Non-Governmental Association (NGO)

• Voluntary Organizations (VO)

•

Private Voluntary Organizations (PVO)• Community Based Organizations (CBO)

• Local Organizations (LO)

• Grassroot Organizations (GO)

• Associations & Foundations • legally active

• private

• non-profit• self-governing

• voluntary

1. Scope: Concepts



According to “Field of Activity”

1. Scope: Ways of Classification

Aid / Philanthropy

Sport

Education

Culture

Occupational

HealthDisabilities

Ideological / Political

Arts

…

…

NTEE (National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities)

Culture & Entertainment

Education & Research

HealthSocial Services

Environment

Development & Housing

Law, Advocacy, Politics

Philanthropic Intermediaries & Voluntarism Promotion

International

Religion

Business and Professional Associations, UnionsOther

ICNPO (International Classification of Non-profit Organizations)

Arts, Culture, and Humanities

Environment and Animals

Health

Human Services

International, Foreign Affairs

Public, Societal Benefit

Religion-related

Mutual / Membership BenefitEducation

Unknown




Legal Status

Association

Foundation

Cooperative

Scope of Activity

LocalRegional

National

International

Members

Membership-based

Non-membership-based

Internal Democracy

Hierarchy

Limited Participation

Strong Participation

Employee Profile

Amateur / Volunteer

Professional

Function

NGO

GONGO

QUANGO

DONGO

Economic Stance

Value-oriented

Market-oriented

CONGO

PONGO




Roles (Kendall, 2003)

Service Provider

Advocacy & Improver

Vanguard

Value Guardian

Roles (Kramer, 1981)

Service Provision

Innovation

Advocacy

Expression & Leadership

Community-Building



1. Self-organized

2. Advocate

3. Specialist / Expert

4. Philanthropic / Charity-based

5. Protectionist / Safeguarding-oriented

6. Construction / Beautification-oriented

7. Hometown (hemşerilik ) oriented

8. Socialization-oriented

9. Club

10. Occupational / Sectoral

11. Market-oriented

12. Politics-oriented

13. Subsidiary

Civil-Topographical Categories of Classification, Developed by YADA

Based on:

•

Story of establishment• Aims

• Roles

• Orientations

1. Scope: Civil Topography



Self-organized

Advocate

Specialist

Politics-oriented

OccupationalMarket-oriented

Co-citizenship

Socialization

Club

Subsidiary

Philanthropic

Protectionist

Constr. / Beautif.

Explaining the Categories of Civil-Topographical Classification:

1. Scope: Civil Topography

Expression-oriented

Market-oriented

Socialization-oriented

Subsidiary

Philanthropic




Category Frequency %

Co-citizenship-oriented 428 17.2

Construction / Beautification or. 284 11.4

Socialization-oriented 266 10.7

Politics-oriented 244 9.8

Club 210 8.4

Subsidiary 180 7.2Market-oriented 168 6.8

Occupational 139 5.6

Philanthropic 133 5.3

Self-organized 126 5.1

Specialist / Expert 118 4.7

Protectionist 108 4.3

Advocate 83 3.3

Total 2487 100

Civil Topography Classification

• Small portion: CSOs based on socialbenefit priorities(advocate, protectionist, specialist, self-

organized, philanthropic) % 22.7

• Majority: CSOs prioritizing members’benefits

• “Civil action” as a means of socialization



Activity Frequency %

Aid / Solidarity 462 18.6

Sports 234 9.4

Education 195 7.8

Culture 188 7.6

Occupational 180 7.2

Co-citizenship 161 6.5Construction / Beautification 145 5.8

Health 101 4.1

Donations 89 3.6

Disabilities 84 3.4

Research / Science 61 2.5

Arts 56 2.3

Politics / Ideas 53 2.1Environment / Nature 50 2.0

Fields of Activity

• Many different fields claimed by CSOs

• A few fields dominate


Youth 48 1.9

Human rights 47 1.9

Women 44 1.8

Business 43 1.7

Children 29 1.2

Development 18 0.7Consumers rights 18 0.7

Democracy 17 0.7

Hobbies 16 0.6

Neighborhood 15 0.6

Elderly people 13 0.5

Religious community 12 0.5

Animal rights 9 0.4Agriculture 8 0.3

Other 89 3.6



Regions / Provincial Groups (%)

Southeast Mediterra-

nean

Aegean &

Marmara

Black Sea Middle &

East

Istanbul Ankara Izmir

Self-organized 7.9 3.7 6.6 5.0 6.8 3.1 4.8 8.0

Philanthropic 9.3 2.7 4.6 9.4 10.2 4.5 2.9 6.3

Specialist 4.0 1.1 1.5 3.3 2.4 5.6 10.0 4.0

Advocate 9.3 2.1 3.0 3.3 2.4 2.8 3.8 2.3

Politics-or. 17.2 10.7 6.9 5.5 10.7 10.9 10.4 6.3Club 7.9 9.6 11.4 10.5 3.4 7.6 7.9 9.7

Socialization 11.3 12.3 11.9 10.5 13.2 8.9 8.8 15.3

Cons. / Beaut. 7.9 15.5 12.2 19.9 14.1 9.3 8.6 12.5

Hometown-or. 2.6 8.6 14.0 5.0 13.7 27.2 18.6 17.0

Subsidiary 6.0 7.0 8.4 11.6 7.3 6.1 6.8 7.4

Market-or. 9.3 13.9 8.1 6.1 5.9 5.3 5.2 5.7

Occupational 4.0 7.5 6.9 7.2 4.9 3.6 7.9 4.0

Protectionist 3.3 5.3 4.6 2.8 4.9 5.1 4.3 1.7

Civil Topography Classification According to Regions

• Philanthropic: Middle, Eastern, Southeastern Anatolia;Construction/Beautification: Black Sea region; Advocacyand Politics-oriented: Southeast

•

Specialist: Ankara; Hometown-or.: İstanbul;Socialization: Izmir




3. Member Profiles

% 90.2

% 10.6

% 38.5

% 25.8

% 6.7

% 21.1 % 20.6

% 30.8

% 2.8

% 42.4

% 28.5% 35.9

% 25.9

% 12.3 % 7.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Kurucu Kayıtlı Aktif Son GK katılan

1-25 arası

26-50 arası

51-250 arası

251 ve üstü

Number of:

Founder Members, Registered Members, Active Members, Members in Last Board Elections

• Founder members at

legal minimum

• Low level of activemembers

Founder Registered Active Attended

Board Elections

1-25

26-50

51-250

251 +



# of members (%)

1-50 51-250 251+

Self-organized 12.7 42.1 45.2

Philanthropic 55.9 35.4 8.7

Specialist 34.5 37.9 27.6

Advocate 33.3 35.9 30.8

Politics-or. 35.5 41.5 23.1

Club 45.7 37.0 17.3

Socialization 27.3 37.5 35.2

Cons. / Beaut. 56.5 37.8 5.7

Co-citizenship 7.8 54.8 37.4

Subsidiary 31.6 40.2 28.2

Market-or. 34.1 46.7 19.2

Occupational 18.2 43.1 38.7

Protectionist 38.7 44.3 17.0

Total 31.7 42.4 25.9

Number of Registered Members According to Civil Topography

• Fewer members:Cons./Beaut., Philanthropic, Club

categories

• More mass-based: Self -organized, Hometown, Socialization,Occupational categories

3. Member Profiles



Age Distribution of Registered Members and Board Members

% 13.8

% 69.7

% 16.5

% 9.8

% 51.7

% 38.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

18-30 yaş 31-50 yaş 51 + yaş

Kayıtlı Üyeler (ağırlık)

YK üyeleri (net)

• Middle age dominance

• CSO directors are older

• Foundations are older

• Southeastern CSOs members aged 18-30: % 26

3. Member Profiles

Age 18-30 Age 31-50 Age 51 +

Registered members

Board members

• Club, Self-organized, Politics-oriented voluntary org.s have a youngerthan average member age profile



3. Member Profiles

% 72.3

% 10.4

% 17.3

% 85.6

% 14.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Erkek Kadın Yaklaşık aynı

Kayıtlı Üyeler (ağırlık)

YK üyeleri (net)

Gender According to Registered & Board Members

Men dominate and rule voluntary orgs.

• Female board membersyounger

8.5 % of men17.5 % of women in 18-30 agegroup

• Middle, Eastern, Southeasternorgs. more male-dominated

MEN WOMEN SAME

Registered members

Board members

Men’s domination weakens in Specialist, Advocate, Protectionist orgs.



Multiple Correspondence Analysis:

Registered Member Typologies

GRAVITY CENTER:

- MALE, Aged 31-50, high schoolgraduate, monthly income 1000-2000TL

AFFINITIES:

- High income, 50+age, men, educated foundationmembers: Subsidiary, Market-or., Philanthropic

- Low income, aged 18-30: Self-

organized and Club

- Men, 31+ age, primary or secondaryschool grad., minimum income:Hometown-or. and Construction /Beautification-or.



Multiple Correspondence Analysis:

Board Member Typologies

GRAVITY CENTER:

-MEN, married, 40+yrs. old, 1000-2000 TLincome level, highschool graduate

-Younger, single, lowincome and womencategories far from

center




Ownership of Office Among Voluntary Organizations

% 9.2

% 38.7

% 9.3

% 18.4

% 24.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Düzenli kullanılan birofisi yok

Başkasına ait kiraödeniyor

Başkasına ait düşükkira ödeniyor

Başkasına ait kiraödenmiyor

Kendi mülkiyeti

• Almost one-tenth does not use office

• About half of them rents office

No office Regularly rent Subsidized rent Doesn’t own Owns officebut no rent paid




Paid Employees & Positions

• 60 % of voluntary organization employment isfor infrastructural services . Only 15 % for expert-level jobs 8.5 % are “directors”

Within

orgs.

employing

people

(%)

Within all

orgs.

(%)

Total Employees 100.0 32.8

Secretary 45.7 15.0

Attendant 28.0 9.2

Director 26.0 8.5

Accountant 12.4 4.1

Personnel officer 11.2 3.7

Coordinator 9.2 3.0

Expert 9.2 3.0

Cook 8.2 2.7

Driver 4.6 1.5

Waiter 4.5 1.5Cleaner 4.2 1.4

Security guard 3.2 1.1

Sports trainer 3.1 1.0

Trainer 3.0 1.0

Clerk 2.7 0.9

Manual worker 2.2 0.7

Technician 1.6 0.5

Medical doctor 1.2 0.4

• About 40 % of orgs. in Istanbul & Ankara havepaid employees

• Only 27.2 % of associations have paidemployees. 71.2 % of foundations do so.

• 57.7 % of Market-oriented org. have paidemployees, top percentage among all othercategories

• About half of Subsidiary and Specialist orgs. doso

• Lowest employment rates:Construction/Beautif. & Co-citizenship orientedorgs. (about one in five)

Only 32.8 % of voluntaryorgs. employpaid personnel



22.2

44.7

45.5

46.5

48.5

49.1

50

51.4

55.9

56.1

56.8

57.8

62

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

YYG

Kulüp

Sosyalizasyon

Hemşeri

Hayırsever

Himayeci

Meslek Eksenli

Yan Kuruluş

Siyasi Eksenli

Özörgüt

Savunucu

Uzman

Pazar Eksenli

Office Capacity Index According to Civil Topography (max = 100)

• Market-oriented orgs. lead in technical capacity

• Construction/Beautification org. are weak

%

Conference or performance room 23.2

Multi-purpose room 55.1

Desktop computer 78.1

Laptop computer 27.7

Internet (ADSL) connection 72.7

Telephone switchboard 63.1

Multi-functional printer / copier 65.8

TV set 66.4

Projector 28.5

What is available in offices?

•There are still orgs. withoutcomputers or phones


Market-or.

Specialist

Advocate

Self-organized

Politics-or.

Subsidiary

Occupational

Protectionist.

Philanthropic

Hometown-or.

Socialization

Club

Construction-or.




Annual Income Intervals in Voluntary Organizations (thousands of TL)

• A significant percentage has annualincome below 2000 TL ($1250)

• Almost half of them below 10.000 TL($6250) annually – which is barely enoughfor yearly rent

% 15.7

% 28.9

% 28.3

% 12.5

% 8.8

0 10 20 30 40

2.000 TL ve altı

2.001 - 10.000 TL

10.001 - 50.000 TL

50.001 - 200.000 TL

200.000 TL ve üstü

Average annual income:

Associations: 45.961 TL

($28.725)

Foundations: 386.312 TL($241.445)

Over 200 ($125)

50-200 ($31-$125)

10-50 ($6-$31)

2-10 ($1.2-$6)

Below 2 ($1.2)



Annual Income Averages According to Civil Topography (TL)

• Subsidiary orgs., thanks to theirguarantors, top

28,841

42,151

45,613

48,897

49,889

55,116

62,539

81,656

93,39

131,865

147,257

157,035

306,334

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Hemşeri

Sosyalizasyon

Meslek Eksenli

YYG

Kulüp

Özörgüt

Siyasi Eksenli

Savunucu

Himayeci

Hayırsever

Uzman

Pazar Eksenli

Yan Kuruluş


Subsidiary

Market-or.

Specialist

Philanthropic

Protectionist

Advocate

Politics-or.

Self-organized

Club

Construction or.

Occupational

Socialization

Co-citizenship-or.

$191.458

$18.025

•

With their economic activities, Market-oriented orgs. come second

• Specialists sell services; Philanthropicscollect donations

• Those with socialization priorities do not

have high income averages



5. ActivitiesTypes of Activities Reported

• Gives us the cultural profile of Turkey’scivil society

• Dominance of socialization-typeactivities

•Very rare activism-type activities

%

Organizing social gatherings 66.1

Dinner organizations for members 63.1

Meeting with an influential public figure 50.1

Contact with local newspapers 41.6

Fast-breaking organizations(during Ramadan) 41.6

Meeting with a parliamentarian 39.3

Organizing panel, conference, symposium, etc. 38.3

Contact with local TV channels 33.7

Giving aid in kind 32.9

Organizing picnics 31.8Organizing press meetings 30.0

Sending activity reports to officials 27.2

Giving financial aid 26.2

Giving educational scholarships 25.1

Contact with national papers / TV 24.8

Sports event 24.8

Commemoration event 24.6

Nature visits, nature walks 24.0

Arts organization 18.9Scientific publication 17.7

Scientific research 15.5

Organizing a charity bazaar 13.3

Signature campaign 12.3

Campaign including a number of activities 12.3

Contest organization 12.1

Concert organization 11.4

Constructing mosque, school, park, etc. 10.1

Demonstration 9.2

Other street action 6.7



Cluster Analysis applied to allactivities; reduction to robust groups:

- Socializing- Scientific- Public-oriented

-Activist- Aiding-Arts-Sports- School, mosque, etc. construction



5. Activities

• Activism-based activities are even lower inMiddle & Eastern Anatolia, as well as in Black Sea

regions

• Istanbul: aiding activities; Ankara: scientificactivities; Izmir: socializing activities higher

• Associations are inclined towards social;

foundations towards aiding activities



5. Activities

Cooperative Activities with Foreign Organizations, According to Regions

% 7.8

% 9.3

% 11.4

% 14.8

% 15.1

% 21.9

% 25.5

% 25.6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Karadeniz

Ege ve Marmara

İç ve Doğu Anadolu

İzmir

Akdeniz

İstanbul

Güneydoğu

AnkaraAnkara

Southeast

Istanbul

Mediterranean

Izmir

Middle & East

Marmara

Black Sea

• Southeastern orgs. have

caught Ankara-based ones interms of internationalcooperation; even passedIstanbul-based ones

• Black Sea region orgs. are theweakest in terms of foreign ties



5. Activities

Cooperative Activities with Foreign Organizations, According to Civil Topography

% 2.5

% 8.3

% 13.7% 16.5

% 16.7

% 16.9

% 17.6

% 22.8

% 24.6

% 26.9

% 26.9

% 45.7

% 50.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

YYG

Hemşeri

SosyalizasyonHayırsever

Kulüp

Yan Kuruluş

Siyasi Eksenli

Meslek Eksenli

Özörgüt

Pazar Eksenli

Himayeci

Savunucu

UzmanSpecialist

Advocate

Protectionist

Market-or.

Self-organized

Occupational

Politics-or.

Subsidiary

Club

Philanthropic

Socialization

Co-citizenship-or.

Construction or.

• Knowledgeproducers & advocatesare more open toforeign relations

• Socialization-relatedorgs. are weak inforeign contacts




Most Important Problems Reported by Voluntary Organizations

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Other

Smoking ban

State oppression

No problems

Lack of publicity

Staff, institutionalization

Lack of solidarity

Bureaucratic / Legal

Public's insensitivityFinding support

Related to activity field

Infrastructural / technical lacks

Insufficient participation

Financial

0,3%

0,6%

0,8%

1,5%

3,1%

3,6%

4,6%

5,0%

5,4%6,9%

8,2%

10,3%

11,4%38,0%

• A constant in civil societyresearch in Turkey:Complaint of economicproblems

• “State oppression”complaint is low




0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Other

No idea / No answer

Being discriminatoryBeing dependent on the state

Low membership / lack of members' interest

Material / infrastructural problems

Being distant to people

Lack of publicity

Illegal / Corrupt activities

Accountability / Transparency problems

Institutionalization problems

Lack of civil consciousness

Being inactive

Being politicized

Lack of solidarity among CSOs

Activities unrelated to org. aims

4,7%

1,0%

1,7%2,0%

2,3%

3,3%

3,8%

5,1%

5,8%

5,9%6,5%

7,0%

8,9%

11,8%

12,7%

16,7%

Most Important Mistakes & Problems of Other Voluntary Organizations

• Politicization seen as a “vice”

• A general reflexive skepticism about civil

society activities, voiced by CSrepresentatives




Rejected External Funding Sources

• Reflection of anti-Israel / anti-Jewishsentiments

Funding source %

Funds by Jewish organizations 37.9

Soros Foundation (Open Society Institute) 26.9

Funds by Islamic organizations 26.1

US Embassy funds 22.9

EU member countries’ embassy funds 13.0

EU funds 11.8

“Our organization does not have a decision in principle regarding this matter” 32.1

Other 4.7

• Anti-Islamist sentiments are also strong(about half of these are “laicist”orgs., defining themselves to be“Atatürkist” or “social-democratic”

•

“Euro-skepticism” is low




Rejected External Funding Sources According to Civil Topography

Orgs. Who Reject Funding Sources (%)

EUSoros

Foundation

US

Embassy

Islamic

orgs.

Jewish

orgs.

Self-organized 8 27.2 19.2 28.8 33.6

Philanthropic 8.4 16.8 9.9 13.0 24.4

Specialist 5.1 25.6 15.4 19.1 23.5

Advocate 11 45.1 34.1 40.2 43.9Politics-oriented 31.8 54.8 49.4 42.0 58.0

Club 7.2 15.0 16.0 27.5 36.2

Socialization-or. 12 25.3 23.3 33.6 39.8

Constr./Beaut. 18.2 26.6 29.5 14.3 50

Co-citizenship-or. 9.2 29.4 22.4 25.6 40.6

Subsidiary 10.2 18.2 15.9 18.8 25.6

Market-oriented 5.4 13.3 14.5 18.7 25.3Occupational 6.5 26.8 18.1 29.7 29.7

Protectionist 5.7 17.1 12.3 31.1 32.1

• Politics-oriented orgs. are more strongly against Western funding sources:nationalist / xenophobic leanings

• Advocacy orgs. have also high rejection percentages




Closest Political Leaning Reported by Voluntary Organizations

%

Atatürkism 19.6

Social democracy 7.2

Nationalism 4.4

Conservatism 3.5

Religiosity 2.8

Liberalism 2.0

Socialism 1.7

Ulusalcılık (“Left”-nationalism) 1.2

Revolutionism 0.7

Ülkücülük (Nationalist Action Party) 0.3

Communism 0.2Other 3.8

“We are not close to any political stances” 52.6

• More than half of orgs. Report “nopolitical stance”

• Disposition to distance the work of associations & foundations frompolitics



Multiple Correspondence Analysis: Civil

Topography, Type and Political Leaning

• “Atatürkism” is more distantto Contruct.-oriented &Philanthropic orgs. (Islamicleanings of these)

• Politics-oriented orgs.Closer to “socialism” &“conservatism”

• “Atatürkism” looks like a

“catch-all”: It is close to the“None” category



7. Observations



Thank you…

Emrah GÖKERResearch Specialist, Director of Publications

[email protected]: +90 312.4735077

Civil Society Culture in Voluntary Organizations of Turkey

Documents

Transcript of Civil Society Culture in Voluntary Organizations of Turkey