2
Introduction
Why are some NGOs more successful in democracy-building than others? Is NGO success
determined by the organization’s internal structure, its funding opportunities, or the level of
democratic development that exists in the state where the organization is operating?
This paper argues that in order to understand the difference between NGOs, which are
capable of lobbying the government and fostering civic culture and those which merely display
fancy offices, we need to focus both on the organization’s ability to generate membership and the
extent to which democratic development in the state inhibits or, alternatively, fosters a climate
favorable to NGO activities.
Relying on case-study analysis of NGOs in India, Kenya, Poland, and Kazakhstan, we show
that non-state actors, which have successfully lobbied the government on policy changes and
empowered citizens, exhibit several distinctive patterns. First, successful NGOs provide benefits
that tailor to local needs and establish a firm membership base. Second, expanding membership is a
prerequisite for the NGO’s large-scale agenda, which includes lobbying efforts beyond the local
context. Third, NGOs that appear to be the most successful in empowering citizens operate in states
where democratization has already achieved some progress, yet has not been fully consolidated,
and thus allowing room for non-state actors to shape political agenda.
We analyze two cases of successful NGO performance—Kenya and India—and two failed
ones—Poland and Kazakhstan to demonstrate how NGO structure and outside environment affect
the extent to which NGOs can foster democratization. Variation on the dependent variable in terms
of NGO success as well variation in the level of democratic development exhibited by the states in
which these NGOs operate allows us to analyze conditions under which non-state actors can
Convention