1. Which Civil Society Organizations in Which Countries are Enjoying Policy-Making Processes and Why: Comparing 7 Countries (Japan, Korea, Germany, China, Turkey, Russia, and the Philippines) in JIGS Surveys Yutaka Tsujinaka, J.Y. Choe, T. Ohtomo, and H. Miwa University of Tsukuba 2006

2. Introduction: Differences in SIS 2 - Enjoy? Philippine, Russia - Manage? Germany, Korea, Japan - Suffer? China, Turkey Why is SIS different? Influential Some what Not

3. Subjective influence Score (SIS) 3 Extremely influential=4, influential=3, Some what influential=2, Not influential=1, Not at all influential=0 SIS (mean): Average score by country/ by sectors When policy problems arise in the geographical areas suggested in Q6 （ 1 ． Village, town or city; 2. Prefecture; 3.A collection of prefecture regions; 4. National; 5. Global ）, how much influence does your organization have on such problems?

4. 4 ･ Overview of CountriesSurveyed in JIGS

5. 5 1. Main Characteristic of JIGS The International Survey of Civil Society and Interest Groups 1997- : Cross-culturally surveys direct the core (associations) of CS in 10 countries :Different from Non Profit Sector Project (L. Salamon) and from Social Capital Group (R. Putnam) I. Methodology & Hypotheses

6. 6

7. 7 - Civil society structure (sector composition) hypothesis - Resource hypothesis - Political Activism hypothesis - Administration connection hypothesis 2. Various Hypotheses

8. 8 ・ Relation between factors and SIS (mean) - Analysis through Scatter Diagram (Nation Level) ： linear or non-linear - Cross Tabulation Analysis (Nation Level) ： χ 2 -test - Cross Tabulation Analysis (Sector Level) ： χ 2 -test (Profit Sector, Non Profit Sector, Citizen Sector, Other) 3. Method of Analysis

9. 9 -Philippine ・ Russia (Enjoy?) C.S ． ( ≒ 50%) ・ 4 Sectors’ Proportion -Japan ・ China (Manage?) P.S ． ( ≒ 40%) -Turkey (Suffer?) Other ( ≒ 60%) II. Civil Society Structure (Sector Proposition) Hypothesis -Korea ・ Germany (Manage?) N.P.S ． ( ≒ 40%)

10. 10 -Positive Correlation: Citizen Sector’s % & SIS (mean) -Negative Correlation: Profit Sector’s % & SIS (mean) ⇒ CSS Hypothesis is Valid ・ 4 Sectors’ Proportion & SIS (mean)

11. 11 1) Trend in Year Established and SIS Ⅲ. Resource Hypothesis ･ Long History CSO J, G, K > R, C, T, PH ･ Strong SIS T, C < J, G, K < R, PH No Relations Between Year Established and SIS

12. 12 ･ Profit Sector’s Year Established ･ Large Differences among Countries as well as in Development Paths ･ Developed Countries : Long History (Created before and after WWII) ･ Changed Political System & Developing Countries : Short History (since the late ’80s)

13. 13 ･ Citizen Sector’s Year Established ･ Sharp Rise in the 90s ： Regime Changes Vulnerability of C.S. ･ Developed Countries (U, G, J) ： Established Earlier

14. 14 ･ Relation between Establishment Year and SIS ･ R, G, J: Relation between Establishment Year and SIS （ level of significance ( 0.05 ) ） ・ Negative Relation: Short History ⇒ Strong SIS

15. 15 2) Organizational Resources ･ No Relation between Organizational Resources and SIS ⇒ Resource Hypothesis is not Valid (Year Established and SIS, Organizational Resources and SIS)

16. 16 IV. Political Activism Hypothesis ･ Relation between CSO’s Activities and SIS (mean) -Contact with Political Parties -Contact Mass Media -Support Election Campaign -Influence Budget Formation -Lobbying (general) -Policy Performance (formulation, blocking/revising)

17. 17 ･ Inference: Strong Relation Between CSO’s Activities and SIS in each country and sector Sector Level Significance Japan, Germany> Turkey, Russia> Korea, China, Philippine

18. 18 ･ ･ Relation between Lobbying and SIS (mean)

19. 19 ･ ･ Relation between Providing Information (Mass Medias) and SIS (mean)

20. 20 ･ ･ Relation between Policy Performance (Formulation) and SIS (mean)

21. 21 V. Administration Connection Hypothesis ･ Institutional Relation between Administration Connection and SIS (mean) -Accrediting -Licensing -Administrative Guidance -Policy-Formation Cooperation -Opinion Exchange -Sending Advisory Board Member -Post Offering to the Ex-Bureaucrats …..

22. 22 ･ Relation between Administration Connection and SIS ･ No Relation (Linearity) between the National Administration and SIS (Some Negative Relation) ･ Relation between the Local Autonomies and SIS (Weak Relation)

23. 23(24) ･ Relation between Administration Connection and SIS (mean)

24. Conclusion 25 1: Civil Society Structure Hyp. is valid (C.S. proportion strongly correlates with SIS) Results of Tested Hypotheses 2: Resource Hyp. is not valid (Neither Y.E. nor Org. Res. Correlates with SIS) 3: Pol. Activism Hyp. is valid (Correlations strong in Japan & Germany) 4: Adm. Connect. Hyp. is unclear 5: “SIS” shows aggressiveness of C.S. as it affect CSO activism and performance (except Philippine)