Editorial Note

Lars Josephsen, Editor

Welcome to the second issue of Civil Society and New Forms of Governance in Europe, the Newsletter for CINEFOGO Network of Excellence. The Newsletter offers surveys of CINEFOGO's activities, and it serves as a platform for dialogue and debate with the Network's stakeholders and the general public, as well as being a communication instrument for the Network itself.

CINEFOGO partners, scholars and other interested institutions, networks and individuals are invited to visit CINEFOGO's digital highway at www.cinefogo.org. Here you will find more detailed and regularly updated reports on the progress and results of Network's Joint Programme of Activities, and other relevant information. The Network participants as well as external stakeholders are urged to contribute to the European debate on Civil Society and New Forms of Governance through the two channels: CINEFOGO Newsletter and CINEFOGO digital highway.

The CINEFOGO Network's first year. The Network has now been in function one year. The build-up of internal and external relations and communication structures at institutional and personal levels is settled, and administrative procedures for running the entire Network are in place. The work package teams are in full activity, and the CINEFOGO's website facilitates the exchange of information and skills between working groups and individual scholars within and outside the Network. Read more in sections 2 and 3.

New managing director for the Network. In July 2006, Inger Vibeke Dorph replaced Annali Kristiansen as managing director of the CINEFOGO Network. We welcome Inger Vibeke in her new capacity, and look forward for a fruitful cooperation. We also wish to convey warm thanks to Annali Kristiansen for her great contribution in the first intense period of the project, and we send her our best wishes to accomplish new tasks at the Danish Institute for Human Rights.

New features at the Network's website. At this place we would like to draw the attention to a new facility in connection to the website: Whenever new information is transferred to the CINEFOGO website from the CINEFOGO secretariat, be it an event or news of another character, each member of the CINEFOGO Network will receive a notification on this. Please let us know if this procedure does not function in a satisfactory way for you. Concerning the activities related to the PhD network, a special place at the website is under development.

Debate on European Democracy and Active Citizenship. The Newsletter continues its open-eye function concerning work of other institutions and networks (cf. section 9), and public debates in the EU with regard to CINEFOGO related questions . Thus in this issue the reader will find an article by Carlo Ruzza and Cristiano Bee reflecting on 'the European Commission approaches to civil society and communication', inspired by the speech by EU Commission's Vice President Margot Wallström, we brought in the first issue of the Newsletter. Furthermore we bring an essay by Adalbert Evers on 'Active Citizenship in Europe: A difficult topic' (cf. sections 7 and 8).

1. CINEFOGO - a European network on Civil Society, Citizenship and Governance

Thomas P. Boje, Roskilde University (Denmark)

The CINEFOGO Network of Excellence is concerned with the importance of improving citizens' participation in governance. This requires new knowledge on the role of multiple identities, active citizenship and organised civil society. The Network seeks to strengthen the articulation between theoretical analysis and the dissemination of research results to a public beyond academia, thereby nourishing the public debate on issues of integration, participation, governance and social protection in Europe.

The scientific programme of the CINEFOGO network is focused on three thematic issues: 'Active citizenship: to promote citizens involvement and social participation in policy making'; 'Multiple Identities: to identify factors that help co-existence among European citizens of different gender, ethnicity and age'; and 'Organized civil society: to understand the impact of different forms of citizenship and civic participation'. We consider these issues as crucial in a European context. For more information about the scientific scope of the CINEFOGO Network and its future activities please consult the website, www.cinefogo.org, which also includes a list of the leading scholars affiliated to the Network.

Though scientific in scope and objectives the overall purpose of the CINEFOGO network is based upon a sincere concern for the role of citizen participation and civil society in emerging forms of multi-level governance in Europe. With this in mind we intend to provide knowledge on the relationship between multi-level governance, citizenship, and multiple identities in a Europe becoming more and more multi-cultural while simultaneously seeking further integration.

During the first year of the Network several conferences / workshops have been organised. Let me just mention the three major conferences: One on the theme Gender, Social Citizenship and Participation at London School of Economics, London in March 2006, another on National Identities at Charles University, Prague in September 2006, and a third on European Civil Society at Roskilde University in November 2006. The Network has for all the involved countries produced a literature review of the research and policy debate on the role of civil society in the making of European citizenship. These literature reviews will be published at the website during the winter 2007. Finally, a project website was created for general public and project members (www.cinefogo.org). This website has been an important instrument in disseminating the events taking place in the network and at the moment it is extended to also including a 'Student Discussion Corner' in the topic of civil society and citizenship studies.

Furthermore, a PhD workshop on civil society and civic participation has been organised at Wirtschaftuniversität in Vienna in May 2006, and a TV series on active citizenship and development of European democracy involving 10 national public service stations has been produced and will be broadcasted in spring 2007. For the spring 2007 several additional conferences / workshops have been planned culminating with the Mid-term conference on European Citizenship to be held in June at Roskilde University. All these arrangements are described more in detail at our website www.cinefogo.org.

In this issue of the CINEFOGO Newsletter you can read a lot more about the CINEFOGO Network of Excellence - and especially about the up-coming conferences and other activities.

2. CINEFOGO meetings in brief

2.1 Network Council Meeting, 23-24 May 2006, Vienna (Austria)

Lars Josephsen, Roskilde University (Denmark)

The meeting. The second meeting of the Network Council took place in Vienna 22-23 May 2006. Its purpose was to evaluate the first 6 months of the CINEFOGO Network and to discuss a first draft for the detailed programme of activities for the next 18 month programme of the Network. About twenty-five CINEFOGO participants attended the meeting.

Presentations of actual work. As introduction to the meeting, three national coordinators presented their work in order to provide the Council with insight into the work of colleagues: Z. Kolaric (Slovenia), F. Wijkström (Sweden) and J. Lewis (United Kingdom) spoke about civil society, citizenship and their national activities.

Progress and reporting. The international coordinator of the Network, T. Boje, expressed satisfaction with the rate of implementation of the first 6-8 months of functioning of the Network. However, he also cautioned that the activities must be implemented on time and in accordance with the schedule. All involved should submit their respective activity and financial reports in due time, so that the CINEFOGO secretariat can submit the first annual report to the Commission by 1 October.

Thematic areas and work packages. The Council discussed the report on the Status of Work Packages (WP) in tandem with the Thematic Areas (TA) in order to become acquainted with WP developments. As concerns the work on the PhD network (WP 21) and support towards PhD students (WP 22): It became clear that CINEFOGO support to PhD network should continue, collaboration could be further improved, and a broad-based and simple resource data base should be developed. The Council concluded that most of the WPs are carried out in timely manner. Those responsible for delayed WPs should settle this with the CINEFOGO secretariat as soon as possible.

Future endeavours - Second period of 18 months. The draft proposal for the second 18 month period of the CINEFOGO Network was examined. T. Boje stressed the importance of actively including all members of the CINEFOGO Network in this second period. Those responsible for WPs should involve other members in the WP proposals. T Boje explained that publications should not be budgeted in the WP proposals as funds have already been reserved for publications.

CINEFOGO profile in relation to Spread of Excellence. Before entering into the debate regarding the concrete proposals, the issue was raised about sharpening the profile of the CINEFOGO Network in relation to Spread of Excellence and creating linkages between research and policy-making. In conclusion: SoE has to do with policy-makers at national, regional and European levels, SoE should be strengthened by inviting policy-makers to WP activities and by organizing a one-day event in Brussels for special dialogue with EU employees and others. It was agreed that the National Coordinators should be more aware of SoE in their activities.

Work package proposals. T. Boje presented a list of possible themes and related work package proposals, submitted by members of the Network. This material was debated. One conclusion was that more emphasis should be given to linking work packages to the three Thematic Areas (i.e. 'Identities, Values and Civic Cultures in Europe', 'Citizenship and Civic Participation in relation to Social Exclusion' and 'Multi-level Governance and Organized Civil Society'). These should be maintained while more attention also should be paid to the concept of 'European Citizenship'. Finally it was agreed that efforts should be made to link CINEFOGO to the two international organisations EMES and ISTR (cf. boxes below).

Other issues on the agenda.

• The literature reviews received were introduced by T. Boje, and three cases were presented by A. Kovalainen (Finland), S. Kovacheva (Bulgaria), and E. Bozzini (Italy). The debate addressed civil society, role of churches, volunteering, social capital, etc.
• Mr. Giovanni Moro (Italy), President of FONDACA presented the 'Active Citizenship Network' and outlined the main ideas of the 'European Charter of Active Citizenship' (cf. box after section 8).
• C. Holtet from the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, a partner in the CINEFOGO Network, outlined the status of production of TV programmes 'Active Citizenship and the Development of European Democracy' (WP 5). This activity is developed as collaboration between 10 European broadcasting corporations.
• M. Potůček (Czech Republic) reminded the Council of the Programme of Spread of Excellence and the TRANSAACT principles, and he underlined the necessity of every WP responsible being aware of SoE aspects in relation to their actual WP. The debate addressed the notions of 'public space' and 'public sphere'.
• The Newsletter was briefly introduced by L. Josephsen (Denmark), who also mentioned the approach to link brief articles in the Newsletter to more comprehensive documents placed at the CINEFOGO website.
• Concerning the PhD student network it was recognized that there was a need for special site for information about activities, events, summer schools, etc.
• It was decided to address directly the concept of 'European Citizenship' by organizing a conference in June 2007 in Roskilde (Denmark) in connection with the next Network Council meeting.

Read more:

Minutes of the Network Council meeting

2.2 CINEFOGO Spread of Excellence Meeting, 24 - 25 May 2006, Vienna (Austria)

Marta Nachtmannová, Charles University in Prague (the Czech Republic)

The meeting. On 24-25 May, the first CINEFOGO Spread of Excellence (SoE) meeting took place in Vienna. The meeting was prepared by the Center for Social and Economic Strategies (CESES) at Charles University in Prague, headed by professor, Dr. Martin Potůček, who is coordinator of all spread of excellence activities in the CINEFOGO Network. The CESES group has formed a secretariat, coordinating this field of activities.

Participants. Around twenty work package responsibles, representatives and guests attended the meeting and had a thorough discussion of tasks and problems related to the various SoE activities at different levels. It was agreed that there is a general need for better understanding and a common definition of the "public space" in which the CINEFOGO Network and its members are operating.

Spread of Excellence. The SoE activities include communication of CINEFOGO research outcomes and activities to internal as well as external stakeholders. Thus SoE activities shall focus on relevant actors by using appropriate public spaces, levels, channels and forms of communication. Various spreading dimensions were identified, different tools and forms of communication were examined - and examples of relevant mass media and alternative media forms were considered.

Need for a strong link to work packages. The thematic scope of each individual work package (WP) is an important factor in spreading activities, especially while communicating outside CINEFOGO Network. Against this background, the CESES group invited all CINEFOGO partners for a closer cooperation on SoE activities. Further the group underlined the need to obtaining the support from all participants in the SoE meeting in facilitating contacts to stakeholders in their respective WP domains, as well as their active contribution in establishing partnership between CINEFOGO participants involved in their respective WPs, and thematic partners and networks outside CINEFOGO. Finally, the CESES group urged the participants to appoint a WP contact person who should be responsible as an intermediary between the WP team and the SoE secretariat.

Integrated research and spread of excellence. The secretariat stated, that the next months would be devoted to building up a structural platform for co-operation between CINEFOGO as a research network and CINEFOGO as a SoE network by further developing and implementing an organizational structure for the CINEFOGO spread of excellence programme, aiming at maximizing synergy between the Programme for Integrated Research Activities (PIRA) and the SoE activities, and broadening the spectrum of involved European Networks and SoE partners.

TRANSAACT courses. It was agreed that TRANSAACT learning courses for CINEFOGO Network members should be prepared in order to facilitating to share, elaborate and spread good SoE practices, i.e. "how CINEFOGO deliverables can be spread in an appropriate way". The purpose of these courses would be to enhance the capacity of CINEFOGO academicians to deal with different stakeholders, such as media, public administrations, policy makers, NGOs, scholars with other background than that of social scientists (broadly understood), etc. Toolkits and teaching materials will be prepared in the following months and two TRANSAACT courses are planned to take place in 2007 and 2008. The SoE secretariat urged the participants to express their ideas and suggestions to the outlined TRANSAACT courses, and to give a feedback in terms of an 'Expression ofinterest' (cf. box below).

Read more:
Minutes from the SoE meeting
Prof. Potůček's presentation of the scope of the SoE work

2.3 Network Management Board, 4-5 September, Roskilde (Denmark)

Thomas P. Boje,  Roskilde University (Denmark)

The Network Management Board
In his opening of the meeting Thomas Boje recapitulated that the Network Management Board (NMB) is the decision-making organ of the CINEFOGO Network. Thus NMB is responsible for the overall coordination of the Network's activities, scientific as well as administrative. The members of NMB are prof., dr. Thomas Boje (Denmark), chairman of the board and CINEFOGO's international coordinator, prof., dr. Paul Dekker (the Netherlands), prof., dr. Zinka Kolaric (Bulgaria), and prof., dr. Anne Kovalainen (Finland), and assoc. prof., PhD Lars Hulgaard. However, Lars Hulgaard did not attend the meeting, since he has got a new position at Roskilde University as Chair of The Department of Psychology and Educational Studies. Against this background Lars Hulgaard has to leave all administrative duties at the CINEFOGO Network.

Overview of main structure and timetable of the CINEFOGO Network
Firstly, the NMB went through and commented on the first draft of the '12 Month Interim Activity Report' (M0-11). In general, the activity level in CINEFOGO WPs has been satisfying. After 12 months, 21 of 23 WPs are active and the majority of milestones and goals have been achieved. Next, Thomas Boje briefly outlined the draft first year financial report, that was based on incoming contributions from WP responsibles. Further, Thomas Boje then presented a plan for the second  18 month period (i.e. month 12 - 29) and a budget for the next financial year. The activities in this second period include extension of some work packages already begun in the first period (M0-17), and entitled with new funding - as well as new work packages. A call for new activities for the third period will be made in the spring 2007, and should be finally approved by the Network Council meeting in June 2007.

Organizational matters
The NMB agreed that there is a need for extensive knowledge undertaken on develop-ing the Spread of Excellence (SoE) activities (cf. WP 6). The structural platform forming the link between CINEFOGO research network and CINEFOGO spread of excellence network is an essential part of the Network's overall goal. The NMB encouraged the SoE coordinator to address and direct all communication related to SoE activities to the WP responsible. NMB found it important that adequate knowledge dissemination structures are in place before the major activities take place in the second half of 2007. Thomas Boje informed that the CINEFOGO Newsletter shall be published twice a year and that the Newsletter editor in the future will work closely with the SoE secretariat at CESES, Charles University in Prague.

Returning to the Network Management Board Thomas Boje repeated that Lars Hulgaard would not be able to continue his obligations in NMB due to his new position at Roskilde University. - Thomas Boje declared that he would accept to continue charing the Network Management Board if the NMB would support him. The NMB unanimously agreed to do so. Persons to replace Lars Hulgaard as member of NMB and as national coordinator for Denmark will be found. - The Board's work is facilitated by the CINEFOGO secretariat, headed by the managing director, Inger Vibeke Dorph.

NBM discussed two issues related to the question of new partners: criteria for adopt-ing new academic members from existing partner institutions, and inclusion new part-ners. Finally, NMB addressed the PhD activities. It was emphasized that PhD activi-ties are seen as one of CINEFOGO's key activities in integrating the European research area. Thus the work package "Giving support to postgraduate students" (WP 22 ) has been extended. Other PhD oriented activities are: A website (Euro Students' Corner), a PhD workshop on European Civil Society (Münster, May 2007) and Summer schools (June 2007 in Roskilde on social capital, and in 2008 on social entrepreneurship).

Read more: the full text of minutes of the NMB meeting

3. CINEFOGO conferences, etc.

3.1 Conference on European Identities

When & where: 21-23 September 2006, Prague (the Czech Republic)

Organizing Institutions: The Centre for Social and Economic Studies, Charles University, Prague and University of Aberdeen

The issue of identities has become an important one in social research, engaging the attention of political scientists, social psychologists, social anthropologists, historians and others. The conference will concentrate mainly upon contemporary European identities and the factors that affect them. The relationship to national identities is explored as part of this conference, since there is a range of different orientations to European identities depending upon the national context, which is in turn a product of specific cultural and historical events.

The aim of this discussion is to introduce a broader social perspective on European identities, by setting this issue within the context of social change in Europe. Another important focus would be divisions between countries (Northern, Southern, Eastern Europe) and social divisions within countries (age, gender, social class etc.) in terms of the way in which these construct or contribute towards different forms of identification with Europe. The conference touches upon key CINEFOGO themes, including citizenship, participation and civil society in the construction (or weakening) of European identities. The aim is to integrate different approaches and to develop one, which incorporates social structure and cleavages. The conference will draw upon a range of empirical materials in order to furnish an original approach to the topic.

Themes to be covered in the conference: Theoretical concepts of Europe, Approaches to European identity, Patterns of European identity (from the Eurobarometer) / Time zones of Europe (a tentative typology) / European identity from the point of view of the European Commission / Aspects of European identity (centrifugal and centripetal forces): Science, Art, Sport, Cities, Tourism, Religion, Participation and Europeanisation / Social structural differences. Cross-European cleavages: social class, education, age, economic status, urban-rural differences, religion, ethnic group, gender / Case studies: Gypsies/Roma, Muslims, Exchange Students etc.

The aim of the conference is to present papers that will be published as part of a book. The aim of the book is to take an interdisciplinary perspective on European Identities. Not all papers will necessarily be included because they need to cohere together in terms of quality and theme.

Contact: Claire Wallace, claire.wallace@abdn.ac.uk

3.2 Workshop on Social Capital and Democracy in Europe and the USA

When and where: 27-28 October 2006, Madrid (Spain)

Organizing Institution: Analistas Socio-Políticos Research Center, Madrid

The workshop gathered senior scholars within the area of social capital to discuss in depth differences between EU and US models and to understanding the relationship between social capital and democracy.

The workshop was organized in three sessions: I. Social capital: inclusion and exclusion, II. Politics and civil society, and III. Civil society and democratic governance.

Contact: Víctor Pérez-Díaz, ASP Research

4. Spread of Excellence activities

4.1 Spread of Excellence activities in general

Marta Nachtmannová, Charles University in Prague (the Czech Republic)

Certainly you have already heard about spreading dimension of the CINEFOGO Network of Excellence - but how should one understand, visualize and even get actively involved in something that sounds more like a technical, abstract and decidedly highly bureaucratic concept?

Imagine that CINEFOGO Network of Excellence interconnects more than 35 institutions and 150 researchers in Europe. Networking means communicating, sharing, combining, matching and developing knowledge within the Network and beyond its structure. One can liken such Network to a big party where everyone has to exchange greetings with all the other parties. How many individual bilateral greetings will be made among 150 researchers? The result is a rather larger number, namely 11.175.

However, this simplified model considers only simple greetings at a closed party. Reality is always far more intricate than a model, so is the Network and its environment. Not only greetings, but complex ideas, concepts and experiences need to be shared and tested within the Network and between the Network and other networks, institutions and other relevant stakeholders. How to manage such communication? Who should communicate, with whom, why, how and when? And how should all these communications be easily accessible for others than those directly involved?

These are the key questions for the Spread of Excellence - or Learning and Dialogue - or just SoE - part of CINEFOGO. Spreading is not a parallel activity but a cross-cutting issue.

The Spread of Excellence activities encompass TV Series, Book Series, Newsletter and training courses for dissemination, etc. The main responsibility for surveying these activities is delegated to a SoE Secretariat, placed at Charles University in Prague. It is clear that the SoE Secretariat can neither follow nor substitute all the greetings that take place at the grand CINEFOGO party. However, the Secretariat should monitor, support, facilitate, debug and evaluate the communication processes. Therefore a Spread of Excellence responsible person has been appointed for each Network's "node" - i.e. for each Work Package. At present, these individuals epitomize bridges between these "nodes" and the SoE Secretariat.

In 2006, CINEFOGO internal communication structures and procedures have been established. In 2007-2008, the spread of excellence activities should animate the internal links in order to focus on the external environment. The cornerstone of the spreading activities is the portal www.cinefogo.org, set up with major contributions from Roskilde University (Denmark). Much information can be found at this website, and new updates are available on a regular basis. Information on upcoming and past events, description of the CINEFOGO structure, aims and tasks and already two 2006 Newsletter issues can be found there. In 2007 the www.cinefogo.org will reflect comments and suggestions made by its users and become an even better place for sharing and advertising CINEFOGO outputs and activities. SoE Secretariat will soon provide the SoE Responsibles with a comprehensive "spreading guide". Furthermore - in 2007 and 2008 - the SoE Secretariat will offer two learning courses on communication addressing a broad spectrum of stakeholders for the SoE Responsibles and other interested CINEFOGO participants.

Let the year 2007 - a year of a Fire Pig in accordance with the Chinese Zodiac - be apt for these tasks.

Read more: Learning&Dialogue

4.2 Special case: TV series in Production

Christian Holtet, Danish Broadcasting Corporation (Denmark)

The Danish Broadcasting Cooperation (DBC), a participant in the CINEFOG Network and the largest public broadcaster in Denmark, is in the process of producing a 12 part TV series about grassroots movements in Europe. This is done within a partnership consisting of public broadcasters in 10 European countries, i.e. Albania, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark (lead participant), Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. The series is planned to be broadcasted in 2007 and are expected to attract millions of viewers all over Europe.

Grassroots movements starts with an idea that things could be different; this evolves into the idea that things within a certain policy field have got to be different; This, in turn, leads to a more or less organized community around this idea, and after while a popular, anti-authoritarian movement is emerging, a movement which demands space and a hearing; which exerts pressure, insisting on influencing developments.

This is how popular movements that arose in the past 30 to 40 years continue to impact on developments in Europe, often in a democratic fashion. Among the broad spectrum of issues these movements have addressed, one can mention e.g. nuclear power, peace, environment, women's liberation, corruption in political life, and democracy.

In the 1960s these movements arose amidst economic growth and progress. With no shortages people had the energy for innovative thinking and going up against the authorities; they had the desire to protest and rebel against existing dogmas, and they were borne along with visionary fervor.

In the 1970s two energy crises lead to economic downturn but the movements carried on; indeed they grew, convinced that the values were the right way towards the new millennium.

Today we see that these movements did not only help to define the way in which Europe has moved; they also helped to generate growth and progress.

We will concentrate on movements governed by the spirit of democracy even though they may have applied untraditional methods in their quest for a hearing.

The series will appeal to a broad group of viewers, but perhaps especially the young, to give them an idea of the way the generations now representing the middle-aged, ageing segment of the population used to be the ones who went up against the establishment: they used to be the visionaries with the zeal, and the defiance required for change.

Read more: www.cinefogo.org/learning-dialogue/tv-radio

5. Activities related to the PhD-Network

6th meeting in the PhD-Network, 25-28 May 2006, Vienna (Austria)

Florian Pomper, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration (Austria)

The annual meeting in the European PhD Network on the Third Sector and Civil Society took place from 25-28 May 2006 in Vienna. The meeting was hosted by the Research Institute for Nonprofit Organizations at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration. In the years 2001 - 2005 similar meetings took place in the Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland and UK.

35 PhD-students from 16 different European countries attended the Vienna meeting. During the meeting the students presented their own work in five sub-groups that were facilitated by two faculties each. In addition four plenary sessions dealt with the developments in Central and Eastern European Countries and the role of civil society. Responses from the attending students showed that the main benefits for the students were the individual feedbacks on their presentations as well as the opportunity to participate in a network with other students from other European countries and different faculties and disciplines.

The European PhD Network on the Third Sector and Civil Society was founded in 2000 by the Center of Civil Society Studies of the London School of Economics, and is supported by CINEFOGO.

Read more: PhD Network site

6. Outline of the activities in the CINEFOGO Network in 2007

Thomas P. Boje, Roskilde University (Denmark)

The first year of the CINEFOGO Network of Excellence has gone. The Network has started its second year and a lot of activities are under way. The initial phase was characterized by a focus on the establishment of the infrastructure of the Network.  First of all an efficient CINEFOGO website was created, www.cinefogo.org . This will be followed by a special website for student communication - 'Student Corner'. Further information on this facility will be announced when the website is ready.

A network for Ph.D. students on civil society, citizenship and governance in Europe is established and every year at least one Ph.D. Workshop on 'European Civil Society' will be organised. In 2007 the Ph.D. Workshop will be at Westfälische Wilhelms Universität in Münster in Germany. Finally, a professional team for the Spread of Excellence activities (encompassing TV Series, Book Series, Newsletter and training courses for dissemination) has been organised. The main responsibility for running these activities is placed at Charles University in Prague.

During the first year a few conferences were organised with great success, but for most of the Work Packages planning and preparation of the activities have not surprisingly taken a lot of time. This means that most Work Packages have their main activities in the late 2006 and during 2007. The second year of the lifetime of the CINEFOGO Network of Excellence looks thus very exciting and challenging with a lot of activities - including several events planned in cooperation with represen-tatives from external institutions and networks, meaning that a significant number of participants from external partners and other European scientific networks will be present at the CINEFOGO activities. Truly in line with the purpose formulated by the European Commission for a European network of excellence. A more detailed description of the planned conferences and workshops during the period November 2006 - July 2007 you find in this Newsletter section 10.

In the description of the CINEFOGO Programme for Integrated Research Activities (PIRA) we have especially focussed on three related themes:

• Active citizenship: to promote citizens' involvement and social participation in policy-making;
• Organised civil society: to understand the impact of different forms of citizenship and civic participation;
• Multiple identities: to identify factors that help co-existence among multiple identities in Europe.

Both the on-going activities and the future activities planned under the Second 18 Month Activity Period are organised under the heading of these themes. Here I just want to mention some of the most important subjects to be dealt with in the up-coming activities under the Second 18 Month Activity Period:

• The work-family relations and its influence on citizenship rights and civic participation;
• Civil society / NGO activities within specific sectors and regional differences;
• Gender relations and gendered citizenship in the civil society;
• EU aid policy and the impact of organized civil society in the South - North dialogue;
• European Citizenship - challenges and possibilities.

In the debate about the relationship between civil society institutions and the welfare state, CINE-FOGO wants to develop an input towards the making of European Citizenship. The importance of the conception of a European Citizenship and its consequences for the European citizens and for the functioning of the European institutions is emphasised by the CINEFOGO Network by making this topic the theme of the Mid-term Conference in June 2007. At the conference the CINEFOGO Network of Excellence wants to reflect on the relationship between of civil society and citizenship in Europe and the impact of social movements on democracy, social participation and citizenship for European citizens. The results and accomplishments from the first 2 years of activities in the network will be evaluated at the conference.

In addition to the relations among the ordinary members of the CINEFOGO Network of Excellence we also want to establish long-lasting relationships with other networks - European as well as international. For the time being we have established exchange relationship with EMES (European research network on Social Entrepreneurship), ISTR (International Society for Third-Sector Research) and ESA (European Sociological Association). In June 2008 the CINEFOGO Network will organise an international conference together with EMES and ISTR in Barcelona on 'Non-profit institutions and civil society'.

7. Follow-up on 'Civil Society and European Democracy'

Democracy, Dialogue, Debate: Reflections on the European Commission approaches to civil society and communication

Comments to the article by EU Commission Vice president Margot Wallström

Carlo Ruzza and Cristiano Bee, University of Trento (Italy)

In her passionate speech entitled 'Closing the gap: will it work?' given at the ECAS Conference on 1.2.2006, Ms Margot Wallström asks for support for the string of initiatives aimed at improving the relation between the EU and its citizens that have characterised the EU communication policy in recent years and which in addition to the White Paper on Communication also include key documents such as the White Paper on Governance, and the document on Plan D. They are finalised to better connect EU policy making with public opinion in Member States throughout the different levels of governance. In her speech, which was included in the last issue of this newsletter, Ms Wallström advocates the coming together of EU institutions, the member states and civil society representatives to discuss what joint action to take in order to tackle the disaffection of European publics with what is often referred to as 'the European project'. This speech and the related documents are worthy initiatives. They are part of a global re-thinking of the scope and functions of the European Union - a task, which was deferred for too long with obvious negative consequences.

European governance and the citizens

After the impasse with the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty and fully realising the extent of the problem, the Commission marked the beginning of the so-called "period of reflection" with a series of innovative statements and action plans. The 'White Paper on a European Communication Policy' has to be framed in this context together with the so-called Plan D and the related Action Plan. These documents constitute an attempt to develop a full-fledged information and communication strategy and progress it along the lines originally established in the nineties with the Euro-campaigns while addressing their shortcomings. In particular, early initiatives were often criticized for an approach, which was generally felt to be marred by strong propagandistic undertones. In the last five years the Commission sought to establish an information and communication strategy, which draws a direct connection between communication and the recently elaborated governance principles, which should now be structuring the entire EU framework. Networking, decentralisation, closeness of citizens to decision-making are some of the keywords on which the current approach to EU governance is centred and which are reasserted in several key documents focusing on how to 'close the gap' between institutions and citizens. However, we believe that these documents are often somewhat internally inconsistent and the action plans they advocate are in need of clarification before they can be implemented with success. In this short note we would like to indicate some of the areas that we believe are most in need of attention.

Focus on increasing involvement of citizens and local level governments

In general, the recently produced documents represent an effort to popularize the EU and centre on two strategies. A better involvement of citizens in EU affairs is advocated through what has been described as a 'citizens' centred approach' and through a better involvement of lower levels of government, particularly the local level. Both approaches seem laudable but are fraught with difficulties. We will here briefly address two aspects that are directly related to these goals. One is relations with civil society - which in recent years has also been upgraded to a EU policy as evidenced by the dedicated Commission's website. The second aspect concerns the scope and functioning of communication policy. With regard to communication policy, issues that seem particularly problematic include how to deal with networks, with the Internet and with definitions of the public sphere. With regard to civil society one need to clarify what should be the relations between organized groups and unorganized citizens, how to aggregate preferences in civil society and the precise meaning of terms such as accountability and representativity.

Civil society

Input legitimacy vs. output legitimacy

References to civil society recur in Ms Wallström's speech and in several key EU documents because civil society can improve EU governance and communication in several related ways. Among them, it can notably help with addressing concerns with output legitimacy, which is crucial in a European institutional architecture that many see as hindered by insufficient input legitimacy and therefore particularly dependant of policy effectiveness. Civil society can help advancing output legitimacy by improving the two-way flow of communication from society to policy making activities, and also through monitoring transposition and by providing feedback on policy implementation throughout different levels of governance. These functions are particularly important at EU level for well known reasons of scarce resources to acquire information and deficit of political legitimacy⁽¹⁾. However a problem emerges when a stress on civil society is advocated in conjunction with an emphasis on both accountability and representativity, and also effectiveness.

A certain ambiguity occurs with the frequent but often vague references to the highly contested concepts of accountability and representativity - one has to identify more specifically the ideal community of reference⁽²⁾. Also, representativity is emphasised by several EU institutions and the key documents that Ms Wallström prises. However, if the dominant EU view emphasises representativity, there is also an awareness that good policy advice is in principle a different issue from representativity - it has to be effective. The Commission recognises that "representativity, though an important criterion, should not be the only determining factor for membership of an advisory committee, or to take part in dialogue with the Commission. Other factors, such as their track record and ability to contribute substantial policy inputs to the discussion are equally important"⁽³⁾. In other words, good policy ideas are not necessarily representative ones - and the Commission recognises and acknowledges this fact. Thus, considerations of output legitimacy - that is effectiveness - can conflict with considerations of political legitimacy, which are directly connected with perceptions of representativity.

EU level vs. local level civil society networks

In the same vein, the often reiterated emphasis on representativity as a deciding criteria for including civil society organisations led the Commission to argue that in principle consultation with representative bodies such as trade unions and employers' organisations have to be considered more important than non-representative organisations⁽⁴⁾.  But whilst this is possible in the context of the social dialogue, it is less attainable with the civic dialogue (which concerns civil society organizations) where representativity cannot be easily checked without the introduction of a regulation of the third sector and state controls which would run against current practice and the current EU conception of civil society. In addition, criteria such as accountability can be utilised instrumentally to justify a preference for large umbrella organisations, which include the possibly more controllable but somewhat remote Brussels-based EU-level civil society networks.

The current EU preference for interacting with peak associations in the social dialogue and with EU-level associations in the civil dialogue indicates a preference for a centralised model of state-civil society relations in which the task of aggregating internal preferences is left to civil society itself. It is, however, a preference that conflicts with the recently EU stated objectives. Ms. Wallström emphasis on the local dimension is not easily reconciled with a system that institutionally seems to prefer EU level networks. This might well be understandable, as consulting organizations in Brussels is obviously easier and quicker than creating a system that relates directly to civil societies at the local level. However, the dispersion of power along vertical and horizontal lines that recent EU documents emphasise might well reflect aspirations that still need to be clarified and acted upon.

In any event, there is no agreement within the NGO community on what constitutes evidence of representativity - for instance how to count members and identify eligible organizations, and whether only representative organisations should be consulted. Some civil society actors point out that increasingly civil society expresses fluidity in the type of formations that represent its values and opinions. New organisations often emerge quickly with strong popular support and dissolve or change into different organisations in a short time. Therefore, an insistence on calculating memberships would exclude an important part of civil society.

European governance as social interventionism

Another related issue that is connected to the EU stated attempt to construct a public sphere is also problematic. In its views of civil society, the Commission seems to advocate an interventionist role on the part of public authorities in fostering embryonic forms of civil society. For instance, a key document reads:

"…it should not be assumed that less-advantaged stakeholders are already in existence as relatively easily identifiable entities, and organised to a greater or lesser extent. It may be the case that, as an issue arises, important stakeholders are not at all organised, and may not be at all well-informed about the potential impact of them. Redressing material and cognitive imbalances may therefore, first and foremost, involve public actors in assisting the emergence of stakeholders as organised entities in order that they may make a meaningful contribution to the policy process"⁽⁵⁾.

Here one can identify a kind of social engineering intent, whereby if civil society is absent it could, and maybe should, be created. This could be an innovative and effective approach to European governance.  On the other hand, and particularly in times when state interventionist approaches are often seen as unjustified, many institutional and civil society actors would dissent from this approach. Even the neo-liberal ethos that often pervades EU institutions does not sit easily with social interventionism. Asserting it risks merely to point out the contradictions of the European project. It has often been pointed out that EU institutions speak with many - maybe too many - voices. This is an example where some clarification is needed before the Union can act efficiently and coherently.

Communication

In her speech at the ECAS conference Ms Wallström has emphasised the value of communication for Europe. As stated in the final sentence of her speech "communication helps understandings, build common values, creates communities". She identifies three positive developments crucially connected to communication.  First, communication has a pedagogical impact. Wallström realises that the European project has not been convincingly explained to European citizens. Future communication activities should therefore be aimed at improving citizens' knowledge of the European Project. Secondly, communication is valued because of its identity building capacity. In the advocated context of enhanced communication activities, a process of selection and diffusion of common values is assumed to take place. Thirdly, communication is related to the need of promoting a common sense of belonging to the European Union.

Democratic aspects of communication

Communication is then considered as essential in order to improve the democratic bases of the EU project. In this perspective, communication comes top of the agenda and its enhancement is seen as fundamental.  By improving debate and dialogue between institutions and citizens, the Commission is trying to develop a new kind of democratic imagined community in which governing takes place in a dialogic environment and in the context of a new demos. Here it worth noting the novelty of the Commission's emphasis on a bi-directional flow of communication between citizens and institutions. The White Paper emphatically underlines the difference between the old top-down communication strategy based on propaganda and the new transparent and open approach. This is stressed by Ms Wallström, who states that a "good two-way communication between the citizens and public institutions is essential in a healthy democracy".

The effort to further democracy through enhanced participation of the public is certainly a promising approach for renewing the European project and for overcoming present difficulties. However, one has to express some doubt and criticism of this "new approach" to communication activities. If an emphasis on deliberation and participation is now widely shared in all policy circles - not just EU circles - , the identification of appropriate  instruments for 'closing the gap' and developing a citizens' centred approach is less than obvious. There are for instance many and often incompatible ways of including civil society -- many of the potential approaches to enhance dialogue are intrinsically contradictory and as the relevant literature shows, in some cases do not deliver good results.

The role of 'Europe Direct'

A surprising aspect of Ms. Wallström's speech is the absence of specific mentions of the 'Europe Direct' network (cf. information box below) - an initiative to which the Commission has given much importance in its attempt to establish its communication policy⁽⁶⁾.  It is important because, as the Commission's strategy of 'going local' implies, it gives a stronger role to the sub national level and thus seeks to bridge the gap between levels of government. This aspect was for instance emphasised in the Plan D document. The 'Europe Direct' network represents then an essential tool for improving institutional communication, achieving a direct face-to-face relationship with the European public and should then be central within the EU 'going local' strategy.  In particular, as often stated these networks have the potential to identify and collect the "needs and wishes" emerging from citizens. Experience from EU member states show that public offices are central in enhancing relations between citizens and institutions - they provide working models of the idea of 'public service communication', a basic principle on which the institutional activities are based. However, to effectively pursue such a strategy of public offices one need appropriate resources, which at the moment are not available. This raises some doubt on the feasibility of the 'going local' strategy.

Internet communication and 'diffused' expertise

Two further problematic issues concern the great emphasis given to Internet communication tools, such as blogs and forums on the EU web site. Citizens are expected to use them to interact and debate European issues. However, it is not clear what specific impact these tools should have on EU policymaking, and how. With all its limits, the EU framework is based on the mechanisms of a representative democracy. It pays attention to various aspects of a politics of expertise - including the 'diffused' expertise of individual citizens, but the decision-making framework remains one of representative institutions and of bureaucratic politics. How to inject an additional role for diffused expertise is very problematic and still unresolved. Just referring to it in emphatic terms is clearly not sufficient. Steps to make this strategy more concrete have been taken but we are obviously still only at the beginning.

An additional related issue is selection bias. Several of the proposed 'listening devices' such as internet consultations are de facto only accessible to sensitized users who are already concerned with EU issues and policies and are technically proficient. Thus, even 'diffused' expertise is in fact rather elitist expertise. And of course processes of aggregation of opinions are fraught with difficulties. Distortion due to the interests of those who summarise citizens' input is entirely possible and have been documented⁽⁷⁾. These are issues that need to be faced carefully.

Concluding remarks

Because of the indicated ambiguities, and the ultimately top-down view of the EU that implicitly still prevail, the White Paper appears problematic in certain areas. Its aim of contributing to the development of a European public sphere, where the "European debate can unfold and citizens can participate" is laudable but need to be refined - consultation and communication tools need to be improved and their underlying philosophy clarified. One comes then to suspect that this document is still too narrowly aimed at enhancing consensus and legitimising the European Process. And one cannot escape the sensation of a whiff of social engineering.

Notes

⁽¹⁾  See Ruzza, C. (2004). Europe and Civil Society: Movement Coalitions and European Governance. Manchester, Manchester University Press.

⁽²⁾  See Ruzza, C. (forthcoming 2007). Advocacy coalitions and the participation of organised civil society in the EU. Governance and Civil Society: Policy Perspectives. C. Ruzza and V. D. Sala. Manchester, Manchester University Press.

⁽³⁾  See Commission (2000) "The Commission and non-governmental organisations: Building a stronger partnership." COM(2000) 11 Final (18.01.2000): Section 2.2.

⁽⁴⁾  See for instance note 7 of Commission (2002). "Communication from the Commission: Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue - General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission". COM (2002) 704 final.

⁽⁵⁾  See Commission (2000). Developing New Modes of Governance. Forward Studies Unit, Notis Lebessis, John Paterson. Working paper, 2000: Section 4.3.

⁽⁶⁾  Bee C., Bello V. (forthcoming 2007) "A European model of public sphere: towards a networked governance model " in J. Harrison & B. Wessels (Eds.) Mediating Europe: New media, Mass Communications and the European public sphere. Oxford: Berghahn, 2007.

⁽⁷⁾  See Bozzini, E. (fortcoming 2007). The role of civil society organisations in written consultation processes: from the European Monitoring Centre to the European Fundamental Rights. Governance and Civil Society: Policy Perspectives. C. Ruzza and V. D. Sala. Manchester, Manchester UP.

8. Active Citizenship in Europe

Active Citizenship in Europe. A difficult topic

Adalbert Evers, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen (Germany)

Essay

If there is a call for "active citizens" in public debates or policy documents, this mostly implies to address all kind of activities and forms of participation, reaching from good neighbourhood to party elections. Furthermore it comes along as an overall positive and normative notion - one can never have enough active citizens. However such a broad concept of active citizenship is endangered by the fact that when all kinds of activism and participation are counted in, the citizenship dimension tends to become meaningless. Therefore in political theory only those forms of active behaviour, individual and collective, by words and deeds, are meant, where the citizenship of the actors is a central and dominant dimension; they have to refer to or be touched on behalf of their identity as members of a political community and possibly as well as citizens that identify themselves with its basic values. Therefore, being active in a neighbourhood association may be a good thing, but for this kind of being active, citizenship is not the most important dimension. Not all kinds of participation, activism, solidarities etc. are active citizenship.

While this is not contentious, there is another assumption to be raised in this essay. Usually the notion of active citizenship is used with a strong normative flavour. It stands for all the good things of democratic states and civil societies: tolerance, a sense for the public good, the ability to surmount particularism a. o. But to what degree does it make sense to use active citizenship just in this way and to measure the real behaviour of people with regard to the normative ideal? Let us have a look where we are with respect to claims and contestations that refer to active citizenship in Europe.

Downturns of active citizenship

When I once asked myself, why in advertising for management "team spirit" is among the most used words, a friend mocked and said that the inflation of this label points to the lack of what is meant here in the every day life of business. Possibly the inflation of the calls for active citizenship represents the same phenomenon. There is not that much of it presently. If one speculates about the reasons, a multiplicity can be enumerated.

First of all in many countries in Europe and elsewhere people have lost their trust in politicians, political parties, central institutions or the political game at large, sometimes due to the feeling of powerlessness, sometimes as well in view of the misuse of power, of corruption and fraud. This turn to privatism is all the more problematic, since in large parts of Europe there is anyway a very liberal attitude prevailing, which does not expect much from the ordinary citizens in terms of commitments besides paying taxes, obeying the laws and voting from time to time. Active citizenship seems to be the exception of the rule, where most of us are spectators and consumers of professional politics. Representatives from the new democracies in Europe at times moan not to take the goods and rights, a liberal democracy offers, just for granted; they observe the widespread dominance of quests for negative freedom - not to be bothered and limited. Being tolerant is surely a quality of a good citizen but its not exactly active citizenship.

There are besides political cultures and what is shared and different here between European countries as well consequences of the present socioeconomic changes that affect active citizenship. Much is written about the negative effects of a social exclusion that leads to a retreat from public and political life. Images of strong warriors in the struggles for staying in the job or making a career, the delimitation of the concern with one's work but as well consumerism overshadow the claims of being as well a good and active citizen. Unlike in the US of the 50s, the "good local citizen-man" has little significance today's concepts of a satisfying "work-life balance".

Furthermore one has to face, that in many countries of Europe, like Germany, Italy, France and Spain, but as well in countries that are future newcomers to the EU, like Bulgaria, the impact of those groups is increasing, that are not given citizenship rights in the country where they live - ethnic minorities and migrants.

Finally, speaking about various aspects of downturns of active citizenship in Europe, the European Union should not be forgotten. Yes, lobbying in Brussels is not a privilege of big business; citizens´ organisations have as well their representatives there. But if one thinks in terms of active EU-citizenship or a European citizen identity (not just in terms of rights granted to EU citizens) the situation looks quite bleak to the degree there is hardly a visible link between economic unification and a political project (like it existed for some time after the second world war, when the common market was linked with the project of peace-keeping in Europe)

Active citizenship is alive - but is it all well?

The short sketch of active citizenship missing can however be counterbalanced by a reference to active citizenship remaining or revitalizing.

First of all in many European countries one can find in face of all kind of social evils a stronger rhetoric about the need for civic virtues, even for citizens duties; some even speak about signs of a new republicanism, that unlike liberal doctrines is going back to the firm conviction that institutionalised democracy is bound to fail without cultivating a strong notion of active citizenship. The upgrading of citizenship rights, activism but as well of citizenship duties may have an influence on the many forms of organized protest and interest-bargaining; the claims made there must in such an atmosphere be legitimized with an eye on the public good and the concerns and needs of all citizens. Organisations that had a strong reputation yesterday, like business corporations or trade unions have a hard time today to remake their image in order to appear as good corporate citizens.

Secondly, in many states of Europe, there is a vital sense for local citizenship, people that make foundations, volunteer, engage in culture, create alliances for local development and solidarities against urban decay and social cleavages. They often do so and volunteer explicitly with reference to their identity as citizens of their municipality, city and region. The good citizen in terms of active local co-citizenship is not dead.

Furthermore there is dialectic between developments concerning citizenship rights and active citizenship. In many countries it is the downgrading of rights, on free speech and organizing, on the public space and last not least on social citizenship rights, that is activating people as citizens concerned. Even when it may be just a special group that stands up - when it does so for defending universal rights, it speaks for the citizenship at large.

However, one can not deal with citizenship without taking account of its link with the rise of the European nation state that in most cases transformed into a democratic state; nations and democracies are not solely founded on a basic contract on rights and duties but as well on thicker grounds: a shared cultural heritage, a joint battle that took place some time ago for national independence - things that make up for a national culture and a patriotism that goes beyond the very limited notion of what Habermas was ready to accept a "patriotism of constitution" (Verfassungspatriotismus). The recent football world cup was surely not about active citizenship, but in Germany it was very much about acknowledging that a "relaxed" patriotism can be and mostly is a component of citizens´ identity and reservoir of motives to show concern and commitment.

Here it should be noted that the interplay of EC politics and national developments has as well strengthened citizenship identities. Aren't e.g. the Spanish citizens rightly proud on what their nation has achieved after Franco - with the support and as a part of the European Community? And is not a more eager but sometimes as well a more reflexive idea of ones own national interest part of the interplay between the EU and the new as well as forthcoming member states? Possibly a very far-reaching and impressive case of citizenship activated may be the recent politicisation in France in the course of the debates on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.

From here one can progress to the more problematic and sometimes even dark sides an activated citizenship can take. First of all this is the case when citizens get activated against a real and symbolic internal or external enemy - like the "strangers" in one's own community or the "EU bureaucracy out there" in Brussels. Patriotism turns into nationalism and the notion of what is "special" about "us" among others into an exclusive type of citizen- and member-ship to be defended and closed against "them". These not so welcomed elements however represent as well "active citizenship". And that holds true as well for those active forms of claiming membership, and the difference it makes against others, as they can be found in the active claims and demonstrations against giving more rights and resources to non-members. Activating the claim for the basic rights and the protection guaranteed exclusively to the members of a state-nation is often the last resort of those, who have (e.g. by long term unemployment and social exclusion) get stripped of their other identities: as respected members of a local community or workers. Therefore, they claim actively their citizenship and membership rights to the degree that this gives them a status and makes a difference towards "the others". Yes indeed, here active citizenship goes along not only with despair but as well with xenophobia, the mobilisation of prejudices and aggressive nationalism and even racism. For this notion of citizenship the values of a democratic constitution count far less compared to claimed vision of a state-framed "national culture".

Being active and committed - but not just as a citizen

At this point it is important to remember the fact, that overcoming privatism and indifference is very often not linked with active citizenship in the first place but with other facets of peoples´ identities: their role as members of a neighbourhood, religious or otherwise thick-founded community, by class solidarity or by special social and cultural concerns, where one speaks out and acts as consumer, environmentalist, feminist. Much of what has been debated for decades as social movements have and have had a (mostly overlooked) citizenship dimension but it is not active citizenship in the first line. Recently the social capital debate has made us remember that there is much more that keeps a society and political community together than just the solidarity of active citizens.

These forms of being active and participating, while not representing "active citizenship", may yet have a link and intermingle with a more or less important dose of citizenship. There are however other forms of raising one's voice and acting in public that are out of touch or even in a negative relation to the citizenship identity.

Being active, claiming rights, while being out of touch with citizenship is a well known fact, that marks all the usual active forms of particularism or corporatism to be found in European countries. Special groups defend special interests or claim special benefits without caring much what this means for other groups, whose members should be seen as well as co-citizens concerned in one or the other way. It has already been pointed out, that both big business and big labour can have such attitudes; but localism and single issue-mentality are to be found as well among new social movements.

After all, one should remember that throughout Europe, regionalism and regionalist movements are quite often much more than a romantic affair. And finally, even for the most liberal and plural society, the "break even point" may be reached where the loyalty to a specific group - a subculture, an ethnic community is put above one's loyalty and identity as a member of a democratic nation of citizens.

They don't come easy. Activism, citizenship and their links

All in all, in this essay it has been argued for a more analytical and restricted notion of active citizenship compared to the strongly positive/normative concept and the catch-all attitude to be found in public discourses, but as well, I think, in the theoretical debates.

What does it mean in a normative perspective that is concerned with strengthening "good citizenship" within the wide area of forms of active citizenship and active claims of groups, communities and interest organisations? Perhaps, some of the secrets of good citizenship lie in giving substance to it and in the linkages, checks and balances with other identities, people refer to when they get active, participate, volunteer or make claims.

Giving more substance to citizenship touches on the many forms one refers to it in public discourses and controversies - or not. Is it just about a collection of written citizenship rights to be claimed? Perhaps there is more to it with a view on a shared history and an idea of what all citizens want to share with an eye on the future. To what degree does the reading of the past and the prospects for the future touch on a substantial, democratic and civic concept of an active citizen? In Germany at least, citizenship and its democratic and civil dimensions get presently a hot topic. In the discourse with representatives of migrant communities, now organized and institutionalized officially by the government, the question is constantly there, how to define the common values and rights to be shared, the "centering and orienting culture" (Leitkultur) towards everyone - natives and migrants - should orientate.

Secondly, the link between specific economic, social and cultural concerns that activate people and their concerns as citizens is a critical issue.

On the one hand the appeal to citizens and what they share gets empty or even turns into a dangerous nationalism if it ignores peoples´ problems as workers, mothers, local citizens etc. In some member states of the EU, it is meant to offer a point of identification and unification that makes people forget exactly about the other dimensions of their life - strong national rhetoric in order to hold down massive social problems.

On the other hand, the many voices of claims, concerns and projects in liberal societies tend to transform all too easily into all sorts of corporatism and particularism in case there is not a solid common sense of what is fair and right in a citizenship. A sense of citizenship is not only important in order to be able to think about limiting ones´ claims but as well in order to make them count. Therefore there is a need to achieving a degree of being "other-regarding" across the diversity of groups in the political community.

And the European Community? Against the background sketched here it seems pretentious to claim that the development of an active European citizenship could substitute for a loss of "good citizenship" in its respective nation-state-environments. A better political culture, including more European-wide "good citizenship" will have to build on what is happening in the member states. This as well leaves a role for the EU concerning its policy style at large and special initiatives to be taken. Because one thing is certain: the relation between active citizenship in national and international / European contexts is not a zero-sum game.

9. News from other projects and networks - Taking stock

9.1 Third Sector European Policy network (TSEP)

Jeremy Kendall, University of Kent, Canterbury (UK)

Presenting the Third Sector European Policy Network

The Third Sector or the Organized, Non-Market Civil Society

The increased awareness of, and interest in, organised, non-market civil society (OCS) or (for convenient shorthand) the 'third sector' that has become increasingly evident over the past two decades - and of which the very existence of CINEFOGO is a symptom - has included an important public policy component. Whether one views this phenomenon sceptically or enthusiastically, its heightened policy salience means that it has become ever more relevant both for those who are generally interested in public and social policy processes, as well as to those who have heretofore specialized in the study of the 'third sector' or OCS.

The Third Sector European Policy (TSEP) Network

The TSEP network was initiated at the London School of Economics & Political Science in 2002 to begin the exploration of precisely this terrain: i.e. to foster a tentative but systematic initial account of the place of the third sector in policy processes. With financial support from the European Science Foundation's collaborative programme (involving national level founders), the European Commission's 5th Framework Programme, and the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF), the basic idea of the network has been to build bridges between the otherwise balkanised bodies of knowledge relating to the public policy process on the one hand, and the third sector on the other. Prior to the network, and despite animated debates concerning general concepts and categories, relatively little analytic attention had been paid specifically to the development of understanding of the actual existing third sector policy and practice that prevails in European 'policy communities' at national and supra-national levels. The problem seemed particularly acute in relation to the issue of 'horizontal' policy. What are the ways of organizing policy over and above that which takes shape within 'industries' or 'policy fields', such as social care, health and housing - or more broadly outside the social welfare domain? How does the third sector 'fit' into policy architectures? And why does it take the forms that we observe?

With this knowledge gap in mind, during 2002 - 2006, network members have worked systematically and methodically to provide provisional and tentative - but initially use answers to these and other questions. The research was conducted at the country (and sub-national) level, but also involved attention to policy modes which are evolving in Brussels, and those which involve policy actors from across European countries and in Brussels as well. For example, within the EU, the Open Method of Co-ordination, and the process of negotiating the European Constitution (currently on the political back burner) have provided explicit opportunities for third sector policy actors (within the sector itself, but also inside the State and elsewhere) to engage. In examining the trajectory of the United Nations International Year of Volunteers (IYV-2001) we also sought to examine a process not confined to the EU.

TSEP Outputs

The network's main tangible outputs during its period of European funding support (up to 2005) were Policy Workshops conducted across Europe, a series of Working Papers, and a range of academic conference sessions, including the International Society for Third Sector Research (ISTR) and the European Consortium for Policy Research (ECPR). Reports of the Workshops, and the Working Papers themselves are available from downloading from the LSE website (see below). Latterly, since 2006, coinciding with my relocation from LSE to the School of Social Policy, Sociology & Social Research (SSPSSR) at the University of Kent, Canterbury, the completion of a book building upon, but moving considerably beyond, the materials released in 2005, has been the main activity. This has involved close joint working with national partners, now working on an essentially voluntary basis (while CAF have continued to support my developmental and editorial role at Kent). The fruits of this labour will become available in 2007, with publication by Edward Elgar.

Read more:

• General website for the TSEP Network
  A supplementary TSEP website is under construction at SSPSSR at Kent University. It will report in more detail of progress since 2006 - cf. upcoming edition of the CINEFOGO Newsletter.
• Jeremy Kendall (2005) Third Sector European Policy: Organisations between Market and State, the Policy Process and the EU - reference article for the work as a whole within the TSEP Network.

9.2 Third Sector Conference (ISTR), July 2006 in Bangkok (Thailand)

 Lars Josephsen, Roskilde University (Denmark)

July 9-12, 2006, the International Society for Third-Sector Research (ISTR) held an international conference in Bangkok, Thailand, to exchange ideas and research findings about civil society and the third sector. The overall theme of the conference was "Civil Society and Human Security. Raum Jai"^(*).

As a background for this theme, the arrangers wrote:

"The world is preoccupied with issues of security where civil society, the Third Sector, is implicated in this at every level, as protagonist, victim, advocate and potential solution. The seventh international conference in Bangkok therefore provides an opportunity to share and explore scholarship that addresses issues of local, national, regional and global (in)security. We wish to explore the many sides of (in)security, from the response to natu-ral disasters to the defence of human rights, and the search for broader civil society en-gagement."

Many aspects of the conference theme were examined, e.g. the role of religion, gender, and ethnicity, social movements, governance and multi-sector partnerships, the legitimacy and accountability of civil society, etc. As well, topics including civic participation, community development and citizenship, and the application of research-based knowledge to policy and practice were explored, and - following its tradition - the ISTR conference was multidisciplinary in its approach.

Having observed that the number of paper and panel presenters exceeded 250, one gets an indication of the size of the conference. Among the presenters were several scholars from the CINEFOGO Network of Excellence.

^(*) Raum Jai, meaning putting our hearts together. Jai (heart) in Thai cultural values is very important.

Read more: ISTR Bangkok 2006 conference website

10. Recent and upcoming events

This section presents a brief survey over 12 recent and upcoming events focusing on issues that might interest CINEOGO members. Deadline for edition of the section was 1 November 2006.
The events encompass conferences, seminars and workshops, taking place in the period until medio July 2007. The survey does not claim to be exhaustive. All the listed events except 10.11 are arranged by CINEFOGO partner institutions.

10.3 Workshop on "Differences in Social Participation and Civic Cultures across Europe"
When & where: 15 December 2006, Plovdiv (Bulgaria)
Organizing Institutions: Research Institute for Nonprofit Organisations, Vienna (Austria), and New Europe Centre for Regional Studies, Plovdiv (Bulgaria
The workshop will focus on patterns and conditions of citizens' participation in the European civil society. Its objective is the presentation and discussion of preliminary results within the research activities of work package 11. In this respect the workshop will particularly aim at explaining national distinctions in terms of determining factors on civic participation (e.g. political policies, social values, economic situation etc). The work up to now includes analyses based upon data from the European Value Study (1999), World Value Study (2000), and European Social Survey (2002, 2004). Also a litterature review on theoretical approaches of participa-tion has been carried out in order to clarify main research questions.
Contact: Stefanie Bixa, Research Institute for Nonprofit Organisations, Austria, stefanie.bixa@wu-wien.ac.at and Siyka Kovacheva, New Europe Centre for Regional Studies, Bulgaria, skovacheva@mbox.contact.bg

10.4 Conference: Partnership - Keystone of Governance. On the outsourcing of local based community services to public private partnerships
When & where: 29-31 January 2007, Münster (Germany)
Organizing Institutions: Münster University (Germany) in cooperation with Tilburg University (the Netherlands).
The outsourcing of local based community services to public private partnerships with involvement of civil society organizations is currently taking place in many European countries and policy fields. In particular the policy fields welfare production and culture, education, environment, sports, and recreation are restructured in the course of new governance approaches. Up until now, the topic of civil society organizations involved in public private partnerships has not been well researched. This is particularly the case if we consider theses developments in a European comparative perspective. In other words, research takes by and large a rather static approach on the "welfare mix" of selected policy fields.
The aim of the conference is to analyse the involvement of civil society organizations in public private partnerships from a comparative perspective and to collect and document best practices from various European countries. The conference programme addresses the following topics: (1) New Modes of Governance and Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). (2) What do we know about Civil Society Organizations being part of PPPs: An Overview of the State of the Art. (3) Challenges for Civil Society Organizations in Public Private Partnerships: Management, Governance, Stakeholders, and (4) Examples and Best Practices from various European countries. The conference is open for historical and qualitative as well as for theoretical and empirical contributions. In particular members of the CINEFOGO Network are invited to participate; moreover PhD students are highly welcomed to apply. 12 to 15 paper givers are intended.
Deadline for abstracts and paper presentations: 17 November 2006
Contact: Matthias Freise, Münster University, freisem@uni-muenster.de