Ekaterina Ivanova, MSc
Research Associate
Institute of Slavic Languages / Nonprofit Management Institute
Vienna University of Business and Economics
UZA 4, Kern D, 4. Stock, 408a
Nordbergstraße 15, 1090, Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43 1 31336 5750
Fax: +43 1 31336 744
ekaterina.ivanova@wu.ac.at
“Professional Associations: an Emerging Civil Society Institution in Russia”
Keywords: Professional Associations, Civil Society, Institution, Functions, Russia
State of the field and problem statement
For the last three decades the role of the nonprofit sector in the development of civil society in Russia
remains a hot topic in the research community. Such an increased attention to the topic ‘civil society’
in the transition economies of Eastern Europe and the former USSR could be explained by the
recognition of the important role that institutions of civil society play for democratization, thereby
providing a vital link between the citizens and the state (Arko-cobbah, 2006, 349). Most commonly
referred to as the ‘third sector’, civil society in this sense contains all associations and networks
between the family and the state, except firms (Edwards, 2004).
Even though, such renowned scholars as Golenkova (1999), Howard, (2003), Crotty (2009) agree
that civil society as well as democracy are in their infancy in Russia, the existing civil society
organizations (CSO), represented by civil rights movements, the environment organizations, labor
unions, business associations and others are constantly under study by researchers (Baglione & Clark,
1998; Sperling, 1999; Sundstrom, 2002; Holland, 2004; Taylor, 2006; Crotty, 2009; Yakovlev, 2010;
Yakobson et al, 2011 ). One type of such organizations, which has not as of yet been
comprehensively studied, represented by professional associations (PA) is in the focus of the present
study and acts as the major unit of analysis. By PAs I mean voluntary CSOs, promoting, regulating
and protecting professional interests, such as associations of lawyers, managers and other
occupations (Anheier, 2005).
For the purpose of my study, I argue that in the case of Russia one of the most promising civil society
institutions is represented by professional associations, which could be regarded as institutional
change agents. I assume that members of PAs represent Russian citizens successful in their
professions, which belong to the emerging middle class, share fundamental democratic values and
most probably could take an active role in the democratic transformations in Russia. Therefore, this
study aims to explore the activities of PAs as civil society institutions, by arguing that there is a set of
1
distinctive civil society functions that PAs perform. To develop this argument I examine which civil
society functions PAs perform and which are the driving and hindering forces that influence PA’s
capability to fulfill these functions.
The present study starts with the state-of-the-art literature review of current academic thinking with
regard to civil society functions that SCOs perform. Then, I provide the theoretical framework and
methods used in my empirical qualitative study. After that I present a typology of three civil society
functions that PAs perform: service delivery, advocacy and community building. I continue by
explaining which forces influence PA’s capability to fulfill these functions. I conclude by presenting
suggestions for further research.
Characteristics of the research
From the undertaken literature review, it was discovered that there are two specific features of
research on CSOs. On the one hand, there are at least three academic disciplines that offer a
particular set of perspectives on CSO governance: economics, sociology and political science. On the
other hand, it could be found that research on CSO governance runs between theories (Maier, Meyer,
2011). I assume that the institutional theory (DiMaggio, 1988; Tolbert & Zucker, 1996; Scott, 2001)
and the stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984, Anheier & Ben-Ner, 2003) provide the most suitable
theoretical framework for organization studies, explaining how the concept of civil society translates
into the empirical studies. Taking this into account, for the operationalization of the activities that
PAs perform as a civil society institution I have used the civil society functions perspective, in order
to build on the works of earlier authors, such as Solomon (2000), Warren (2001), Frumkin, (2002),
Kendall, (2003), Paffenholz & Spurk (2006), Meyer & Neumayr (2010). Based on these works it
could be summarized that there are three key functions that civil society organizations perform:
service delivery, advocacy, and community building.
The empirical data for the current study is collected by means of personal in-depth semi-structured
expert interviews with leaders and senior employees of professional associations, professional
managers, as well, as acknowledged scholars and experts in this field. I have used a judgment
sampling method to identify the potential candidates for the interviews in order to secure an access to
them. In seeking out the responds I have relied exclusively on the personal contacts gathered during
the decade of professional work for a number of Moscow-based CSOs. Moscow has been chosen as a
sampling point for convenience reasons, since it was easier for me to reach the respondents there.
Altogether I have carried out 15 one-on-one interviews, which was enough to reach the saturation in
relation to the explored themes. The interviews took place in the course of September 2011. The
2
average length of one interview amounted to 63 minutes. An interview guide has been used to run the
interviews. All interviews were recorded, than fully transcribed and coded into categories. The
analysis of interview was conducted on the basis of the original Russian transcripts. The process of
analysis was iterative. Categories were checked for coherence with new data and modified if
necessary.
Main results
I managed to identify three mainstream civil society functions that are typical for PAs in Russia:
service delivery, advocacy and community building. Consequently, the null hypothesis that the civil
society activities of PAs could be divided into three mainstream functions is correct and it is in line
with the findings of the literature review. However, these functions could be fully attributed mostly to
the mature PAs, organized on the competitive basis to represent collective interests of their
constituencies.
The significance of the functions to the membership and the order of their appearance in the lifecycle of PAs could be interpreted differently. The most convincing interpretation that the more
mature and developed certain PA is, the more likely it has started its activities either from the service
delivery or advocacy and only after these functions have been sufficiently developed, PA was able to
concentrate on the more sophisticated community building functions aimed at making claims about
its occupational status by means of development of professional standards, running certification
programs and thus participating in the governance of a field.
The major driving forces that contribute to the capacity of PAs to perform their mainstream functions
are found predominantly at the organizational level, whereas the hindering forces are mostly located
at the individual and societal levels. Such factors, as installed internal organizational governance
structures, competitive nature of PAs, personality of the leader, reputation of the PA and its capability
to secure funding from various sources positively effects the PAs’ ability to fulfill their civil society
functions. On the contrary, factors that prevent PAs from performing their mainstream functions
include ambiguity of the prevailing socio-cultural views and values, lack of tradition of civic
activism, an inefficient and over-centralized state machinery and imperfect institutional environment.
One of the possible directions of the further study could be the influence of the new social media,
such as Facebook, Twitter or Google Circles Plus on the mainstream societal functions that PAs
perform. It is still an open question for PAs, whether the self-regulated and volatile online
communication communities will substitute them or PAs will find a way to integrate the new ICTs in
their mainstream societal functions in terms of the transformed forms and methods of their
implementation.
3
References:

Anheier, Helmut K. (2005). Nonprofit Organizations: Theory, Management. London: Routledge.

Anheier, Helmut K. & Ben-Ner, Avner. (2003). The Study of the Nonprofit Enterprise: Theories and Approaches. New York:
Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.

Arko-cobbah, Albert. (2006). Civil Society and Good Governance: Challenges for Public Libraries in South Africa", Library
Review, Vol. 55 Iss: 6, pp.349 – 362.

Baglione, Lisa A. & Clark, Carol L. (1998). The Challenge of Transforming Russian Unions: The Mining and Metallurgy Trade
Union. Problems in Post-Communism, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 43–53.

Crotty, Jo. (2009). Making a Difference? NGOs and Civil Society Development in Russia. Europe-Asian Studies. Vol. 61, No. 1,
pp. 85–108.

DiMaggio, Paul J. (1988). Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and
organizations: 3-32. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Edwards, Michael. (2004). Civil Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity, pp. vi-viii.

Freeman, R. Edward. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman/Ballinger.

Frumkin, Peter (2002): On Being Nonprofit. A Conceptual and Policy Primer. London, Harvard University Press.

Golenkova, Zinaida T. (1999). Civil Society in Russia. Russian Social Science Review. Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 4-18.

Holland, Mary. (2004). Chechnya’s Internally Displaced and the Role of Russia’s NGOs. Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol. 17,
No. 3, pp. 334–46.

Howard, Marc M. (2003). The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kendall, Jeremy (2003): The Voluntary Sector. Comparative Perspectives in the UK. London, New York, Routledge.

Maier, Florentine & Meyer, Michael. (2011). Managerialism and Beyond: Discourses of Civil Society Organization and Their
Governance Implications. Voluntas. Vol. 22, pp. 731–756.

Neumayr, Michaela & Meyer, Michael. (2010). In search of Civicness: an Empirical Investigation of Service Delivery, Public
Advocacy, and Community Building by Civil Society Organizations. In: Civicness in the Governance and Delivery of Social
Services, Hrsg. Taco Brandsen, Paul Dekker, Adalbert Evers, 201-226. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Paffenholz, Thania & Spurk, Christoph. (2006). Civil Society, Civic Engagement, and Peacebuilding. Social Development
Papers: Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction, No. 36. Washington, DC: Social Development Department of The World Bank.

Putnam, Robert D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, Robert D. (2000). Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Richter, James. (1998). Promoting Activism or Professionalism in Russia's Civil Society? PONARS Policy Memo, No. 51, p. 1.

Salamon, Lester M., Leslie C. Hems and Kathryn Chinnock. (2000). The Nonprofit Sector: For What and For Whom? Working
Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, No. 37. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society
Studies.

Scott, W. Richard. (2001). Institutions and Organizations. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sperling, Valerie. (1999) Organising Women in Contemporary Russia: Engendering Transition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Sundstrom, Lisa M. (2002). Women’s NGOs in Russia: Struggling from the Margins, Demokratizatsiya, Spring, pp. 126–368.

Taylor, Brian D. (2006). Law Enforcement and Civil Society in Russia. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 193–213.

Tolbert, Pamela. S., & Zucker, Lynne. G. (1996). The Institutionalization of Institutional Theory. In Steward R. Clegg, Cynthia
Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Institutional Studies:175-190. London: Sage.

Warren, Mark E. (2001): Democracy and Association. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.

Yakobson, Lev I., Mersiyanova, Irina V.; Kononykhina, Olga; Benevolenski, Vladimir B; Pamfilova, Ella A; Proskuryakova,
Liliana, N; Tumanova, Anastasiya, S. (2011). Civil Society in Modernising Russia. Moscow: Centre for Study of Civil Society and
the Non-for-Profit Sector.

Yakovlev, Andrey A. (2010). (Ed.). Biznes-assoziazii v Rossii: Vnutrennyaya Struktura, Evolyutsiya Otnosheniy s
Gosudarstvom, Rol’ v Modernizatsii Economiki. Moscow: Moskovskiy Obshchestvenniy Nauchniy Fond.
4