Conceptualizing Restrictive Environments for Civil Society
Author: Dr. Anna Neya Kazanskaia
Publisher: NEYA Global Publishing
Article | NEYA Global Journal of Non-Profit Studies
Year: 2025
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5669-1676
DOI: https://doi.org/10.64357/neya-gjnps-cvscunprrsenv-02
This material forms part of the NEYA Global knowledge architecture. Institutional, organizational, professional, training, consulting, curriculum, program design, or implementation use requires an active license from NEYA Global
Explore Architecture →
Module Overview →
Request Institutional Access →
About the Article
The contraction of civic space has become a defining feature of twenty-first-century governance. This article develops a conceptual framework for understanding restrictive environments faced by civil society organizations (CSOs) worldwide. It examines legal, political, cultural, and digital dimensions of restriction, linking them to different regime types—authoritarian, hybrid, and backsliding democracies. Drawing on theories of civil society, regime change, and authoritarian diffusion, it critically assesses how restrictions emerge, spread, and are experienced across contexts. The analysis integrates Global South perspectives to challenge Northern-centric narratives and reviews key measurement tools such as CIVICUS Monitor, Freedom House, and V-Dem, emphasizing their conceptual limitations. Case illustrations from Russia and China demonstrate how restrictive laws institutionalize control while grassroots actors negotiate survival. The article contributes to both academic and practical understanding by clarifying conceptual boundaries and proposing a multidimensional approach to studying civic space under pressure.
Key Topics
- Restrictive environments
- Civic space and governance
- Civil society theory
- Authoritarian diffusion
- Democratic backsliding
- Global South perspectives
Suggested Citation
Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Conceptualizing Restrictive Environments for Civil Society. NEYA Global Journal of Non-Profit Studies. NEYA Global Publishing. https://doi.org/10.64357/neya-gjnps-cvscunprrsenv-02
References
Bermeo, N. (2016). On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5-19.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0012
Buyse, A. (2018). Squeezing civic space: Restrictions on civil society organizations and the linkages with human rights. The International Journal of Human Rights, 22(8), 966-988.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2018.1492916
Dupuy, K., Ron, J., & Prakash, A. (2015). Who survived? Ethiopia's regulatory crackdown on foreign-funded NGOs. Review of International Political Economy, 22(2), 419-456.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2014.903854
Edwards, M. (2011). The Oxford handbook of civil society. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398571.001.0001
Frantz, E., & Kendall-Taylor, A. (2014). A dictator's toolkit: Understanding how co-optation, repression, and propaganda shape authoritarian survival. Journal of Peace Research, 51(3), 332-346.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343313519808
Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Civil Society Under Pressure: Restrictive Environments. NEYA Global Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.64357/civil-society-under-pressure-2025
Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Organizational Legitimacy: Earning & Sustaining Public Trust. NEYA Global Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.64357/legitimacy-2025
Kazanskaia, A. N. (2025). Accountability: Building Trust through Transparency. NEYA Global Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.64357/accountability-2025
Lührmann, A., Tannenberg, M., & Lindberg, S. I. (2020). Regimes of the world (RoW): Opening new avenues for the comparative study of political regimes. Politics and Governance, 8(1), 1-18.
O'Donnell, G., & Schmitter, P. C. (1986). Transitions from authoritarian rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Skaaning, S. E. (2019). Measuring civil liberties: The challenge of conceptual stretching. Political Research Quarterly, 72(2), 420-434.
