Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are proliferating. How do they affect political participation in developing democracies? In NGOs, Political Protest, and Civil Society, Carew Boulding masterfully argues that NGOs, even those organizations without a specific political agenda, can heighten political participation in new democracies. In developing democracies with high quality electoral institutions, NGOs are likely to increase voter turnout. As the quality of electoral institutions decline, NGOs play a role in increasing political protest. Challenging canonical arguments by Samuel P. Huntington (Political Order in Changing Societies, 1968) about the dangerous nature of civil society in developing countries, Boulding sees NGOs as not encouraging or increasing antidemocratic attitudes in most states, even if contentious political behavior is heightened as a result of NGO involvement. However, unlike the more dominant view of civil society as the panacea for democracy promotion (e.g., see Robert D. Putnam, Making Democracy Work, 1994), Boulding also stresses how important the pre-existing democratic institutions are in conditioning the effects of NGOs in developing states. In short, NGO involvement in a country can have powerful effects on political participation; the nature of these effects are conditional on the quality of electoral institutions within the state where the NGO is operating.

In a variety of academic disciplines and fields in political science, scholars have long examined the growth and effects of NGOs (e.g, see Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, 1998; John Boli and George M. Thomas, eds., Constructing World Culture, 1999; Hildy Teegen, Jonathan P. Doh, and Sushil Vachani, “The importance of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance and value creation: An international business research agenda,” Journal of International Business Studies 35 [November 2004] 463–48). Boulding’s work is unique in this area in many regards. First, Boulding focuses on the intentional and perhaps unintentional ways that NGOs active in a variety of issue areas can influence political participation. Regardless of whether the organization is “providing health care, educational services, or community organizing” (p. 34), NGOs provide resources and social capital through their involvement in a state that can increase association and ultimately influence political participation. Most work in this area, including my own, has not focused on nonpolitical NGOs or the ways in which NGOs can influence outcomes outside of their specific issue area. By focusing on a wider array of NGOs and concretely outlining the mechanisms through which this diverse group of NGOs could influence political participation, Boulding’s study presents new causal mechanisms through which NGOs could influence the political environment where they work.

Second, Boulding’s book draws special attention to the pre-existing institutions within new democracies and how the influence of NGOs on specific types of political participation (i.e., political protest versus voting) is contingent to these institutions. Much work within political science on NGOs draws heavily on scholarship within international relations. Boulding’s work is unique in its combination of insights from international relations on NGOs with literature on the quality of democracy, civil society, and mobilization from comparative politics. The comparative literature helps give this study richness in its portrayal of how NGOs influence individuals and how NGOs are similar to and different from other voluntary organizations. It draws specific attention to the pre-existing democratic institutions and the trust individuals have in these institutions; often these structures have been in place for far longer than an individual NGO has been involved in a state.

Third, Boulding’s work is exemplary in its adept use of multiple methods and multiple levels of analysis in providing empirical tests of the implications of her argument. Some qualitative NGO studies in the past have been criticized for only selecting cases where NGOs have been successful at bringing about improvement in human rights and democratization (e.g., see Thomas Risse, “Transnational Actors and World Politics” in Thomas Risse, Walter Carlsenaes, and Beth Simmons, eds, The Handbook of International Relations, 2002). And some quantitative studies have been criticized for their lack of nuance and limited attention to the processes through which NGOs influence behavior and political outcomes (e.g., see Emilie M. Hafner-Burton and James Ron. “Seeing double.” World Politics 61[April 2009]: 360–401). Boulding’s empirical strategy is unique in that it incorporates the best of both qualitative and quantitative approaches in the examination of NGOs and their role in political participation. Boulding’s empirical chapters cover (a) subnational-level survey data on protest, voter turnout, and NGOs in Bolivia; (b) individual survey data both within and outside of Latin America; and (c) more detailed qualitative on-the-ground knowledge of Latin America, specifically Bolivia. Large scale data on NGOs is incredibly difficult to come by and Boulding’s book should be praised for its ability to “go to battle” with the data that is available, even if it isn’t what we would ideally want. Boulding does a wonderful job outlining the potential shortcomings of each of the approaches she uses. In its entirety, the empirical chapters do a fabulous job testing the central implications of her theory.

Boulding’s work is a “must read” for any scholar of NGOs or of political participation. For NGO scholars, most of whom work mainly outside of the area of comparative politics, Boulding’s work is an excellent example of the traction that can be gained through attention to the domestic structures and characteristics that can potentially condition the effects of NGOs. Although Boulding’s work focuses only on countries that have a “minimal level of democracy” (p. 129), one could see future projects that build on this work and focus more concretely on non-democracies. One could potentially argue that the positive take-away of Boulding may be lessened in non-democratic regimes, where pre-existing trust in government is not high and the resources for non-violent mobilization may be somewhat limited. Similarly, future work on political participation could benefit from Boulding’s focus on NGOs, as a key component of civil society. Future studies could examine whether the effects of NGOs on political participation varies by NGO home-location (e.g., see Sarah S. Stroup, Borders among activists: international NGOs in the United States, Britain, and France. Cornell University Press, 2012). It could be, for example, that organizations from the United States are viewed much differently by individuals in some states than organizations from Sweden or completely domestic organizations; these differences might then limit the ways in which some NGOs are able to facilitate political participation, especially in non-democracies. Further, looking both at new democracies and states with other political regimes, future work could draw upon recent studies on non-violent protest campaigns (e.g., see Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan, Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. Columbia University Press, 2011) and examine differences in the type and nature of protests that are affected by NGOs.

In short, Boulding’s work should be on the reading list of every NGO scholar and should be the go-to example of how to do multiple methods well in our discipline. Beyond its obvious value for the study of NGOs and civil society, it speaks to perineal debates about the development of new democracies and the importance of high quality domestic electoral institutions. In this post-Arab Spring environment, even the most nonpolitical of NGOs can influence political participation in new democracies; the nature of this influence depends on the domestic structures in place and the population’s trust in the extant system. However, as Boulding concludes, this NGO-heightened participation is compatible with democracy. This message deserves attention by both scholars and practitioners interested in democracy promotion.