Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Populist Governance Shaping Political Opportunity Structures: CSOs’ Access to Policy-making and Public Funding

Santilli, Cecilia LU and Scaramuzzino, Roberto LU (2026) Nordic Conference on Civil Society Studies
Abstract
This paper addresses the question of whether the rise to power of right-wing populist parties has an impact on the political opportunity structures (POS) available for incumbent civil society organizations (CSOs). The elements of POS that are exposed to changes by the right-wing populist parties in power are those that are embedded in governance structures. In this paper we will focus in particular on two elements: access to policy-making and to public funding.
Theoretically the paper also draws on theories about populist governance and the way in which it relates to civil society. Two civil society-related dimensions are explored in particular: “avoidance of intermediary institutions” and “repression/obstruction of oppositional civil... (More)
This paper addresses the question of whether the rise to power of right-wing populist parties has an impact on the political opportunity structures (POS) available for incumbent civil society organizations (CSOs). The elements of POS that are exposed to changes by the right-wing populist parties in power are those that are embedded in governance structures. In this paper we will focus in particular on two elements: access to policy-making and to public funding.
Theoretically the paper also draws on theories about populist governance and the way in which it relates to civil society. Two civil society-related dimensions are explored in particular: “avoidance of intermediary institutions” and “repression/obstruction of oppositional civil society”. In fact, avoidance of intermediary institutions, such as CSOs, motivate limiting these organisations’ access to policy-making and cutting their funding as their intermediary functions lacks recognition in populist governance. Repression/obstruction of oppositional civil society can also be achieved by excluding CSOs that are perceived as oppositional to the government and its policy goals from policy-making and cutting their funding.
Linking POS to populist governance allows to explore the impact of populist parties’ influence on public policies on CSOs. The contours of populist governance (Muno & Pfeiffer 2022), in this regard, are still to be defined and understood, especially in relation to other forms of governance (see Pierre & Peters 2000), for instance “collaborative governance” (Ansell & Gash 2007). The difference might not be as clear-cut as with some examples of Eastern European countries where some CSOs have lost institutional access (Roggeband & Krizsán 2021) or where strict foreign funding restrictions have been implemented (Bromley et al. 2020). Some scholars have argued that while populism in Eastern European countries has easily undermined democracy, it lacks this capacity in Western Europe due to the robustness of their democratic political structures (Bugaric & Kuhelj, 2018)
Thie paper examines how incumbent CSOs perceive and experience changes in POS due to changes in consultation and funding practices implemented by governments influenced by right-wing populist parties. To do so, we draw on a qualitative analysis of interview data from incumbent CSOs in Italy and Sweden at a time in which national policies were influenced by right-wing populist parties. The following three research questions will be guiding the analysis:
1) How do CSOs perceive changes in consultation practices and funding?
2) To what extent and how can these changes be understood as part of “populist governance”?
3) To what extent and how do these changes impact on political opportunity structures?
The comparison between Italy and Sweden is particularly revealing. The results suggest that in both contexts incumbent CSOs’ POS are affected by populist governance. In Italy, however, it has a stronger effect on access to policy-making than funding while the opposite is true for Sweden. These differences can be understood in the light of the two countries being characterized by different roles for civil society, service provision in Italy and advocacy in Sweden (Santilli & Scaramuzzino 2024).

References
Ansell C, & Gash A (2007) Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 543–571, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032.
Bugaric, B. & Kuhelj, A. (2018) Varieties of Populism in Europe: Is the Rule of Law in Danger?. Hague J Rule Law 10, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-018-0075-4.
Bromley, Patricia, Evan Schofer, & Wesley Longhofer. (2020). “Contentions over World Culture: The Rise of Legal Restrictions on Foreign Funding to NGOs, 1994–2015.” Social Forces 99 (1): 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz138.
Muno, W., & Pfeiffer, C. (2022). Populism in power—A comparative analysis of populist governance. International Area Studies Review, 25(4), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/22338659221120067
Pierre, J. & Peters, B. G. (2000), Governance, Politics and the State, London: Macmillan
Roggeband, C. & Krizsán, A. (2021), The Selective Closure of Civic Space. Glob Policy, 12: 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12973
Santilli, C. & Scaramuzzino, R. (2024). Civil society elites in the Italian third sector: a comparative perspective. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to conference
publication status
unpublished
subject
conference name
Nordic Conference on Civil Society Studies
conference location
Lund, Sweden
conference dates
2026-04-23 - 2026-04-24
project
Civil society and populism: How the rise to power of populist parties affects State-civil society relations
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
0aa841a3-8b3d-4561-b3fa-e762b481cf6c
date added to LUP
2026-06-02 08:17:17
date last changed
2026-06-02 08:39:49
@misc{0aa841a3-8b3d-4561-b3fa-e762b481cf6c,
  abstract     = {{This paper addresses the question of whether the rise to power of right-wing populist parties has an impact on the political opportunity structures (POS) available for incumbent civil society organizations (CSOs). The elements of POS that are exposed to changes by the right-wing populist parties in power are those that are embedded in governance structures. In this paper we will focus in particular on two elements: access to policy-making and to public funding.<br/>Theoretically the paper also draws on theories about populist governance and the way in which it relates to civil society. Two civil society-related dimensions are explored in particular: “avoidance of intermediary institutions” and “repression/obstruction of oppositional civil society”. In fact, avoidance of intermediary institutions, such as CSOs, motivate limiting these organisations’ access to policy-making and cutting their funding as their intermediary functions lacks recognition in populist governance. Repression/obstruction of oppositional civil society can also be achieved by excluding CSOs that are perceived as oppositional to the government and its policy goals from policy-making and cutting their funding.<br/>Linking POS to populist governance allows to explore the impact of populist parties’ influence on public policies on CSOs. The contours of populist governance (Muno &amp; Pfeiffer 2022), in this regard, are still to be defined and understood, especially in relation to other forms of governance (see Pierre &amp; Peters 2000), for instance “collaborative governance” (Ansell &amp; Gash 2007). The difference might not be as clear-cut as with some examples of Eastern European countries where some CSOs have lost institutional access (Roggeband &amp; Krizsán 2021) or where strict foreign funding restrictions have been implemented (Bromley et al. 2020). Some scholars have argued that while populism in Eastern European countries has easily undermined democracy, it lacks this capacity in Western Europe due to the robustness of their democratic political structures (Bugaric &amp; Kuhelj, 2018)<br/>Thie paper examines how incumbent CSOs perceive and experience changes in POS due to changes in consultation and funding practices implemented by governments influenced by right-wing populist parties. To do so, we draw on a qualitative analysis of interview data from incumbent CSOs in Italy and Sweden at a time in which national policies were influenced by right-wing populist parties. The following three research questions will be guiding the analysis: <br/>1)	How do CSOs perceive changes in consultation practices and funding?<br/>2)	To what extent and how can these changes be understood as part of “populist governance”?<br/>3)	To what extent and how do these changes impact on political opportunity structures?<br/>The comparison between Italy and Sweden is particularly revealing. The results suggest that in both contexts incumbent CSOs’ POS are affected by populist governance. In Italy, however, it has a stronger effect on access to policy-making than funding while the opposite is true for Sweden. These differences can be understood in the light of the two countries being characterized by different roles for civil society, service provision in Italy and advocacy in Sweden (Santilli &amp; Scaramuzzino 2024).<br/><br/>References<br/>Ansell C, &amp; Gash A (2007) Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 543–571, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032.<br/>Bugaric, B. &amp; Kuhelj, A. (2018) Varieties of Populism in Europe: Is the Rule of Law in Danger?. Hague J Rule Law 10, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-018-0075-4. <br/>Bromley, Patricia, Evan Schofer, &amp; Wesley Longhofer. (2020). “Contentions over World Culture: The Rise of Legal Restrictions on Foreign Funding to NGOs, 1994–2015.” Social Forces 99 (1): 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz138.<br/>Muno, W., &amp; Pfeiffer, C. (2022). Populism in power—A comparative analysis of populist governance. International Area Studies Review, 25(4), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/22338659221120067<br/>Pierre, J. &amp; Peters, B. G. (2000), Governance, Politics and the State, London: Macmillan<br/>Roggeband, C. &amp; Krizsán, A. (2021), The Selective Closure of Civic Space. Glob Policy, 12: 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12973<br/>Santilli, C. &amp; Scaramuzzino, R. (2024). Civil society elites in the Italian third sector: a comparative perspective. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.<br/>}},
  author       = {{Santilli, Cecilia and Scaramuzzino, Roberto}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  title        = {{Populist Governance Shaping Political Opportunity Structures: CSOs’ Access to Policy-making and Public Funding}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}