Appendix to the Dissertation

Appendix 1The German Political Foundations 

Portray 1 The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES)

The FES focuses on economic and social policy (social aspects of a market economy, effective social security systems), the creation of decentralized administration, and trade union cooperation. It applies the instruments of civic education and management such as seminars, round-table talks, conferences, publications but also technical assistance and political advising. The projects are drafted in the head quarter in Germany in close cooperation with the field offices. Project management is left to the field offices. The projects are implemented in cooperation with domestic partners. Main partners are trade unions, social-democratic parties, research institutes, administrative bodies and NGOs. One can conclude therefore that the strategy is interactive with an elite focus. The FES is active and runs field offices in all the respective countries with the exception of Slovakia where only an office with local staff exists.

Portray 2 The Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS)

The KAS focuses on economic policy and development (in particular small- and medium enterprises), legal assistance, decentralization and local self-administration. The project management is carried out in the same manner as in the FES. Partners are the church, parties, administrative bodies, research institutes, universities. The instruments applied resemble the instruments of the FES. The strategy has an elite focus, and is proactive. The KAS runs field offices in all the respective countries, with the exception of Slovakia where only a field office with local staff exists.

Portray 3 Hans Seidel Stiftung (HSS)

Besides the activities of civic education the HSS mainly focuses on institution building and administrative reform. Main instruments are training of civil servants and other usual instruments (technical assistance, seminars, conferences). Partners are administrative bodies (regional and local administrations, interior ministry, the police), research institutes, universities and to a lesser extent NGOs (foundations, associations). The projects are carried out in close cooperation with the respective partners which are chosen according to the projects. The HSS is active in all of the respective countries with the exception of Poland (closed the office in 1995 due to financial reasons). In contrast to the FES and KAS, the HSS was not active in the region before 1990.

Portray 4 The Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung (FNS)

The priority areas of the FNS are centered around the topics: decentralization / local government, the role of the state in the economy, human rights and the rule of law and civic culture. The projects are drafted and coordinated from the regional office in Budapest. Domestic project-partners are NGOs, liberal research centers and organized liberal forces. Main instruments are seminars and conferences but also the creation of ‘liberal forums’ or ‘liberal academies’ in order to foster liberal forces. In the 1990s the FNS changed its strategy, in particular in the Czech Republic and in Hungary. While the FNS previously exclusively cooperated with one (liberall) party, this approach has been given up as liberalism is not deeply rooted in CEE. Liberal parties either ceased to exist or changed into conservative and Christian-democratic parties. In response, the FNS concentrates on the support to think tanks and the establishment of liberal forums in order to bring together liberal persons from different parties. The FNS is active in all of the respective countries but only runs offices in Prague (responsible for Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Slovenia), Budapest (main office), Poland and Sofia (Bulgaria and Romania).

Portray 5 The Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (HBS)

The HBS differs from the other German foundations in many respects. First, the areas of the projects are different. The HBS carries out projects in the following fields: support of democratic women movement, environment, human rights. The partners of the HBS are exclusively NGOs, in particular NGOs striving for women rights and sustainable environment. The HBS thus aims to build democracy from the bottom-up. The HBS is active in Poland (5 projects), Rumania (2 projects), Slovakia (1 project), Czech Republic (3 projects). The projects are coordinated from the only field office in CEE located in Prague.

Appendix 2Overall Assistance to Poland and Slovakia: Selected Donors

Table 1Distribution of the German Transform-Program by country in 1998

Table 2Distribution of Transform Allocations by Area of Assistance, 1998

Table 3Phare Funding by Area in Poland, 1990-1997

Financial Aid

1990-1997 (Mio. ECU)

1990-93

1994

1995

1996

1997

in total

% of total

  per cap i ta

administrative reform, public sector, consumer protection, legal homogenization

58,6

21,5

2

0

35,5

117,6

8%

3 ECU

civil society and democracy

0

0

0

0

0

0

0%

0 ECU

education and research

104,3

39

37

30

20

230,3

15%

5,9 ECU

restructuring of agriculture

165

2,5

13

14

8

202,5

13%

5,2 ECU

urgent aid

0

0

0

0

0

0

0%

0 ECU

environment and nuclear security

75

12

22

5

0

114

7%

2,9 ECU

infrastructure (energy, transport, telecomm.

105,4

93,8

91

117

69,4

476,6

31%

12,2 ECU

private sector, financial sector, regional measures

219,2

31

9

37

15

311,2

20%

8 ECU

social development, employment, public healthcare

45,2

9

0

0

0

54,2

4%

1,4 ECU

others (general, multidisciplinary and technical assistance)

30

0

0

0

0

30

2%

0,8 ECU

in total

802,7

208,8

174

203

147,9

1536

100%

39,4 ECU

Source: The European Commission, 1997: Phare Annual Report 1997

Table 4Phare Funding by Area in Slovakia, 1990-1997

Financial Aid

1990-1997 (Mio. ECU)

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

in total

% of total

  per

cap i ta

administrative reform, public sector, consumer protection, legal homogenization

0

4

5,3

0

0

9,3

5%

1,9 ECU

civil society and democracy

0

0

0,5

0

3

3,5

2%

0,7 ECU

education and research

5

9

5

4,5

4

27,5

16%

5,5 ECU

restructuring of agriculture

3

5

2,6

0

4

14,6

8%

2,9 ECU

urgent aid

0

0

0

0

0

0

0%

0 ECU

environment and nuclear security

0

0

1

0

0

1

1%

0,2 ECU

infrastructure (energy, transport, telecomm.

5

6,5

8,2

0

0

19,7

11%

3,9 ECU

private sector, financial sector, regional measures

19

5

18,7

0

25

67,7

39%

13,5 ECU

social development, employment, public healthcare

3

5,5

4,4

0

6

18,9

11%

3,8 ECU

others (general, multidisciplinary and technical assistance)

5

5

0,3

0

1

11,3

7%

2,3 ECU

in total

40

40

46

4,5

43

173,5

100%

34,6 ECU

Source: The European Commission, 1997: Phare Annual Report 1997

Table 5USAID Overall Assistance by Area in Poland and Slovakia, SEED Program, 1990-2000

Area of Assistance

Poland

Slovakia

in Mio US$

% of Total

in Mio US$

% of Total

Stabilization Fund

199,1

20,7

-

-

Polish-American / Slovak-American Enterprise Fund (SME support)

254,5

26,5

53,6

28

Economic Restructuring / Enterprise Development

256,2

26,7

65,6

35

Social Sector / Improvement of the Quality of Life

(Health Sector, Housing,

Environmental Measures

140,9

14,7

11,0

6

19,4

10

Democratic Institutions

77,8

8,1

32,3

17

Cross-Sectoral Activities / Multisector Support

31,8

3,3

7,0

4

Total

960,5

100

188,9

100

Source: Own calculations based on USAID (2000a: Projectlist), USAID (2000b: 40p)

Appendix 3Phare Civil Society Assistance to Poland and Slovakia

Table 6Phare Programs in Favor of Civil Society Development in Poland and Slovakia (in MECU)

Program

Poland

1992 – 1997

Slovakia

1992 - 1999

Source

Partnership

6,9

4,0

Own estimation based on the involvement of Polish and Slovak NGOs in Partnership (PPP) projects as partner or lead organizations as named in the PPP Evaluation (European Commission 1998:31,37pp)

Democracy (Macro and Micro grants only)

8,3

3,9

The evaluation of the Phare Democracy Program notes that 18% of all PHARE Macro Project grants (56 Mill. ECU) went to Poland (7,1 MECU), and 9% to Slovakia (3,5 MECU) (European Commission 1997b: 36). Micro grants in Poland amount to 1,2 MECU, in Slovakia to 0,4 MECU (see table 7).

NGO / LIEN

4,6

0,29+?

1 million micro grants (Mendza-Drozd 2000:29).

An estimated 3,6 million for NGO / LIEN partnership programs (27 projects were selected from Polish project proposals between 1993-1997; a project was supported with an average grant of 133,5 thousand ECU (see homepage of the European Volunteer Center that administered the Phare, Tacis Lien Programme (http://www.cev.be/lien/what_is_phare.htm))

Unfortunately no figures could be found on NGO/LIEN partnership projects in Slovakia

Civil Dialogue / Civil Society Development

5

4,9

see Table 6 and 7

Total

26,2

13,1+?

1,7% of total Phare allocations to Poland (estim a tion)

Source: Own calculations. One must note, that the sums are rough estimations based on various sources (PPP evaluation (European Commission 1998); information of the European Volunteer Center that administered the Lien Program, and table 7). Unfortunately no clear figures on civil society assistance can be found.

Table 7Allocations and Number of Phare Democracy, Lien and Partnership Micro Grants Awarded in Poland and Slovakia (in 1000 Euro)

Program

Poland

Slovakia

Amount

No. of grants

Amount

No. of grants

Democracy 1993

200

29

70

14

Democracy 1994

320

42

100

17

Democracy 1995/96

350

45

110

21

Democracy 1996/97

360

49

110

15

LIEN 1995/96

400

90

120

30

LIEN 1996/99

449

64

170

27

Partnership 1999

100

10

Total

2 079

484

780

134

Source: Mendza-Drozd (2000: 29), Richterová (2000: 47)

Table 8Civic Dialogue Phare Program (Poland) – Allocations and Number of Grants Awarded (Implementation Period 1992-1998)

Program

Total Amount in Euro

Amount for Grants in Euro

No. of Awarded Grants

Civil Dialogue Program 1991

3 000 000

1 300 000

302

Civil Dialogue Program 1994

2 000 000

1 000 000

242

Total

5 000 000

2 300 000

544

Source: Mendza-Drozd (2000: 29)

Table 9Regional Disparity of NGO directed Phare Programs in Poland in 1996/97 

Voivodship

awarded grants (% of total)

registered NGOs (% of t o tal)

Warsaw

27,0

17,0

Wrocław

6,7

3,9

Gdańsk

5,9

5,5

Katowice

5,7

7,2

Lublin

5,7

2,8

Łódź

3,8

4,1

Poznań

3,8

3,9

Białystok

3,3

1,6

Source: Own calculations based on: Cooperation Fund (1998: 12+14)

Portray 6Activities of the Cooperation Fund – Local Implementation of NGO directed Phare Programs in Poland

The Cooperation Fund was founded by the Polish government in 1990 with the aim to administer various foreign assistance programs. Since 1992 the Fund is also responsible for the implementation of the Phare Civic Dialogue Program, launched at the end of 1991 following an agreement between the European Commission and the Polish Government. Polish NGOs participated in the preparation of the program. The program had two rounds, the first starting in 1992 equipped with ECU 3 million, the second starting in 1994 with a further 2 million ECU. Its basic objective was to “provide support for civil society by means of help for NGOs that are recognized to be the man i festation of civic activity and the inevitable part of any modern democratic society” (Mendza-Drozd 2000: 31). Additionally the Delegation of the European Commission to Poland that was appointed to administer the micro grants of the Phare Democracy and the Phare Lien Program handed the administration of the micro grant schemes over to the Cooperation Fund. The following gives an overview of the main activities of the Fund in the area of civil society assistance.

Major Activities of the Cooperation Fund

Grant-making

Civil Dialogue

▪ no restrictions as to thematic scope

▪ selective criteria focused upon ▪ substantive content ▪ economic viability ▪ possible impact on organization, NGO sector, local community

▪ three types of open contest (theme projects, projects regarding the financing of administrative costs; projects of newly established organizations (draft projects))

Democracy

▪ thematic scope restricted to activities aiming to support democracy, civic participation and human rights

▪ competitions operated according to the procedures of Civic Dialogue Program

Lien

▪ thematic scope restricted to social activities

▪ competitions operated according to the procedures of Civic Dialogue Program

Development of the third sector infr a structure

▪ support to first national forum of Non-governmental initiatives held in Warsaw in September 1996

▪ discussions about issues of concern for the third sector

▪ exhibition fairs

▪ over 800 participants

▪ support to regional NGO support centres (see appendix 7, table 19)

▪ advancement of legal environment

▪ provision of research and analysis (legal expert group preparing analysis of legal situation plus study draft of the legal act on non-profit organizations)

▪ education and promotion ventures (provision of legal advice, lawyer at BORDO office); project of FIP “NGOs and legal regulations”, support to conference of Helsinki foundation on the subject

Training act i vities

▪ awarding grants to organizations running training programs for foundations and associations

▪ awarding grants for publications intended for NGOs

▪ publishing materials for training purposes

▪ support to the post-graduate studies “Management of Self-Government Institutions and NGOs” at Warsaw university

▪ Training of trainers activities

Information and Legal Services

▪ establishment of BORDO - an Information Center for Non-governmental organizations in 1993

▪ publications and brochures addressed to NGOs (provided and conducted by BORDO)

▪ library at BORDO information center (Polish and foreign publications related to NGO activities),

▪ information on potential funding possibilities

▪ support to Klon/Jawor database

Source: Own illustration based on: Cooperation Fund (1998), Mendza-Drozd (2000)

Portray 7Implementation of NGO directed Phare Programs in Slovakia - Activities of the Civil Society Development Foundation and Phare Macro Projects256

The Civil Society Development Foundation (Nadácia pre podporu občskych aktivít, NPOA) is a non-governmental grant-giving organization established within the framework of the European Union’s program Phare. Its aim is to foster civil society development in Slovakia and to build partnerships among Slovak NGOs and their counterparts in CEE and European Union member states. Since its foundation in 1993 the foundation administers the Phare Civil Society Development Programs in Slovakia (FM 1992, 1995, 1997, 1999), and focuses on the development of a wide spectrum of Slovak non-governmental non-profit organizations. Moreover, NPOA administered the micro-grant schemes of Phare democracy, Phare Lien and Phare Partnership. Overall objectives of the CSD include: strengthening of NGOs, enhancing qualification of NGOs, promoting mutual co-operation of NGOs, improving the role of umbrella organizations, increasing political participation of NGOs, and improving the public awareness of NGOs. NPOA is also a founding member of the “Donors’ Forum” a monthly gathering of donor organizations that aims to improve the effectiveness of assistance (see appendix 3, portray 7).

NGOs interested to obtain funding from the CSD Programs can apply for a grant in the following six categories: human rights and minorities, social services, health, volunteer development, environment, education. In light of a growing hostile attitude of the government towards NGOs this list was extended in 1997 by the categories “democracy” and “culture”. In the period 1992-1999 the majority of grants went to NGOs providing social services (23%), followed by volunteer development (16%), the environment (13%), health (12%), and education (11%). 9% of the grants were awarded to NGO projects aiming to promote democracy. Considering the fact that this category was only installed in 1997, this is a substantial share.

The following gives a brief overview of major objectives and activities of the CSD Programs

Program, A mount

Objectives and Activities

CSD 1992,

1,36 Mecu

support to NGOs (229 grants)

improve the working environment of NGOs

training of NGOs

promote mutual co-operation of NGOs

CSD 1995,

0,4 MECU

support NGOs (100 grants)

support NGO political participation and advocacy

support infrastructure of NGOs

installment of four permanent legal counseling centers (provision of legal assistance to NGOs) in response to new foundation law of 1996 (co-funded by US funded NGO “Foundation for a Civil Society”

support to Stupava Conference

CSD 1997,

3 MECU

inclusion of a democracy component to program

support to NGOs (397 grants)

improve public awareness of NGOs

enhance qualification of NGOs

improve role of umbrella organizations

support electronic massmedia network in order to promote NGO sector

support to civic campaign “OK 98” (NPOA supported 50% of the 57 projects of the campaign)

Phare Democracy Macro Projects

The Phare Democracy Macro Projects are administered by the European Human Rights Foundation (EHRF) a Brussels based NGO which has a regional office in Prague. The contact person of the EHRF in Bratislava, the head of the Gremium of the 3. Sector until 1999, Pavol Demeš, ensures the responsiveness of the program to local needs. In result, the administration of the Phare programs in Slovakia has been considered as working extremely well (European Commission 1997c: 156)

Appendix 4The Stefan Batory Foundation and the Open Society Foundation

Portray 8History of a Local Donor with Foreign Funds – The Development of the Stefan Batory Foundation, 1988-2000

The Polish Stefan Batory Foundation was established by George Soros in 1988 with the objective to support science and education in then communist Poland. At that time, it was already a breakthrough that the monopoly of the state was given up in the area of education.257 

Already one year later in October 1989 the Foundation broadened its objective in result of the new political situation. The new objective was to support the political, economic and social transformation in Poland. Nonetheless, the emphasis was still placed on support to education, research institutions and science. A couple of other programs such as Commission for Education on Alcoholism and other Addictions and the Central and East European Forum bringing together Politicians from the region were launched. Besides grant-making, and the provision of scholarships, major activities were and continued to be the organization of conferences and workshops, training of journalists and the publication of books.

The first years of the 1990s marked a period of rapid growth for the foundation in terms of areas of assistance, finances, operational rules and regulations, and cooperation partners. Each year the foundation launched several additional specialized programs thus steadily advancing its scope of activities including support for media, women, and NGOs. Culture and activities advancing international cooperation and East-East relationships became further major areas of assistance. Thereby the vast majority of programs were grant-making programs (60 – 80% of the annual budget). In 1992 the foundation established transparent and open grant-making procedures. Additionally, the foundation steadily increased its network of cooperation partners. Thereby several partner organizations were offspring of the Batory foundation. Several organizations have been established with financial support from the foundation as e.g. the Institute of Public Affairs or the Forum of Polish Foundations. The Batory foundation also increased its sources of financing. It received grants not only from the Open Society Fund but also from other donors such as the Ford Foundation, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, the German Marshall Fund, the Foundation for Poland, or the World Bank.

In the second half of the 1990s the foundation underwent a process of consolidation and concentration. This process was marked by a shift in priorities from education and culture to civil society and NGO support, and a focus on key priorities.258 While in 1992 the majority of funds still benefited education, science and research, support to civil society and especially to NGOs steadily increased, and became the largest area of contributions by 1995. Although education and science as well as culture remain important issue areas of the foundation, the NGO support program is by far the largest program of the foundation, what makes civil society assistance a top priority of the foundation. Moreover, NGOs were recipients of most of the grants awarded by other Foundation programs. This is evident in the following figures. In 1999 66% of recipients were NGOs that received 77% of the total grants awarded by the Foundation (Stefan Batory Foundation 1999: 11). The shift from education to civil society and NGO support is also evident in the stated objectives and priority areas of the foundation, which name the support of civil society and civic initiatives a top priority before international cooperation, education and culture in 1999.

The second half of the 1990s is also marked by a conceptualization of the support to civil society and NGOs. In 1995 the institutional grants have been introduced, with the aim to strengthen the professional standard of recipients. Since 1997, the foundation places special emphasis on advancing the infrastructure of the NGO sector (Stefan Batory Foundation 1997:10). In 1998, the foundation introduced an award for organizations that contribute to civil society development (Stefan Batory Foundation 1998: 26). Additionally, it launched a community foundations project in collaboration with the Academy for the Development of Philanthropy in Poland. The aim is to guarantee financial support to local civic initiatives and NGOs and to establish a national network of community foundations by 2001. In 1999, launches a program that aims to facilitate the relationships among NGOs and local government and other important partners such as the media or businesses: “.. the principle obje c tive of this Program is providing support to initiatives aimed at institutional and structural strengthening of Polish NGOs and promoting higher professional standards within their o p eration, establishing a representation within the third sector advocating its rights and deve l oping strategic cooperation with their potential partners, including local self-governments, the media, universities and commercial enterprises” (Stefan Batory Foundation 1999: 11). In order to advance the relationship among NGOs and other organizational bodies, the foundation also launched the “Let’s Act Together” competition with the aim to support the horizontal cooperation of the third sector.

To sum up, throughout the 1990s the Stefan Batory foundation steadily evolved as a major player in the NGO sector in Poland. It was a major sponsor of NGO activities but also acted as a platform of discourse and stimulus of ideas through conferences, networks and initiatives. Thereby an initial focus on education and science was slowly replaced by a major emphasis of civil society development and NGO support. Most programs in the area of education, science and the youth were assigned to other foundations. From the very beginning the foundation was managed by Polish representatives. In result the first years did not only witness a focus on science and education because this was the only area possible on the start. This emphasis was also in line with the Polish sociological tradition and with the number of Polish social scientists in the board. The major asset of the Batory foundation throughout its history has been its human resources, networks and contacts.

Table 10Objectives and Priority Areas of Assistance of the Stefan Batory Foundation, 1988 – 1999 

Year

Objectives, Areas of Activity

Funding in 1000 US$

1988 - 1989

Support of Science, Education

Scholarships for studies at Oxford and Cambridge; Assistance to universities and research institutions

Provision of equipment (printers, photocopiers) and literature

500

1989 - 1990

Support of political, social and economic transformation processes and cooperation in CEE (10/ 1989)

Establishment of first operational programs (Commission for Education on Alcoholism and other Addictions, CEE Forum)

Establishment of first grant-making programs (Eastern Europe Research program (until 1992), Program for Economic Research in CEE)

Grants to 125 beneficiaries; Financial aid to 44 institutions

750

1991

6 programs (see above + Media Program; + East East Program ) + first summer school of Economics

Grants to 172 individual beneficiaries, 68 institutions and organizations;

1600

1992

11 programs (see above + Contemporary Arts Center (until 12/1994)), + Higher Education Support Program; + Library Program (until 12/1994); + NGO Support Fund, NGO Support Program; + Social Reform Program; + Support for international conferences organized in Poland program) + Summer School

Grants to 228 individuals and 198 institutions and organizations, 36 regional projects

Largest share of allocations granted in the field of science (25% of budget); culture second largest share (24%)

1650

1993

16 programs (see above, + Women’s Aid Program; + Youth and Education Program; + Publishing Program; + Program facilitating Training of Polish Professionals Abroad; + Scholarship Scheme for CEE Scholars + Summer School

Grants to 445 individuals and 334 institutions and organizations

3000

1994

18 programs (see above + Cultural Program; + Supplementary Grants Program + Public Administration Reform Program; + Medical Program and Health Education Program

+ International Summer School of Political Science, + Summer School of Young Social and Political Leaders

793 scholarships and 658 grants

3500

1995

24 programs (see above + Internet program; + Students Initiatives Support Program + Training for Social Workers + Karl Popper Scholarship Competition + Summer Schools)

Grants to 900 individuals and 920 institutions and organizations (including first institutional grants. The foundation also took part in the establishment of the Public Affairs Institute, the Social Policy Reform and Public Administration Programs became part of this new unit)

28% of grant budget allocated for support for NGOs; 27% to higher education, culture 20%, youth education 10%. Other areas (women, charity program, media and internet) < 5% each

7000

1996

Identification of 4 priority areas: (1) democracy, justice, and civil society; (2) education; (3) international Cooperation; (4) culture.

Integration of programs Outsourcing of some programs to cooperation partners (e.g. all programs targeting at scientists, researchers and students integrated in Academic Program

Grants to 800 individuals and 1000 organizations and institutions; The Batory Foundation received a grant of 2,5 mio US$ from the Ford foundation for organizational development (over a period of 5 years).

8000

1997

14 programs (+ Internet for Physicians Program; + Intervention Program at repairing flood damage; + Program for assistance to Belarus (substituting the closed Belarusian Soros foundation)

Grants to 690 individuals, 1080 institutions and organizations

26% of grants to NGO support program. 18% to academic program, 11% to cultural program, 9% to Youth and Education; Internet (8%), Publishing (7%), Women and Flood program (each 6%)

10500

1998

16 programs (+ Legal Program + Center of Youth Entrepreneurship as independent program)

450 scholarships and 1180 grants awarded

24% of grant budget to education; 23% to NGO support, culture (13%), International Cooperation (11%); Medicine and Health (9%), Flood (6%), Law and Human Rights / Women / Social Welfare (3% each)

11780

1999

Objective of supporting the development of a democratic, open society: priorities include: (1) fostering civic attitudes and initiatives; (2) increasing cooperation between nations; (3) advancing educational development; (4) supporting cultural activity

16 programs in operation

Grants to 159 individual and group applicants, 222 scholarships, 1092 grants to institutions and organizations.

22% of overall budget was spent for NGO program, 11% for academic program; 10% for cultural program; 9% for Internet program; 8% for Youth program; 7% for Central and East European Forum; 6% for Youth Entrepreneurships Center; others received 5% or less each

10102

Source: Stefan Batory Foundation (1997), Stefan Batory Foundation (1995), Stefan Batory Foundation (1998), Stefan Batory Foundation (1999)

Portray 9The Open Society Foundation, Bratislava

The main objective of the OSF is the creation of an open society. Its priorities encompass the support of democracy and democratic institutions, education, human rights and minorities, and the sustainability of the third sector and cross-sector cooperation among non-profit and profit organizations and public administration (www.osf.sk). In order to achieve its objectives the OSF provides grants and engages in operative activities via various programs. For example in the year 2002 the OSF run 14 programs: Civil Society Development; Development of Democracy Program; East East Program (Partnership across borders); Education; Internet Program (Internet for High Schools program); Law Program; Library Programs; Media; Partners; Public Administration Reform; Public Health; Roma Programs; Skills Development; Women’s Program (www.osf.sk). Educational activities comprise the core of OSF activities with approximately one fourth of the funds (e.g. English language programs, Secondary School Scholarships, Internet Distance Education Program, University Scholarships to Cambridge and CEU). Arts and Culture, Information Technologies, and Public Health were further main areas of activity in the year 2000. Regarding civil society development, the OSF launched a Community Program in 1996. The program supports community foundations and funds and thus aims to foster local initiatives and activities. The program is coordinated with the USAID funded “Your Land” program managed by Ekopolis/ETP Slovakia. Besides the provision of grants to community foundations, OSF additionally provides technical assistance to local organizations in cooperation with the organization Partners for Democratic Change. The Development of Democracy Program, too, has the objective to create and develop civil society in Slovakia. This grant-giving program supports initiatives that foster the cooperation and dialogue among NGOs and between NGOs and local administration, and that contribute to the sustainability of NGOs (fund-raising abilities, strategic planning, quality improvement). The OSF is founding member of the Donors’ Forum (see www.osf.sk; Open Society Foundation 2000).

Total Expenditures of the Open Society Foundation Bratislava by types of a c tivities in 2000

Program / Area of Activity

Funding in million SK

In % of total

Education

39,93

26%

Children and Youth

9,31

6%

Public Health

17,6

12%

Law

4,79

3%

Juridical Reform

0,32

0%

National Minorities

0,0047

0%

Roma Program

10,48

7%

Women in Society

4,68

3%

Public Reform

6,08

4%

Economic Reform

1,58

1%

Civil Society

3,82

2%

Others (Institutional grants and miscellaneous)

5,38

4%

Cooperation of East European Countries

5,18

3%

Information and Information Technologies

17,04

11%

Media

3,88

3%

Arts and Culture

22,87

15%

 

 

 

Total

152,95

 

Administration Costs

15,89

 

 

 

 

Total

168,84

 

Source: Open Society Foundation (2000)

Appendix 5US-American Civil Society Assistance

Table 11USAID Democracy Assistance per Area in Poland, SEED Program, 1990-2000

Area of Assistance

In 1000 US$

In % of D e mocracy Assistance

In % of O verall A s sistance

Local Democracy

33479

43

3,5

Democratic Governance and Public Administration

16853

22

1,8

NGO Development

128531

17

1,3

Trade Union Assistance (NSZZ Solidarnoćś)

10141

13

1,1

Media Assistance

2399

3

0,2

Political Party Assistance / Electoral Assistance

750

1

0,1

Legal Assistance / Rule of Law

536

1

0,1

Others

526

1

0,1

Source: own calculations based on USAID (2000a: projectlist )

Table 12USAID Democracy Assistance per Area in Slovakia, SEED Program, 1990-2000

Area of Assistance

In 1000 US$

In % of D e mocracy Assistance

In % of O verall A s sistance

Local Democracy

7347

23

3,9

NGO Development

6613

21

3,5

Urban and Regional Development

6526

20

3,5

School Education

3782

12

2,0

Political Party Assistance / Electoral Assistance

2142

7

1,1

Media Assistance

1821

6

1,0

Trade Union Assistance (KOZ)

1585

5

0,8

Legal Assistance / Rule of Law

1421

4

0,8

Others

976

3

0,5

Democratic Governance and Public Administration

126

0,4

0,1

Source: own calculations based on USAID (2000b: 40)

Table 13NED Funding by Area in Poland, 1990-1998

Area of Assistance

No. of Grants

In 1000 US$

% of Total

Labor (Trade Union Assistance (NSZZ Solidarnoćś))

13

3847

45

Electoral Assistance

3

1311

15

Economic Associations and Think Tanks

13

1111

13

Third Sector Development (incl. Civic Education)

14

1004

12

Decentralization

3

420

5

Civic education and awareness raising

8

319

4

Party Assistance

5

376

4

Support to Local and Ministerial Administration

5

203

2

Media Assistance

3

140

2

Legislative Assistance

3

79

1

Governmental Assistance

1

128

1

TOTAL

63

8620

100

Source: own calculations based on the publication of NED funded projects on the NED homepage www.NED.org

Table 14NED Funding by Area in Slovakia, 1990-1999*

Area of Assistance

No. of Grants

In 1000 US$

% of Total

Third Sector Development (incl. civic education)

19

1208

26

Electoral Assistance

9

9303

20

Economic Associations and Think Tanks / Business

10

5818

12

Labor

6

4057

9

Democracy

7

3644

8

Civic education and awareness raising

7

3320

7

Media Assistance

6

267

6

Parliamentary Assistance

1

220

5

Human Rights

4

127

3

Party Assistance

2

96

2

Local Governments

1

93

2

Donor Coordination

1

40

1

Academic Elites

1

15

0

TOTAL

74

4680

100

*Note that this sum includes 1,2 million US$ spent in then Czechoslovakia between 1990-1992

Table 15NED Grants by Year and Area in Poland, 1990 – 1998

Table 16NED Grants by Year and Area in Slovakia, 1990 – 1999

Source: own calculations based on the publication of NED funded projects on the NED homepage www.NED.org

Portray 10The USAID funded Democracy Network Project (DemNet) in Poland259

The USAID funded Democracy Network Project (DemNet) supported public policy-oriented NGOs in Poland with a technical assistance and grant making program in four priority development sectors: democracy, the environment, enterprise development, and social sector restructuring / safety nets. The project had a duration of three years (1995-1998), its total budget amounts to 4,8 million US$.

The project intended to ensure long-term sustainability of NGOs, to introduce a public advocacy orientation to organizations whose work previously focused on service provision, and to increase public awareness of the role of the third sector in a democracy. In order to attain the stated objectives the project was active in four different fields:

1. Grant-Making

Throughout its duration the Project provided 1,8 million US$ in direct grants to 67 NGOs for 91 projects. The majority of grants (48%) were spent in the area of democracy, followed by the social sector with 24% and environmental protection and economic growth with 14% respectively. The initial focus of the project was on public policy oriented NGOs in the four priority areas. However, the project started to broaden its initial scope and concentrated additionally on thematic oriented NGOs in order to bring local and small NGOs into the project. Besides project grants DemNet provided intensive training and technical assistance to its grantees to improve their knowledge and skill in organizational development and management. Moreover the DemNet team provided the NGOs with individual consultation in order to prepare a two-year strategic plan.

2. NGO Support Network

To ensure sustainability DemNet aimed to strengthen NGO intermediary support centers that ought to ensure long term service provision for local and small NGOs. A lose network of already existing support centers, later known as SPLOT was subcontracted to conduct an informational and outreach campaign to help NGOs apply for DemNet grants. Preparation of SPLOT staff by means of training and advice as well as organizational development aimed not only to enhance the campaign but further to strengthen the capacity of SPLOT (USAID, 1999: appendix C).

3. Raising Public Awareness of NGOs Role in Civil Society

Additionally, DemNet initiated several activities aiming to promote a better public awareness and understanding of NGOs:

DemNet supported the first national NGO conference in Poland, the Forum for non-governmental initiatives in 1996.

In the first year of the program, a promotion and media campaign coordinated with the assistance of a prominent Polish media consultant was conducted to ensure the transparency of the Democracy Network Project, to increase public understanding and appreciation of the NGO sector, and to train NGO leaders in public relations.

To promote better appreciation of the role of Polish NGOs in building a civil society, DemNet cooperated with the largest national daily newspaper and the European Union's PHARE Program to launch a nationwide competition for the best feature articles addressing the role of NGOs in a democratic society.  Three hundred articles entered the contest.  Three received first place awards and were published in Gazeta Wyborcza. Gazeta also published three additional entries.

DemNet has provided extensive marketing/public relations training to its grantees. It has trained 31 representatives from 17 NGOs in Promotion and Media Relations, providing participants a completely new context for working with the media. The media in turn have praised the training for its practical examples in building an organization's image.

4. Local Government Supported NGO Grant Programs

Finally the Local Partnership Program aimed to increase local government support for local NGOs by instituting NGO grant-making programs at the local level. DemNet staff worked in 15 communities, identified local partners among NGOs and local authorities and aimed to persuade local decision-makers to institutionalize local government approved programs of funding for activities conducted by NGOs by providing information and conducting several seminars. By 1998 DemNet has been successful in establishing such model programs in seven Polish cities. The efforts of DemNet to promote local funding possibilities for NGOs are continued by the DemNet successor organizations the Academy for the Development of Philanthropy that has been founded by former DemNet staff. The Academy is thus headed by Pawel Łukasiak, the former Project Director of DemNet. The main objective of the Academy is to provide support to communities in establishing community foundations, to promote local philanthropy in Poland and thus to ensure sustainability of NGOs.

Portray 11The USAID funded Democracy Network Project (DemNet) in Slovakia

The USAID NGO support program “DemNet Project” operated in Slovakia from 1996 to 1999. It has been implemented by the NGO “Foundation for a Civil Society”. DemNet aimed to enhance NGO’s willingness and ability to participate in the political process by influencing the formulation or implementation of public policy in the areas of democracy, social sector restructuring, economic development and the environment. In order to do so, DemNet worked closely with a network of 48 NGOs. Additionally, it supported NGO development via the provision of grants, training to NGO leaders and so called organizational development and professionalization grants that were intended to ensure the sustainability of grantees (USAID 2000b: 17p). As in Poland, the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) implemented a project focusing on the legal framework of NGO operations. It prepared a guide for NGOs on Slovakia’s laws and assisted draft legislation. The DemNet program ended in 1999, the project of ICNL ended in 2000.

Appendix 6The German Political Foundations in Poland and Slovakia – An illustrative Overview260

Portray 12The Activities of the FES and KAS in Poland

Like other donors the German political foundations quickly responded to the democratization processes in Poland and opened offices in Warsaw in 1989/90 with the aim to support the Polish transformation processes, and to support Polish civil society. Regarding the rapidity of the operational start it comes as no surprise that concepts and strategies on how to assist Poland were largely lacking. Moreover, the foundations found neither their experiences in developing countries nor their activities in industrialized countries applicable to the Polish and in general the post-communist cases. In Poland there was no need to assist the development of basic infrastructure such as radio stations or farm cooperatives as in developing countries. However, it was also not possible to conduct joint activities and enter cooperations with local partners (mainly parties and political elites) as is the case in industrialized countries. Local structures and organizations were constant flux, finding appropriate partner organizations was a major problem. The foundations thus largely relied on individuals, so-called “multipliers” such as scholars or journalists and to a lesser extent on former contacts.261 Finding suitable partners and making contacts to members of the elite was thus a priority of both foundations in the initial period. Both foundations restricted from working closely with parties, because the unconsolidated party system hampered long-term partnerships. Instead, they concentrated on reform-oriented politicians and offered advice and training. In the words of Hermann Bünz, head of the Polish office of the FES in Warsaw: “We trained everything and everybody. Whoever required training got it” (interview with the author, own translation). In the initial period of assistance until 1993 the FES shed away from working together with post-communist politicians and only started closer contacts with its sister party, the left-wing SLD in 1993/94. The conservative KAS was close to individual politicians of the AWS and the right-wing coalition ruling until 1993. The new political elite had hardly any previous political and administrative experience and thus eagerly sought information and political expertise. In this period, assistance thus concentrated on governmental and parliamentary assistance such as study trips for parliamentarians and experts, reports on reform issues or transnational working groups on reform issues, and training.

If one focus upon the main activities of the foundations one has to note that these are quite similar. Both foundations aim at “civic” and “political education” and largely rely on the provision of information and expertise, on training in specific issue areas, on conferences, seminars and work-shops and to a lesser extent on financial support to non-state actors. Thereby both make use of their contacts to German and European politicians and representatives of interest groups and associations. Moreover, in contrast to American donors or local grant-making foundations the German political foundations do not run grant-making schemes organized by open competitions or tenders. Both prefer close cooperative ties with supported organizations. The KAS and FES thereby traditionally employ two different strategies (see also chapter 5.1.3.). In line with its partner-centered strategy that implies contractual based long-term relationships with local organizations and institutional grants providing for salaries and equipment the KAS prefers to work closely with a few partner organizations (see list of partner organizations, appendix 7, table 17). The FES in contrast focuses on topics rather than partners and runs its activities with changing partner organizations. The FES thus works “partner-oriented, not partner-tied” (Bünz), cooperating and assisting a broader range of research institutes, universities, and NGOs. However, also the KAS slightly restrained from its partner-principle at the end of 1993. Since then the foundation also conducts its own activities. This strategic shift was partly due to the change in the Polish government to the post-communist coalition of SLD and the Polish Peasant Party (PSL). In order to continue working on topics that did not rank high on the agenda of the new left-wing government the KAS started to organize conferences and work-shops or issued publications.

Regarding the thematic orientation of assistance the work of the two foundations is largely in line with the stated priority areas of each foundation (see also chapter 5.1.3). From the very beginning until 1995 decentralization and local self-government was the thematic priority area of the KAS. Already in early 1990 the foundation organized a one-week seminar for a Polish drafting-group on community law in St. Augustin at the headquarters of the Foundation. The KAS invited a variety of German experts on constitutional and community law and on local self-government to the event. Two weeks later the Polish drafting-group finished the draft law whose sketch had been developed in St. Augustin (interview Dr. Dill). The provision of expertise on local self-government and decentralization continued to be a major activity of the KAS until the governmental turn in 1993. Afterwards the foundation chose to cover the topic in the form of self-organized conferences and seminars. A further major topic was the transformation to a market economy in Poland. After 1995 the KAS shifted its thematic priority and increasingly focused on European integration and NATO membership of Poland. The shift in priorities is also evident in the partner organizations of the KAS. Until 1995 the supported activities of the partner organizations largely aimed at the provision of education and training in the area of local and regional policy (University Lublin, FSLD regional center) or economics (University Lublin, Academy for Catholic Theology, Warsaw). Additionally, partner organizations of the KAS provided research and publication in the two priority areas (Gdansk institute of Macro-economics, Foundation “Ius Europae”, Warsaw). Since 1995 the KAS built up a different partner structure. In 1999 three out of five partner organizations focused on the thematic priorities international relations and European integration (Center for international relations (CIM), Warsaw; Polish Robert-Schuman Foundation, Warsaw; Konrad-Adenauer Center for European Integration, University Wrocław) (see appendix 7, table 17).

In contrast to the KAS, the FES did not run one „country project“ in Poland, but had four, after 1994 three, distinct projects in the country that also determine the priority areas of the foundation. These were (1) socio-political cooperation (since 1990); (2) economic and social policy (since 1991); (3) trade union cooperation (since 1991); and (4) the regional development of Silesia (since 1993). The first two projects have been merged into one in 1994. Activities in the traditional priority area of the FES “trade union cooperation” are conducted in close cooperation with German trade unions. In the first years the FES worked exclusively with the NSZZ Solidarnoćś. Only in later years, attempts have been made to cooperate with the formerly state run trade union OSZZ. This is, however, a difficult undertaking as it might offend sensibilities of the NSZZ. Trade union assistance initially concentrated on organizational development and capacity building and training. The FES assisted the NSZZ Solidarnoćś to fulfill its new tasks that were rather distinct from the previous activities as an oppositional movement.262 The FES further aimed to strengthen the branch secretaries of the union in existence since 1991, and to intensify social dialogue among trade unions and employer organizations. Both objectives were, however, difficult to attain. NSZZ Solidarnoćś was not only a trade union but also had political ambitions. For this reasons, an organizational structure along regional lines instead of branches was more appropriate for its leaders. The social dialogue suffered from the disparity between a strong and political active trade union on the one hand, and weak and just developing employer associations on the other hand. In consequence thereof, the FES started to work with employer associations. Together with the Polish Foundation to promote Small and Medium Enterprises (PFSME) the FES run, for example, several seminars with Polish employer associations and its counterparts from Berlin/Brandenburg and hold seminars on social security systems and Polish SME policy. Also it conducted a study on “employer associations in Poland”.

A further topic of the FES in the first half of the 1990s was regional development and regional policy especially in the region of Silesia. In 1992/93 the FES supported NARDA, the association of regional development agencies. In 1993 the FES started a organizationally distinct regional development project in Silesia equipped with an office and staff in the region. The project worked together with local communities, NGOs and universities in the region. The aim was to create a regional network and to strengthen the standing of the region via Warsaw. Moreover, the transfer of know-how in economic and industrial development was a further priority. In this respect, the project cooperated with a cross-regional project of the Land North Rhine Westphalia and the German association of counties (Deutscher Landkreistag).

In the second half of the 1990s, the integration of Poland into the European Union became a thematic priority for the FES, too. Together with national and international organizations the FES, for example, assisted the training of 200 local and regional civil servants in the area of EU funding and regional policy. A further project aimed at the installment of nation-wide Info-points on the European Union in schools, libraries and local authorities.

Both foundations did not leave Poland at the end of the 1990s like other donors. However, the emphasis of their work changed. As already mentioned, in Poland the foundations had to find a middle way between the activities they carry out in developing countries and their activities in industrialized (and democratic) countries, that is, to use the German terminology, a middle way between Aufbau- and Verbindungsarbeit, a middle way between assistance and cooperation. In Poland, it has always been both, assisting the transformation and reform processes, and entering close transnational cooperation with parties and non-state actors. In the future, emphasis will be less on assistance but more on cooperation with an important member of the European Union.

Portray 13The Activities of the KAS in Slovakia – A Case Study

‘Slovakia’, was the answer of all persons interviewed at the KAS asked for the greatest success of their foundation in CEE. It can be doubted that the turn-over of government in 1998 and the electoral defeat of the authoritarian government of Vladimir Mečiar was solely the achievement of one foreign foundation. Nevertheless, the prompt answers suggest that Western donors played a decisive role in the opposition’s electoral victory. The following highlights the goals, strategies and measures of the KAS in Slovakia before the elections (promotion) and after the elections (protection). This is followed by a brief assessment of the factors that influenced and brought about this ‘success’.

Democracy Promotion

Before 1998 the major goal of the KAS in Slovakia was the return of democracy in the country. This goal translated in four concrete strategies (1) to unite the opposition, (2) to support and strengthen the opposition, (3) to undermine the legitimacy of the authoritarian regime abroad and make the ‘Slovak’ case public, and (4) to strengthen and support civil society (interview Stuth).

To unite the opposition is in face of clientele parties and personal rivalries that often determine the political scene in CEE not an easy task and it is hard to assess whether and to what extent the KAS influenced the final agreement of the four opposition parties to build a electoral coalition. Also in Slovakia the KAS followed the strategy not to polarize but to offer a neutral platform for discussion. It attempted to bring rivals together by inviting them to seminars or to special work-shops.263 

The KAS aimed to support the opposition in two ways. First, it offered financial support, training and advice to oppositional leaders and organizations. Secondly, it aimed to raise the reputation and recognition of the opposition. In Slovakia the KAS was often confronted with the request of domestic NGOs to put its name on invitation posters, even if the KAS did not provide funding for the event. It was important for domestic NGOs to demonstrate that they were accepted by and worked together with international actors. This international recognition improved the standing of the respective organizations inside the country. Furthermore, the KAS used its European network. High-ranking European politicians gave speeches on events of the partners organizations. The KAS also organized several meetings between the leading figure of the opposition – Miklas Dzurinda – and European politicians and a picture session with Dzurinda and then German chancellor Kohl. As a result, Dzurinda was positioned as the partner not only of the KAS but of Europe.

The KAS further used its contacts and networks both in Germany as well as on the European level to undermine the international recognition of the Mečiar regime. They prevented, for example, an invitation of Mečiar to Germany. In this question, the KAS stood against the foreign ministry whose foremost priority were good bilateral relations. One can assume that it helped that Slovakia is a small and geo-strategically less important country. Furthermore, at that time the German government was conservative, a fact that resulted in good contacts to government and Chancellor’s office. On the European level, the network of contacts was used to make the Slovak case public. Meetings between high level European politicians such as Süßmuth, Jean-Claude Junker, Wolfgang Schüssel, Wilfried Martens etc. and Dzurinda were organized.

The KAS further aimed to promote and support civil society in Slovakia. Following the ‘partner-principal’ approach, the KAS cooperates in Slovakia with several organizations (see appendix 7, table 18). Some organizations also were established on initiative of the KAS such as the Center for European Policy. An important partner organization was MESA 10, an economic institute that was founded by 10 leading figures of the opposition including Miklas Dzurinda. The KAS financed the monthly report of the institute and by doing so contributed to its existence.

Democracy Protection

After the change in government in 1998, the KAS identified the following new goals:

The strategy taken to achieve those goals encompassed four points: (1) strengthen the competence of partners in new policy areas, (2) European integration, (3) provide neutral platform for conflicting parties, and (4) continue cooperation with partner organizations and search for new ones (interview Spengler).

Directly after the new government took office the KAS invited a German expert from the German chancellor’s office to help organizing the Slovak counterpart. The main task of the expert was to address and answer questions to internal communication, communication with parties and management. A further measure to increase the professionalism of the partners took already place before the elections. 60 young opposition members were identified that were possible candidates for administrative posts in government or parliament. These 60 benefited from an intensive training preparing them for their future work as heads of cabinet, press officer or political advisers. Study-trips to Austria and Germany were organized and different experts such as the speaker of Vaclav Havel were invited. More than half of the people trained actually entered the anticipated post.

After the election, the new leadership was in need of concrete technical assistance and information. The KAS thus provided technical assistance in on new policy areas of interest such as regionalization and the territorial restructuring of the country. Another important topic was European Integration. The KAS also helped Slovakia lobbying in Brussels. It organized, for example, a meeting in Brussels with Western investors active in Slovakia and assured that a relevant audience was listening. In this sense, the new Slovak leadership still profits from the international contacts of the KAS. A further goal was political stability and the consolidation of the coalition. The KAS provided a platform for discussion, and aimed to moderate in conflicts inside the KDH. This was, however, not always possible. Here the limits of an outside actor without actual powers are visible.

Assessment

The case of the KAS activities in Slovakia demonstrates that donors can play a decisive role in the transition / democratization phase. Especially, four factors can be identified that proved important for the described ‘success’.

(1) A good relationship between donor and recipient

The relationship between the KAS represented in the person of the head of the office – Reinhardt Stuth – and the opposition parties, especially the KDH (Christian Democratic Movement) can be classified as extremely good even resulting in a personal friendship between Stuth and Dzurinda. This shall not suggest that DPP can only be successful if close personal relations are involved, however, the question of trust is definitely at stake. Only if the expert – in this case the donor – enjoys the trust of the recipient – trust in his loyalty and competence – a good relationship can be achieved. If DPP requires the recipient’s trust in the foreign expertise, areas in which this is the case have to be identified. One can assume that the foreign expertise is more valued and trusted in questions such as EU enlargement or NATO enlargement rather than in ‘typical’ internal problems that stand outside of the experience and technical knowledge of the donor. Furthermore, a common cultural or ideological background supports a good relationship as demonstrated by the presented case: both sides – the KAS and the KDH - share a Christian-conservative perspective. Again this does not determine per se a good relationship. In the Czech Republic the KAS did not manage to create good relations with the ODS party of Vaclav Klaus. On the contrary, the work of the KAS in Prague extremely suffers from a cumbered relationship.

(2) The political will and interest of the recipient or a stated ‘demand’

In Slovakia the opposition obviously had an interest to cooperate with the KAS as it profited from the cooperation in a double way. First, the different NGOs and organizations benefited from the financial support as well as from the technical expertise that was provided. In this way, recipients succeeded in increasing professionalism. Moreover they could guarantee the own existence in face of a repressive government. As some organizations such as MESA 10 faced repressive measures by the government that made it nearly impossible to receive orders, the support of the KAS and other foreign donors was their only financial means. Second, the cooperation with the KAS increased the legitimacy and reputation of the partner organizations and the whole opposition movement. Especially the network of German and European contacts was extremely important for the Slovak partners. Being a small country, it was not that easy to make the Slovak case public and gain international attention. This attention and recognition in turn resulted in an better profile and standing in the domestic public opinion. However, not in every cultural setting and country a pro-international or pro-Western image will be positive for the opposition. In Slovakia the population was increasingly alarmed by the possibility that the Meciar government will prevent a ‘Return to Europe’ and that Slovakia will ‘fall back’ in the circle of countries such as Romania or Bulgaria (RFE/RL). The elections of 1998 were as much a vote for or against certain parties as for or against European integration. Without this public perception the strategy to position Dzurinda as a Western partner might not have been so successful or even negative.

The interest of the donor – the supply side

The objectives of the KAS namely democracy, social market-economy and European Integration corresponded with the interest of the Slovak opposition. Moreover, the Slovak case further strengthened the foundation’s role as information and contact provider at home. Being geographically close to Germany and a potential candidate for European enlargement Slovakia is an interesting although not extremely important country for Germany. Consequently, good bilateral relations are desirable. For the KAS this fact translates in a demand for foreign policy expertise on Slovakia back home. Furthermore, the activities of the KAS resulted in a network of contacts in Slovakia from which the KAS and the CDU can profit. How important this factor is for the KAS is demonstrated if one imagines that not a right-wing but a left-wing coalition had won the elections. One may doubt that in this case the KAS had ever called Slovakia a success.

(4) Respective Partners

The partner-principle approach that is followed by the KAS is facilitated by the existence of appropriate partner organizations. If few NGOs, institutes or associations exist, the work of the foundations is constrained. Such a ‘civic landscape’ was present in the Slovak case. As Reinhard Stuth pointed out: “In Slovakia civil society is manifold and diverse, much more than in the Czech Republic.” Consequently, it was possible to find partners and support them. Without at least a basic civic commitment or an emerging civil society, civil society assistance is thus heavily constrained. In Bulgaria the head of the FES office complains that no bridge to the society can be found. The measures only reach a limited number of (mainly already pro-Western, highly educated) people and have no echo in the population (interview Weichert). This is not the case in Slovakia. Discussions organized by the ‘Citizen Clubs’ of the SKOI are even in small cities attended by up to 50 people (interview Stuth).

To sum up, the stated ‘success’ of the KAS in Slovakia was possible because of a symmetric interest of donor and recipient, a good relationship based on trust, at least a minimum acceptance of civic rights by the government that allowed organized civic activity to emerge and a pro-European public opinion.

Appendix 7 Polish and Slovakian Recipients of Civil Society Assistance by Donor

Table 17Examples of Partner Organizations of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Poland

Name

Supported Activities

Year

Catholic University Lublin (CUL) – Foundation for the development of the CUL

Business school

Center for Community Policy (provision of training to local civil servants)

Seminars, conferences

since 1990-

Foundation of the Academy for Catholic Theology – Institute for Social Market Economy, Warsaw

Institute of Social Market Economy

Seminars on social market economy by German professors

Publishing house

International conferences

1991-1995

Foundation in Support of Local Democracy (FSLD) – Center for Local Self-Government, Jelenia Góra

Education and training of local civil servants

1991-1996

Foundation “Poland in Europe”, Warsaw

1992-1993

Foundation “Ius Europae” (FIE), Warsaw

Manual on community policy

1992-1993

Gdansk Institute for Market Economics (GIME)

Public policy oriented research with focus on economic issues

since 1992

Konrad-Adenauer-Center for European Integration, Wrocław

Institute for European Integration at the University in Wrocław

since 1995

Center of International Relations (CIM), Warsaw

Public policy oriented research with focus on international issues

Since 1996

Polish Robert-Schuman Foundation, Warsaw

Establishment of a network of pro-european NGOs,

Seminars, conferences

since 1997

Source: Matzke (1997: 36).

Table 18Examples of Partner Institutions of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Slovakia

Name

Focus

KAS involvement

SKOI (Permanent Conference of the Institute of Education

Association of regional ‘citizen clubs’ organizing public political discussions

financial and organizational support

ZEP (Center for European Policy)

‘Train the trainer’ measures in questions of European Integration

initiated creation of ZEP in order to prepare EU accession; financial and organizational support

SFPA- Slovak Society of Foreign Policy

Civic education measures in questions of foreign policy (seminars, conferences, debating societies in schools)

financial and organizational support

MESA 10

Economic institute

financed the monthly report

University Banská Bystrica

Diplomatic education, used to be pro-Meciar

funding for books, events, KAS insisted that opposition members are accepted as students

Source: Interview Stuth

Table 19Phare “Infrastructural” Recipients in Poland

Recipient

Project Title, Supported Activity

Foundation for the Development of Civic Society in Gdynia

Subsidies for the project “Creation of Local Infrastructure for Non-governmental Organizations” implemented by the Centre of Support for NGOs.

provision of advisory services, training, information and technical knowledge for local NGOs.

advancement of co-operation between NGOs and self-governments

Support Office for the Movement of Self-Help Initiatives BORIS, Warsaw

“Co-operation of NGOs and self-government authorities from the municipality of central Warsaw”.

consultations, advisory services and information to NGOs

working team for co-operation with local self-government, especially in social area

The Central European Center for Behavioral Economic Foundation in Lublin

“Support for Co-operation between NGOs and self-government authorities in Lublin Voivodship”

aimed to increase the activities of NGOs and

their participation in the creation and implementation of socio-economic policies in local communities

BRIDGE Regional NGO Support Centre in Katowice

“Advice and Information Services for NGOs”

increase of professional standard of NGOs in nine voivodships

publication of the newspaper “Sedno-Most

The Association for the Forum of Non-governmental Initiatives, Warsaw (FIP)

“Integration and Strengthening of NGOs in Poland”

improve the flow of information between various organizations in the country

ASOCJACJE – The Association of Support for Social Initiatives, Warsaw

Exhibition prepared in cooperation with the Voivodhsip Office in Warsaw. The presentation regarded the cooperation between NGOs and state administration and was entitled “For Common Benefit”.

Civil Society Development Foundation, Warsaw

“Support for Local Communities - GALICJA”

supporting the region Galicja in the South of Poland

publication of a manual regarding local funding possibilities of social activities

consultation for loca

Regional Information and NGO Support Center in Gdańsk

“The Regional Center – Service Point for NGOs from the Seacoast Region”

Source: Cooperation Fund (1998: 24p)

Table 20Examples of Phare Recipients in Slovakia

Recipient

Project Title, Year

SKOI (Permanent Civic Institute Conference)

Establishment of democratic civic clubs (1995, Democracy Macro grant)

The Syndicate of Slovak Journalists

Maintain free media, independence of journalists (1995; Democracy Macro grant)

Association of Landowners and Agrarian Entrepreneurs of Slovakia

Reconstruction of social relations in the countryside (1995, Democracy Macro Project)

Slovak Union of Blind and Partially Sighted

Defense of the interests of the blind (1994, Democracy Macro Project)

Milan Simecka Foundation

Assistance to a running civic education program (1994 Democracy Micro Project)

Slovakia Foreign Policy Foundation

Documentation / publication of two seminars aiming to increase public understanding of foreign affairs (1994, democracy micro grant)

A-Project

Centre for the Revival and Development of Mountain Area Resources,

Interactive community planning in rural micro-regions

Establishment of the rural parliament in Slovakia (1998-2000)

Transparency International Slovakia

Institutional development of the Centre for Economic Development, 1998-2000

Educational Centre

Study program “Economy and Management of NGOs” , 1998-2000

ETP Slovakia

Promotion of co-operation and access to information of NGOs in the process of European Integration in the area of the environment and regional development, 1998-2000

MEMO ‘98

Monitoring minorities’ rights, 1998-2000

New Generation – Youth Club

Service Centre for Minority NGOs

Partners for Democratic Change Slovakia

Training on effective functioning of organizations with programs promoting Roma and non-Roma coexistence, 1998-2000

The Board for Social Work Counselling

Establishing a branch in Kosice, 1998-2000

ROAD

Institutional and staff development, 1998-2000

Trencin Informal Group (TIG)

Several projects and programs, e.g. institutional development of the TIG community fund

Source: European Commission (1997c: 148pp), NPOA (2000)

Table 21Examples of NED Non-Governmental Recipients in Poland (1990-1998)

Recipient

Area of Activity

Polish Institute of Arts and Science (PIAS)

art and science

Stefan Batory Foundation

civic education

Foundation for Education for Democracy (FED)

civil society, civic education

Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe (IDEE)

civil society, democracy

Foundation in Support of Local Democracy (FSLD)

decentralization, local democracy

Foundation for Social and Economic Initiatives in Poland (FSEIP)

economy

Gdansk Institute for Market Economics (GIME)

economy

Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

economy

Polish Society of Market Economics (PSME)

economy

Polish Council of Economic Societies (PCES)

economy / privatization

Krakow Industrial Society (KIS)

economy / privatization

Polish Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI)

economy / privatization

Institute for Private Enterprise and Democracy (IPED)

economy / privatization

Higher School of Business (HSP)

education / economic

Polish Citizens Committees

election

Independent Center for International Studies (ICIS)

research institute, think tank

Institute for Southeastern Studies (ISES)

research Institute, think tank

Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

trade union

NSZZ Solidarity (Rural branches, Social Fund, economic foundation, abroad)

trade union

Polish Children and Youth Foundation (PCYF)

youth

Source: own illustration based on the information distributed on the NED website: www.ned.org

Table 22Examples of NED Non-Governmental Recipients in Slovakia (1993-2000)

Recipient

Area of Activity

Jan Hus Educational Foundation

civil society, civic education, academic support

Documentation Center for the Promotion of Independent Slovak Literature

civic education, third sector

Center for Independent Journalism

media

Milan Simecka Foundation

human rights, civic education, third sector

Bratislava Center for Social Analysis

civic education, third sector

MESA 10

business

Foundation for the Upper Nitra Region

civic education, third sector

Entrepreneur Association of Slovakia

business

The Permanent Committee of the Civic Institute (SKOI)

civic education, third sector, network of civic clubs

Center for Economic Development

business

Association for Support of Local Democracy

elections, third sector, decentralization

Association Obcianske Oko (Civic Eye)

youth, democracy

Association of Regional Press Publishers

media, publication of "civic letters" which report on Slovakia's democratic transition

People and Water

democracy

MEMO 98

monitoring and assessing media coverage

Presov Civic Forum

elections, civic education in Eastern Slovakia

SAIA-SCTS

third sector, NGO development

Open Society Foundation

third sector, NGO development

Pro Democracy Association (APD)

monitoring reform processes, public opinion polls on youth issues, civic education

Foundation for a Civil Society (FCS)

civic education, election, third sector

Institute for Public Affairs

survey on Slovakias transition

Presov Community Foundation

promotion of local NGOs

Transparency International Slovakia

anti-corruption

Source: own illustration based on the information distributed on the NED website: www.ned.org

Table 23Examples of USAID Non-Governmental Recipients in Poland 

Year

Recipient and Supported Activities

1990

FSLD receives its first support from USAID

1990

NED begins distributing USAID funds to a variety of institutions to meet the needs of pro-democratic forces, independent cultural and publishing groups

1990

IDEE organizes the first competition for local press. Since then, more than 300 local press received funding by USAID. Since 1994 IDEE has provided training, advisory services and scholarships for NGOs and journalists from the region (CEE and NIS).

1990

East Central European Scholarship Program is established, providing U.S.-based training programs for Polish leaders in democratic leadership, public administration, public policy, health care administration and reform, rural development, finance and banking, business administration, and education.

1990

KLON/JAWOR database on NGOs receives start-up assistance from USAID

1991

YMCA receives USAID grant providing funding for youth leadership to address problems of social, environmental and economic concerns.

1991

Newly established CASE foundation, now a leading macro-economic think-tank, receives USAID funding

1991

Warsaw Journalism Center is established with USAID funding

1992

The environmental training project begins, focusing on training private business owners, environmental NGOs, academicians and local government officials

1993

Support Office for the Movement of Self-Help Initiatives (BORIS) is established to provide support to the NGO sector with a start-up grant from USAID. BORIS provides technical assistance in management issues, program planning, proposal writing, and fundraising. By June 2000, BORIS will have helped establish 60 Local Initiatives Centers that help communities organize for local problem solving.

1995

DemNet is launched assisting 65 NGOs; helping among others SPLOT (Network of NGO support and resource centers) to improve the standard of its services; supporting e.g. the first national NGO conference in Poland (FIP)

Source: own illustration based on USAID (2000a: 102-175)

Table 24Examples of USAID Non-Governmental Recipients in Slovakia

Activities and Programs 1990 - 2002

Year

Recipient and Supported Activities

1991-1993

Slovak Institute of Public Administration receives management training from the US Institute of Public Administration

1990-1993

NED distributes USAID funds to communities and NGOs with the aim of NGO development

1991-1994

The Association of Towns and Communities is supported by the international City-County Management Association in order to strengthen local public administration

1999-2000

Transparency International Slovakia receives funding for a corruption awareness campaign

1996-2000

Partners for Democratic Change Slovakia receive funding for a market mediation training

1997-1999

The International Foundation for Election Systems distributes USAID funds to NGOs in order to raise public awareness of the elections

1992-1996

The German Marshall Fund distributes USAID funds to Slovak NGOs with the aim of strengthening citizens and human rights

1996-1999

The Foundation for a Civil Society supports local NGOs with the DemNet program

1999-2002

Ekopolis Foundation / ETP Slovakia manages the “Your Land” program

1995-2000

The International Center for Non-for-Profit law works with NGOs and several ministries on a legal framework for NGOs

Source: USAID (2000b: 40)

USAID Legacy Institutions in Slovakia

The following organizations have been established or strengthened with the assistance of USAID:

Recipients

USAID funded international counterparts

Orava Association for Democratic Education

 University of Northern Iowa

Environmental Training Partnership Foundation (ETP Slovakia)

University of Minnesota

TRG Slovakia

The Recovery Group

Local Self-Government Assistance Center

ICMA

Slovak Management Training Center

The Recovery Groups, IESC

Slovak Association of Industrial Environemtnal Managers

World Environment Center

Slovak Pollution Prevention Center

World Environment Center

Citizens Action

National Democratic Institute (NDI)

Obcianske Oko

National Democratic Institute (NDI)

Slovak City Managers Association

RTI, ICMA

Slovak Judges Association

ABA / CEELI

Slovak Advocates Association

ABA / CEELI

Association of Towns and Communities

ICMA, IESC, VOCA

Slovak Syndicate of Journalists

IREX ProMedia

MEMO ‘98

IREX ProMedia

Gremium for the Third Sector

International Center for Non-Profit Law

Association of Slovak Teachers of English

USIA

Center for Independent Journalism

USIA, IREX

MESA 10

RTI, DemNEt

Source: USAID (2000b: 42-43)

Table 25Recipients of the Stefan Batory Foundation (Institutional Grants only)

1995 USD

1996 USD

1997 USD

1998 USD

1999 USD

Public Policy Institute, Warsaw

359,109

217,228

312,500

307,874

266,199

Helsinki Human Rights Foundation, Warsaw

136,842

137,453

147,031

102,041

Charta Center Foundation, Warsaw

93,117

82,397

68,750

258,621

Socio-Economic Inititives Foundation, Warsaw

76,923

Polish Humanitarian Organization, Warsaw

65,587

60,674

46,875

28,736

International Center for Development of Democracy, Cracow

48,583

89,888

57,471

Polish Roberta Schuman Foundation, Warsaw

38,462

59,551

46,875

25,510

Polish Foundations Forum, Warsaw

36,802

10,057

Borderland Foundation, Sejny

32,389

33,708

43,103

127,551

NGO Parliament, Poznan

29,798

12,500

Food Bank Foundation, Warsaw

20,243

15,625

16,582

Euro-Atlantic Association, Warsaw

12,672

9,363

6,378

National Association of the Friends of Lithuania, Warsaw

10,121

11,236

9,375

10,057

8,929

New in 96

Environmental Partnership Fundation, Cracow

97,378

100,575

CASE Foundation, Warsaw

74,906

School of Leaders Association, Warsaw

67,416

24,625

57,471

63,776

Judaica Foundation - Jewish Culture Center, Cracow

63,670

50,000

48,851

38,265

Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe, Warsaw

52,434

57,471

BORIS Office for the Servicing of the Self-Aid Initiative Movement, Warsaw

34,906

93,750

20,408

National Association of Soltys, Konin

29,963

Center of Political Though, Cracow

9,925

11,006

12,755

New in 97

Synapsis Foundation, Warsaw

62,500

Fundation for Support of Local Democracy, Warsaw

56,250

51,724

Foundation for Help to Children with Neoplastic Diseases, Warsaw

46,875

12,755

Polish Pen Club, Warszawa

31,250

22,989

1995 USD

1996 USD

1997 USD

1998 USD

1999 USD

Public Policy Institute, Warsaw

359,109

217,228

312,500

307,874

266,199

Helsinki Human Rights Foundation, Warsaw

136,842

137,453

147,031

102,041

Charta Center Foundation, Warsaw

93,117

82,397

68,750

258,621

Socio-Economic Inititives Foundation, Warsaw

76,923

Polish Humanitarian Organization, Warsaw

65,587

60,674

. 46,875

28,736

International Center for Development of Democracy, Cracow

48,583

89,888

57,471

Polish Roberta Schuman Foundation, Warsaw

38,462

59,551

46,875

25,510

Polish Foundations Forum, Warsaw

36,802

10,057

Borderland Foundation, Sejny

32,389

33,708

43,103

127,551

NGO Parliament, Poznan

29,798

12,500

Food Bank Foundation, Warsaw

20,243

15,625

16,582

Euro-Atlantic Association, Warsaw

12,672

9,363

6,378

National Association of the Friends of Lithuania, Warsaw

10,121

11,236

9,375

10,057

8,929

New in 96

Environmental Partnership Fundation, Cracow

97,378

100,575

CASE Foundation, Warsaw

74,906

School of Leaders Association, Warsaw

67,416

24,625

57,471

63,776

Judaica Foundation - Jewish Culture Center, Cracow

63,670

50,000

48,851

38,265

Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe, Warsaw

52,434

57,471

BORIS Office for the Servicing of the Self-Aid Initiative Movement, Warsaw

34,906

93,750

20,408

National Association of Soltys, Konin

29,963

Center of Political Though, Cracow

9,925

11,006

12,755

New in 97

Synapsis Foundation, Warsaw

62,500

Fundation for Support of Local Democracy, Warsaw

56,250

51,724

Foundation for Help to Children with Neoplastic Diseases, Warsaw

46,875

12,755

Polish Pen Club, Warszawa

31,250

22,989

Women's Support Center Foundation, Warsaw

31,250

Social Foundation of the Powisle District, Warsaw

31,250

Wegajty Country Theater Association, Wegajty

28,125

Civic Education Center, Warsaw

18,750

51,020

Bene Vobts Foundation, Warszawa

18,750

La Strada Fund at ion Against Trafficking in Women, Warsaw

16,875

Society for Social Prevention, Bydgoszcz

15,625

The Mikolow Fundation, Mikolow

14,063

Foundation for Help to Single Mothers, Poznan

14,063

8,929

Barge Foundation for Mutual Assistance, Poznan

12,500

New in 98

International Relations Center, Warsaw

86,207

102,041

FIP Association (Nongovernmental Initiatives Forum), Warsaw

68,966

25,510

Center for the Monitoring of Freedom of Press (Polish Journalists Association), Warsaw

34,483

Foundation for Education for Democracy, Warsaw

31,609

Federation of Polish Food Banks, Warsaw

28,736

Polish Work Foundation, Lodz

28,736

Heart Association for Sick Children, Swidnica

28,736

Borussia Cultural Association, Olsztyn

25,862

Association for Family Development, Opole

24,425

eFKa Women's Foundation, Cracow

20,230

Foundation for Poland, Warsaw

20,115

Cracow Hamlet Foundation, Cracow

20,115

Horse-Riding Therapy Foundation for Aid to Disabled Children, Warsaw

18,621

National Fund on Behalf of Children, Warsaw

14,368

38,265

Sharing What We Have Association, Stoczek Lukowski

14,368

12,755

Polis Association of Young Journalists, Warsaw

14,224

National Autism Society, Cracow

11,494

Altenative Education Studio, Lodz

7,184

Ancient Music Association, Jaroslaw

7,184

New in 99

Junior Achievement Fundation, Warsaw

178,571

Amazons Federation of Polish Clubs of Women after Mastectomy, Warsaw

26,786

Kana Cathilic Center of Youth Education, Gliwice

25,510

Regional Information and Support Center of NGO,

25,510

Lublin Center of Self-Aid Association, Lublin

20,408

Most Association of NGO Support, Katowice

20,408

Art of Disabled Foundation, Cracow

12,755

Wielkopolska Region Information and Suppor Center of NGO, Poznan

12,755

Borderland Music Association, Lublin

12,755

Organization of the Friends of Children

11,480

My Point of View Association, Bystrzyca Klodzka

8,929

Total amout of grants

960,648

1,132,097

1,226,031

1,571,667

1,295,536

Number of grants

13

17

25

33

29

Average amount of grant

73,896

66,594

49,041

47,626

44,674

Exchange rate

2.47

2.67

3.20

3.48

3.92

Source: Stefan Batory Foundation (2000:13-15)

Appendix 8Survey on Non-Governmental Organizations in Poland and Slovakia 

The following survey investigated the situation of NGOs in Poland and Slovakia, and the relationship between non-governmental recipients of foreign assistance and their donors. The survey was part of the research project “Democracy Promotion and Protection in Central and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa” conducted jointly by the Humboldt University, Berlin and the European University Institute, Florence and headed by Professor Claus Offe and Professor Philippe Schmitter. The survey encompassed three set of questions inquiring on

A Representative Sample

In Poland the sample involved 300 arbitrarily selected NGOs from the Klon/Jawor database.264 The internet based survey has been conducted in 2002. 72 valid questionnaires returned (24%). Because of the relatively low return, and the rather small sample the findings of the survey have been double-checked with a comparison of key indicators of the KLON/JAWOR survey (see below). This comparison reveals that the sample presents a representative picture of the NGOs of the Klon/Jawor database. Key indicators (paid staff, budget, main area of activity roughly correspond with the findings of the Klon/Jawor survey of 1997.

In line with the findings of the Klon/Jawor survey of 1997, the vast majority of questioned NGOs is rather small with no more than 5 paid staff (69%), and an annual budget of up to 20.000 US$ (53%) (see tables below). One has to note that the findings concerning core area of activity are not easily comparable as slightly different categories have been used in the two surveys and as the Klon/Jawor questionnaire allowed more than one answer. Nevertheless both surveys depict that the major share of NGOs in Poland are active in the field of social services, youth, culture and education. Also decentralization and local/regional development is a main area of activity of Polish NGOs.265 One has to note, however, that rather few NGOs active in ecology, science and concerned with issues of the mass media participated in our survey. Also the share of professional groups and organizations active in the area of “state, law and politics” is rather low.

The Slovak sample is based on the databank of the Slovak organization SAIA. One has to note that the database on NGOs provided by the Slovak NGO SAIA-SCTS is not a complete list of NGOs active in Slovakia. The database only includes those organizations that choose to register with SAIA. Consequently the database thus not fully represent certain types of organizations such as sport and hobby clubs. Unfortunately alternative data by the Statistical office is not available. All NGOs that had an e-mail address (400) have been selected. 92 valid answers have been received (23%). Again the portray given by our sample corresponds with the findings of the SAIA database. Most NGOs are located in the capital (although the DPP survey has a slight bias towards capital-based NGOs (44% instead of 35% in the SAIA database). The majority of NGOs focus on youth, culture and education (see for an interpretation of the SAIA statistics: Demeš (2001: 471pp). A detailed comparison of our findings and findings of SAIA is, however, not possible, as the SAIA statistics only allow a limited analysis.

Indicator 1: Number of Paid Staff of Polish NGOs

Indicator 2: Approximate Annual Budget (in US $)

Indicator 3: Main Area of Activity of Polish NGOs (in %)

Table 26Results of the Survey on NGOs in Poland and Slovakia in %

1. Location of organizations (per inhabitants)

Poland (72)

> 1 Mio

> 450.000

450.000-

100.000

< 100.000

19

32

4

44

Slovakia (89)

Capital

> 100.000

100.000-80.000

< 80.000

44

9

9

36

2. Year of foundation

before 1989

89-92

93-96

97-00

Poland (64)

6

38

23

33

Slovakia (90)

7

19

44

30

3. Do you publish annual reports?

Yes

No

Poland (58)

47

53

Slovakia (90)

57

43

4. Approximate budget in the year 2000 (in US $) (65)

0-5.000

5001-20 000

20.001-100.000

100.001-1.000.000

> 1.000.000

Poland (65)

28

25

23

23

2

Slovakia (88)

27

28

30

14

1

5. Number of paid staff (72)

0-5

6 – 15

16 – 50

> 50

Poland (72)

69

15

13

2

Slovakia (92)

73

17

5

4

6. Number of volunteers

0

1-10

11-20

21-50

>50

Poland (72)

24

40

18

8

10

Slovakia (92)

16

41

12

13

17

7. Are active members of your rrganization in command of English?

Yes

No

Poland (72)

72

28

Slovakia (89)

72

28

8. At which territorial level are you mainly active?

Local

Regional

National

International

Poland (72)

33

36

22

8

Slovakia (91)

14

23

48

14

9. What is your main area of activity?

Poland

Slovakia

core

activity (70)

further a c tivity (65)

core

activity

further activity

social services

30

15

19

11

youth, culture and education

24

19

32

20

decentralization, regional / local d e velopment

17

8

9

8

economic development

10

6

4

5

support of the NGO-sector

3

19

4

15

human rights/minorities

3

6

8

10

international issues, European Union

3

6

2

7

science

3

6

6

3

professional group

3

5

3

9

ecology

1

3

11

8

women

1

2

1

3

media

1

0

0

1

labor rights

0

2

0

0

state, law, politics

0

5

1

1

10. How do you assess your relationship with the following group of actors?

POLAND

SLOVAKIA

no relationship

existing relationship

no relationship

existing relationship

wouldn’t be important

would be important

less important

very important

wouldn’t be important

would be important

less important

very important

local and regional authorities (70/86)

19

83

26

74

0

19

10

73

5

21

44

30

political parties (71/84)

79

21

89

12

55

24

14

7

60

29

10

2

governmental authorities (70/87)

61

38

43

57

11

50

7

31

14

29

35

23

international NGOs (69/89)

49

51

35

66

1

48

6

45

8

27

33

33

international organizations (68/85)

79

21

68

32

19

60

3

18

22

46

18

14

foreign governmental agencies (65/86)

84

16

70

30

29

55

2

14

27

43

22

8

business (66(83)

61

39

76

24

9

52

6

33

40

36

16

8

Media (69/89)

30

70

18

82

4

26

6

64

6

12

47

35

other domestic non-governmental actors (69/87)

19

81

21

79

0

19

9

72

6

15

46

33

11. What do you think, why is a vivid NGO-Sector in your country important?

POLAND

SLOVAKIA

disagree

agree

fully agree

disagree

agree

fully agree

NGOs are important because they control state a c tivities and constitute a countervailing power to the state. (67/90)

22

43

34

5

31

63

NGOs are important because they are more efficient in supplying public services than the state. (69/90)

4

16

80

3

33

63

NGOs are important because they guarantee citizen participation in the political process. (66/89)

33

32

35

17

43

40

NGOs are important because they function as i m portant intermediaries between state and society. (70/90)

4

39

57

2

52

45

NGOs are important because they foster public di s cou r se and provide a platform for public debate. (66/90)

9

47

44

0

34

66

NGOs are important because they help to overcome social conflict. (67/90)

15

39

46

13

56

31

NGOs are important because they foster democratic practices and values in society. (68/90)

1

16

82

3

24

72

12. What are in your opinion the main problems of NGOs in your country?

POLAND

SLOVAKIA

 

1- no problem

2 -relatively problematic

3 - very problematic

1 - no problem

2 - relatively problematic

3 - very problematic

 

lack of financial sources (68/90)

1

15

84

3

24

72

 

lacking governmental support (68/88)

3

26

71

7

47

47

 

deficient cooperation among NGOs and business (68/87)

7

31

62

20

40

40

 

deficient cooperation among NGOs and state institutions (68/87)

7

37

56

7

51

43

 

lacking philanthropic culture in your country (65/88)

8

40

52

9

46

46

 

unclear legal situation (70/87)

16

41

43

25

63

12

 

missing legal regulations (70/86)

19

31

50

20

65

15

 

Deficient cooperation among NGOs (70/86)

19

41

40

30

59

11

 

lack of international contacts (69/86)

16

42

42

41

44

15

 

lack of information about NGO-relevant topics (67/86)

15

48

37

34

59

7

 

lacking voluntarism (68/88)

18

47

35

16

55

30

 

lack of professional and qualified staff (65/89)

28

42

31

28

45

27

 

negative public opinion about NGOs (65/89)

52

37

11

40

49

10

 

13. Main reported donors (more than one possible)

POLAND

SLOVAKIA

no answer

15

no donors

5

Phare / European Commission

10

11%

(Local) Business

11

11%

Stefan Batory Foundation

16

20%

Polish-American Freedom Foundation

5

4%

Academy in Support of Local Philanthropy

4

5%

USAID (US Embassy)

3

4%

Local Administration / Government

8

10%

Other Polish Foundation (Polish Children and Youth Foundation, Pastwowy Fundusz Rehabilitacji)

19

24%

Other foreign donors

8

10%

79 reports on donors

100%

13a. Number of reported donors

POLAND

SLOVAKIA

no report

15

no donors

5

11%

one reported donor

10

23%

more than one reported donor

29

66%

44

100%

13b. Ratio domestic to foreign sources of funding

POLAND

SLOVAKIA

No reports

15

No donors

5

10%

Domestic sources only

22

42%

Foreign sources only

6

12%

Foreign + domestic sources

19

37%

52

14. How many projects are funded by donor organizations annually?

0

1-3

4-10

More than 10

Poland (67)

6

42

46

6

Slovakia (89)

10

53

27

10

15. Why is the cooperation with foreign organizations important for you?

 

Cooperation is important, as it provides the foll o wing:

POLAND

SLOVAKIA

not received

received

not received

received

not necessary

had been necessary

but not of importance

very important

not necessary

had been necessary

but not of importance

very important

expertise/consultancy (68/78)

39

60

43

58

1

38

1

59

18

24

37

21

institutional grants (67/73)

42

58

68

33

6

36

3

55

28

40

22

11

project grants (69/70)

36

64

47

53

4

32

3

61

14

33

26

27

networks/contacts (70/81)

23

77

24

77

0

23

1

76

4

20

30

47

training/workshops (69/86)

46

54

28

72

4

42

6

48

11

17

31

41

moral support (66/83)

50

50

24

67

21

29

12

38

16

18

33

34

protection from governmental arbitrariness (66/76)

71

29

63

37

53

18

2

27

47

16

21

16

assistance in applying pressure towards go v ernment (60/75)

83

17

55

45

75

8

2

15

31

24

29

16

cooperation is important as the foreign organ i zat i on is a partner who strives for the same goals (68/87)

34

66

19

80

9

25

4

62

3

16

24

56

cooperation is important as one can profit from reputation of donor (63/77)

43

58

49

50

16

27

10

48

26

23

36

14

16. How do you describe your donors?

POLAND

SLOVAKIA

Donor ...

Not the case

partially

Yes, in all cases

Not the case

partially

Yes, in all cases

... is an equal partner (48/72)

25

50

25

17

49

35

... ist mainly financier (51/72)

16

41

43

6

49

46

... is teacher (47/62)

53

36

11

47

40

13

… leaves necessary space concerning project design and implementation (44/71)

55

39

7

7

51

42

... is informed about the social and political problems in the country (47/70)

36

36

28

4

43

53

17. What are the main problems concerning the cooperation with the foreign donors?

POLAND

SLOVAKIA

Donor ...

Not the case

Partially

Yes, in all cases

Not the case

partially

Yes, in all cases

... does not know enough about the country (48/70)

54

38

8

56

41

3

... lacks credibility (49/69)

88

12

0

88

7

4

... intervenes too much into projects (47/71)

64

28

9

51

39

10

... is too bureaucratic (51/72)

35

45

20

29

54

17

... is guided by his/her own interests rather than by a real interest in the goals of your organization. (49/74)

45

43

12

55

35

10

... prefers a few highly professional NGOs. The major share of NGOs has little chance to receive financial support. (49/71)

35

51

14

38

49

13

Table 27Interpretation of Results

I. The Polish and Slovak NGO Sector in Comparison

According to the DPP survey the majority of Polish NGOs is active in the area of social services (30%), youth, culture and education (24%), decentralization (17%), and economic development (17%). Only 3% classify their main activity as “support of the NGO sector”, however a rather high amount of NGOs, namely 19%, see support of the NGO sector as a further important area (question 8). The majority of NGOs is rather small with less than five paid staff and an annual budget below 20.000 US $ and relies to large extent on volunteers (76% of NGOs have volunteers) (questions 4,5,6). The survey also covered a rather high number of local NGOs. 44% reside in cities with less than 100.000 inhabitants and the majority (69%) reports that they are mainly active on the local and regional level (question 1, 8). The largest share of NGOs has been established between 1989-1992 (38%) (question 2).

In Slovakia most NGOs are active in the area youth, culture and education (32%) and social services (19%). In contrast to Poland, decentralization does not rank high on the agenda of Slovak NGOs (only 9% of NGOs active in this area), neither does economic development (4%). Instead, ecology with 11% of NGOs and human rights issues (8%) are important topics. 4% of NGOs aim to support the NGO sector, and 15% regard it as a further important area of activity. Similar to the Polish case, the Slovak NGO sector is shaped by small NGOs. 55% of Slovak NGOs have an annual budget below 20.000 US$, 73% have up to five paid staff and 84% operate with volunteers. A remarkable difference between the two cases concerns the location of NGOs and their main level of activity. In contrast to Poland, most Slovak respondents are located in the capital (44%). Moreover, 48% report to mainly operate on the national level. A surprising share of 14% (Poland: 7%) even states the international level as their main field of operation. While in Poland, predominantly small and local NGOs were covered by the survey, in Slovakia capital-based and nationally operating NGOs prevail. A further difference between the cases concerns the year of foundation. In contrast to Poland, the largest share of Slovak NGOs has been established at a later time in the 1990s. Only 20% of the surveyed NGOs report to be founded between 1989-1992. The largest share (44%) started to operate between 1993-1996.

II. Self-Assessment of NGOs’ Role and Situation

Question 10. Relationship with other Actors

One can note that Polish NGOs deeply distrust political parties. The majority of NGOs (79%) report that they have no contact to political parties. Moreover, the largest share of them (70%, 55% of total) do not regard such relations as important. The ones that hold contacts to political parties largely assess them as less important (33% of the ones with contact, 14% of total). Concerning other domestic actors, Polish NGOs are least connected with governmental authorities and business. 61% of NGOs report to have no relationship with both. Half of them regret this. If international contacts are concerned, one has to note that the vast majority of surveyed NGOs have no contacts to foreign governmental agencies (84%), nor to international organizations (79%). As the majority (69%) reports to be mainly active on the local or the regional level, this is not surprising. More surprising is the large number of NGOs that report to hold contacts to international NGOs (51%). Moreover, such contacts are overwhelmingly assessed as very important (93% of total report that they are or were of great importance). Polish NGOs are well connected to local authorities, other non-governmental actors and the media. These are also the relationships valued the most. A vast majority (83%) holds contact to local authorities and assesses those as very important (88%, 79% of total). Additionally, NGOs that do not report to have contacts to local authorities regret this with no exception. A similar picture is presented by the relationships among NGOs; 81% hold such contacts and value them highly (89%, 72% of total), all of the ones with no such contacts wish for them. The same, although to a lesser extent holds true for the media (70% hold contacts, the ones who have not contact mostly desires them).

Also in Slovakia NGOs hold mostly contact to local authorities, the media and other NGOs. However, slightly less contacts to local governments are observable (74%), and those are also not that much valued than in Poland. In contrast to Poland, the number of NGOs having contact to governmental authorities is rather high (58%), and relatively well valued (41% with contacts regard them as very important). The deep distrust toward political parties is evident in Slovakia, too. Only 12% of NGOs report to engage in relationships with parties. Only 17% of those value those contacts as important. In Slovakia even less NGOs have contacts to business than in Poland (only 24%). Half of the NGOs without contacts wish for them. The surveyed NGOs are very well internationally connected, and much more so than their Polish counterparts. The majority, namely 66%, report relations with international NGOs. Additionally, nearly one third have contacts to international organizations (32%), and to foreign governmental agencies (30%).

Question 11: Role and Importance of NGOs

If Polish NGOs are asked why NGOs are important, major emphasis is given to the efficiency of NGOs (80% fully agree that NGOs are important as they are more efficient in supplying public services than the state). We can thus note that Polish NGOs are rather service oriented. Additionally, NGOs see their role as a “school for democracy”. A vast majority (82%) fully agrees that NGOs are important because they foster democratic practices and values in society. Also the role of NGOs as intermediaries between state and society is regarded as important (57% fully agree, 39% agree). In contrast, Polish NGOs are skeptical towards the participatory role of NGOs. One third of questioned NGOs disagree that NGOs guarantee citizen participation in the political process. Also the role of NGOs as a countervailing power to the state is assessed rather pessimistically. 22% disagree to this statement. There is also not much accord with the statement that NGOs foster public discourse and provide a platform for public debate. While Polish NGOs are pessimistic if it comes to questions of citizen participation and the countervailing of the state, they see their role mainly outside the state as service providers and transmitters of democratic values in society.

If we turn to the answers of Slovak NGOs we observe a slightly different picture. Major emphasis has been given to the role of NGOs in fostering democratic practices and values in society (72% fully agree, 24% agree). Also NGOs are regarded as important because they foster public discourse and provide a platform for debate (66% fully agree, 34% agree). The efficiency of NGOs is named only as the third important reason for NGOs (63% fully agree, 31% agree). In contrast to Poland, Slovak NGOs also stress the role of NGOs in countervailing state powers (64% fully agree, 31% agree). They also have a more optimistic view on NGOs as facilitators of public participation in politics (40% fully agree, 17% disagree). The role of NGOs in overcoming social conflict is, however, assessed rather pessimistically (31% fully agree, 13% disagree). Keeping the latest history of Slovakia in mind, and especially the role Slovak NGOs played in the elections voting Meciar out of office, the high accord to the countervailing power of NGOs is especially remarkable. It clearly shows that the experiences of Slovak NGOs with the SOS campaign and the OK98 campaign shaped their self-assessment and thus left a legacy.

Question 12: Main problems of NGOs

The majority of NGOs in Poland and Slovakia agree that the lack of financial resources is a major problem of NGOs in their countries. 84% in Poland and 72% of the Slovak NGOs consider the lack of financial sources as very problematic. In general, Polish and Slovak NGOs name the same problems with slight exceptions, Polish NGOs, however, judge their situation more pessimistically than the Slovak NGOs. The question on major problems of NGOs reveals especially the big frustration with the government among Polish NGOs. 71% judge the lacking governmental support as very problematic (47% in Slovakia). The lacking cooperation between NGOs and business is named as the third main problem by Polish NGOs (62%). In Slovakia, in contrast, the deficient cooperation with business does not rank as high on the agenda of main worries, only 40% name it as very problematic, 20% see a deficient cooperation with business as no problem for Slovak NGOs at all. Again the lacking cooperation with government is regarded as troublesome in both countries (56% of Polish and 43% of Slovak NGOs see it as very problematic), as is the lack of a philanthropic culture in the country (52% and 46%). The unclear legal situation and a lack of legal regulations as well as a deficient cooperation among NGOs are matters of moderate concern in Poland. A substantial 40-50% of NGOs regard those issues as very problematic. In Slovakia in contrast, only between 11-15% agree that these are issues of major concern. 20-30% do not regard those points as problematic. A negative public opinion about NGOs is no issue in both countries.

III. Relationship with Foreign Actors / Donors

As was evident in question 10, Polish and Slovak NGOs have frequent contacts to international actors, in particular non-state actors. The following bundle of questions aims to investigate how Polish and Slovak NGOs assess the cooperation with foreign donors.

Question 15: Why is the cooperation with foreign organizations important for you?

Questioned on why foreign cooperation has been or would have been important, the majority of replying NGOs in Poland report that they received benefits from international organizations in the form of networks and contacts (77%), project grants (64%), expertise/consultancy (60%), institutional grants (58%), and training / workshops (54%). All these benefits have been highly valued by all NGOs no matter whether they received them or not. A share of 90% or more reported that the benefits had either been very important or would have been important. The picture looks different if one asked for “moral support”, “protection from governmental arbitrariness” or “assistance in applying pressure towards government”. These factors are obviously not regarded by Polish NGOs as important merits of international contacts. The bulk of NGOs (50%, 71% and 83%) reports that they did not receive such form of assistance. While moral support is nonetheless valued by 67% of NGOs, “protection from governmental arbitrariness” and “assistance in applying pressure towards government” is widely regarded as superfluously. The majority of NGOs (58%) see the foreign donor as a partner that strives for the same goals, a fact that is highly valued (87%). Also most NGOs agree that one can profit from the reputation of the donor organization (75%).

The picture looks rather different if Slovak NGOs are concerned. Firstly, one has to note that Slovak NGOs received less financial support in the form of institutional or project grants (only 33% of NGOs report that they receive institutional grants; 53% received project grants). Instead with 72% much more NGOs underwent training. “Network/contacts” and “expertise/consultancy” are on an equal high with 77% and 58% respectively. Slovak NGOs do not assess the received assistance as positive as the Polish NGOs did. The most valued benefits are the provision of “networks/contacts” which are considered as important by 66% of Slovak NGOs, the importance of having a “partner that strikes for the same goals” (73% of NGOs esteem the cooperation with foreign organizations for that reason), “project grants” (60% valued them), and “training” (58% regard training as important). All other benefits are condemned as “unnecessary” by half or more of the NGOs covered.

Question 16: How do you describe your donor?

If asked not about the received benefits but the donor himself, the majority regards them mainly as financier (84% in Poland, 95% in Slovakia). Slovak NGOs tend to see their donors in a more positive light than Polish NGOs. Whereas 55% of Polish NGOs report that donors do not leave necessary space concerning project design and implementation only 7% of Slovak NGOs think this is the case. Similarly, 36% of Polish NGOs agree that their donors are not informed about the social and political problems in the country. Only 4% of Slovak NGOs put forward the same criticism. Still, 75% of Polish NGOs agree that some or all of their donors are equal partners. 84% of Slovak NGOs see at least some of their donors as equal partners.

If asked about the major problems of the cooperation with foreign donors it becomes, however, evident that in Poland as well as in Slovakia foreign donors are mainly assessed positively. Main criticism is put forward toward the bureaucracy of some or all donors (65% in Poland, 71% in Slovakia regard donors as too bureaucratic). The NGOs also largely agree that donors tend to prefer a few highly professional NGOs leaving the major share of NGOs with little chance to receive financial support (65% of NGOs in Poland; 62% of NGOs in Slovakia see this point confirmed at least if some of their donors are concerned). 55% of Polish NGOs put forward that donors at least partially are guided by their own interests rather than by a real interest in the supported organizations (45% of Slovak NGOs confirm this point).

Appendix 9List of Interview Partners

Table 28List of Interview Partners relevant for the Polish Case

Interview Partner

Organization

Date

Slawomir Nalecz

The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project; Institute of Political Studies

expert

7.2.2001

Piotr Glinski

Polish Academy of Science

expert

21.2.2001

Roland Freudenstein

Konrad Adenauer Stiftung,

donor

9.2.2001

Hermann Bünz

Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Warsaw

donor

16.2.2001

Jan Saloni, Programme Manager

Cooperation Fund, Phare Civic Dialogue Program

donor

19.2.2001

Lidia Kolucka, Consultant

Ford Foundation, Warsaw

donor

26.2.2001

Izabella Rybka, Coordinator

Batory Foundation, NGO Program

donor

14.2.2001

Jakub Boratynski

Batory Foundation, European Program

donor

14.2.2001

Jacek Wojnarowski, Executive Director

Trust for Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe, formerly Executive Director Stefan Batory Foundation

donor

16.2.2001

Maldonorzata Naimska, Executive Director

Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe (IDEE)

recipient

14.2.2001

Urszula Doroszewska, Program Director

Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe (IDEE)

recipient

14.2.2001

Kuba Wygnanski, Director

Regardless of Bad Weather Foundation, (Klon/Jawor Database on Polish NGOs), Board member FIP, Batory,

recipient

15.2.2001

Lukasz Domagala

SPLOT

recipient

15.2.2001

Katarzyna Morawska

Fondation dla Polska, now Batory Foundation

recipient

19.2.2001

Katarzyna Wiechowska, International Officer

Wrzos (Working of Associations of Social NGOs)

recipient

23.2.2001

Renata Kozlicka

Regardless of Bad Weather Foundation (Klon/Jawor), European Program

recipient

22.2.2001

Agnieszka Mazur-Baranska

Forum Inicjatyw Pozarzadowych (FIP) (Forum for non-governmental initiatives)

recipient

26.2.2001

Krzysztof Stanowski,

Foundation for Education for Democracy

recipient

20.2.2001

Danuta Przywara

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights

recipient

20.2.2001

Lidia Kuczmierowska

Civil Society Development Foundation

recipient

21.2.2001

Rosa Thun

Robert Schumann Stiftung

recipient

22.2.2001

Zbigniew Wejcman

BORIS (Service Büro der sozialen Organisationen)

recipient

22.2.2001

Piotr Jaworski, Coordinator

Institut for Public Affairs, European Programme

recipient

27.2.2001

Witold Monkiewicz, Board President

Foundation in Support of Local Democracy (FRDL)

recipient

28.2.2001

Pawel Lukasiak, Programme Director

Academy for the Development of Philanthrophy in Poland

recipient

28.2.2001

Table 29List of Interview Partners Relevant for the Slovak Case

Interview Partner

Organization

Date

Reinhardt Stuth

Director of the Prague office of the KAS between 1995-99

donor

12.10.1999 (Berlin)

Frank Spengler

Director of the Prague office of the KAS after 1999

donor

04.10.1999 (Prague)

Agáta Pešková

Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Bratislava

donor

13.02.2002(Bratislava)

Maire Saša Linau

Director, ProFem, Czech Republic

Recipient

5.10.1999 (Prague)

Zdenka Mansfeldova

Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

expert

02/2002
(Berlin)

Katarína Koštálová,

Executive Director, Slovak Academic Information Agency – Service Center for the Third Sector

recipient

13.02.2002(Bratislava)

Boris Strečanský

Executive Director, ETP Slovakia

intermediary

15.02.2002(Bratislava)

Michal Petráš

Friedrich Ebert Foundation, local office Bratislava

donor

11.02.2002(Bratislava)

Ivana Tóthová

Project Manager, Partners for Democratic Change Slovakia

recipient

12.02.2002 (Bratislava)

Michal Vašečka

Institute for Public Affairs, Program Manager

expert

14.02.2002(Bratislava)

Ol’ga Gyárfášová

Institute for Public Affairs, Senior Research Fellow

expert

14.02.2002(Bratislava)

Jarmila Sviteková

Department for International Development, British Embassy

donor

14.02.2002(Bratislava)

Monika Holečková

Department for International Development, British Embassy

donor

14.02.2002(Bratislava)

Katarína Vajdová

Director, Civil Society Development Foundation (CSDF)

donor

11.02.2002(Bratislava)

Marek Jacoby

MESA 10

recipient

12.02.2002(Bratislava)

Peter Pažitný

MESA 10

recipient

12.02.2002(Bratislava)

Table 30List of Interviewees in Germany

Interview Partner

Organization

Date

Arnold Wehmhörner

Department International Dialogue, Central and Eastern Europe, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Bonn

donor

22.2.2000

Uwe Optenhögel

Director International Cooperation, FES

donor

23.10.2001

H. Weber

Coordinator Poland, FES

donor

3.11.1999

Michael Dauderstädt

Coordinator Slovakia, FES

donor

3.11.1999

Dr. Rüdiger Pintar

International Dialogue, Department Central and Eastern Europe, FES

donor

3.11.1999

Michael Weichert

Projektleiter Regionalbüro Sofia, FES

Donor

5.11.1999

Jan Senkyr

Referatsleiter, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Department International Cooperation

donor

4.11.1999

Dr. Günter Dill

Referent Local Government, Konrad Adenauer Foundation

Donor

4.11.1999

von Hausen

Deutscher Landkreistag

donor

4.11.1999

Jürgen Henkel

Foundation for Economic Development and Vocational Training (SEQUA), Project Manager

donor

2.11.1999

Almut Thébaud

Director Department Planning and Management, Friedrich Naumann Foundation

donor

2.11.1999


Footnotes and Endnotes

256  The following is based on Richterová (2000: 50pp), and NPOA (2000)

257  From the start, the foundation was run by a group of Polish sociologist that were affiliated with the oppositional movement Solidarity. The first board members were George Soros, Zbigniw Pelczynski, Roman Ciesielski, Marcin Krol, Henryk Wozniakowski, Grzedonorrz Bialkowski, Antonina Kloskowska, Aleksander Koj, Klemens Szaniawski and Tadeusz Syryczyk. In 1989 the new board members were: Zbigniew Bujak, Jozef Chajn, Krysztof Michalski, Adam Michnik, Andrzej Rychard, Ryszard Stemplowski and Andrzey Ziabicki. Starting from 1991 Alexander Smolnar was president of the foundation. 

258   Four priority areas have been identified: (1) democracy, justice, and civil society; (2) education; (3) international cooperation; and (4) culture. Several programs and activities have been reduced or closed Other activities have been outsourced and transferred to close cooperation partners. Already in 1994 the foundation transferred certain programs and initiatives (including funds) to other organizations cooperating with the Batory foundation such as the Center for Further Education of Teachers, the Jozef Mianowski Fund, the Foundation for the Support of Science, or the Challenges Foundation. This process continued with the transfer of the public administration and social policy program to the Public Affairs Institute in 1995. In 1997 the educational programs operated by the foundation were absorbed by the Center for Youth Entrepreneurship which was granted a status of a national, non-public teachers’ training establishment. In the same year, the competitions of youth projects were ceded to the Polish Children and Youth Foundation and the Challenges Foundation. The program assisting scientist and research workers on trips abroad has been transferred to the Warsaw Scientific Society.

259  The following is based on the following sources: Academy for Educational Development (1998), USAID (1999: appendix C and D)

260  The following is largely based on the interviews conducted by the author with representatives from both KAS and FES (see appendix 9), on respective donor material (KAS (1994), KAS (1996), KAS (1999)), and on information provided by the homepages of the two foundations: www.kas.de, www.fes.de 

261  Both foundations supported Poland throughout the 1980s via scholarship programs. The FES run an exchange and scholarship program targeting Polish journalists, the KAS issued research scholarships to Polish scholars via the Catholic University Lublin. Moreover it held contacts to the Academy for Catholic Theology in Warsaw. The KAS continued its contacts with the two universities, however, ended its cooperation with the Academy for Catholic Theology in 1995.

262   Although Solidarnoćś is an exceptional case one has to note that trade unions in communist countries played a totally different role to trade unions in the West. Representing the interests of workers was not the main objective of trade unions, instead the unions ought to ensure the identification of the workers with the ruling regime and ideology (see Ost 1993). For this reason, trade unions in CEE had difficulties to accept their new role after transition.

263   The FNS, for example, organized shortly before the elections a two-day work-shop with the aim to unite the opposition parties. The FNS claimed that it was the result of this work-shop, and the political consultant running it, to bring about the final umbrella coalition (interview Thebaud).

264  Approximately every 40th NGO that was according to the data in the database still active (and did reply to the last questionnaire of the Klon/Jawor survey) was selected.

265   The higher share of NGOs active in this area in our survey may well be due to the later date of the survey. The territorial reform of 1999 opened up possibilities for NGOs in this field. A tendency that NGOs concerned about decentralization and local development sprang up was already evident in the 1997 survey which noted that “the share of organizations conne c ted with issues of regional development is … clearly rising” (BORDO 1998: 60).



© Die inhaltliche Zusammenstellung und Aufmachung dieser Publikation sowie die elektronische Verarbeitung sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung, die nicht ausdrücklich vom Urheberrechtsgesetz zugelassen ist, bedarf der vorherigen Zustimmung. Das gilt insbesondere für die Vervielfältigung, die Bearbeitung und Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronische Systeme.
DiML DTD Version 4.0Zertifizierter Dokumentenserver
der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
HTML generated:
05.06.2008