Media Policy and Globalization - Blogs Unpad

CIVIL SOCIETY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 157
Table 6.1 Top 25 NGO Cities by Network Connectivities*
NGO Network Connectivity
Global Network Connectivity
Level Rank City Rank Difference
3729 1 Nairobi 99 98
3408 2 Brussels 15 13
3378 3 Bangkok 28 29
3211 4 London 1 −3
3209 5 New Delhi 52 47
3109 6 Manila 46 40
3181 7 Washington 37 30
2999 8 Harare 132 124
2796 9 Geneva 67 58
2779 10 Moscow 34 24
2758 11 New York 2 −9
2626 12 Mexico City 18 6
2624 13 Jakarta 22 9
2616 14 Tokyo 5 −9
2599 15 Accra 150 135
2569 16 Cairo 59 43
2562 17 Dhaka 152 135
2560 18 Rome 53 35
2433 19 Dakar 206 187
2408 20 Santiago 57 37
2326 21 Abidjan 131 110
2320 22 Buenos Aires 23 1
2256 23 Dar es Salam 196 173
2256 24 Copenhagen 44 20
2251 25 Beijing 36 11
*The first two columns measure ‘global cities’ according to the presence of global NGO networks
while the second two columns measure the presence of transnational corporate networks. For
more on method see Taylor 2004.
Source: Taylor (2004).
accountability and the generic category of civil society as assumed in the
above discussion of the WSIS.
The dramatic expansion of the number and influence of NGOs in
the South is part and parcel of neoliberal regulatory reform, with over
two decades of multilateral agencies and aid organizations based in the
North advising developing countries to promote the ‘democracy sector’
by funding groups within civil society. There is a clear political objective
with this version of civil society from above, as described by Jenkins:
While the preservation of individual liberties is deemed by most agencies
to be a good in itself, it is the contribution of individual rights
to engendering and maintaining democracy and promoting sound