Nonprofit sector

As a consequence of changing domestic and international socio-political environment, public diplomacy policies require relational, networked and collaborative approaches for more effective and long-term outcomes. This article explores the relevance of non-state actors to public diplomacy and suggests why and how collaboration takes place between state and non-state actors. Furthermore, the article develops a typology of collaboration between state and non-state actors for public diplomacy initiatives based on two dimensions: whose objectives are prioritized in the collaboration and who proposes collaboration. The article suggests that non-state actors’ potential for public diplomacy can be tapped by state when state approaches non-state actors for collaboration as well as opening its channels for collaboration opportunities coming from non-state actors.

Keywords: public diplomacy, non-state actors, public relations, social networks, collaboration

With the booming of civil society organizations in Lebanon, exploring the governance of such institutions has become essential. Those organizations are still governed by an archaic law dating from the Ottoman Empire and devoid of a section on internal governance. In light of the absence of this legal framework that guides nonprofit governance in Lebanon, the following questions are raised: What is the state of nonprofit governance in Lebanon? Are these organizations self-regulating and working towards implementing proper governance to provide transparency and accountability for the nonprofit sector, citizens and the state? To answer the above questions, multiple methods were used, ranging from primary quantitative research tools to secondary data gathering. Surveys were sent to around 503 associations in Lebanon. The questions focused on a better understanding of governance styles in associations. The secondary research methods involved extracting all information from previous research around governance within CSOs in different contexts. This information was used to identify the gap constituting the missing components of governance within Lebanese CSOs and the perception and understanding of the concept of governance by actors involved in it. Throughout the study, most Lebanese CSOs were observed as open and democratic, involving multiple stakeholders in their internal decisions and affairs, and strong on the communication and connectedness front. Also, they were perceived as having strong general accountability, internal formalization, power-sharing, decentralization, and representativeness. So, generally speaking, the Lebanese CSOs had more cooperative and coordinative internal governance. Without any doubt, every study comes with its limitations, and the ones related to