• Commentary
  • Research
  • Experts
  • Events
Carnegie China logoCarnegie lettermark logo
{
  "authors": [
    "Richard Youngs"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Turkey’s Transformation",
    "Europe’s Eastern Neighborhood",
    "Europe’s Southern Neighborhood",
    "Civic Activism"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "EP",
  "programs": [
    "Europe"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Middle East",
    "Europe",
    "Türkiye",
    "Eastern Europe",
    "North Africa",
    "Egypt",
    "Ukraine",
    "Western Europe",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Democracy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other
Carnegie Europe

EU Support to Civil Society in Turkey, Ukraine, and Egypt: Mapping Reforms to the External Financing Instruments

The EU’s external financing instruments should be improved to make the union’s civil society support efforts more politically effective and more closely aligned with strategic aims.

Link Copied
By Richard Youngs
Published on Feb 28, 2018

Source: European Parliamentary Research Service

Executive summary

EU support to civil society in Turkey, Ukraine and Egypt has improved in recent years but now struggles to meet a series of new challenges. Funding for civil society in these three countries is now delivered with greater flexibility and to a wider range of recipients than previously.

Amounts allocated to civil society are significant, if rather modest as an overall share of the external financing instruments relevant to the three cases. Support to civil society actors has undoubtedly been valuable, even if it has not been sufficient to avoid complications to political reform in these three countries or to contribute in a major way to the EU’s stated strategic objectives.

In Turkey and Egypt, external support has done little to temper government assaults against civil society. In both these cases, the EU has shown some creativity in an effort to circumvent the new obstacles to external support. Yet on-the-ground support has been effective only at the margins, not least because European strategic and diplomatic engagement in many senses now pulls in the opposite direction to the kind of reform objectives associated with civil society.

In Ukraine, the EU has helped foster an impressive degree of civil society dynamism and this has been a leading edge of the country’s reform process since 2014. At the same time, EU support to civil support has in other ways played into and magnified the shortcomings and imbalances of Ukraine’s reform process.

Neither radical simplification of the EFIs nor a dedicated civil society instrument would necessarily improve civil society support, and may involve serious drawbacks.

In re-designing its financing instruments the EU needs to find procedural ways of helping link civil society more effectively with other reform-oriented aid; support new civic actors; temper the current assault on civil society organisations; and establish more nuanced links between civil society and strategic goals.

The EU external financing instruments should be reformed with a number of considerations in mind:

  • While the broad structure of the current financing instruments should not be changed with regards to this sector, the EU should consider introducing ways of cohering civil society organisation (CSO) support more tightly within this structure.

  • The EFIs should be better designed to help linkages between CSO support and other areas of funding.

  • Developing progress already made, the EFIs could still help add further flexibility to EU civil society support.

  • The EFIs need to add elements more specifically aimed at protecting CSOs from the increased levels of repression they are today facing.

  • The EU should broaden its CSO support beyond its traditional range of natural, pro-European partners.

  • The EFIs should be reformed to help the EU identify and support new types of civil society actors beyond professional advocacy NGOs.

  • The EFIs need better mechanisms to understand how CSO support feeds into overarching aims of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP).
Read Full Text

This article was originally published as an annex to a study conducted by the European Parliamentary Research Service, titled “EU external financing instruments and the post-2020 architecture: European Implementation Assessment.”

About the Author

Richard Youngs

Senior Fellow, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program

Richard Youngs is a senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, based at Carnegie Europe. He works on EU foreign policy and on issues of international democracy.

    Recent Work

  • Report
    Europe from Scratch: Visions for a New European Order
      • Erik Jones
      • +9

      Richard Youngs, Erik Jones, Dan Baer, …

  • Paper
    Post-U.S. International Democracy Support: Aspiration in Search of Substance

      Richard Youngs, Thomas Carothers

Richard Youngs
Senior Fellow, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program
Richard Youngs
Foreign PolicyDemocracyMiddle EastEuropeTürkiyeEastern EuropeNorth AfricaEgyptUkraineWestern EuropeIran

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie China

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    Trump and Xi Are Angling for Three Years of Stability

    But their "principal to principal" model will only be as effective as the political strength of each leader back home.

      • Damien Ma

      Damien Ma

  • Commentary
    China Sells Stability Amid American Volatility

    U.S. unpredictability has allowed China to capitalize on its positioning as the “responsible great power”. Paradoxically, the more China wins the perception game, the more likely expectations will rise for Beijing to deliver not just words but to demonstrate with its deeds.

      Chong Ja Ian

  • Vietnam's Top Leader To Lam meets with young representatives from China and Vietnam participating in the "Red Study Tours" at the Great Hall of the People on April 15, 2026 in Beijing, China. T
    Commentary
    Why Vietnam Is Swinging in China’s Direction

    Hanoi and Beijing have long treated each other as distant cousins rather than comrades in arms. That might be changing as both sides draw closer to hedge against uncertainty and America’s erratic behavior.

      • Nguyen-khac-giang

      Nguyễn Khắc Giang

  • Commentary
    China’s Energy Security Doesn’t Run Through Hormuz but Through the Electrification of Everything

    Across Asia, China is better positioned to withstand energy shocks from the fallout of the Iran war. Its abundant coal capacity can ensure stability in the near term. Yet at the same time, the country’s energy transition away from coal will make it even less vulnerable during the next shock.


      • Damien Ma

      Damien Ma

  • Commentary
    Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing Disorder

    Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.

      Elina Noor

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
Carnegie China logo, white
Keck Seng Tower133 Cecil Street #10-01ASingapore, 069535Phone: +65 9650 7648
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.