Public trust in civil society and efforts to restrict it: What it means for think tanks

The civic space appears to be closing in on civil society worldwide. It certainly feels that way in democratic countries. State capture is extending beyond the institutions of the state, curtailing the operations of civil society organisations—including think tanks.

Governments use a polarising narrative about civil society organisations to support these moves: they are corrupt, represent foreign interests, promote foreign values, they are unpatriotic, etc.

The media, often captured, itself, parrots these arguments. But what does the public think?

Perceptions of NGOs and civil society in Peru

Peru’s political institutions are experiencing one of the deepest crises of legitimacy in decades. Trust in Congress, political parties, and even government oversight bodies has collapsed. Against this backdrop, the recent survey by the Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP) on “Perceptions of NGOs and Civil Society” (June 2025) provides an unusual source of optimism. Despite years of political hostility, citizens express significantly higher levels of trust in NGOs and civil society organisations (CSOs) than in most state institutions.

At the same time, a new political coalition has advanced legislation to restrict foreign funding and tighten state oversight of CSOs. The contrast is stark. While citizens value the contributions of civil society, political leaders often see it as a threat. This contradiction raises an important question: if not public demand, what drives the push to limit civil society?

A rare pocket of trust

The survey reveals that 42% of Peruvians trust NGOs “much” or “somewhat.” To put this in context:

• Trust in NGOs is higher than trust in political parties, Congress, and even the Defensoría del Pueblo (the Ombudsman office).
• Only the Church, the Armed Forces and grassroots organisations enjoy higher levels of confidence.

This matters because Peruvians are living through what some scholars call a “crisis of political representation.” Most institutions are viewed with suspicion. Yet NGOs and CSOs manage to maintain a reputation that, while not overwhelming, is comparatively strong.

Importantly, trust is not evenly distributed. It is higher among:

• Women (a group that often benefits directly from NGO programmes on rights and protection).
• Young people under 40 (who are typically more open to civic engagement).
• Those with higher education and from socio-economic levels A/B and C – the middle and upper classes.
• People with direct experience or familiarity with NGO work.

The last point is particularly revealing: proximity builds legitimacy. Those who have personally benefited from or seen NGO activities are much more likely to trust them. This finding aligns with global studies that demonstrate the credibility generated by lived experience with civil society, whether through a health campaign, humanitarian aid, or a rights-based initiative.

Civil society’s agenda resonates with citizens

The IEP survey also asked respondents to evaluate the importance of the issues NGOs tend to address. The results are striking:

• Women’s rights and humanitarian aid top the list: around two-thirds consider them “very” or “somewhat important.”
• Human rights and environmental protection also rank highly.
• Social studies (estudios sociales), which encompass research and analysis activities often conducted by think tanks, were also deemed important by more than half of the respondents.
• At the bottom were journalism and mining, but even these were not dismissed outright.

The key takeaway is that NGOs do not operate in a vacuum. Their agendas, from defending rights to producing knowledge, resonate with broad segments of society.

This undermines the prevailing political narrative that NGOs pursue “foreign” or “anti-national” agendas that are disconnected from ordinary citizens.

Knowledge gaps and manufactured threats

Despite this general trust, most Peruvians are unclear about how NGOs are regulated. Only 2% could spontaneously mention APCI (the state agency for international cooperation), and less than 1% identified the SUNAT (the tax authority), Contraloría (the public comptroller), or SBS (financial services supervisor) as oversight bodies.

Politicians often seize on this lack of knowledge to portray NGOs as unregulated or unaccountable. Yet the truth is that multiple layers of fiscal and administrative control already exist. The real issue is poor communication about these mechanisms.

The survey also shows that opinions on recent legal reforms are divided:

• 41% believe the reforms are designed to create obstacles and reduce funding for social projects.
• 30% think they improve accountability and use of funds.
• The remainder are undecided.

This division reflects confusion rather than consensus. What it does not reflect is a strong public outcry for more restrictions. If anything, a plurality suspects reforms are politically motivated.

It reminds me of Hans Gutbrod’s ‘Distract, Divide, Detach’ report on how civic space was being captured—back in 2017.

Closing NGOs? The public is not convinced

Two specific policy questions in the survey shed light on the gap between elite and citizen preferences:

• On whether the state should approve NGO initiatives before they are implemented, respondents were split (49% in favour, 46% against).
• On whether NGOs that use foreign funds to take the state to court should be closed, a majority (51%) opposed closure, while 44% supported it.

These are not ringing endorsements of restrictive measures. Instead, they suggest that while the public is open to oversight, it is not eager to shut down civil society. The more people know about NGOs, the less likely they are to support closure. Again, information and proximity foster trust, not hostility.

Think tanks and the politics of “social studies”

The inclusion of “estudios sociales” in the survey is particularly significant for think tanks. Over half of Peruvians said this work is “very” or “somewhat important.” This category encompasses research, analysis, and policy studies—the bread and butter of think tanks.

Two reflections follow:

1. Think tanks are considered civil society actors; often, they prefer to distance themselves from NGOs, branding themselves as technical or neutral. Yet, in the eyes of citizens, their work belongs in the same category as humanitarian, environmental, or rights-based NGOs. They are producers of social knowledge. They are part of the same ecosystem.
2. Research is not immune to restrictions: Legislation aimed at “foreign-funded NGOs” does not differentiate between advocacy groups, service-delivery NGOs, or research centres. A think tank that receives international grants or engages in litigation (for instance, on environmental issues) is equally vulnerable. The attack on NGOs is also an attack on knowledge producers.

The fact that citizens recognise the value of “estudios sociales” should embolden think tanks to speak up. Silence risks reinforcing the elite narrative that separates “good, technical research” from “bad, political advocacy.” The IEP data suggest that the public is capable of appreciating the contribution of both.

Whose interests are really served?

If citizens are not clamouring for NGO restrictions, why are political elites so insistent? The answer lies in elite fear.

NGOs and think tanks introduce accountability into the public sphere. They expose corruption, defend vulnerable groups, litigate against environmental abuse, and question government decisions. For elites that benefit from weak institutions and opaque governance, these functions pose a threat.

The IEP survey, therefore, highlights a paradox: citizens trust civil society more than they trust political institutions, but political institutions are the ones deciding whether civil society can operate freely. The attempt to shrink civic space is less about protecting the public good than about protecting elite interests.

A fragile but vital trust

In a country where almost no institution commands legitimacy, the fact that NGOs and think tanks enjoy comparatively higher trust is a precious asset. It should be nurtured, not eroded.

That requires action on several fronts:

• Civil society organisations need to improve communication about their oversight and impact, making visible the mechanisms of accountability that already exist.
• Think tanks must acknowledge their place within civil society and join coalitions defending civic space, rather than assuming that their “technical” work will shield them.
• Policymakers and donors should treat public trust as a foundation for building stronger collaboration between state and civil society, instead of allowing elite fear to dictate restrictive laws.

Conclusion

The IEP survey is more than a snapshot of attitudes toward NGOs. It serves as a reminder of a deeper political tension: citizens value civil society, even when political elites attempt to restrict it. The battle over NGO legislation, which affects think tanks, is therefore not about technical oversight; it is about control of the public sphere.

These findings add weight to the results of the 2025 State of the Sector Report and the importance of trust in evidence in challenging environments.

Download the On Think Tanks State of the Sector Report 2025

For think tanks, the message is clear: they are part of this story. When Peruvians affirm the importance of “estudios sociales,” they are affirming the need for independent, evidence-informed voices. If legislation silences NGOs, it also silences think tanks. Defending civil society is not an act of charity; it is an act of democratic self-preservation.

There are many ways for think tanks to join the fight. IEP is doing so by developing evidence that undermines the government’s argument that the public does not trust NGOs. It clearly does.