Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T05:22:29.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

What kind of nonprofit sector, what kind of society? Comparative policy reflections

from 1 - The nonprofit sector: introductory remarks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2011

By
Helmut K. Anheier
Edited by
Klaus J. Hopt  and
Thomas Von Hippel
Helmut K. Anheier
Affiliation:
Heidelberg Centre for Social Investment
Klaus J. Hopt
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, Germany
Thomas Von Hippel
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, Germany
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In the course of the last decade, most developed market economies in North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific have seen a general increase in the economic importance of nonprofit organizations as providers of health, social, educational and cultural services of many kinds. On average, the nonprofit sector accounts for about 6% of total employment in OECD countries, or nearly 10% with volunteer work factored in (Anheier, 2005). While their economic function, particularly in terms of service provision, has been a common, though often overlooked feature of nonprofits in most developed countries (see Salamon, 1995), nonprofit organizations since the 1990s have become subjects of a more complex policy dialogue that involves three broad perspectives:

  1. (1) nonprofits are increasingly part of new public management approaches and what could be called a mixed economy of welfare and development. Expanded contracting of nonprofit organizations in governmental welfare provision, voucher programmes, or client/user empowerment projects are examples of this development.

  2. (2) they are seen as central to civil society approaches, specifically the Neo-Tocquevillian emphasis on the nexus between social capital and economic and social development. Attempts to revive a sense of community and belonging, enhance civic mindedness and engagement, including volunteering and charitable giving, are illustrative of this perspective.

  3. (3) nonprofits are part of a wider social accountability perspective that sees nonprofits as instruments of greater transparency, heightened accountability and improved governance of public institutions. Such mechanisms include citizen advisory boards, community councils, participatory budgeting, public expenditure tracking, and monitoring of public service delivery.

As we will see, the three perspectives make strong and specific claims about the role of nonprofit organizations; while all perspectives occupy key positions in current policy debates across many countries and international institutions, they have major implications that remain somewhat unconnected analytically and reflect different interests and approaches.

Type
Chapter
Information
Comparative Corporate Governance of Non-Profit Organizations , pp. 3 - 19
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anheier, H. K. and Kendell, J. (2002). “Interpersonal Trust and Voluntary Associations: Examining Three Approaches”, British Journal of Sociology, 53(3): 343–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anheier, H. K. and Seibel, W. (2001). The Nonprofit Sector in Germany. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Anheier, H. K. (2005). Nonprofit Organizations. Theory, Management, Policy. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Archambault, E. (1996). The Nonprofit Sector in France. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, J. (2003). Worlds Apart: Civil Society and the Battle for Ethical Globalization. London: Earthscan and Boomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, B., Foley, M. W., and Diani, M. (2001). Beyond Tocqueville: Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective. Hanover: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. (2004). Civil Society. London: Polity.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Gaventa, J. (2004). Towards Participatory Governance: Assessing the Transformative Possibilities, From Tyranny to Transformation. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1999). The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge, Polity Press.Google Scholar
Glasius, M., Lewis, D., and Seckinelgin, H. (eds.) (2004). Exploring Civil Society. Political and Cultural Contexts. London and New York: Routledge.
Halman, L. (2001). The European Values Study: A Third Wave. Source Book of the 1999/2000 European Values Study Surveys. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Halpern, D. (1999). Social Capital. The New Golden Goose?Institute for Public Policy Research, London.Google Scholar
Hansmann, H. (1987). “Economic Theories of Non-profit Organisations”, in Powell, W. W. (ed.) The Non-profit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hasenfeld, Y. and Gidron, B. (2005). “Understanding Multipurpuse Hybrid Voluntary Organizations”, Journal of Civil Society, 1(2): 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. (1995). “Contemporary Public Management: A New Global Paradigm?”, Public Policy and Administration, 10(2): 104–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, J. and Pearce, J. (2001). Civil Society and Development: A Critical Exploration, Denver, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
James, E. (1987). “The Non-profit Sector in Comparative Perspective”, in Powell, W. W. (ed.) The Non-profit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kaldor, M. (2003). “Civil Society and Accountability”, Journal of Human Development, 4(1): 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettl, D. F. (2000). The Global Public Management Revolution: A Report on the Transformation of Governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Koppell, J. (2005). “Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of Multiple Accountabilities Disorder”, Public Administration Review, 65(1): 94–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korten, D. (1990). Getting to the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda. Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
Grand, J. (1999). “Competition, collaboration or control? Tales from the British National Health Service”, Health Affairs, 18: 27–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malena, C., Forster, R. and Singh, J. (2004). “Social Accountability: An Introduction to the Concept and Emerging Practice”, Social Development Papers, No. 76. World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S. P., and Ferlie, E. (eds.) (2002). New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects. London: Routledge.
Milner, H. (2002). Civic Literacy. Hanover and London: University of New England Press.Google Scholar
Mulgan, G. (1999). “Government and the third sector: Building a more equal partnership”, in Anheier, H. K. (ed.) Third Way – Third Sector, Report No. 1. London: Centre for Civil Society, London School of Economics, 17–22.Google Scholar
Narayan, et al. (2000). “Financial Management and Governance Issues”, in Selected Developing Member Countries. Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
Offe, C. and Fuchs, S. (2002). “A Decline of Social Capital? The German Case”, in Putnam, R. D. (ed.) Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 189–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrow, C. (2001). “The Rise of Nonprofits and the Decline of Civil Society”, in Anheier, H. (ed.) Organisational Theory and the Non-profit Form. London: Centre for Civil Society Report 2, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Plowden, W. (2001). Next Steps in Voluntary Action. London: Centre for Civil Society, London School of Economics and National Council for Voluntary Organizations.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, R. (ed.) (2002). Democracies in Flux. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., and Nanetti, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in Public Service: Government-Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Schuppert, G. F. (2003). “Gemeinwohlverantwortung und Staatsverständnis”, in Anheier, H. K. and Then, V. (eds.) Zwischen Eigennutz und Gemeinwohl: Neue Formen und Wege der Gemeinnützigkeit. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
Seibel, W. (1994). Funktionaler Dilettantismus. Erfolgreich scheiternde Organisationen im “Dritten Sektor” zwischen Markt und Staat. Baden Baden.
Skocpol, T. (2002). “From membership to advocacy”, in Putnam, R. (ed.) Democracies in Flux. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 103–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Strategy Unit (2002). Private Action, Public Benefit. A Review of Charities and the Wider Not-For-Profit Sector. Cabinet Office, London.Google Scholar
,UNDP (2002). Human Development Report. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
Weisbrod, B. A. (1988). The Non-profit Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wollebeck, D. and Selle, P. (2007). “Origins of Social Capital: Socialization and Institutionalization Approaches Compared”, Journal of Civil Society, 3(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,World Bank (2002). Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Multidisciplinary Tool for Practitioners. World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
,World Bank (2004). Social Development Papers: Social Accountability: An Introduction to the Concept and Emerging Practice. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Wuthnow, R. (2002). “Bridging the privileged and the marginalized”, in Putnam, R. (ed.) Democracies in Flux. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 59–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×