Abstract
In this article we discuss the extent to which service-delivering nonprofit organizations (NPOs) are committed to fulfill an expressive advocacy role, and we look at the advocacy strategies these organizations adopt. Furthermore, we question whether a close relationship with government compromises the NPOs’ willingness to perform these advocacy activities. Based on a large-N sample of more than 250 NPOs in the Flemish welfare sector, our research shows that the overall commitment to an advocacy role was rather low. Rather than focusing on a role as adversary of government, NPOs seek to adopt “softer” strategies such as the use of insider contacts with policy makers, the participation in umbrella organizations or building coalitions with other NPOs. Finally, we found mixed evidences concerning our initial hypotheses. Most importantly, as the dominant source of public income did not stifle the NPOs’ commitment to advocate, we found little support for a resource dependence framework.
Résumé
Cet article apporte une définition de la mesure selon laquelle les organisations sans but lucratif (OSBL) assurant des prestations de services sont déterminées à assumer un rôle démonstratif de défense et il examine les stratégies adoptées par ces organisations pour y parvenir. Nous nous interrogeons en outre sur la question de savoir si une relation étroite avec le gouvernement compromet la volonté des OBSL de mettre en œuvre ces activités de défense d’une cause. Sur la base d’un échantillon large de plus de 250 OBSL actives en matière de fourniture d’aide sociale dans les Flandres, il nous est apparu que l’engagement global en faveur d’un rôle de défense était plutôt faible. Plutôt que d’endosser en priorité un rôle d’adversaire du gouvernement, les OBSL s’efforcent d’adopter des stratégies ‘plus subtiles’ telles que l’utilisation de contacts internes avec les décideurs politiques, la participation à des organisations-cadres et la mise en place de coalitions avec d’autres OBSL. Enfin, nous n’avons mis en évidence que très peu d’éléments à l’appui d’un cadre de dépendance quant aux ressources. Si le gouvernement tout comme les OBSL dépendent des ressources contrôlées par les autres parties, ils seront plus enclins à envisager une collaboration.
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Beitrag bestimmt das Ausmaß, in dem es sich dienstleistungserbringende Nonprofit-Organisationen zur Verpflichtung gemacht haben, die ausdrückliche Rolle eines Interessenvertreters zu übernehmen. Dabei werden die in diesem Zusammenhang angewandten Strategien dieser Organisationen betrachtet. Des Weiteren stellen wir die Frage, ob eine enge Beziehung zur Regierung die Bereitschaft der Nonprofit-Organisationen zur Ausübung dieser Interessenvertretung gefährdet. Beruhend auf einer N-Stichprobe von mehr als 250 Nonprofit-Organisationen, die in Flandern Diensteistungen bereitstellen, kamen wir zu dem Ergebnis, dass das insgesamte Engagement zur Ausübung einer Interessenvertretung eher gering war. Statt sich auf eine Rolle als Gegenspieler der Regierung zu konzentrieren, versuchen die Nonprofit-Organisationen, auf „weichere“Strategien zu setzen, zum Beispiel die Nutzung von Insider-Kontakten zu politischen Entscheidungsträgern, die Mitwirkung in Dachverbänden und die Bildung von Koalitionen mit anderen Nonprofit-Organisationen. Am Ende fanden wir nur wenige Beweise für ein ressourcenabhängiges Regelwerk. Da sowohl die Regierung als auch die Nonprofit-Organisationen von den Ressourcen des jeweils Anderen abhängig sind, ist eine Zusammenarbeit von größerer Wahrscheinlichkeit.
Resumen
El presente artículo determina la medida en que las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro (NPOs, del inglés Nonprofit organizations) que entregan servicios se comprometen a cumplir un papel de defensa expresiva y examina las estrategias que dichas organizaciones adoptan para hacerlo. Asimismo, nos preguntamos si una estrecha relación con el gobierno pone en peligro la disposición de las NPO para llevar a cabo estas actividades de defensa. Basándonos en una amplia muestra N de más de 250 NPO activas en la provisión de bienestar en Flandes, encontramos que el compromiso global con un papel de defensa era bastante bajo. En lugar de centrarse en un papel como adversarias del gobierno, las NPO tratan de adoptar estrategias “más blandas”, tales como el uso de contactos privilegiados con políticos y la participación en organizaciones paraguas y la creación de coaliciones con otras NPO. Finalmente, encontramos solamente poca evidencia que apoye un marco de dependencia de recursos. Dado que tanto el gobierno como las NPO dependen de los recursos controlados por las otras partes, será más probable que colaboren.
摘要
本文旨在探究以提供服务为主的非营利性组织(NPOs)在扮演“大声疾呼”类的倡导性角色的投入程度,以及此类组织在扮演此类角色时所采取的策略。此外,我们还质疑,与政府的密切关系,是否会削弱NPOs扮演此类倡导性角色的意愿。根据对250多个在佛兰德斯(Flanders)地区提供社会福利的NPOs的大样本调查,我们发现,总体而言,NPOs对倡导性角色的投入度是相当低的。NPOs并不愿跟政府成为对手,而是采取“更柔和”的策略,例如与政策制定者建立内部联系、通过加入联盟组织、或与其他NPOs联合起来等手段。最后,我们并未找到明显的证据,以支持资源依赖框架。由于政府与NPOs都依赖于他方所控制的资源,所以他们更倾向于联合起来。.
ملخص
يحدد هذا المقال إلى أي مدى المنظمات الغير ربحية (NPOs) التي تقدم الخدمات ملتزمة بالوفاء بدور الدعم التعبيري وتبحث في الإستراتيجيات التي تعتمد عليها هذه المنظمات للقيام بذلك. علاوة على ذلك، نحن نسأل إذا كانت العلاقة الوطيدة مع الحكومة يضعف إستعداد المنظمات الغير ربحية (NPOs) للقيام بهذه الأنشطة للدعم. استنادا إلى عينة كبيرة (N)- لأكثر من 250 منظمات غير ربحية (NPOs) نشطة في فلاندرز وجدنا أن الإلتزام العام إلى دورالدعم كان منخفضا˝ إلى حد ما. بدلا˝ من التركيز على دور الخصم للحكومة٬ المنظمات الغير ربحية (NPOs) تسعى إلى إستخدام إستراتيجيات “ضعيفة” مثل إستخدام إتصالات داخلية مع واضعي السياسات و من خلال المشاركة في المنظمات التي تتعاون مع بعضها لتنسيق الأنشطة وبناء تحالفات مع منظمات غير ربحية أخرى. أخيرا˝، وجدنا فقط القليل من الأدلة لدعم إطارالإعتماد على الموارد التي يسيطر عليها الأطراف الأخرى. وإنها ستكون أكثر إحتمالا˝ للتعاون.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, J., Nank, R., & Stivers, C. (1999). Implications of welfare reform: Do nonprofit survival strategies threaten civil society? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 452–475.
Andrews, K. T., & Edwards, B. (2004). Advocacy organizations in the US political process. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 479–506.
Anheier, L. (2005). The nonprofit sector: Approaches, management, policy. New York: Routledge.
Bar, M., & Schmid, H. (2013). Advocacy activities of nonprofit human service organizations: A critical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. doi:10.1177/0899764013483212.
Berry, J., & Arons, D. (2003). A voice for nonprofits. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.
Binderkrantz, A. (2005). Interest group strategies: Navigating between privileged access and strategies of pressure. Political Studies, 53(4), 694–715.
Chavez, M., Stephens, L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Does government funding suppress nonprofit’s political activity? American Sociological Review, 69(2), 292–316.
Child, C. D., & Gronbjerg, K. A. (2007). Nonprofit advocacy organizations: Their characteristics and activities. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 259–281.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fuertes-Fuertes, I., & Maset-Llaudes, A. (2007). Exploring Spanish nongovernmental organizations for development: an empirical approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 695–706.
Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). Interorganizational relations. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 281–304.
Gormley, W., & Comrot, H. (2006). The strategic choices of child advocacy groups. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 102–122.
Grant, W. (2000). Pressure groups and British politics. London: Macmillan.
Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2010). Voice-in, voice-out: Constituent participation and nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 1(1), 1–28.
Hoefer, R. (2001). Highly effective human services interest groups: Seven key practices. Journal of Community Practice, 9(2), 1–13.
McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241.
Najam, A. (2000). The 4 C’s of third sector-government relations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(4), 375–396.
Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2007). Politics, policy, and the motivations for advocacy in nonprofit reproductive health and family planning providers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 5–21.
Onyx, J., Armitage, L., Dalton, B., Melville, R., Casey, J., & Banks, R. (2010). Advocacy with gloves on: The ‘Manners’ of strategy used by some third sector organizations undertaking advocacy in NSW and Queensland. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(1), 41–61.
Onyx, J., Dalton, B., & Banks, R. (2008). Implications of government funding of advocacy for third-sector independence and exploration of alternative advocacy funding models. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 43(4), 631–648.
Page, E. (1999). The insider/outsider distinction: An empirical investigation. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 1(2), 205–214.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Plitt-Donaldson, L. (2007). Advocacy by nonprofit human service agencies: Organizational factors as correlates to advocacy behavior. Journal of Community Practice, 15(3), 139–158.
Powell, W. (1987). The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Heaven, CT: Yale University Press.
Rees, S. (1999). Strategic choices for nonprofit advocates. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(1), 65–73.
Reid, E. (1999). Nonprofit advocacy and political participation. In E. Boris & C. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute Press.
Ross, K., & Osborne, S. P. (1999). Making a reality of community governance. Structuring government–voluntary sector relationships at the local level. Public Policy and Administration, 14(49), 49–61.
Salamon, L. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Salamon, L., Anheier, H. K., List, R., Toepler, S., & Sokolowski, S. W. (1999). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.
Schmid, H., Bar, M., & Nirel, R. (2008). Advocacy activities in nonprofit human service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(4), 581–602.
Smith, L., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 14(4), 650–655.
Snavely, K., & Desai, U. (2001). Mapping local government–nongovernmental organization interactions: A conceptual framework. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(2), 245–263.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Verschuere, B., De Corte, J. Nonprofit Advocacy Under a Third-Party Government Regime: Cooperation or Conflict?. Voluntas 26, 222–241 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9427-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9427-9