Skip to main content
Log in

Understanding Nonprofit Advocacy in Non-Western Settings: A Framework and Empirical Evidence from Singapore

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research on nonprofit advocacy in non-Western settings is still rather limited. In this article, we address this limitation by examining the advocacy practices of nonprofit charitable organizations in Singapore, a non-liberal democratic city-state in Southeast Asia with a history of colonial rule. We ask the following questions: What are the key environmental and organizational factors that influence the scope and intensity of advocacy activities of nonprofit organizations? In particular, what is the effect of the political context on the advocacy strategies and tactics among these organizations? To answer these questions, we present a three-factor explanatory model of nonprofit advocacy incorporating cause, capacity, and context. The research methodology entails a survey of nonprofit executives from a random sample of Singapore human and social service organizations. Our findings shed light on how the various aspects of the political context—perceived opportunities and threats from government intervention and dependence on government funding—shape nonprofit advocacy in a non-Western setting.

Résumé

La recherche portant sur la promotion des organisations à but non lucratif dans un contexte non occidental reste à ce jour assez limitée. Dans cet article, nous nous attelons à combler cette lacune en examinant les pratiques de promotion des organisations de bienfaisance à but non lucratif à Singapour, une cité-état démocratique non libérale d’Asie du Sud-Est ayant un passé colonial. Nous posons les questions suivantes : quels sont les principaux facteurs environnementaux et organisationnels qui influencent le champ et l’intensité des activités de promotion des organisations à but non lucratif ? Plus particulièrement, quel est l’effet du contexte politique sur les stratégies et les tactiques de promotion de ces organisations ? Pour répondre à ces questions, nous présentons un modèle explicatif à trois facteurs : la cause, la capacité et le contexte. Notre méthodologie de recherche s’est appuyée sur une enquête menée auprès de cadres d’un échantillon aléatoire d’organisations à but non lucratif de services sociaux à Singapour. Nos résultats mettent en évidence la façon dont les divers aspects du contexte politique (opportunités et menaces perçues vis-à-vis de l’intervention de l’État et dépendance du financement par l’État) façonnent la promotion des organismes à but non lucratif dans un contexte non occidental.

Zusammenfassung

Die Forschungen zum Thema Interessenvertretung im gemeinnützigen Sektor im nicht-westlichen Kontext sind noch immer sehr beschränkt. In diesem Beitrag gehen wir diese Beschränkung an, indem wir die angewandten Lobbypraktiken gemeinnütziger Organisationen in Singapur, einem nicht-liberalen demokratischen Stadtstaat in Südostasien, der lange einer Kolonialherrschaft unterlag, untersuchen. Hierzu stellen wir folgende Fragen: Welche ökologischen und organisationalen Faktoren sind ausschlaggebend für den Umfang und die Intensität der Lobbyaktivitäten von Nonprofit-Organisationen? Wie wirken sich insbesondere die politischen Rahmenbedingungen auf die Lobbystrategien und -taktiken dieser Organisationen aus? Zur Beantwortung dieser Fragen präsentieren wir ein explanatorisches Drei-Faktoren-Modell zu gemeinnützigen Lobbyaktivitäten, das den Zweck, die Kapazität und den Kontext miteinbezieht. Die Forschungsmethodik beinhaltet eine Befragung von Führungskräften zufällig ausgewählter sozialer Nonprofit-Organisationen in Singapur. Unsere Ergebnisse veranschaulichen, wie sich die verschiedenen Aspekte der politischen Rahmenbedingungen - die empfundenen Möglichkeiten und Gefahren im Zusammenhang mit einer staatlichen Einmischung und der Abhängigkeit von einer staatlichen Finanzierung - auf die Lobbyaktivitäten des gemeinnützigen Sektors in einem nicht-westlichen Kontext auswirken.

Resumen

La investigación sobre la defensa de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro en escenarios no occidentales sigue siendo bastante limitada. En el presente artículo, abordamos esta limitación examinando las prácticas de defensa de las organizaciones benéficas sin ánimo de lucro en Singapur, un estado-ciudad democrático no liberal en el Sudeste Asiático con un historial de dominio colonial. Nos hacemos las siguientes preguntas: ¿Cuáles son los factores medioambientales y organizativos claves que influyen en el alcance y la intensidad de las actividades de defensa de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro? En particular, ¿cuál es el efecto del contexto político sobre las estrategias y las tácticas de defensa entre estas organizaciones? Para responder a estas preguntas, presentamos un modelo explicativo de tres factores de la defensa de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro que incorpora causa, capacidad y contexto. La metodología de investigación implica una encuesta de ejecutivos de organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro de una muestra aleatoria de organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro de servicio social y humano de Singapur. Nuestros hallazgos arrojan luz sobre cómo los diversos aspectos del contexto político - oportunidades y amenazas percibidas de la intervención gubernamental y de la dependencia en la financiación del gobierno - dan forma a la defensa de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro en un escenario no occidental.

摘要

关于非西方背景下的非营利性倡导的研究仍然非常有限。为了克服这一局限,本文对新加坡这个位于东南亚的、前殖民地、非自由民主城邦的非营利性慈善组织的倡导工作进行了研究。我们探讨了以下问题:影响非营利组织倡导活动的范围与强度的关键环境与组织因素是什么?尤其是政治环境对这些组织的倡导策略有什么影响?为了回答这些问题,我们建立了关于非营利性倡导的三元(包括动机、能力与背景)阐释模型。我们采用随机抽样的方法对新加坡非营利性社会服务组织的领导者进行了问卷调查。我们的研究结果清楚地说明了:在非西方背景里,政治环境的方方面面—来自政府干预的机遇与威胁以及对政府资助的依赖等等—是如何影响非营利性组织倡导工作的。

ملخص

البحث في الدعم الذي لا يهدف للربح في إعدادات غير- غربية لا يزال محدود نوعا˝ ما. في هذه المقالة ، نحن نعالج هذا القيد من خلال دراسة ممارسات الدعم من المنظمات الخيرية التي لا تهدف للربح في سنغافورة، مدينة- دولة ديمقراطية غير ليبرالية في جنوب شرق آسيا ولها تاريخ من الحكم الإستعماري. نسأل الأسئلة التالية : ما هي العوامل البيئية والتنظيمية الرئيسية التي تؤثر في نطاق وكثافة أنشطة الدعوة للمنظمات التي لا تهدف للربح ؟ على وجه الخصوص، ما هو تأثير السياق السياسي على إستراتيجيات وتكتيكات الدعم بين هذه المنظمات؟ للإجابة على هذه الأسئلة ، فإننا نقدم ثلاثة عوامل كنماذج تفسيرية للدعم الذي لا يهدف للربح لدمج السبب ، القدرة، و السياق. منهجية البحث ينطوي على إستطلاع رأي من مديرين تنفيذيين لا يسعون للربح من عينة عشوائية من سنغافورة لمنظمات الخدمة الإجتماعية والإنسانية الغير ربحية . تسليط الضوء على النتائج التي توصلنا إليها كيف أن مختلف جوانب السياق السياسي - تنظر إلى الفرص والتهديدات من التدخل الحكومي والإعتماد على التمويل الحكومي – ساهم في تشكيل الدعم الذي لا يهدف للربح في الإعدادات الغير- غربية .

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Economist Intelligence Unit (2013), compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit to measure the state of democracy worldwide, countries are placed within one of four types of regimes: full democracies; flawed democracies; hybrid regimes; and authoritarian regimes. Full report is available at: https://portoncv.gov.cv/dhub/porton.por_global.open_file?p_doc_id=1034.

  2. They first asked nonprofit respondents to specify the extent to which they devote volunteer, staff, and financial resources to advocacy. Then, based on responses to these questions, they divided nonprofits that advocate into two groups: core advocacy nonprofits and peripheral advocacy nonprofits.

References

  • Acosta, R. (2012). Advocacy networks through a multidisciplinary lens: Implications for research agendas. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(1), 156–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almog-Bar, M., & Schmid, H. (2013). Advocacy activities of nonprofit human service organizations: A critical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Forthcoming. http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/15/0899764013483212.

  • Andrews, K. T., & Edwards, B. (2004). Advocacy organizations in the U.S. Political System. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 479–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avner, M. (2002). The lobbying and advocacy handbook for nonprofit organizations: Shaping public policy at the state and local level. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

  • Bass, G. D., Arons, D., Guinane, K., Carter, M. F., & Rees, S. (2007). Seen but not heard: Strengthening nonprofit advocacy. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercuson, K. (Ed.). (1995). Singapore: A case study in rapid development. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. M. (1994). An agenda for research on interest groups. In W. Crotty, M. A. Schwartz, & J. C. Green (Eds.), Representing interests & interest group representation (pp. 21–28). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. M., & Arons, D. (2003). A voice for nonprofits. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M. (2011). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.

  • Chan, H. C. (1975). Politics in an administrative state: Where has all the politics gone? In C. M. Seah (Ed.), Trends in Singapore (pp. 51–68). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chavesc, M., Stephens, L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Does government funding suppress nonprofits’ policy activity? American Sociological Review, 69(2), 292–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child, C. D., & Grønbjerg, K. A. (2007). Nonprofit advocacy organizations: Their characteristics and activities. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 259–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commissioner of Charities. (2002–2013). Commissioner of charities annual reports, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Singapore: Commissioner of Charities.

  • DeHoog, R. H., & Racanska, L. (2003). The role of the nonprofit sector amid political change: Contrasting approaches to Slovakian civil society. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14(3), 263–282.

  • Department of Statistics. (2013a). Retrieved May 30, 2013, from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/browse_by_theme/national_accounts.html.

  • Department of Statistics. (2013b). Key household income trends, 2012. Retrieved 30 May, 2013, from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/Publications/publications_and_papers/household_income_and_expenditure/pp-s19.pdf.

  • Donaldson, L. P. (2007). Advocacy by nonprofit human service agencies: Organizational factors as correlates to advocacy behavior. Journal of Community Practice, 15(3), 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L. P. (2008). Developing a progressive advocacy program with a human services agency. Administratiion in Social Work, 32(2), 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of management review, 12(1), 76–90.

  • Economist Intelligence Unit. (2013). Democracy Index 2012: Democracy is at a standstill. London: EIU. Available at: http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Democracy-Index-2012.pdf&mode=wp&campaignid=DemocracyIndex12.

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frumkin, P. (2002). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gais, T., & Walker, J. L., Jr. (1991). Pathways to influence in American politics. In J. Jack & L. Walker (Eds.), Mobilizing interest groups in America (pp. 103–121). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibelman, M., & Kraft, S. (1996). Advocacy as a core agency program: Planning consideration for voluntary human service agencies. Administration in Social Work, 20(4), 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gormley, W., & Cymrot, H. (2006). The strategic choices of child advocacy groups. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 102–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, A. T. (2002). Comparative development of post-communist civil societies. Europe-Asia Studies, 54(3), 455–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grogan, C. M., & Gusmano, M. K. (2009). Political strategies of safety-net providers in response to Medicaid managed care reforms. Journal of health politics, policy and law, 34(1), 5–35.

  • Guo, C. (2007). When government becomes the principal philanthropist: The effect of public funding on patterns of nonprofit governance. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 456–471.

  • Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2010). Voice-in, voice-out: Constituent participation and nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 1(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haggard, S. (1990). Pathways from the periphery: The politics of growth in the newly industrializing countries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, H. (1987). Economic theories of nonprofit organization. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 27–42). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Hoefer, R. (2001). Highly effective human services interest groups: Seven key practices. Journal of Community Practice, 9(3), 1–13.

  • Kadir, S. (2004). Singapore: Engagement and autonomy within the political status quo. In M. Alagappa (Ed.), Civil society and political change in Asia: Expanding and contracting democratic space (pp. 324–354). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, P. E. (1999). Singapore: Rich state, illiberal regime. In J. Morley (Ed.), Driven by growth: Political change in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 255–274). Armonk, NY: M.E.Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. W. Y., & Haque, M. S. (2008). Development of the nonprofit sector in Hong Kong and Singapore: A comparison of two statist-corporatist regimes. Journal of Civil Society, 4(2), 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeRoux, K. M. (2009). The effects of descriptive representation on nonprofits’ civic intermediary roles: A test of the “racial mismatch” hypothesis in the social services sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(5), 741–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeRoux, K. M., & Goerdel, H. T. (2009). Political advocacy by nonprofit organizations: A strategic management explanation. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), 514–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, L. T. (2008). Internalized boundaries: AWARE’s place in Singapore Emerging Civil Society. In M. Barr & C. Trocki (Eds.), Paths not taken: Political pluralism in post-war Singapore (pp. 248–263). Singapore: Singapore University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Social and Family Development. (2013). Brief on ageing population in Singapore. Retrieved 30 May, 2013, from http://app.msf.gov.sg/Portals/0/Topic/Issues/EDGD/Brief%20on%20Ageing%20Population%20%28Public%29.pdf.

  • Minkoff, D. C. (1998). Organizational barriers to advocacy. Paper presented at the Paper Presented for the Aspen Institute’s Nonprofit Sector Strategy Group.

  • Moore, B. J. (1966). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. H. (2000). Managing for value: Organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29 (Suppl 1), 183–208.

  • Mosley, J. E. (2010). Organizational resources and environmental incentives: Understanding the policy advocacy involvement of human service nonprofits. Social Service Review, 84(1), 57–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2007). Politics, policy, and the motivation for advocacy in nonprofit reproductive health and family planning providers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, B. (1994). People power: Service, advocacy, empowerment. New York: Foundation Center.

  • Reid, E. (1999). Nonprofit advocacy and political participation. In E. T. Boris & C. E. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Conflict or collaboration? (pp. 291–325). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

  • Rodan, G. (1993). Elections without representation: The Singapore experience under the PAP. In R. H. Taylor (Ed.), The politics of elections in Southeast Asia (pp. 61–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saidel, J. (2002). Nonprofit organizations, political engagement, and public policy. In E. Reid & M. Montilla (Eds.), Nonprofit advocacy and the policy process (Vol. 2, pp. 1–18). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1997). The third world’s third sector in comparative perspective. Working Papers of the John Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, no. 24, Baltimore, MD.

  • Salamon, L. M., Sokolowski, S. W., & Anheier, H. K. (2000). Social origins of civil society: An overview. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. (1996). Strategic pragmatism: The culture of Singapore’s economic development board. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, H., Bar, M., & Nirel, R. (2008). Advocacy activities in nonprofit human service organizations: Implications for policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(4), 581–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. R., & Grønbjerg, K. A. (2006). Scope and theory of government-nonprofit relations. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 221–242). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Suárez, D. F., & Hwang, H. (2008). Civic engagement and nonprofit lobbying in California: 1998–2003. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(1), 93–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Teles, S., & Schmitt, M. (2011). The elusive craft of evaluating advocacy. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer, 39–47.

  • Zhang, Z., & Guo, C. (2012). Advocacy by Chinese nonprofit organizations: Towards a responsive government? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(2), 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chao Guo.

Additional information

Prepared for Consideration in a Special Issue of VOLUNTAS: Theoretical Variations for Voluntary Sector Organizing: Topping off Old Bottles with New Wine.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3.

Table 3 Correlation matrix

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guo, C., Zhang, Z. Understanding Nonprofit Advocacy in Non-Western Settings: A Framework and Empirical Evidence from Singapore. Voluntas 25, 1151–1174 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9468-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9468-8

Keywords

Navigation