Abstract
This article engages the debates on the basic parameters of the study of ‘the space’ between the state and the market, including definitions of the organizations, theories, and boundaries of the space. This article divides the debates into two camps, ‘the non-profit paradigm’ and ‘the new paradigm’, and credits the contribution of both sides, respectively, delineating the sector and advanced theorization. It then distinguishes operationalization methods for the non-profit paradigm from operationalization methods for the new paradigm. The task is to develop the latter. The article then introduces an organizational identity approach from organizational ecology as a promising method.
Résumé
Cet article engage les débats concernant les paramètres fondamentaux de l’étude de « l’espace » entre l’État et le marché, notamment les définitions des organisations, les théories et les limites de cet espace. Cet article divise les débats en deux camps : « le paradigme des organisations à but non lucratif » et le « nouveau paradigme » , et attribue un apport des deux côtés, en délimitant le secteur et une théorisation avancée. Il distingue ensuite les méthodes de mise en œuvre pour le paradigme des organisations à but non lucratif des méthodes de mise en œuvre pour le nouveau paradigme. L’objectif est de développer cette dernière. L’article introduit ensuite une approche de l’identité organisationnelle de l’écologie organisationnelle comme une méthode prometteuse.
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Beitrag betrachtet die Diskussionen über die grundlegenden Parameter der Studie „des Raums“zwischen Staat und Markt, einschließlich der Definitionen der Organisationen, Theorien und Grenzen des Raums. Die Debatten werden in zwei Lager gespalten: „das Paradigma der Gemeinnützigkeit“und „das neue Paradigma.“Es werden jeweils die Beiträge beider Seiten gewürdigt und der Sektor sowie die moderne Theoriebildung beschrieben. Anschließend unterscheidet man die Operationalisierunsmethoden für das Paradigma der Gemeinnützigkeit von den Operationalisierungsmethoden des neuen Paradigmas. Ziel ist es, Letztere zu entwickeln. Der Beitrag präsentiert sodann einen Ansatz zur Organisationsidentität aus der Organisationsökologie als eine vielversprechende Methode.
Resumen
El presente artículo participa en los debates sobre los parámetros básicos del estudio del “espacio” entre el estado y el mercado, incluidas las definiciones de las organizaciones, las teorías y los límites del espacio. Este artículo divide los debates en dos campos: “el paradigma de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro” y “el nuevo paradigma”, y reconoce la contribución de ambas partes, delineando el sector y la teorización avanzada, respectivamente. Después distingue los métodos de operacionalización para el paradigma de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro de los métodos de operacionalización para el nuevo paradigma. La tarea es desarrollar este último. El artículo introduce después un enfoque de identidad organizacional a partir de la ecología organizacional como método prometedor.
摘要
本文涉及国家和市场之间的“空间”研究的基本参数的讨论,包括组织定义、理论和空间边界。本文将讨论分成两个阵营:“非盈利范例”和“新范例”,并对这两方面在介绍领域和高级理论的贡献进行评价,然后,本文将非盈利范例的组织化方法与新范例的组织化方法区分开来。任务是发展后者。随后,本文介绍来自组织生态学的组织身份方法,这是极具潜力的方法。
ملخص
تستخدم هذه المقالة المناقشات حول المعايير الأساسية لدراسة حول “المسافة الفاصلة” بين الدولة والسوق، بما في ذلك تعريف المنظمات، النظريات وحدود المسافة الفاصلة. تقسم هذه المقالة المناقشات إلى معسكرين: “ النموذج الغير هادف للربح” و “نموذج جديد”، وتحسب مساهمة كلا الجانبين، على التوالي، رسم خطوط القطاع وتشكيل نظرية متقدمة. من ثم تميز أساليب تفعيل لنموذج غير هادف للربح من طرق تفعيل لنموذج جديد. تتمثل المهمة في تطوير هذا الأخير. تقدم المقالة نهج هوية تنظيمية من البيئة التنظيمية كأسلوب واعد.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In order to avoid confusion, this article does not use previously used names to refer to the field of study, such as non-profit study or the study of the third sector.
For a detailed discussion on the history and comparison of community care organizations and CCACs, see Baranek et al. (1999) and Skinner and Rosenberg (2005).
References
Alexander, J. C. (1982). Theoretical logic in sociology. Berkeley, LA: University of California Press.
Alford, R. R. (1992). The political language of the nonprofit sector. In R. M. Merelman (Ed.), Language, symbolism, and politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Baron, J. N. (2004). Employing identities in organizational ecology. Industrial Corporate Change, 13, 3–32.
Billis, D. (1991). The roots of voluntary agencies: A question of choice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 20(1), 57–69.
Billis, D. (1993). Sector blurring and nonprofit centres: The case of the United Kingdom. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 22(3), 241–257.
Billis, D. (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory, and policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Buckingham, H. (2011). Hybridity, diversity and the division of labour in the third sector: What can we learn from homelessness organisations in the UK? Voluntary Sector Review, 2(2), 157–175.
Carroll, G. R., & Swaminathan, A. (2000). Why the microbrewery movement? Organizational dynamics of resource partitioning in the U.S. brewing industry. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 715–762.
Corry, O. (2010). Defining and theorizing the third sector. In R. Taylor (Ed.), Third sector research. Berlin: Springer.
Crossan, D. (2007). Towards a classification framework for not for profit organizations. Ph.D diss., School of International Business, University of Ulster, Magee Campus.
Crossan, D., & Van Til, J. (2008). Towards a classification framework for not-for-profit organizations—the importance of measurement indicators. In Paper presented at the EMES Conference—The Third Sector and Sustainable Social Change: New Frontiers for Research, Barcelona, Spain, July 9–12.
DiMaggio, P. (1987). Nonprofit organizations in the production and distribution of culture. In W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Anheier, H. K. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors. In J. S. Ott (Ed.), The nature of the nonprofit sector. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical education: 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 114–149.
Evers, A. (1990). Im intermediären bereich. soziale träger und projekte zwischen hanshalt, staat und markt. Journal für Sozialforschung, 2(30), 189–210.
Evers, A. (1995). Part of the welfare mix: The third sector as an intermediate area. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 6(2), 159–182.
Evers, A. (2010). Observations on incivility: Blind spots in third sector research and policy. Voluntary Sector Review, 1(1), 13–17.
Evers, A. (2013). The concept of ‘civil society’: Different understandings and their implications for third sector policies. Voluntary Sector Review, 4(2), 149–164.
Evers, A., & Laville, J. (2004). The third sector in Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Evers, A., & Svetlik, I. (1993). Balancing pluralism. New welfare mixes in care for the elderly. Avebury: Aldershot.
Ferris, J. M. (1993). The double-edged sword of social service contracting: Public accountability versus nonprofit autonomy. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 3(4), 363–376.
Hall, P. D. (1987). A historical overview of the nonprofit sector. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hall, P. D. (1992). Inventing the nonprofit sector and other essays on philanthropy, voluntarism, and nonprofit organizations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hall, M. H. (2010). Nonprofit organizations in Canada. In Vic Murray (Ed.), The management of nonprofit and charitable organizations in Canada (2nd ed.). Dayton, OH: LexisNexis.
Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. R. (2005). Social codes and ecologies logistics of organizational theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford Graduate School of Business.
Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., Carroll, G. R., & Hsu, G. (2007). Identity and audience. In M. T. Hannan, L. Pólos, & G. R. Carroll (Eds.), Logics of organization theory: Audiences, codes, and ecologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hsu, G., & Hannan, M. T. (2005). Identities, genres, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 16(5), 474–490.
Hsu, G., & Podolny, J. M. (2005). Critiquing the critics: A methodological approach for the comparative evaluation of critical schemas. Social Science Research, 34, 189–214.
Kendall, J., & Knapp, M. (1996). The voluntary sector in the UK. Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press.
Knutsen, W. L. (2012). Adapted institutional logics of contemporary nonprofit organizations’. Administration and Society, 44(8), 985–1013.
Knutsen, W. L., & Brock, K. (2014). Introductory essay: From a closed system to an open system: A parallel critical review of the intellectual trajectories of publicness and nonprofitness. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(5), 1113–1131.
Kramer, R. M. (1984). The economic illusion: False choices between prosperity and social justice. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Kramer, R. M. (2000). A third sector in the third millennium. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 11(1), 1–23.
Kramer, R., & Grossman, B. (1987). Contracting for social services: Process management and resource dependencies. Social Service Review, 61(1), 32–55.
Langton, S. (1987). Envoi: Developing nonprofit theory. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 6(1–2), 134–148.
Lohmann, R. A. (1989). And lettuce is nonanimal: Toward a positive economics of voluntary action. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 18(4), 367–383.
Lohmann, R. A. (2001). A new approach: The theory of the commons. In J. S. Ott (Ed.), The nature of the nonprofit sector. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Mohr, J. W. (1994). Soldiers, mothers, tramps and others: Discourse roles in the 1907 New York city charity director. Poetics, 22, 327–357.
Ontario Ministry of Health. (1994). Bill 173. An act respecting long-term care. Toronto, Canada: Queen’s Printer.
Ontario Nonprofit Network (ONN) retrieved at October 28, 2015: Take action on proposed hybrid legislation. http://theonn.ca/take-action-on-proposed-hybrid-legislation/.
Parson, T. (1966). On the concept of political power. In R. Bendix & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), Class, status and power (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Middle-status conformity: Theoretical refinement and empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 379–429.
Plotkin, H. (1994). Darwin machines and the nature of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pólos, L., Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (2002). Foundations of a theory of social forms. Industrial Corporate Change, 11, 85–115.
Quarter, J., Mook, L., & Armstrong, A. (2009). Understanding the social economy: A Canadian perspective. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in toque ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 795–843.
Ruef, M. (2000). The emergence of organizational forms: A community ecology approach. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 658–714.
Salamon, L. M. (1987). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third-party government: Toward a theory of government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 16, 29–49.
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1997). Defining the nonprofit sector: A cross national analysis. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213–248.
Scott, J. T. (1999). Defining the nonprofit sector. In P. B. Reed and V. J. Howe (eds.), Defining and classifying the nonprofit sector: Notes prepared for the advisory group on nonprofit sector research and statistics in Canada. Statistics Canada.
Skelcher, C., & Smith, S. R. (2015). Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public Administration, 93(2), 433–448.
Skinner, M. W., & Rosenberg, M. W. (2005). Co-opting voluntarism? Exploring the implications of long-term care reform for the nonprofit sector in Ontario. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23, 101–121.
Smith, D. H. (1997). The rest of the nonprofit sector: Grassroots associations as the dark matter ignored in prevailing ‘flat earth’ maps of the sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 114–131.
Smith, R. S. (2011). The nonprofit sector. In M. Edwards (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of civil society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Smith, R. S. (2014). Hybridity and non-profit organizations: The research agenda. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(11), 1494–1508.
Taylor, R. (2010). Moving beyond empirical theory. In R. Taylor (Ed.), Third sector research. Berlin: Springer.
Tuckman, H. P. (1998). Competition, commercialization, and evolution of nonprofit organizational structures. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(2), 175–194.
Van Til, J. (1988). Mapping the third sector: Voluntarism in a changing social economy. The Foundation Centre.
Van Til, J. (2008). Growing civil society: From nonprofit sector to third space. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Van Til, J. (2009). A paradigm shift in third sector theory and practice: Refreshing the wellsprings of democratic capacity. American Behavioural Scientist, 52(7), 1069–1081.
Wagner, A. (2012). Third sector and/or civil society: A critical discourse about scholarship relating to intermediate organizations. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(3), 299–328.
Ware, A. (1989). Between profit and state: Intermediate organizations in Britain and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Weisbrod, B. A. (1998). To profit or not to profit: The commercial transformation of the nonprofit sector. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wuthnow, R. (1991). Between states and markets: The voluntary sector in comparative perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Knutsen, W. The Non-profit Sector is Dead, Long Live the Non-profit Sector!. Voluntas 27, 1562–1584 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9696-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9696-1