Skip to main content
Log in

Beyond Nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the Third Sector

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

Abstract

The idea of a “third sector” beyond the arenas of the state and the market is probably one of the most perplexing concepts in modern political and social discourse, encompassing as it does a tremendous diversity of institutions and behaviors that only relatively recently have been perceived in public or scholarly discourse as a distinct sector, and even then with grave misgivings. Initial work on this concept focused on what is still widely regarded as its institutional core, the vast array of private, nonprofit institutions (NPIs), and the volunteer as well as paid workers they mobilize and engage. These institutions share a crucial characteristic that makes it feasible to differentiate from for-profit enterprises: the fact that they are prohibited from distributing any surplus they generate to their investors, directors, or stakeholders and therefore presumptively serve some broader public interest. Many European scholars have considered this conceptualization too narrow; however, arguing that cooperatives, mutual societies, and, in recent years, “social enterprises” as well as social norms should also be included. However, this broader concept has remained under-conceptualized in reliable operational terms. This article corrects this short-coming and presents a consensus operational re-conceptualization of the third sector fashioned by a group of scholars working under the umbrella of the European Union’s Third Sector Impact Project. This re-conceptualization goes well beyond the widely recognized definition of NPIs included in the UN Handbook on Nonprofit Institutions in the System of National Accounts by embracing as well some, but not all, of these additional institutions and forms of direct individual activity, and does so in a way that meets demanding criteria of comparability, operationalizability, and potential for integration into official statistical systems.

Résumé

L’idée qu’un « tiers secteur » puisse exister au-delà de l’État et du marché est possiblement un des concepts les plus déconcertants des discours politique et social modernes, englobant, comme il le fait, une incroyable diversité d’organismes et de comportements qui, jusqu’à tout récemment, étaient perçus, dans les discussions publiques et savantes, comme appartenant à un secteur indépendant, même si sous réserve. L’examen de ce concept s’est initialement concentré sur ce qui est toujours largement perçu comme son fondement institutionnel, soit une vaste gamme d’organismes privés et sans but lucratif et les bénévoles et travailleurs rémunérés qu’ils mobilisent et engagent. Ces organismes ont en commun une caractéristique essentielle permettant de les différencier des entreprises à but lucratif : l’interdiction de répartir les surplus qu’ils génèrent à leurs investisseurs, directeurs ou intervenants, et ce, dans l’intérêt présumé d’un plus vaste public. Plusieurs savants européens ont toutefois jugé que cette conceptualisation était trop étroite, affirmant que les coopératives, les mutuelles d’assurances et, plus récemment, les « entreprises sociales » devraient en faire partie, en plus de normes sociales données. Cet article présente une conceptualisation repensée du tiers secteur modelée par un groupe de savants œuvrant dans le cadre du projet d’impact du Tiers secteur (Third Sector Impact) de l’Union européenne. Elle va bien au-delà de la définition largement reconnue des organismes sans but lucratif inclus dans le manuel des Nations Unies du système des comptes nationaux, en intégrant quelques-uns de ces organismes supplémentaires, pas tous, et des formes d’activités individuelles directes, et ce, de façon à satisfaire d’exigeants critères de comparabilité et d’opérationnalité et à être éventuellement intégrée aux systèmes statistiques officiels.

Zusammenfassung

Das Konzept eines „Dritten Sektors“ neben Staat und Mark ist wahrscheinlich eines der verblüffendsten Konzepte in modernen politischen und sozialen Diskussionen. Es ist äußerst umfassend, da eine große Vielfalt von Institutionen und Verhaltensweisen inbegriffen sind, die erst seit relativ kurzer Zeit in öffentlichen oder wissenschaftlichen Diskussionen als ein eigener Sektor betrachtet werden, und das auch nur unter großen Bedenken. Anfängliche Arbeiten zu diesem Konzept konzentrierten sich darauf, was noch immer weitgehend als sein institutioneller Kern betrachtet wird, nämlich die weite Reihe privater, gemeinnütziger Institutionen und die ehrenamtlichen und bezahlten Mitarbeiter, die sie mobilisieren und engagieren. Diese Institutionen teilen ein wichtiges Merkmal, aufgrund dessen eine Unterscheidung von gewinnorientierten Unternehmen praktikabel ist: die Tatsache, dass es ihnen nicht erlaubt ist, Gewinne an ihre Investoren, Direktoren oder Stakeholder auszuschütten, wodurch sie vermeintlich einem breiteren öffentlichen Interesse dienen. Viele europäische Wissenschaftler betrachten diese Konzeptualisierung jedoch als zu beschränkt und argumentieren, dass Genossenschaften, Gegenseitigkeitsgesellschaften und in den letzten Jahren „Sozialunternehmen“ sowie gesellschaftliche Normen ebenfalls eingeschlossen werden sollten. Dieser Beitrag präsentiert einen Konsens zur Rekonzeptualisierung des Dritten Sektors, die von einer Gruppe von Wissenschaftlern erstellt wurde, die im Rahmen des EU-Projekts zu den Auswirkungen des Dritten Sektors (Third Sector Impact Project) arbeiten. Diese Konzeptualisierung reicht weit über die weitgehend anerkannte Definition gemeinnütziger Institutionen laut dem UN Handbook on Nonprofit Instituions in the System of National Accounts hinaus, indem sie zudem einige, jedoch nicht alle, dieser zusätzlichen Institutionen und Formen direkter individueller Aktivität auf eine Weise umfasst, die die anspruchsvollen Kriterien der Vergleichbarkeit, der Operationalisierbarkeit und des Potenzials zur Integration in offiziellen statistischen Systemen erfüllt.

Resumen

La idea de un “sector terciario” más allá de los ámbitos del estado y del mercado es probablemente uno de los conceptos más desconcertantes en el discurso político y social moderno, englobando, como hace, una tremenda diversidad de instituciones y comportamientos que sólo relativamente hace poco han sido percibidos en el discurso público y erudito como un sector diferenciado, e incluso entonces con graves recelos. Los trabajos iniciales sobre este concepto se centraron en lo que se sigue considerando ampliamente como su núcleo institucional, la vasta variedad de instituciones privadas, sin ánimo de lucro y los voluntarios, así como también los trabajadores pagados que movilizan y contratan. Estas instituciones comparten una característica crucial que hace factible diferenciarlas de las empresas con ánimo de lucro: el hecho de que se les prohíbe distribuir cualquier excedente que generen a sus inversores, administradores o partes interesadas y por consiguiente sirven presuntamente a algún interés público más general. Sin embargo, muchos eruditos europeos han considerado esta conceptualización demasiado limitada, argumentando que las cooperativas, las sociedades mutuas y, en años recientes, las “empresas sociales”, así como también las normas sociales también deben ser incluidas. El presente documento presenta un consenso, una reconceptualización del Sector Terciario fabricada por un grupo de eruditos que trabajan bajo los auspicios del Proyecto sobre el Impacto del Sector Terciario de la Unión Europea que va mucho más allá de la definición ampliamente reconocida de las instituciones sin ánimo de lucro incluidas en el Manual de las NU sobre las Instituciones Sin Ánimo de Lucro en el Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales abarcando también algunas, pero no todas, de estas instituciones y formas adicionales de actividad individual directa, y lo hace de una forma que satisface los exigentes criterios de comparabilidad, operacionalizabilidad y potencial de integración en los sistemas estadísticos oficiales.

Chinese

超出国家与市场范围的“第三部门”想法可能是现代政治和社会话语最为复杂的概念之一,涵盖各种各样的制度和行为,这些制度和行为最近才在公共或学者话语中视为独特的领域,即使这样也存在极大的顾虑。这一概念的前期工作专注于仍被广泛视为制度核心的内容:大量的私人、非盈利机构以及所组织和雇用的受薪员工。这些机构都有一个共同的特点,从而实现与盈利企业的区分:它们被禁止将带来的任何盈余交给投资者、总监、利益相关方,因此假设可用于更加广泛的公共利益。许多欧洲学者都认为这一概念化过于狭义;然而,表示这还应包含合作、共同社会,以及近年的“社会企业”和社会规范。本文介绍了基于欧盟第三部门影响项目展开工作的一组学者的第三部门重新概念化,这一范围远远超出联合国国民账户体系非盈利机构手册广泛认可的非盈利机构定义,涵盖一些而不是全部额外的机构和直接个人活动形式,并在某种程度上满足严格的可比性、可操作性和融入官方统计系统的可能性标准。

Arabic

فكرة “القطاع الثالث” ما وراء الساحات للدولة والسوق هي على الأرجح واحدة من أكثر المفاهيم المحيرة في الخطاب السياسي والإجتماعي الحديث، تشمل كما هو الحال تنوع هائل من المؤسسات والسلوكيات التي فقط مؤخرا” نسبيا كان ينظر إليها في الخطاب العام أو العلمي بإعتبارها قطاع مستقل، حتى ذلك الحين مع شكوك خطيرة. العمل الأولي في هذا المفهوم يركز على الذي لا يزال يعتبر على نطاق واسع جوهرها المؤسسي، مجموعة واسعة من مؤسسات خاصة غير ربحية والمتطوعين وكذلك العمال المدفوعين الأجريتم تعبئتهم ويشتركون. تشترك هذه المؤسسات في سمة حاسمة التي تجعل من الممكن تمييزها عن الشركات التي تسعى للربح: الحقيقة أنهم ممنوعون من توزيع أي فائض ينتجوه للمستثمرين، المديرين، أو أصحاب المصلحة، بالتالي يخدمون من المفترض بعض المصلحة العامة على نطاق أوسع. إعتبر العديد من العلماء الأوروبيين هذا المفهوم ضيق جدا”، مع ذلك، المجادلة أن التعاونيات، المجتمعات المتبادلة، و، في السنوات الأخيرة، “الشركات الاجتماعية”، كذلك المعايير الإجتماعية ينبغي تضمينهم أيضا”. يقدم هذا البحث آراء إعادة صياغة مفهوم القطاع الثالث التي صنعت من قبل مجموعة من العلماء الذين يعملون تحت مظلة مشروع تأثير القطاع الثالث للاتحاد الأوروبي الذي يذهب إلى أبعد من التعريف المعترف به على نطاق واسع من المؤسسات الغير الربحية المذكورة في دليل الأمم المتحدة على المؤسسات الغير ربحية في نظام الحسابات القومية من خلال تبني كذلك بعض، لكن ليس كل ، هذه المؤسسات الإضافية وأشكال النشاط الفردي المباشر ، و يفعل ذلك بطريقة تلبي معايير تطالب بالمقارنة، إنها تكون قابلة للتفعيل، والقدرة على الإندماج في النظم الإحصائية الرسمية .

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We acknowledge that any one of the many terms being used to refer to this social space carries with it potential connotations in the minds of readers that may be completely unintended on the part of the writers. Readers are therefore invited to replace this term mentally with any of the other ones with which they are more comfortable to avoid being diverted by unintended connotations. Later in this article we suggest a rebranding that combines elements of the “third sector” with key elements of what has been termed “social economy,” which we refer to as the “third sector/social economy” and abbreviate as the “TSE sector.”

  2. The 11 research institutions involved in the project are Vienna University of Economics and Business, Institute for Social Policy of the University of Zagreb, The Institute of Social Policy (IPS) of Warsaw University, The School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research of the University of Kent, The Third Sector Research Centre of the University of Birmingham, Johns Hopkins University SAIS Bologna Centre, The Department of Political Science and Public Administration at Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands, The Department of Political Science of the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster in Germany, The Institute for Social Research in Norway, IUDESCOOP of the University of Valencia, Spain, and The Institute of Labour Economics and Industrial Sociology, Aix-Marseille University (AMU) in France.

  3. For more information on institutional sectoring, see 2008 SNA Chapter 4. Although a 2008 revision of the System of National Accounts provided an explicit recommendation that statistical agencies separately identify at least the nonprofit components of the various institutional sectors into which NPIs are allocated and to report on them separately from other units (SNA 2008, para. 4.35), this recommendation has not been adopted by Eurostat in the European System of Accounts, which governs the assembly of economic statistics in Europe.

  4. Financed by the European Commission, this project sought to gauge the impact of the third sector, primarily in Europe, but within a framework able to permit comparisons among different European regions and between Europe and other regions. For the purpose of this project, detailed literature review and consultation were undertaken separately in five regions of Europe: the Nordic region, embracing Norway, Denmark, and Sweden; Northern Europe, embracing the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Austria; Anglo-Saxon UK and Ireland; Southern Europe, embracing France, Spain, Italy, and Portugal; and Central and Eastern Europe, including Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic. Simultaneously, similar inquiries were launched into the relevant characteristics of several possible institutional and individual manifestations of the third sector. For more information on the Third Sector Impact Project (TSI), see the project website at: thirdsectorimpact.eu.

  5. In its Latin American manifestations, the term “social and solidarity economy” is used more widely. See, for example: Mogrovejo et al. (2012).

  6. The Social Economy concept has also been recognized in political and legal circles, both national and European. Thus, for example, the European Economic and Social Committee issued an Opinion on 1 October 2009 on “Diverse Forms of Enterprise,” and the European Parliament issued a Report of 26 January 2009 on Social Economy. In a December 2015, the Council of the European Union issued a “Conclusion” identifying the social economy as “a key driver of social and economic development in Europe” and encouraging “Eurostat and national statistical authorities” to “consider developing and implementing satellite accounts in their respective statistics aimed at establishing the effective contribution of the social economy to economic growth and social cohesion….” (General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union 2015).

  7. The language used in the SNA includes entities that may be institutionally separate from government but are “controlled by government,” where “controlled by” is defined as more than receipt of government funding.

References

  • Alcock, P., & Kendall, J. (2011). Constituting the third sector: Processes of decontestation and contention under the UK Labour governments in England. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organisations, 22(3), 450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amin, A., Cameron, A., & Hudson, R. (2002). Placing the social economy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anheier, H., Carlson, L., Heinrich, V. F., & Naidoo, K. (2001). The civil society diamond: A primer. In CIVICUS index on civil society occasional paper series (Vol. 1, Issue 2). New York: CIVICUS.

  • Barea, J., & Monzón, J. L. (2006). Manual for drawing up the satellite accounts of companies in the social economy: Co-operatives and mutual societies. Liege: CIRIEC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bode, I., & Evers, A. (2004). From institutional fixation to entrepreneurial mobility: The German third sector and its contemporary challenges. In A. Evers & J. L. Laville (Eds.), The third sector in Europe (pp. 101–121). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, D. (2004). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borzaga, C., & Loss, M. (2006). Multiple goals and multi-stakeholder management in Italian social enterprises. In M. Nyssens (Ed.), Social enterprise: At the crossroads of market, public policies, and civil society (pp. 72–84). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., & Pape, U. (2015). The Netherlands: The paradox of government–nonprofit partnerships. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organisations, 26(6), 2267–2282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, S., & Kopstein, J. (2001). Bad civil society. Political Theory, 29(6), 837–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, S., & Kymlicka, W. (Eds.). (2002). Alternative conceptions of civil society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandhoke, N. (2001). The ‘Civil’ and the ‘Political’ in civil society. Democratization, 8(2), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. L., & Arato, A. (1994). Civil society and political theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corry, O. (2010). Defining and theorizing the third sector. In R. Taylor (Ed.), Third sector research. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union, General Secretariat. (2015). The promotion of the social economy as a key driver of economic and social development in Europe. Paras. 8, 18, and 19. Doc No. 15071/15 (Brussels, December).

  • Defourny, J. (2001). From third sector to social enterprise. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise (pp. 1–28). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., Develtere, P., & Fonteneau, B. (Eds.). (1999). L’économie sociale au Nord et au Sud. Paris: De Boeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2006). Defining social enterprise. In M. Nyssens (Ed.), Social enterprise: At the crossroads of market, public policies, and civil society. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Pestoff, V. (2014). Toward a European conceptualization of the third sector. In L. P. Costa & M. Andreaus (Eds.), Accountability and social accounting for social and non-profit organizations: Advances in social accounting (Vol. 17, pp. 1–61). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P. (2004). Accountability and social accounting for social and non-profit organizations: Advances in social accounting. In A. Evers & J. L. Laville (Eds.), The third sector in Europe (pp. 144–164). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, K. (1962). The nerves of government: Models of political communication and control. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. (2009). Civil society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. (2011). The Oxford handbook of civil society. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Evers, A., & Laville, J. L. (2004a). Distinct realities and concepts: The third sector in Europe. In A. Evers & J. L. Laville (Eds.), The third sector in Europe (pp. 11–44). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evers, A., & Laville, J. L. (Eds.). (2004b). The third sector in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, A. (2002). Civil society research funding from a global perspective: A case for redressing bias, asymmetry and bifurcation. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organisations, 13(3), 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garton, J. (2009). The regulation of organised civil society. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of Bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich, V. F. (2005). Studying civil society across the world: Exploring the thorny issues of conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Civil Society, 1(3), 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, L.S, Smith, S.R., & Zimmer, A. (2012). At the eve of convergence? Transformations of social service provision in Denmark, Germany, and the United States. Voluntas: International Jopurnal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations, 23(2), 458–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heins, V. (2002). Das Andere der Zivilgesellschaft. Zur Archäologie eines Begriffs. Bielefeld: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J., & Pearce, J. (2001). Civil society and development: A critical exploration. Denver, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Labour Organization. (2011). Manual on the measurement of volunteer work. Geneva: International Labour Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, J., & Thomas, G. (1996a). The legal position of the voluntary sector in the UK. In J. Kendall & M. Knapp (Eds.), The voluntary sector in the UK. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, J., & Thomas, G. (Eds.). (1996b). The voluntary sector in the UK. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knutsen, W. (2016). The non-profit sector is dead, long live the non-profit sector! Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organisations. Published online 8 March 2016. doi:10.1007/s11266-016-9696-1.

  • Lane, M. J. (2011). Social enterprise: Empowering mission-driven entrepreneurs. Chicago: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mogrovejo, R., Mora, A., & Vanhuynegem, P. (Eds.). (2012). El cooperativismo en América Latina. Una diversidad de contribuciones al desarrollo sostenible. La Paz: OIT, Oficina de la OIT para los Países Andinos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nałęcz, S., Leś, E., & Pieliński, B. (2015). Poland: A new model of government–nonprofit relations for the east? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organisations, 26(6), 2351–2378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickel, P. M., & Eikenberry, A. M. (2016). Knowing and governing: The mapping of the nonprofit and voluntary sector as statecraft. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organisations, 27(1), 392–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. (2004). The development and future of the social economy in Sweden. In A. Evers & J. L. Laville (Eds.), The third sector in Europe (pp. 63–82). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, D. (2004). Zivilgesellschaft und Staat in der Demokratie. In A. Klein, K. Kern, B. Geißel, & M. Berer (Eds.), Zivilgesellschaft und Sozialkapital. Herausforderungen politischer und sozialer Integration (p. 23). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M. (1970). Comparative history and the theory of modernization. World Politics, 23(1), 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M. (2010). Putting the civil society sector on the economic map of the world. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 81(2), 167–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1997a). In search of the non-profit sector: The question of definitions. In L. M. Salamon & H. K. Anheier (Eds.), Defining the non-profit sector: A cross-national analysis (pp. 1–8). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (Eds.). (1997b). Defining the non-profit sector: A cross-national analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., Anheier, H. K, List, R. Toepler, S., Sokolowski, S. W., & Associates. (1999). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.

  • Salamon, L. M., Sokolowski, W. S. & Associates. (2004). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (Vol. 2). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

  • Salamon, L.M., Sokolowski, W.S., & Haddock, M.A. (2011). Measuring the economic value of volunteer work globally: Concepts, estimates, and a roadmap to the future. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 82(3), 217–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, A. (1992). The idea of civil society. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simsa, R. (2013). Gesellschaftliche Restgröße oder treibende Kraft? Soziologische Perspektiven auf NPOs. In R. Simsa, M. Meyer, & C. Badelt (Eds.), Handbuch der Non-profit-Organisation: Strukturen und Management (pp. 125–145). Stuttgart: Schäffer and Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivesand, K. H., Lorentzen, H., Selle, P., Wollebæk, D., Sokolowski, S. W., & Salamon, L. M. (2004). Norway. In L. M. Salamon, S. W. Sokolowski & Associates (Eds.), Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (Vol. 2, pp. 261–275). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

  • Six 6, P., & Leat, D. (1997). Inventing the British voluntary sector by committee: from Wolfenden to Deakin. Non-profit Studies, 1(2), 33–46.

  • Taylor, R. (2010). Moving beyond empirical theory. In R. Taylor (Ed.), Third sector research. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Teasdale, S. (2010). Whats in a name? The construction of social enterprise. TSRC Working Paper 46. Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.

  • Teune, S. (2008). Rechtsradikale Zivilgesellschaft – contradictio in adiecto? Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen, 25(4), 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.K., Office for the Third Sector. (2006). Partnership in public services: An action plan for third sector involvement. London: Office for the Third Sector, Cabinet Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2008). System of national accounts 2008. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Statistics Division. (2003). Handbook on non-profit institutions in the system of national accounts. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Til, J. (1988). Mapping the third sector: Voluntarism in a changing social economy. New York: The Foundation Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer, A., & Priller, E. (2007). Gemeinnützige Organisationen im gesellschaftlichen Wandel. Ergebnisse der Dritte-Sektor-Forschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This article was prepared as part of the Third Sector Impact Project (TSI). This Project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) for research, technological development, and demonstration under Grant Agreement No. 613034.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lester M. Salamon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 1.

Table 1 Potential in-scope and out-of-scope third sector institutional units

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salamon, L.M., Sokolowski, S.W. Beyond Nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the Third Sector. Voluntas 27, 1515–1545 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9726-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9726-z

Keywords

Navigation