Advertisement

Accountability.org: Online Disclosures by U.S. Nonprofits

  • Joannie Tremblay-BoireEmail author
  • Aseem Prakash
Original Paper

Abstract

Why do some nonprofits signal their respect for accountability via unilateral website disclosures? We develop an Accountability Index to examine the websites of 200 U.S. nonprofits ranked in the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s 2010 “Philanthropy 400.” Our intuition is that nonprofits recognize that the “nondistributional constraint” by itself may not generate sufficient trust. We expect nonprofits’ incentives for website disclosures will be shaped by their organizational and sectoral characteristics. Our analyses suggest that nonprofits appearing frequently in newspapers disclose more accountability information while nonprofits larger in size disclose less. Religion-related nonprofits tend to disclose less information, suggesting that religious bonding enhances trust and reduces incentives for self-disclosure. Nonprofits in the health sector disclose less information, arguably because governmental regulations in which they are embedded reduce marginal benefits from voluntary disclosures. Education nonprofits, on the other hand, tend to disclose more accountability information perhaps because they supply credence goods.

Keywords

Accountability Website disclosures Internet Transparency 

Résumé

Pourquoi certaines organisations sans but lucratif manifestent-elles leur respect de la responsabilité par le biais de communications unilatérales sur leur site Web ? Nous développons un indice de responsabilité afin de procéder à l’étude des sites de 200 organisations sans but lucratif américaines classifiées dans la Chronique de la philanthropie 2010, « Philanthropie 400 » . Notre intuition est que ces organisations ont conscience que  « l’exclusion d’une distribution » n’est pas en elle-même susceptible de susciter une confiance suffisante. Nous estimons que les motivations des organisations sans but lucratif en faveur de communications via leur site Web seront élaborées en fonction de leurs caractéristiques organisationnelles et sectorielles. Nos analyses suggèrent que les organisations sans but lucratif qui sont fréquemment mentionnées dans la presse communiquent plus d’informations de responsabilité alors que certaines organisations de plus grande taille limitent ces divulgations. Les œuvres de bienfaisance de nature confessionnelle ont tendance à communiquer moins d’informations, ce qui semble indiquer que le lien religieux optimise la confiance et minimise les incitations en faveur d’une communication spontanée. Les organisations sans but lucratif dans le secteur de la santé divulguent moins d’informations, sans doute parce que les réglementations gouvernementales dont elles relèvent limitent les bénéfices marginaux des communications volontaires. Les organisations éducatives ont par contre tendance à divulguer plus d’informations de responsabilité, peut-être parce qu’elles assurent la fourniture de biens de confiance.

Zusammenfassung

Warum belegen einige Nonprofit-Organisationen ihre Anerkennung der Rechenschaftspflicht durch einseitige Bekanntgaben auf ihren Websites? Wir entwickeln einen Rechenschaftsindex, um die Websites von 200 Nonprofit-Organisationen in den USA zu untersuchen, die 2010 in der Rangliste „Philanthropy 400“des Chronicle of Philanthropy aufgeführt waren. Unsere unmittelbare Erkenntnis ist, dass sich Nonprofit-Organisationen darüber bewusst sind, dass das so genannte „Non-Distributional Constraint“- das Verbot der Gewinnausschüttung an Personen, die die Organisation kontrollieren - allein unter Umständen nicht ausreicht, um Vertrauen zu gewinnen. Wir gehen davon aus, dass die Anreize für Informationsoffenlegungen auf den Websites der Nonprofit-Organisationen von ihren Organisations- und Sektormerkmalen abhängig sind. Unsere Analysen deuten darauf hin, dass Nonprofit-Organisationen, die häufig in Zeitungen thematisiert werden, ausgiebigere Rechenschaftsberichte ablegen, während größere Nonprofit-Organisationen weniger Informationen preisgeben. Nonprofit-Organisationen im religiösen Bereich neigen dazu, weniger Informationen offenzulegen, was darauf schließen lässt, dass eine religiöse Bindung das Vertrauen fördert und die Anreize für eine Selbstauskunft mindert. Nonprofit-Organisationen im Gesundheitswesen geben weniger Informationen bekannt, wohl weil die für sie geltenden Regierungsvorschriften marginale Vorteile einer freiwilligen Offenlegung reduzieren. Nonprofit-Organisationen im Bildungsbereich hingegen neigen dazu, mehr Informationen offenzulegen, vielleicht weil sie Vertrauensgüter anbieten.

Resumen

¿Por qué algunas organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro señalan su respeto a la rendición de cuentas mediante divulgaciones unilaterales en páginas Web? Desarrollamos un Índice de Rendición de Cuentas para examinar las páginas Web de 200 organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro estadounidenses clasificadas en el “Philanthropy 400” de 2010 del Chronicle of Philanthropy. Intuimos que las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro reconocen que la “restricción de no distribuir beneficios” por sí misma puede no generar suficiente confianza. Suponemos que los incentivos de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro para realizar divulgaciones en páginas Web se basarán en sus características organizativas y sectoriales. Nuestro análisis sugieren que las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro que aparecen frecuentemente en periódicos divulgan más información sobre rendición de cuentas, aunque las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro de tamaño más grande divulgan menos. Las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro relacionadas con la religión divulgan menos información, lo que sugiere que la vinculación religiosa aumenta la confianza y reduce los incentivos de auto-divulgación. Las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro en el sector sanitario divulgan menos información. Podría decirse que esto se debe a que las reglamentaciones gubernamentales en las que están integradas reducen los beneficios marginales de las divulgaciones voluntarias. Las organizaciones educativas sin ánimo de lucro, por otro lado, tienden a divulgar más información sobre rendición de cuentas quizás debido a que suministran bienes de confianza.

Chinese

为什么一些非营利组织要通过网页单方面披露的方式表示他们对责任的尊重?我们设计了“责任指数”,从2010年《慈善纪事》(Chronicle of Philanthropy)排名前400位的慈善组织中,选取200家美国非营利组织,对其网页进行检测。 凭直觉,我们认为,非营利组织认识到其自身的“禁止分配原则”(non-distributional constraint)并无法产生足够的信任。我们预测,网络披露的成因,将由非营利组织的组织与部门特性决定。通过分析,我们发现,经常出现在报纸上的非营利组织,披露更多责任信息,而规模较大的非营利组织则披露得较少。与宗教相关的非营利组织通常披露较少的信息,意味着宗教关系加强了信任,从而降低了自我披露的动力。医疗卫生领域的非营利组织也披露较少的信息,或许这是因为政府对其规管降低了其自愿披露的边际效益。相反,教育领域的非营利组织则通常披露更多责任信息,或许这是由于其提供的服务属于信任品(credence goods)。

Japanese

なぜ非営利団体は、一方的なウェブサイトの開示に対する説明責任を尊重するのか。説明責任インデックスを用いて、慈善の記録 2010の「フィランソロピー 400」にランクされた米国非営利団体200団体のウェブサイトを検討する。非営利団体の認識では、「非分配制約」が十分な信頼関係を構築しないことを考察する。ウェブサイトの情報開示における非営利団体のインセンティブは組織と部門の特性によって形成される。分析から、大きな非営利団体が開示をあまりしないのに対して、新聞に頻繁に出てくる非営利団体はより説明責任を開示することがわかった。宗教関連の非営利団体は、宗教的な結合の信頼を高めて自己開示のためのインセンティブの削減を示唆しており、少ない情報を開示する傾向がある。保健セクターの非営利団体は、政府の規制が自主的な開示における利点を減らすために少ない情報を開示する。

Arabic

لماذا بعض المنظمات الغير ربحية تشير إلى إحترامها للمساءلة عن طريق الكشف عن الموقع من جانب واحد ؟ نحن نضع فهرس المساءلة لفحص مواقع 200من المنظمات الأمريكية غير الربحية تم تصنيفها في وقائع العمل الخيري عام 2010 “العمل الخيري 400”. توقعنا أن المنظمات الغير ربحية تدرك أن “ القيود الغير توزيعية “ في حد ذاتها قد لا تولد الثقة الكافية. نتوقع أن الحوافز الغير ربحية لإفصاحات الموقع سوف يتم تشكيلها من قبل الخصائص التنظيمية والقطاعية. تحليلاتنا تشير إلى أن المنظمات الغير ربحية التي تظهر بشكل متكرر في الصحف تكشف عن مزيد من معلومات المساءلة بينما المنظمات الغير ربحية التي في حجم أكبر تكشف عن أقل. المنظمات الغير ربحية ذات الصلة بالدين تميل إلى الكشف عن معلومات أقل ، مما يوحي بأن الترابط الديني يعزز الثقة و يقلل الحوافز للكشف عن الذات. المنظمات الغير ربحية في القطاع الصحي تكشف عن معلومات أقل ، يمكن القول بسبب اللوائح الحكومية التي هي جزء لا يتجزأ تقلل من الفوائد الهامشية من الإفصاحات التطوعية. منظمات التعليم الغير ربحية ، من ناحية أخرى ، تميل إلى الكشف عن مزيد من معلومات المساءلة ربما لأنها تقوم بتوريد سلع المصداقية .

Notes

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this research was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). We would like to thank Chris Adolph for his helpful comments. We also want to thank Emily Fondaw and Phi Cong Hoang for their excellent research assistance.

References

  1. Adams, C. A., Hill, W., & Roberts, C. B. (1998). Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: Legitimating corporate behaviour? British Accounting Review, 30, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amirkhanyan, A. A., Kim, H. J., & Lambright, K. T. (2009). Faith-based assumptions about performance: Does church affiliation matter for service quality and access? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 490–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett, M. (2001). A stakeholder approach to responsiveness and accountability in non-profit organisations. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 1(17), 36–51.Google Scholar
  4. Bloodgood, E. A., Tremblay-Boire, J., & Prakash, A. (2013). National styles of NGO regulation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/0899764013481111.
  5. Boris, E. T., & Steuerle, C. E. (2006). Scope and dimensions of the nonprofit sector. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, N., & Deegan, C. (1998). The public disclosure of environmental performance information—A dual test of media agenda setting theory and legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 29, 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, L. D., & Moore, M. H. (2001). Accountability, strategy, and international nongovernmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 569–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burger, R., & Owens, T. (2010). Promoting transparency in the NGO sector. World Development, 38, 1263–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaudhri, V., & Wang, J. (2007). Communicating corporate social responsibility on the Internet: A case study of the top 100 information technology companies in India. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 232–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cho, C. H., & Roberts, R. W. (2010). Environmental reporting on the internet by America’s Toxic 100: Legitimacy and self-presentation. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 11, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christensen, R. A., & Ebrahim, A. (2006). How does accountability affect mission? The case of a nonprofit serving immigrants and refugees. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooley, A., & Ron, J. (2002). The NGO scramble: Organizational insecurity and the political economy of transnational action. International Security, 27, 5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (1999). Corporate environmental disclosure strategies: Determinants, costs and benefits. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 14, 429–451.Google Scholar
  14. Dainelli, F., Manetti, G., & Sibilio, B. (2012). Web-based accountability practices in non-profit organizations: The case of national museums. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9278-9.Google Scholar
  15. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dolšak, N., & Houston, K. (2013). Newspaper coverage and climate change legislative activity across US states. Global Policy. doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12097.
  17. Dubnick, M., & Frederickson, H. G. (Eds.). (2011). Accountable governance. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  18. Dumont, G. (2013). Nonprofit virtual accountability: An index and its application. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 1049–1067.Google Scholar
  19. Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31, 813–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 56–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ebrahim, A., & Weisband, E. (Eds.). (2007). Global accountabilities: Participation, pluralism, and public ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agenda-setting? Public Relations Review, 24, 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flack, T., & Ryan, C. M. (2003). Accountability of Australian nonprofit organisations: Reporting dilemmas. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 9, 75–88.Google Scholar
  24. Froelich, K. A. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 246–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frumkin, P., & Kim, M. T. (2001). Strategic positioning and the financing of nonprofit organizations: Is efficiency rewarded in the contributions marketplace? Public Administration Review, 61, 266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gálvez-Rodríguez, M. M., Caba-Pérez, M. C., & López-Godoy, M. (2012). Determining factors in online transparency of NGOs: A Spanish case study. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(6), 661–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gandía, J. L. (2009). Internet disclosure by nonprofit organizations: Empirical evidence of nongovernmental organizations for development in Spain. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/0899764009343782.
  28. Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2004). A loss of credibility: Patterns of wrongdoing among nongovernmental organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15, 355–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Global Reporting Initiative. (2006). G3 sustainable reporting guidelines. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/G3Guidelines/.
  30. Gordon, T., Knock, C., & Neelv, D. (2009). The role of rating agencies in the market for charitable contributions: An empirical test. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 28, 469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grant, R., & Keohane, G. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. American Political Science Review, 99, 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8, 47–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gray, R., Javad, M., Power, D. M., & Sinclair, C. D. (2001). Social and environmental disclosure and corporate characteristics: A research note and extension. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 28, 327–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greenlee, J., Fischer, M., Gordon, T., & Keating, E. (2007). An investigation of fraud in nonprofit organizations: Occurrences and deterrents. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 676–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grønbjerg, K. A. (1993). Understanding nonprofit funding. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  36. Gunningham, N., Kagan, R., & Thornton, D. (2003). Shades of green. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hansmann, H. B. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89, 835–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1), 405–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management—New perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kang, S., & Norton, H. E. (2004). Nonprofit organizations’ use of the World Wide Web: Are they sufficiently fulfilling organizational goals? Public Relations Review, 30, 279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kearns, K. (1996). Managing for accountability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Kearns, K., Park, C., & Yankoski, L. (2005). Comparing faith-based and secular community service corporations in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 206–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Keating, E. K., & Frumkin, P. (2003). Reengineering nonprofit financial accountability: Toward a more reliable foundation for regulation. Public Administration Review, 63, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kilby, P. (2006). Accountability for empowerment: Dilemmas facing non-governmental organizations. World Development, 34, 951–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. King, G. (1989). Unifying political methodology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  46. King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Knutsen, W. L., & Brower, R. S. (2010). Managing expressive and instrumental accountabilities in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A qualitative investigation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 588–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. LeRoux, K. (2009). Managing stakeholder demands balancing responsiveness to clients and funding agents in nonprofit social service organizations. Administration & Society, 41, 158–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses’ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McCubbins, M., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 16–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mitchell, G. E., & Schmitz, H. P. (2013). Principled instrumentalism: A theory of transnational NGO behavior. Review of International Studies. doi: 10.1017/S0260210513000387.
  53. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder salience. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.Google Scholar
  54. Murtaza, N. (2011). Putting the lasts first: The case for community-focused and peer-managed NGO accountability mechanisms. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nah, S., & Saxton, G. D. (2013). Modeling the adoption and use of social media by nonprofit organizations. New Media & Society, 15, 294–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23, 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. O’Connor, M. K., & Netting, F. E. (2008). Faith-based evaluation: Accountable to whom, for what? Evaluation and Program Planning, 31, 347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Donovan, G. (1999). Managing legitimacy through increased corporate reporting: An exploratory study. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review, 1, 63–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2007). From functional to social accountability: Transforming the accountability relationship between funders and non-governmental development organisations. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20, 446–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2008). The paradox of greater NGO accountability: A case study of Amnesty Ireland. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 801–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ortmann, A., & Schlesinger, M. (1997). Trust, repute and the role of non‐profit enterprise. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 8, 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Patten, D. M. (1991). Exposure, legitimacy, and social disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 10, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Patten, D. M. (1992). Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 471–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Patten, D. M. (2002). Give or take on the Internet: An examination of the disclosure practices of insurance firm Web innovators. Journal of Business Ethics, 36, 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  66. Pollach, I. (2003). Communicating corporate ethics on the World Wide Web: A discourse analysis of selected company web sites. Business and Society, 42, 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Prakash, A., & Gugerty, M. (2010). Trust but verify? Voluntary regulation programs in the nonprofit sector. Regulation & Governance, 4, 22–47.Google Scholar
  68. Raggo, P. (2011). Accountability beyond accounting. Paper presented at the 11th biennial Public Management Research Association conference. Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, Syracuse.Google Scholar
  69. Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Saxton, G. D., & Guo, C. (2011). Accountability online: Understanding the web-based accountability practices of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 270–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sell, S. K., & Prakash, A. (2004). Using ideas strategically. International Studies Quarterly, 48, 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Spar, D., & Dail, J. (2002). Of measurement and mission: Accounting for performance in non-governmental organizations. Chicago Journal of International Law, 3, 171–182.Google Scholar
  73. Townsend, J. G., Porter, R., & Mawdsley, E. E. (2002). The role of the transnational community of non-governmental organisations: Governance or poverty reduction? Journal of International Development, 14, 829–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of U.S. firms. Academy of Management Review, 10, 540–557.Google Scholar
  75. Wapner, P. (2002). Defending accountability mechanisms in NGOs. Chicago Journal of International Law, 3, 191–205.Google Scholar
  76. Waters, R. D. (2007). Nonprofit organizations’ use of the internet: A content analysis of communication trends on the internet sites of the philanthropy 400. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18, 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations