Advertisement

Resisting Hybridity in Community-Based Third Sector Organisations in Aotearoa New Zealand

  • Jenny AimersEmail author
  • Peter Walker
Original Paper
  • 367 Downloads

Abstract

The influence of the state policy agenda though a neo-liberal contracted funding environment is redefining the boundaries of the third sector through a process of hybridisation. Hybridised organisations adapt to possess characteristics and logics of multiple sectors (public, private or community). Increasing hybridity within the New Zealand community and voluntary sector has resulted in a perceived dichotomy separating organisations that adapt to these challenges from those that resist. In this paper, we apply a hybridity lens to seven community development organisations, who have predominantly resisted marketisation and alignment with the state policy agenda, to assess the extent of their hybridity and how this has impacted on their place in the community and voluntary sector and access to funding opportunities available from the state.

Keywords

Hybridity Community organisations Marketisation Resistance New Zealand 

Résumé

L’influence des programmes de police d’État mis en œuvre dans un secteur de financement néo-libéral obtenu par contrats redéfinit les frontières du tiers secteur selon un processus d’hybridation. Les organismes ainsi devenus hybrides s’adaptent pour acquérir des caractéristiques et cadres logistiques de divers secteurs (public, privé ou communautaire). La hausse de l’hybridité au sein de la communauté et du secteur du bénévolat de la Nouvelle-Zélande a donné lieu à une dichotomie perçue, qui divise les organismes s’adaptant à ces défis de ceux qui y résistent. Dans le présent article, nous observons, à la lumière du phénomène d’hybridité, sept organismes de développement communautaire ayant pour la plupart résisté à la commercialisation et au mouvement d’alignement sur les programmes de police d’État, pour évaluer la portée de leur hybridité et comment elle influence leur positionnement dans la communauté et le secteur du bénévolat, ainsi que leur accès au financement de l’État.

Zusammenfassung

Die Grenzen des Dritten Sektors werden mittels eines Hybridisierungsprozesses durch den Einfluss der staatspolitischen Agenda im Rahmen eines neo-liberalen geschrumpften Finanzierungsumfelds neu definiert. Hybridisierte Organisationen passen sich an, um die Merkmale und Logiken mehrerer Sektoren (öffentlicher, privater und Gemeinschaftssektor) zu übernehmen. Eine zunehmende Hybridität innerhalb des Gemeinschafts- und Freiwilligensektors in Neuseeland hat zu einer wahrgenommenen Dichotomie geführt, die Organisationen, welche sich diesen Herausforderungen anpassen, von den Organisationen trennt, welche sich den Herausforderungen widersetzen. Aus der Perspektive der Hybridität betrachtet dieser Beitrag sieben Organisationen zur Gemeinschaftsentwicklung, die sich der Vermarktlichung und Anpassung an die staatspolitische Agenda größtenteils widersetzt haben, um das Ausmaß ihrer Hybridität zu bewerten und zu sehen, wie sich dies auf ihre Position im Gemeinschafts- und Freiwilligensektor und den Zugang zu staatlichen Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten ausgewirkt hat.

Resumen

La influencia de la agenda política estatal aunque en un entorno de financiación neo liberal contraído está redefiniendo los límites del sector terciario mediante un proceso de hibridación. Las organizaciones hibridadas se adaptan para poseer características y lógicas de múltiples sectores (público, privado o comunitario). La creciente hibridez dentro de la comunidad neozelandesa y el sector voluntario ha dado lugar a una dicotomía percibida que separa a las organizaciones que se adaptan a dichos desafíos de aquellas que se resisten a los mismos. En el presente documento, aplicamos una lente de hibridez a siete organizaciones de desarrollo comunitarias, que han resistido de manera predominante a la marketización y alineación con la agenda política estatal, para evaluar la amplitud de su hibridez y cómo ésta ha afectado a su lugar en la comunidad y en el sector voluntario y al acceso a las oportunidades de financiación del estado disponibles.

摘要

通过新自由主义签约资助环境而产生的国家政策议程影响正通过一个混合(hybridization)过程重新界定第三部门的界线。混合组织(hybridised organisation)适应新环境,具有多部门(公共、私有或社区部门等)的特性与逻辑。新西兰社区与志愿部门中混合性的增加导致了可以感知的二分分裂组织,这些组织适应了来自它们所抵制的因素的各种挑战。本论文中,我们将混合透镜(hybridity lens)应用于七个社区发展组织(这些组织抵制市场化以及与拒绝遵循国家政策议程),以评估其混合程度以及这种混合程度如何影响它们在社区与志愿部门中的地位、如何影响它们获取国家资助的机会。

要約

国家政策の影響、つまり新自由主義の契約資金の環境は、ハイブリッドの過程から第三セクターの境界を再定義している。ハイブリッド化された組織は、特性と複数のセクター(パブリック、プライベート、コミュニティ)の論理を採用している。ニュージーランド・コミュニティとボランティア・セクターにおいて増大したハイブリディティ性は、知覚二分法を表しているが、これは二分法に対抗する組織が抱えている課題に対処して組織を分断している。本論文では、コミュニティ開発組織7団体をハイブリディティのレンズに適用させるが、主として対抗する市場化と国家政策の課題を有していて、ハイブリット性を評価しつつ、これがどのようにコミュニティとボランティアのセクターに影響を与えて、国家に可能な資金調達の機会に利用されるかを検討する。

ملخص

تأثير جدول أعمال سياسة الدولة على الرغم من بيئة تمويل التعاقد الليبرالي الجديد بإعادة تعريف حدود القطاع الثالث من خلال عملية التهجين. تكيف تهجين المنظمات مع ما يمتلك من خصائص ومنطق من قطاعات متعددة (عامة ، خاصة أو المجتمع). قد أدى زيادة التهجين داخل مجتمع نيوزيلندا والقطاع التطوعي إلى إنقسام ملحوظ يفصل المنظمات التي تتكيف مع هذه التحديات من تلك التي تقاوم. في هذا البحث نطبق عدسة التهجين إلى سبع منظمات تنمية المجتمع، الذين قاوموا في الغالب التسويق والمواءمة مع أجندة سياسة الدولة العامة ، لتقييم مدى التهجين وكيف أن هذا قد أثرعلى مكانهم في المجتمع والقطاع التطوعي والوصول لفرص التمويل المتاحة من الدولة

References

  1. Aimers, J., & Walker, P. (2008a). Structures and Strategies Revisited, A comparative storying of five social service and community support organisations in Otago. New Zealand: Monograph, University of Otago.Google Scholar
  2. Aimers, J., & Walker, P. (2008b). Is community accountability a casualty of government partnering in New Zealand? New Zealand Social Work Review, 20(3), 14–24.Google Scholar
  3. Aimers, J., & Walker, P. (Eds.). (2013). Community development: Insights for practice in Aotearoa New Zealand. Dunmore Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Billis, D. (Ed.). (2010). Hybrid organisations and the third sector. Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
  5. Brandsen, T., & Karré, P. (2011). Hybrid organisations: No cause for concern? International Journal of Public Administration, 34, 827–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandsen, T., van de Donk, W., & Putters, K. (2005). ‘Griffins or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable characteristic of the third sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9–10), 749–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buckingham, H. (2010). Capturing diversity: A typology of third sector organisations’ responses to contracting based on empirical evidence from homelessness services. TSRC Working Paper 41. www.rsrc.ac.uk
  8. Community Matters. (2015). http://www.communitymatters.govt.nz/Funding-and-grants—All-of-our-grant-funding. Accessed on 20 September 2015.
  9. Crampton, P., Woodward, A., & Dowell, A. (2001). The role of the third sector in providing primary care services—Theoretical and policy issues. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, Issue 17, December 2001. Accessed from http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj17/17_pages1_21.pdf on 12 April 2016.
  10. Culpan, A. (2015). Social enterprise Aotearoa: Insights and opportunities, Research Report, December 2015. Accessed from https://annetteculpan.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/social-enterprise-aotearoa-insights1.pdf on 1 April 2016
  11. Donnelly-Cox, G. (2015). Civil society governance: Hybridisation within third sector and social enterprise domains. In J.-L. Laville, D. Young, & P. Eynaud (Eds.), Civil society, the third sector and social enterprise: Governance and democracy (pp. 6–20). London, Taylor and Francis, Routledge Goup.Google Scholar
  12. Durie, Mason. (2005). Ngā Tai Matatu: Tides of Māori endurance. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Evers, A. (2005). Mixed welfare systems and hybrid organisations: Changes in the government and provision of social services. International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 737–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodwin, E. (2016). Social service agencies brace for Govt changes. Otago Daily Times, 25 March 2016. Accessed from http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/375352/social-service-agencies-brace-govt-changes on 1 April 2016.
  15. Grohs, S. (2014). Hybrid organisations in social service delivery in quasimarkets: The case of Germany. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(11), 1425–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harwood, B. (2016) Measure results, MSD boss says. Otago Daily Times, 27 March 2016. Accessed from http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/377582/measure-results-msd-boss-says on 1 April 2016.
  17. Heaton, J. (2004). Reworking qualitative data. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henriksen, L., Smith, S., & Zimmer, A. (2015). Welfare mix and hybridity. Flexible adjustments to changed environments. Introduction to the special issue. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26, 1591–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hustinx, L., & De Waelem, E. (2015). Managing hybridity in a changing welfare mix: Everyday practices in an entrepreneurial non profit in Belgium. Voluntas, 26, 1666–1689.Google Scholar
  20. Karré, P. (2012).Conceptualizing hybrid organisations, A public administration approach. Paper for neither public nor private: Mixed forms of service delivery around the globe symposium, University of Barcelona, 17–18 May 2012.Google Scholar
  21. Larner, W., & Butler, M. (2005). Governmentalities of local partnerships: The rise of a “partnering state” in New Zealand. Studies in Political Economy, 75, 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larner, W., & Craig, D. (2005). After neoliberalism? Community activism and local partnerships in Aotearoa New Zealand. Antipode, 37, 402–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Long-Sutehall, T., Sque, M., & Addington-Hall, J. (2010). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: A valuable method for exploring sensitive issues with an elusive population? Journal of Nursing, 16(4), 335–344.Google Scholar
  24. Macmillan, R. (2013). Distinction in the third sector. Voluntary Sector Review, 4(1), 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ministry of Social Development. (2016). Community investment strategy. Accessed from https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/work-programmes/community-investment-strategy/ on 1 April 2016.
  26. Mullens, D., & Acheson, N. (2014). Competing drivers of hybridity: Third sector housing organisations in Northern Ireland. Voluntas, 25, 1606–1629.Google Scholar
  27. Productivity Commission. (2015). More effective social services, Productivity Commission—Te Kōmihana Whai Hua o Aotearoa. August 2015.Google Scholar
  28. Seibel, W. (2015). Welfare mixes and hybridity: Analytical and managerial implications. Voluntas, 26, 1759–1768.Google Scholar
  29. Shannon, P., & Walker, P. (2006). Inclusion and autonomy in state-local partnerships participation and control in a state/local partnership in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Community Development Journal, 14, 506–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Skelcher, C., & Smith, S. R. (2014). Theorizing Hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organisations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public Administration, 93(2), 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tennant, M., O’Brien, M., & Sanders, J. (2008). The history of the non-profit sector in New Zealand, Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector, accessed from http://www.communityresearch.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/formidable/sanders4.pdf on 24 February 2016.
  32. Treasury. (2013). Contracting for social services, treasury internal discussion paper, released 13 December 2013. Accessed from http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/socialservices/pdfs/cossm-2789883.pdf on 20 August 2015

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Otago PolytechnicDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations