Transaction Cost Perspectives on Cooperation: A Study of Hybrids Through Foundations Lobbying in the EU
- 196 Downloads
This article uses a transaction cost economics (TCE) approach to analyze cooperation between nonprofits, governments and firms, namely, hybrids. This is a different concept from hybrids in the nonprofit management literature. In TCE, hybrids are organizational modes of transactions where the parties contribute limited resources, for which they establish modes of coordination. This article explains how the concept of hybrids can be applied to research on nonprofits, illustrating this with an analysis of foundations lobbying in the European Union (EU). As regulatory transactions are organized through hybrids, this article proposes that foundations are likely to participate in EU policymaking for regulatory transactions, which are too costly to solve individually. The results show that foundations participate in different EU regulatory environments; significantly, this includes environments with high coordination costs.
KeywordsEuropean Union Philanthropic foundations Transaction costs
I thank Sara Stühlinger for her research assistance, Heidy Maldonado for her helpful comments, and Jeffrey Brudney and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable guidance in the development of this paper. Early versions of this manuscript benefited from the comments of the participants of the CEPS Interne Kolloquien May 2016, the 12th ISTR World Conference, and the ECPR General Conference 2016.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of interest
The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.
- Anheier, H. K., & Daly, S. (2007). Politics of foundations: A comparative analysis. Florence: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Anheier, H. K., & Leat, D. (2013). Philanthropic foundations: What rationales? Social Research: An International Quarterly, 80(2), 449–472.Google Scholar
- Arrow, K. (1969). The organization of economic activity: Issues pertinent to the choice of market versus nonmarket allocation. In U.S. Joint Economic Committee, 91st Congress, 1st Session, The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditure: The PPB System, 2, 59–73, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
- Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Commons, J. (1950). The economics of collective action. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
- EC. (2001). European governance: A white paper (Vol. 428). Brussels: COM.Google Scholar
- EC. (2002). Towards a culture of consultation and dialogue—General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission. Brussels: Communication From the President to the Commission.Google Scholar
- EC. (2010). Framework for commission expert groups: Horizontal rules and public register. Brussels: Communication from the President to the Commission.Google Scholar
- EC. (2015). Commission implementing decision of 30.6.2015, 30.6.2015 COM 2015, 4574 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
- EP. (1999). Rules governing the establishment of intergroups. Brussels: EP.Google Scholar
- EP. (2015). Commission and Parliament implement new rules on transparency register, Press Release, Brussels, Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-3740_en.htm.
- EU Transparency Register. (2017). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/statistics.do?locale=en&action=prepareView.
- Ferris, J. (Ed.). (2009). Foundations and public policy. Leveraging philanthropic dollars, knowledge, and networks for greater impact. New York: Foundation Center.Google Scholar
- Fondation de France, & CerPhi. (2015). An overview of philanthropy in Europe. Paris: Observatoire de la Fondation de France/CerPhi, Bain & Company.Google Scholar
- Genovesi, P., & Shine, C. (2004). European strategy on invasive alien species. Nature and environment (p. 137). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
- Gouwenberg, B. M., van der Jagt, C. E., & Schuyt, T. (2007). Netherlands. In H. K. Anheier & S. Daly (Eds.), The politics of foundations. A comparative analysis (pp. 239–255). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- James, K. (2016). More than rehabilitation: a conversation with a free-ranging wildlife veterinarian. DVM360 Magazine, Retrieved from http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/more-rehabilitation-conversation-with-free-ranging-wildlife-veterinarian.
- Kettunen, M., Genovesi, P., Gollasch, S., Pagad, S., Starfinger, U., ten Brink, P., et al. (2008). Technical support to EU strategy on invasive species (IAS)—Assessment of the impacts of IAS in Europe and the EU (final module report for the European Commission). Brussels: Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP).Google Scholar
- Ménard, C. (2010). Hybrid organizations. In P. Klein & M. Sykuta (Eds.), The Elgar companion to transaction costs economics (pp. 176–184). Cheltenham: Edward Elga.Google Scholar
- Moe, T. M. (1995). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In O. E. Williamson (Ed.), Organization theory. From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond (pp. 116–153). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Moe, T. M. (2011). Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
- Pirotte, G. (2007). Belgium. In H. K. Anheier & S. Daly (Eds.), The politics of foundations. A comparative analysis (pp. 85–95). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Prewitt, K. (2006). American foundations: What justifies their unique privileges and powers. In K. S. Prewitt, M. Dogan, S. Heydemann, & S. Toepler (Eds.), The Legitimacy of philanthropic foundations: United States and European perspectives (pp. 27–46). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- Roelofs, J. (2003). Foundations and public policy. The mask of pluralism. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016–20717 Edition, Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/zoologists-and-wildlife-biologists.htm.
- Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanisms of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Wilson, J. Q. (1974). The politics of regulation. In J. McKie (Ed.), Social responsibility and the business predicament (pp. 135–168). Washington: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
- Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy. What Government agencies do and why they do it. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Young, D., & Faulk, L. (2010). Franchises and federations: The economics of multi-site nonprofit organizations. In B. Seaman & D. Young (Eds.), Handbook of research on nonprofit economics and management (pp. 220–237). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar