Advertisement

Constituting the Third Sector: Processes of Decontestation and Contention Under the UK Labour Governments in England

  • Pete AlcockEmail author
  • Jeremy Kendall
Original Paper

Abstract

Discussion about, and analysis of, the question of definition and the third sector and civil society more generally has developed to a significant degree in recent years. This paper can be located in a new phase of recent research, which seeks to attend to the historical, cultural and politically contingent nature of this domain’s boundaries. The process of constituting the sector is discussed as the product of new discourses of decontestation and contention within third sector policy and practice. It takes England as a case study, drawing on evidence and argument assembled by the authors in recent and ongoing research efforts, variously conducted with the support of the Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC) and the European Commission. The paper proceeds by discussing relevant literature; describing recent patterns of policy institutionalisation; and then tries to draw out more analytically how this process of constitution has been associated not so much with a stable and consistent set of definitions and constructs, but rather with unstable and changing formulations, which reflect the playing out of a dual process of decontestation and contention.

Keywords

Third sector England Definition Contestation Ideology 

Résumé

Ces dernières années, les discussions et l’analyse portant sur la question de la définition du tiers-secteur et plus généralement de la société civile se sont développées de manière importante. Cet article aborde une nouvelle phase des études récentes, qui cherche à appréhender la contingence historique, culturelle et politique des frontières de ce domaine. Le processus de constitution de ce secteur est envisagé comme étant le produit de nouveaux discours de décontestation et des controverses au sein des politiques et des pratiques du tiers-secteur. L’article prend l’Angleterre comme cas d’étude, en s’appuyant sur les démonstrations et les arguments développés par les auteurs des diverses études récentes et en cours, menées avec le soutien du Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC) et de la Commission Européenne. Cet article poursuit en commentant la littérature idoine, décrivant les modèles récents d’institutionnalisation des politiques, puis tente de déduire plus analytiquement comment ce processus de constitution a moins été associé à un ensemble stable et cohérent de définitions et de constructions qu’à des formulations instables et changeantes, qui reflètent l’existence d’un double processus de décontestation et de controverse.

Zusammenfassung

Die Diskussion und Analyse der Definitionsfrage und des Dritten Sektors und der Bürgergesellschaft im Allgemeinen haben in den vergangenen Jahren erheblich zugenommen. Dieser Beitrag gehört zu einer neuen Phase jüngster Forschungen, die den historischen, kulturellen und politisch bedingten Merkmalen der Grenzen dieses Bereichs Beachtung schenken. Der Prozess der Festlegung des Sektors wird als das Produkt neuer Diskurse über Auseinandersetzungen und die Ausräumung von Streitfragen innerhalb der befolgten Grundsätze und Praktiken des Dritten Sektors diskutiert. England dient hierbei als Fallstudie, wobei sich die Abhandlung auf die Beweise und Argumente von Autoren jüngster, andauernder, diverser und mit Unterstützung des Forschungszentrums des Dritten Sektors und der Europäischen Kommission durchgeführten Studienbemühungen stützt. Der Beitrag diskutiert des Weiteren die relevante Literatur, beschreibt neueste Muster der Grundsatzinstitutionalisierung und versucht sodann, auf analytischere Weise darzulegen, wie dieser Festlegungsprozess nicht so sehr mit einer beständigen und einheitlichen Sammlung von Definitionen und Konstruktionen assoziiert wird, sondern vielmehr mit unbeständigen und wechselnden Formulierungen, die die Umsetzung eines dualen Prozesses von Auseinandersetzungen und der Ausräumung von Streitfragen wiederspiegeln.

Resumen

Los debates y análisis sobre la cuestión de definición, el sector terciario y la sociedad civil en general han proliferado hasta un grado importante en los últimos años. Este trabajo puede situarse en una nueva fase de investigación reciente, que busca atender a la naturaleza histórica, cultural y políticamente contingente de los límites de este dominio. En él se debate el proceso de constituir el sector como producto de nuevos discursos de cuestionamiento y discusión en la política y práctica del tercer sector. Se toma Inglaterra como estudio de caso, basándose en la evidencia y en el argumento defendido por los autores en trabajos de investigación recientes y continuados, varios de ellos realizados con el apoyo del Centro de Investigación del Sector Terciario (TSRC) y de la Comisión Europea. El trabajo se estructura en torno al análisis de la literatura relevante; se describen los patrones frecuentes de la institucionalización política y después se intenta averiguar más analíticamente cómo se asocia este proceso de constitución, no tanto con una serie coherente y estable de definiciones e interpretaciones, sino más bien con formulaciones inestables y cambiantes que reflejan la realización de un proceso dual de cuestionamiento y discusión.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Office for Civil Society (OCS) and the Barrow Cadbury UK Trust is gratefully acknowledged. The work was part of the programme of the joint ESRC, OCS, Barrow Cadbury Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC).

References

  1. 6 P, & Leat, D. (1997). Inventing the British Voluntary Sector by Committee: From Wolfenden to Deakin. Non-Profit Studies, 1(2), 33–47.Google Scholar
  2. Alcock, P. (2010a). A strategic unity: Defining the third sector in the UK. Voluntary Sector Review, 1(1), 5–24.Google Scholar
  3. Alcock, P. (2010b). Devolution or divergence? Third sector policy across the UK since 2000. In G. Lodge & K. Schmuecker (Eds.), Devolution in practice: Public policy difference within the UK. London: IPPR.Google Scholar
  4. Alcock, P. (2010c). Building the big society: A new policy environment for the third sector in England. Voluntary Sector Review, 1(3), 379–389.Google Scholar
  5. Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO). (2003). Replacing the state. London: ACEVO.Google Scholar
  6. Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO). (2004). Communities in control. London: ACEVO.Google Scholar
  7. Billis, D. (2010). Towards a theory of hybrid organisations. In D. Billis (Ed.), Hybrid organisations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Blair, T. (1999). Speech to national council for voluntary organisations. Annual Conference, February 1999.Google Scholar
  9. Bode, I., Evers, A., & Schulz, A. (2006). Work integration social enterprises in Europe: Can hybridization be sustainable? In M. Nyssens, S. Adams, & T. Johnson (Eds.), Social enterprise: At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Brandsen, T., van der 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), 749–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carmel, E., & Harlock, J. (2008). Instituting the ‘third sector’ as a governable terrain: Partnership, procurement and performance in the UK. Policy and Politics, 36(2), 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carnegie UK Trust. (2009). Making good society: Final report of the commission of inquiry into the future of civil society in the UK and Ireland, Carnegie UK Trust, Dunfermline and London.Google Scholar
  13. Casey, J., Dalton, B., Melville, R., & Onyx, J. (2010). Strengthening government-nonprofit relations: International experiences with compacts. Voluntary Sector Review, 1(1), 59–76.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, J., Kane, D., Wilding, K., & Wilton, J. (2010). The UK Civil Society Almanac 2010. London: National Council for Voluntary Organisations.Google Scholar
  15. Community Organising Foundation. (2007). Reweaving the fabric of society: Position statement of the citizens organising foundation, London.Google Scholar
  16. Craig, G., Taylor, M., & Parkes, T. (2004). Protest or partnership? The voluntary and community sectors in the policy process. Social Policy and Administration, 38(3), 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Craig, G., Taylor, M., Wilkinson, M., & Monro, S. (2002). Contract or trust? The role of compacts in local governance. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  18. Deakin, N. (2001). In search of civil society. Palgrave: Basingstoke.Google Scholar
  19. Deakin Commission. (1996). Meeting the challenge of change: Voluntary action into the 21st century. London: Report of the Commission on the Future of the Voluntary Sector in England, NCVO.Google Scholar
  20. Dekker, P., & Van den Broek, A. (1998). Civil society in comparative perspective: Involvement in voluntary associations in North America and Western Europe. Voluntas, 9(1), 11–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edwards, M. (2009). Civil society (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Etherington, S. (2002). Delivery: The role of the voluntary sector. Public Management and Policy Association Lecture, October 22, 2002.Google Scholar
  23. Evers, A. (1995). Part of the welfare mix: The third sector as an intermediate area between market, economy, state and community. Voluntas, 6(2), 159–182.Google Scholar
  24. Evers, A., & Laville, J.-L. (Eds.). (2004). The third sector in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  25. Freeden, M. (2003). Ideology: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Grotz, J. (2009). The sector needs to sort itself out: A plea for voluntary action in context. Paper presented to NCVO/VSSN Annual Research Conference, Warwick University.Google Scholar
  27. Halfpenny, P., & Reid, M. (2002). Research on the voluntary sector: An overview. Policy and Politics, 30(4), 533–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. HM Treasury. (2002). The role of the voluntary and community sector in service delivery: A cross cutting review. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
  29. HM Treasury. (2004). Cross cutting review: Follow-up of the role of the third sector in service delivery. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
  30. HM Treasury. (2005). Exploring the role of the third sector in public service delivery and reform. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
  31. HM Treasury and Cabinet Office. (2007). The future role of the third sector in social and economic regeneration: Final report, Cm. 7189. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  32. Home Office. (1998). Compact on relations between government and the voluntary and community sector in England, Cm. 4100. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  33. Home Office. (2003). Building civil renewal: Government support for community capacity building and proposals for change. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  34. Home Office. (2004). Firm foundations: The government’s framework for community capacity building. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  35. Hood, C. (1999). The art of the state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. James, E. (1987). The nonprofit sector in comparative perspective. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kendall, J. (2003). The voluntary sector: Comparative perspectives in the UK. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Kendall, J. (Ed.). (2009a). Handbook of third sector policy in Europe: Multi-level processes and organised civil society. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  39. Kendall, J. (2009b). The third sector and the policy process in the UK: Ingredients in a hyperactive horizontal policy environment. In J. Kendall (Ed.), Handbook of third sector policy in Europe: Multi-level processes and organised civil society. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  40. Kendall, J. (2010a). Losing political innocence? Finding a place for ideology in understanding the development of recent English third sector policy. Third Sector Research Centre, Working Paper 13.Google Scholar
  41. Kendall, J. (2010b). Bringing ideology back in: The erosion of political innocence in English third sector policy. Journal of Political Ideologies, 15(3), 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kendall, J., & Knapp, M. (1996). The voluntary sector in the UK. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Knight, B. (1994). Voluntary action. Ovingham: Centris.Google Scholar
  44. Labour Party. (1997). Building the future together: Labour’s policies for partnership between the government and the voluntary sector. London: The Labour Party.Google Scholar
  45. Lewis, D. (2008). Using life histories in social policy research: The case of third sector/public sector boundary crossing. Journal of Social Policy, 37(4), 559–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lewis, J. (1999). Reviewing the relationship between the voluntary sector and the state in Britain in the 1990s. Voluntas, 10(3), 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lewis, J. (2005). New labour’s approach to the voluntary sector: Independence and the meaning of partnership. Social Policy and Society, 4(2), 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McCabe, A., Phillimore, J., & Mayblin, L. (2010). Below the radar: A summary review of the literature. TSRC Working Paper 29.Google Scholar
  49. Muukkonen, M. (2009). Framing the field: Civil society and related concepts. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 684–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paton, R., (2009). (Towards) a sedimentary theory of the Third Sector. Paper presented to NCVO/VSSN Annual Research Conference, Warwick University.Google Scholar
  51. Peattie, K., & Morley, A. (2008). Social enterprises: Diversity and dynamics contexts and contributions. London: Social Enterprise Coalition and Economic and Social Research Council.Google Scholar
  52. Salamon, L., & Anheier, H. (1997). Defining the nonprofit sector: A cross-national analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Salamon, L., List, R., Toepler, S., Sokolowski, S., & Associates. (Eds.). (1999). Global civil society: Dimensions of the non-profit sector. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Centre for Civil Society Studies.Google Scholar
  54. Sullivan, H., & Skelcher, C. (2002). Working across boundaries: Collaboration in public services. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. Taylor, M. (2004). The welfare mix in the United Kingdom. In A. Evers & J.-L. Laville (Eds.), The third sector in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  56. Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  57. Weisbrod, B. A. (1975). Towards a theory of the nonprofit sector. In E. Phelps (Ed.), Altruism, morality and economic theory. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Wilson, J. Q. (1995). Political organizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Wolfenden Committee. (1978). The future of voluntary organisations. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  60. Zimmeck, M. (2010). The compact 10 years on: Government’s approach to partnership with the voluntary and community sector in England. Voluntary Sector Review, 1, 125–133.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.University of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations