Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Representational Roles of Nonprofit Advocacy Organizations in the United States

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

Abstract

This research explores what roles nonprofits play in political representation by applying the concept of the representational role to nonprofits. The representational role consists of representational focus and style. Representational focus shows those whom nonprofits aim to serve: members, constituents, or the general public. Representational style denotes the ways nonprofits advocate for their focal groups: the delegation, trusteeship, and education styles. The survey and regression analysis results demonstrate that nonprofits serving their members are most likely to convey their members’ voices directly to policy makers: the delegation style. In contrast, nonprofits advocating for their constituents are likely to pursue what they independently identify as their constituents’ interests: the trusteeship style. Finally, nonprofits speaking for the general public are most likely to work toward educating the general public: the education style. These results suggest that nonprofits play different roles in political representation, depending on the types of their focal groups.

Résumé

Cette recherche explore les différents rôles que les organisations à but non lucratif jouent dans la représentation politique en leur appliquant le concept de rôle représentatif. Le rôle représentatif se décompose en deux éléments : la concentration représentative et le mode représentatif. La concentration représentative révèle l’identité de ceux que les organisations à but non lucratif visent à servir : membres, bénéficiaires, ou le public en général. Le mode représentatif reflète les façons dont les organisations à but non lucratif agissent pour le compte des groupes sur lesquels elles se concentrent: mode par délégation, par tutelle, et éducatif. Les résultats de l’enquête et de l’analyse régressive démontrent que les organisations à but non lucratif au service de leurs membres sont celles qui sont le plus susceptibles de représenter leurs membres directement auprès des gouvernants. Il s’agit là de la représentation par délégation. Par contraste, les organisations à but non lucratif qui représentent leurs bénéficiaires sont plus susceptibles de s’attacher à ce qu’elles identifient elles-mêmes comme l’intérêt de ces bénéficiaires. Il s’agit là de la représentation par tutelle. Enfin, les organisations à but non lucratif qui parlent pour l’ensemble du public sont plus susceptibles de travailler à l’éducation du public en général. Il s’agit là de la représentation éducative. Ces résultats suggèrent que les organisations à but non lucratif jouent des rôles différents dans la représentation politique, en fonction des types de groupes sur lesquels elles concentrent leur action.

Zusammenfassung

Diese Studie untersucht die Rolle von Nonprofit-Organisationen in der politischen Vertretung und wendet hierzu das Konzept der repräsentativen Rolle auf die Nonprofit-Organisationen an. Die repräsentative Rolle setzt sich aus dem repräsentativen Fokus und dem repräsentativen Stil zusammen. Der repräsentative Fokus bezieht sich auf die Personen, denen die Nonprofit-Organisationen ihre Leistungen zur Verfügung stellen: Mitglieder, Wähler oder die breite Öffentlichkeit. Der repräsentative Stil bezeichnet die Art und Weise, in der die Nonprofit-Organisationen die Interessen ihrer Zielgruppen vertreten: man spricht vom Delegations-, Treuhänderschafts- und Aufklärungsstil. Die Ergebnisse einer Umfrage- und Regressionsanalyse zeigen, dass die Nonprofit-Organisationen, die Leistungen für Mitglieder bereitstellen, die Standpunkte ihrer Mitglieder mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit direkt an die politischen Entscheidungsträger weitergeben: der Delegationsstil. Dahingegen tendieren die Wähler vertretenden Nonprofit-Organisationen dazu, die Wählerinteressen selbständig zu identifizieren und zu verfolgen: der Treuhänderschaftsstil. Nonprofit-Organisationen schließlich, die im Auftrag der breiten Öffentlichkeit fungieren, haben am ehesten die Aufklärung der breiten Öffentlichkeit zum Ziel: der Aufklärungsstil. Diese Ergebnisse weisen darauf hin, dass Nonprofit-Organisationen in Abhängigkeit von ihren Zielgruppen in der politischen Vertretung unterschiedliche Rollen übernehmen.

Resumen

La presente investigación explora qué papeles desempeñan las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro en la representación política mediante la aplicación del concepto de papel representacional a las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro. El papel representacional consiste en un foco y estilo representacional. El foco representacional muestra a aquellos a quienes tienen como objetivo servir a las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro: miembros, componentes, o el público en general. El estilo representacional denota las formas en las que las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro defienden a sus grupos locales: los estilos de delegación, de administración fiduciaria y educativo. Los resultados de la encuesta y del análisis de regresión demuestran que las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro que sirven a sus miembros son más proclives a transmitir las voces de sus miembros directamente a los responsables políticos: el estilo de delegación. En cambio, las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro que defienden a sus componentes son más proclives a perseguir lo que identifican independientemente como los intereses de sus componentes: el estilo de administración fiduciaria. Finalmente, las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro que hablan para el público en general son más proclives a trabajar hacia la educación del público en general: el estilo educativo. Estos resultados sugieren que las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro desempeñan diferentes papeles en la representación política, dependiendo de los tipos de sus grupos focales.

摘要

此次研究将代表性角色的概念用于非营利机构,探索非营利机构在政治代表性中所发挥的作用。代表性角色包括代表焦点和代表风格。代表焦点表示的是非营利机构希望服务的对象:成员、选民或公众。代表风格指的是非营利机构推广其焦点团体的方式:代表风格、理事风格和教育风格。本次调查和递归分析结果显示,服务于其成员的非营利机构最有可能直接向政策制定者传达其成员的声音,此为代表风格。相反,宣传其选民的非营利机构很可能会致力于它们独立判断的选民利益,此为理事风格。最后,为公众发声的非营利机构最有可能致力于教育大众,此为教育风格。这些结果表明,非盈利了机构在政治代表中发挥了不同的作用,具体取决于其焦点团体的类型。

ملخص

يفحص هذا البحث الأدوارالتي تلعبها المنظمات الغير ربحية في التمثيل السياسي من خلال تطبيق مفهوم الدور التمثيلي للمؤسسات الغير ربحية. يتكون الدور التمثيلي من التركيز التمثيلي والاسلوب. يظهر التركيز التمثيلي أولئك الذين تهدف المنظمات الغير ربحية لخدمتهم: الأعضاء، العناصر الأساسية، أو الجمهور العام. أسلوب التمثيل يدل على طرق تأييد المنظمات الغير ربحية للمجموعات المركزية التابعة لها: التفويض ٬ الوصاية، والأساليب التعليمية. تظهر نتائج تحليل إستطلاع الرأي والتراجع أن المنظمات الغير ربحية التي تخدم أعضائها من المرجح أن تنقل أصوات أعضائها مباشرة لصانعي السياسات: نمط التفويض. في المقابل، المنظمات الغير ربحية الدعوة لناخبيهم من المرجح أن متابعة ما تعرف بشكل مستقل عن مصالح ناخبيهم: أسلوب الوصاية. أخيرا˝، حديث المنظمات الغير ربحية لعامة الناس هو كما يبدو للعمل من أجل تثقيف الجمهور العام: النمط التعليمي. توحي هذه النتائج إلى أن المنظمات الغير ربحية تلعب أدوارا˝ مختلفة في التمثيل السياسي، بالإعتماد على أنواع من المجموعات المركزية التابعة لها.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While elections are the primary mechanisms of political representation, they have limitations as representational mechanisms. Whereas legislative elections take place in geographically based districts, many policy issues are non-territorial in nature (Urbinati and Warren 2008). Additionally, an elected official does not have formal political responsibilities to those who live outside of his or her electoral district (Rehfeld 2005). Also, because elections are majoritarian systems, marginalized groups are often under-represented (Warren 2004). Consequently, elections are ill-equipped to address non-territorial issues, to convey non-geographically constructed interests to legislators, and to represent marginalized interests.

  2. More specifically, when constituents are also members of an organization that claims to serve constituents, they may have similar characteristics to other members of the organization. In contrast, constituents who are not members of the organization may have different characteristics from member constituents but similar characteristics to the general public. Non-member constituents are frequently defined by the organization, and the organization usually claims to represent non-member constituents without their authorization. Thus, non-member constituents do not have a meaningful exit option, and their policy preferences cannot become more homogeneous over time, unlike the policy preferences of member constituents. Consequently, constituents, which include both members and non-members, may have more diverse policy preferences than members but more similar policy preferences than the general public. Additionally, unlike member constituents, non-member constituents may possess little interest in and knowledge regarding policy issues because they are simply captured by the organization without their consent. Thus, constituents, as a whole, may have higher levels of interest in and knowledge about policy issues than the general public but lower levels of interest in and knowledge about policy issues than members. Also, while member constituents can influence their organization by declining payment of dues, non-member constituents do not have such option. Hence, constituents, as a whole, may have a larger capacity to influence their organization than the general public but a smaller capacity to influence it than members.

  3. The survey results revel that among arts, cultural, and humanities organizations (38 organizations) as well as environmental and animal protection organizations (76 organizations), the majority claims to advocate primarily for the general public.

  4. The survey results show that among education institutions (76 organizations) and human service nonprofits (158 organizations), the majority claims to speak mainly for their constituents.

  5. To avoid over-control, the variables of subsector fields were deleted from the second model because the two types of constituencies (students and patients) may largely overlap with some subsector fields (higher education and hospitals).

  6. Private foundations must follow a different and rigidly restrictive set of tax rules governing their participation in the policymaking process (IRS 2012).

  7. Religious congregations and organizations with annual budgets under $25,000 were not required by the IRS to file annual tax returns at that time; therefore, it was impossible to get a representative sample of these organizations from the Form 990s.

  8. From February 2010 to August 2010, the pilot mixed-mode surveys were conducted with a 33.6 % response rate (110 responses out of 327 sample organizations). The results showed that the web and mail surveys failed in reaching many of the organizations that did not file annual tax returns during the prior 2 years and that the response rate from these organizations was much lower than the response rate from organizations that filed tax returns to the IRS.

  9. Of 1,280 nonprofits in the sample data set, nine organizations were defunct, two organizations were converted to for-profits, and one organization was a government agency, resulting in a universe of 1,268 nonprofits.

  10. Some nonprofits aim to serve constituents who consist of multiple categories, such as low income minorities. In this research, low income minorities fall into two categories: people in poverty and racial minorities.

  11. This research also analyzed the relationship between the amounts in donations that nonprofits receive and the degrees to which they adopt the representational styles. The results are similar to Figure 7. When nonprofits receive more donations, they are more likely to adopt the trusteeship style and are less likely to utilize the delegation style.

  12. This research also analyzed the relationship between the amounts in donations that nonprofits receive and the degree to which they follow their donors’ policy preferences. The result is similar to Fig. 8. There seems to be no correlation between how much nonprofits receive donations and the likelihood of nonprofits catering to their donors’ opinions.

References

  • Baumgartner, F., & Leech, B. L. (1998). Basic interests. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. M. (1977). Lobbying for the people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. M. (1999). The new liberalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. M., Arons, D. F., Bass, G. D., Carter, M. F., & Portney, K. E. (2003). Surveying nonprofits: A methods handbook. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. M., & Wilcox, C. (2009). The interest group society (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolduc, V. L. (1980). Representation and legitimacy in neighborhood organizations: A case study. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 9, 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cnaan, R. A. (1991). Neighborhood-representing organizations: How democratic are they? Social Science Review, 65, 614–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. (1967). Pluralist democracy in the United States. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1997). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eulau, H. (1962a). The legislator as representative: Representational roles. In J. C. Wahlke, et al. (Eds.), The legislative system: Explorations in legislative behavior (pp. 267–286). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eulau, H. (1962b). The legislator and his district: Areal roles. In J. C. Wahlke, et al. (Eds.), The legislative system: Explorations in legislative behavior (pp. 287–310). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eulau, H., Wahlke, J. C., Buchanan, W., & Ferguson, L. (1959). The role of the representative: Some empirical observations on the theory of Edmund Burke. American Political Science Review, 53(3), 742–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. (1999). Extreme voices: The extreme side of civic engagement. In T. Skocpol & M. Fiorina (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy (pp. 395–426). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, C., & Musso, J. A. (2006). Representation in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A conceptual Framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S. P. (1982). American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Internal Revenue Service. (2012). Private foundations. Retrieved April 5, 2012 from http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96114,00.html.

  • Mansbridge, J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. (2003). Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review, 97(4), 515–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michels, R. (2010). Political parties: A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. General Books LLC (Original work published 1915).

  • National Center for Charitable Statistics at Urban Institute. (n.d.). National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities and IRS Activity Codes. Retrieved February 14, 2011 from http://nccs.urban.org/classification/NTEE.cfm and http://nccs.urban.org/classification/irsactivity.cfm.

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford: Stanford Business Books (Original work published 1978).

  • Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rausch, J. (1994). Demosclerosis. New York: New York Times Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehfeld, A. (2005). The concept of constituency: Political representation, democratic legitimacy, and institutional design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E. E. (1975). The semisovereign people. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing (Original work published 1960).

  • Schlozman, K. L., & Tierney, J. T. (1986). Organized interests and American democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strolovitch, D. Z. (2007). Affirmative advocacy: Race, class, and gender in interest group politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Swindell, D. (2000). Issue representation in neighborhood organizations: Questing for democracy at the grassroots. Journal of Urban Affairs, 22(2), 123–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truman, D. B. (1951). The government process. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbinati, N. (2000). Representation as advocacy: A study of democratic deliberation. Political Theory, 28, 758–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbinati, N., & Warren, M. E. (2008). The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 387–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., Scholzman, K. L., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. E. (2001). Democracy and association. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. E. (2004). Informal representation: Who speaks for whom? Democracy & Society, 1, 8, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. S. (1998). Voice, trust, and memory: Marginalized groups and the failings of liberal representation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. Q. (1995). Political organizations. Princeton: Princeton University Press (Original work published 1973).

  • Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takayuki Yoshioka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yoshioka, T. Representational Roles of Nonprofit Advocacy Organizations in the United States. Voluntas 25, 1062–1090 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9385-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9385-2

Keywords

Navigation