Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Marketisation of Charities in England and Wales

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

Abstract

Much has been written about the reasons for and impact of marketisation on charities, their clients, and wider civil society. A central component of the marketisation thesis is that charities are substituting grants and donations with commercial revenue. However, there is no consensus in the existing literature as to whether the two sources of revenue are substitutes or complementary. This paper shows that between 2003 and 2007 there was a significant increase in the proportion of overall revenue attracted from commercial sources by charities in England and Wales. Using our preferred generalised method of moments estimation model we show that the annual persistence of commercial revenue overtime was 44 %. In particular, a +10 % change in grants and donations was associated with a −3.1 % change in commercial revenue.

Résumé

Beaucoup a été écrit sur les motifs et l’impact de la marchandisation sur les organisations caritatives, leurs clients et la société civile plus large. Une composante centrale de la thèse portant sur la marchandisation est que les organisations caritatives substituent les subventions et dons par un revenu commercial. Il n’existe pas toutefois de consensus dans les publications actuelles quant au fait de savoir si les deux sources de revenus se substituent l’une à l’autre ou se révèlent complémentaires. Cet article indique qu’entre 2003 et 2007, une augmentation significative s’est produite en Angleterre et au Pays de Galles quant à la part du revenu global des organisations caritatives, issue de sources commerciales. Par l’utilisation de notre modèle privilégié d’estimation dit Méthode généralisée des moments (GMM - Generalised Method of moments), nous montrons que la persistance annuelle du revenu commercial au cours du temps était de 44 %. En particulier, une variation de +10 % quant aux subventions et dons s’est associée à une variation de -3,1 % en termes de revenu commercial. Ce dernier est donc un substitut inextensible quant aux subventions et dons.

Zusammenfassung

In der Literatur findet zahlreiche viele Ausführungen zu den Gründen für eine Vermarktlichung von gemeinnützigen Organisationen und deren Auswirkungen auf diese Organisationen, ihre Leistungsempfänger und im Weiteren die Bürgergesellschaft. Ein wichtiger Bestandteil der Vermarktlichungsthese ist, dass die gemeinnützigen Organisationen Subventionen und Spenden durch kommerzielle Einnahmen ersetzen. Allerdings herrscht in der Literatur keine Einigkeit darüber, ob sich die beiden Einnahmequellen gegenseitig ersetzen oder ergänzen. Dieser Beitrag demonstriert, dass der Anteil der Gesamteinnahmen aus kommerziellen Quellen in den gemeinnützigen Organisationen in England und Wales zwischen 2003 und 2007 deutlich angestiegen ist. Unter Verwendung unseres bevorzugten Bewertungsmodells beruhend auf der verallgemeinerten Momentmethode zeigen wir, dass die jährliche Persistenz der kommerziellen Einnahmen im Laufe der Zeit 44 % betrug. Im Einzelnen stand ein 10 %-iger Anstieg von Zuwendungen und Spenden in Verbindung mit einem 3,1 %-igen Rückgang der kommerziellen Einnahmen. Folglich handelt es sich bei den kommerziellen Einnahmen um einen inflexiblen Ersatz für Subventionen und Spenden.

Resumen

Se ha escrito mucho sobre los motivos y el impacto de la comercialización en las organizaciones benéficas, sus clientes, y la sociedad civil en general. Un componente central de la tesis de la comercialización es que las organizaciones benéficas están sustituyendo las subvenciones y donaciones con ingresos comerciales. Sin embargo, no existe consenso en el material publicado existente sobre si las dos fuentes de ingresos se sustituyen o se complementan. El presente documento muestra que entre 2003 y 2007, hubo un aumento significativo de la proporción de ingresos globales obtenidos a partir de fuentes comerciales por parte de las organizaciones benéficas en Inglaterra y Gales. Utilizando nuestro modelo de estimación preferido Método Generalizado de Momentos (GMM, del inglés Generalised Methos of Moments), mostramos que la persistencia anual de ingresos comerciales a lo largo del tiempo fue del 44 %. En particular, un cambio de más del 10 % en subvenciones y donaciones se asoció a un cambio de - 3,1 % en ingresos comerciales. Por lo tanto, los ingresos comerciales son un sustituto inelástico de las subvenciones y las donaciones.

摘要

已经有许多有关市场化的原因以及它对慈善、其客户和更加广泛民间团体的影响。市场化理论的核心部分是慈善组织正以商业收入替换拨款和捐助。然而,现有文献对两个收入来源是否是替代或补充还没有一致意见。本文显示,在2003到2007年之间,英格兰和威尔士的慈善组织从商业来源获得资金占全部收入的比例极大增加。使用首选广义矩量法 (GMM) 估计模型,我们发现商业收入随时间变化的年存留是44 %。尤其是, + 10 %的拨款和捐助变化与-3.1 %的商业收入变化关联。由此,商业收入是拨款和捐助的非弹性替代品。.

ملخص

لقد تم كتابة الكثير عن أسباب وتأثير التحول إلى إقتصاد السوق في المؤسسات الخيرية وعملائها، والمجتمع المدني على نطاق أوسع. عنصرا˝ رئيسيا˝ من رسالة علمية للتحول إلى إقتصاد السوق هو أن الجمعيات الخيرية تستبدل المنح والهبات بإيرادات تجارية. مع ذلك لا يوجد إجماع في الأدبيات الموجودة حول ما إذا كان مصدرين من الإيرادات بدائل أو تكميلي. يوضح هذا البحث أن الفترة بين عامي 2003 و 2007 كانت هناك زيادة كبيرة في نسبة الإيرادات العامة تم جذبها من مصادر تجارية من قبل الجمعيات الخيرية في إنجلترا وويلز. بإستخدام طريقة مفضلة لدينا وهي تعميم اللحظات (GMM)نموذج تقدير يبين لنا أن الإستمرار السنوي للإيرادات التجارية مع مرور الوقت كان 44٪. على وجه الخصوص، كان مرتبطابتغيير + 10٪ في المنح والهبات مع تغيير -3.1٪ في الإيرادات التجارية. بالتالي الإيرادات التجارية هي بديل غير مرن للهبات والتبرعات.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We dropped the year 2008 from the final model as there were changes in the way Guidestar UK classified commercial revenue leading to a discontinuity with previous data.

  2. Investment income is not explored further in this paper, as it makes up a relatively small proportion of charities aggregate income.

  3. Which is freely available at http://data.ncvo-vol.org.uk/?p=75.

  4. This has since changed to £250,000.

  5. The decline in mean revenues (across all categories) in 2006 is a consequence of a larger number of organisations being included in our sample in this year. While this affects the mean values it has no noticeable effect on the trend showing a gradual increase in the proportion of commercial revenue.

  6. Data processing was carried out using Stata 11, and GMM estimations were conducted using the routine xtabond2; see Roodman (2006) for details.

References

  • Adaman, F., & Madra, Y. (2002). Theorising the ‘third sphere’: A critique of the persistence of the ‘economistic fallacy’. Journal of Economic Issues, 36(4), 1045–1078.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, S. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: a guide to microdata methods and practice. London: Cemmap Working Papers, CWP09/02.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabinet Office. (2011). Giving White Paper. London: HM Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmel, E., & Harlock, J. (2008). Instituting the ‘third sector’ as a governable terrain: Partnership, performance and procurement in the UK. Policy and Politics, 36(2), 155–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, D., & Stater, K. (2009). Revenue diversification in nonprofit organizations: Does it lead to financial stability? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 947–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulier-Grice, J., Davies, A., Patrick, R., & Norman, W. (2013). Social innovation practices and trends part II. Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charity Commission. (2005). The charities SORP 2005. London: The Charity Commission 002E.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, D., Geyne Rajme, F., & Mohan, J. (2010). How dependent is the third sector on public sector funding?. Southampton: Third Sector Research Centre Working Paper 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 411–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, A., & Simon, J. (2013). The value and role of citizen engagement in social innovation. Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J. G. (2007). Taking social entrepreneurship seriously. Society, 44(3), 24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2001). Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey, P., & Steyaert, C. (2010). The politics of narrating social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 4(1), 85–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eikenberry, A. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organisations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 582–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eikenberry, A., & Kluvert, J. (2004). The marketisation of the nonprofit sector: civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, R. L., Wilsjer, A. L., & Young, D. R. (2007). Exploring the revenue mix of nonprofit organisations: Does it relate to publicness? Atlanta: Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Working Paper 07-32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, W., & Bradach, J. (2005). Should nonprofits seek profits? Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 92–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froelich, K. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organisations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 246–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, B. (2006). Charity for profit? Exploring factors associated with the commercialisation of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halfpenny, P., & Reid, M. (2002). Research on the voluntary sector: An overview. Policy and Politics, 30(4), 533–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, L. (1982). Large sample properties of generalised method of moments estimators. Econometrica, 50, 1029–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, H. (1987). Economic theories of nonprofit organisation. In W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. Yale: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, H., & Kitson, M. (2007). The Third Way and the third sector: New Labour’s economic policy and the social economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(6), 973–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlin, J., & Pollak, T. (2011). Nonprofit commercial revenue: A replacement for declining government grants and contributions? American Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 686–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingma, B. R. (1995). Do profits crowd out donations, or vice versa? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeRoux, K. (2005). What drives nonprofit entrepreneurship? A look at budget trends of metro Detroit social service agencies. American Review of Public Administration, 35(4), 350–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. (2010). The use of charitable status as a basis for regulation of nonprofit accounting. Voluntary Sector Review, 1(2), 209–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO). (2010). UK Civil Society Almanac. London: NCVO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J. (2007). Re-thinking ‘the public’ in troubled times: Unsettling state, nation and the liberal public sphere. Public Policy and Administration, 22(1), 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickell, S. (1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica, 49, 1417–1426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okten, C., & Weisbrod, B. A. (2000). Determinants of donations in private nonprofit markets. Journal of Public Economics, 75(2), 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roodman, D. (2006). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to “Difference” and “System” GMM in Stata. Centre for Global Development Working Paper Number 103.

  • Salamon, L. (1993). The marketisation of welfare: Changing nonprofit and for-profit roles in the American welfare state. Social Service Review, 67(1), 16–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. (1997). Holding the centre: America’s nonprofit sector at a crossroads. New York: Nathan Cummings Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L., & Anheier, H. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargan, J. D. (1958). The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables. Econometrica, 26(3), 393–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal, L. M., & Weisbrod, B. A. (1998). Interdependence of donative and commercial revenues. In A. B. Weisbrod (Ed.), To profit or not to profit? (pp. 105–127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Teasdale, S. (2010). Models of social enterprise in the homelessness field. Social Enterprise Journal, 6(1), 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teasdale, S., Alcock, P., & Smith, G. (2012). Legislating for the big society: The case of the public services (social value) bill. Public Money and Management, 32(3), 201–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teasdale, S., Kerlin, J., Young, D., & In-Soh, J. (2013). Oil and water rarely mix: Exploring the relative stability of non-profit revenue mixes over time. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 69–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinkelman, D., & Neely, D. G. (2011). Research note: Some econometric issues in studying nonprofit revenue interactions using NCCS data. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(4), 751–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsakalotos, E. (2005). Homo economicus and the reconstruction of political economy: Six theses on the role of values in economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29, 893–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. (1975). Toward a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sector in a three-sector economy. In E. Phelps (Ed.), Altruism, morality and economic theory. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windmeijer, F. (2005). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics, 126, 25–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yetman, M., & Yetman, R. (2003). The effect of nonprofits’ taxable activities on the supply of private donations. National Tax Journal, 56(1), 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yetman, M., Yetman, R., & Badertscher, B. (2009). Calibrating the reliability of publicly available nonprofit taxable activity disclosures: Comparing IRS 990 and IRS 990-T data. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(1), 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK

    Stephen McKay

  2. Third Sector Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Domenico Moro

  3. Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Level 3, Buchanan House, 58 Port Dundas Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK

    Simon Teasdale

  4. Third Sector Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    David Clifford

Authors
  1. Stephen McKay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Domenico Moro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon Teasdale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Clifford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Teasdale.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McKay, S., Moro, D., Teasdale, S. et al. The Marketisation of Charities in England and Wales. Voluntas 26, 336–354 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9417-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9417-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation