Advertisement

Having It Both Ways: Managing Contested Market Money in a Civil Society Organization

  • Ola Segnestam Larsson
  • Susanna Alexius
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter deals with the general issue of how hybridity in general and contested money in particular can be managed by hybrid organizations. The authors draw on a longitudinal case study of IOGT-NTO, a Swedish temperance association that raises most of its income through its own market-based lottery. Weighing the benefits of controlling the lottery against the legitimacy risks of being responsible for its operations (in light of risks of gambling addition), IOGT-NTO portrays the lottery as an actor, an organization of its own. However, in reality, the lottery is a department in the association. Following this strategy, the organization seeks to have it both ways.

Keywords

Contestation Market money Complete organizations Civil society organizations Degrees of organization 

References

  1. Alexius, S. 2014. Ansvar och marknader: vem tar ansvar för spelmarknadens baksida? Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2017. Assigning Responsibility for Gambling-Related Harm: Scrutinizing Processes of Direct and Indirect Responsibilization of Gamblers in Sweden. Addiction Research and Theory.  https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2017.1321739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexius, S., and O. Segnestam Larsson. 2016. The Social Meaning of Money: Formal and Informal Earmarking. Paper presented at the International Society of Third Sector Researchers.Google Scholar
  4. Billis, D., ed. 2010. Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Brandsen, T., W. Van de Donk, and K. Putters. 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
  6. Brunsson, N. 2006. Mechanisms of Hope. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brunsson, N., and K. Sahlin-Andersson. 2000. Constructing Organizations: The Example of Public Sector Reform. Organization Studies 21 (4): 721–746.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840600214003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evers, A. 2005. Mixed Welfare Systems and Hybrid Organizations: Changes in the Governance and Provision of Social Services. International Journal of Public Administration 28 (9–10): 737–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ezzy, D. 2013. Qualitative Analysis. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jäger, U., and A. Schröer. 2014. Integrated Organizational Identity: A Definition of Hybrid Organizations and a Research Agenda. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 25 (5): 1281–1306.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9386-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Meyer, J.W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Smith, S.R. 2014. Hybridity and Nonprofit Organizations: The Research Agenda. American Behavioral Scientist 58 (11): 1494–1508.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214534675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ScoreStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University CollegeStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Stockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations