Skip to main content

Abstract

This chapter, in keeping with the objectives of the Handbook, focuses on membership associations. However, in so doing, it offers a different perspective on several fundamental issues by utilizing an emerging theory of organizational hybridity. This reveals three interdependent sectors (third, public, and private), each of which overwhelmingly consists of organizations that share common principles. Yet each sector also contains hybrids: organizations that have also absorbed significant features of their neighboring sectors. Despite this, hybrids nevertheless retain their prime adherence to the principles, the rules of the game, of one sector. This prime sector accountability becomes particularly problematic in turbulent times; but awareness of the nature of hybridity, and ways of controlling and managing it, is essential for organizational maintenance, change, and even survival.

And what of associations? The analysis adopts a decision-making approach to the nature of ownership and membership and concludes that the core organizational principles of the association provide the raison d’être for the entire, normal, third sector.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 349.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • Aiken, Mike. 2010. “Social Enterprises: Challenges from the Field.” Pp. 153–174 in Hybrid Organisations and the Third Sector, edited by D. Billis. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacchiega, Alberto, and Carlo Borzaga. 2001. “Social Enterprises as Incentives Structures: an Economic Analysis.” Pp. 273–295 in The Emergence of Social Enterprise, edited by C. Borzaga and J. Defourny. London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Billis, David. 1977. “Differential Administrative Capacity and Organisational Development.” Human Relations 30(2):109–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billis, David. 1979. “Voluntary Organisations: Management Issues 1: Report from February 1979 Workshop.” Programme of Research and Training into Voluntary Action (PORTVAC), Brunel Institute of Organisation and Social Studies, Uxbridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Billis, David. 1984. Welfare Bureaucracies: Their Design and Change in Response to Social Problems. London: Heinemann

    Google Scholar 

  • Billis, David. ed. 2010. Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector: Challenges for Practice, Theoty and Policy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Billis, David, and Howard Glennerster. 1998. “Human Services and the Voluntary Sector: Towards a Theory of Comparative Advantage.” Journal of Social Policy 27(1): 79–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, Barry. 1987. All Organizations are Public: Bridging Public and Private Organizational Theories. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, Taco, Wim van de Donk, and Kim Putters. 2005. “Griffins or Chameleons? Hybridity as a Permanent and Inevitable Characteristic of the Third Sector.” International Journal of Public Administration 28: 749–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, Simon, and Marisa Ratto. 2003. “The Role of Incentives in the Public Sector: Issues and Evidence.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 19(2):285–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornforth, Chris, and Roger Spear. 2010. “The Governance of Hybrid Organizations.” Pp. 70–90 in Hybrid Organisations and the Third Sector, edited by D. Billis. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Czischke, Darinka. 2012. “Conceptualising Social Enterprise in Housing Organisations.” Housing Studies 27(4):418–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borzaga, Carlo, and Jacques Defourny, eds. 2001. The Emergence of Social Enterprise. London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, Jacques, and Marthe Nyssens. 2012. “The EMES Approach of Social Enterprise in a Comparative Perspective.” EMES European Research Network, Working Paper no. 12/03:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Evers, Adelbert. 1995. “Part of the Welfare Mix: The Third Sector as an Intermediate Area.” Voluntas 6(2):159–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evers, Adelber. 2005. “Mixed Welfare Systems and Hybrid Organizations: Changes in the Governance and Provision of Social Services.” International Journal of Public Administration 28:737–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evers, Adelbert and J. Laville. 2004. “Social Services by Social Enterprise: On the Possible Contributions of Hybrid Organizations and a Civil Society.” Pp. 237–255 in The Third Sector in Europe, edited by A. Evers and J. Laville. London: Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis-Paine, Angela, Nick Ockenden, and Joanna Stuart. 2010. “Volunteers in Hybrid Organizations: A Marginalised Majority?” Pp. 93–114 in Hybrid Organisations and the Third Sector, edited by D. Billis. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemming, Henry. 2011. Together: How Small Groups Achieve Big Things. London: John Murray

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, David. 1990. Organizing for Collective Action: The Political Economies of Associations. New York: Aldine de Gruyter

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppell, Jonathan. 2003. The Politics of Quasi-Government: Hybrid Organizations and the Dynamics of Bureaucratic Control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, Ralph. 1981. Voluntary Agencies in the Welfare State. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreutzer, Karin, and Urse Jager. 2011. “Volunteering Versus Managerialism: Conflict over Organizational Identity in Voluntary Associations.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40(4):634–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lan, Zhiyong, and Hal G. Rainey. 1992. “Goals, Roles, and Effectiveness in Public, Private, and Hybrid Organizations: More Evidence on Frequent Assertions about Differences.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2(1):5–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, Edmund. 1976. Culture and Communication, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Young-Joo, and Vicky M. Wilkins. 2001. “More Similarities or More Differences? Comparing Public and Nonprofit Managers’ Job Motivations.” Public Administration Review 71(1):45–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohmann, Roger. A. 1992. The Commons: New Perspectives on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

    Google Scholar 

  • Michels, Robert. 1962. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: Collier Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkoff, Debra. C., and Walter W. Powell. 2006. “Nonprofit Mission: Constancy, Responsiveness, or Deflection?” Pp. 591–611 in The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, 2nd. edition, edited by W. W. Powell and R. Steinberg. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullins, David, and Hal Pawson. 2010. “Housing Associations: Agents of Policy or Profits in Disguise?” Pp. 197–218 in Hybrid Organisations and the Third Sector, edited by D. Billis. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Musolph, Lloyd D., and Harold Seidman. 1980. “The Blurred Boundaries of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 40(2):124–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NCVO. 2012. UK Civil Society Almanac. London: National Council of Voluntary Organisations

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyssens, Marthe, Sophie Adam, and Toby Johnson. 2006. Social Enterprise: At the Crossroads of Market, Public Policies and Civil Society. London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, James L., and Hal G. Rainey. 1988. “The Public-Private Distinction in Organization Theory: A Critique and Research Strategy.” The Academy of Management Review 13(2):182–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, Victor A. 1998. Beyond the Market and State: Social Enterprises and Civil Democracy in a Welfare Society. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, Hal G., Robert W. Backoff, and Charles Levine. 1976. “Comparing Public and Private Organizations.” Public Administration Review 36 (March—April):276–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochester, Colin, and Malcolm Tony. 2010. “Faith-Based Organizations and Hybridity: A Special Case?” Pp. 114–133 in Hybrid Organisations and the Third Sector, edited by D. Billis. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Skelcher, Chris. 2005. “Public-Private Partnerships and Hybridity.” Pp. 347–370 in The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, edited by E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, and C. Pollitt. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, David H. 1991. “Four Sectors or Five? Retaining the Member-Benefit Sector.” Nonprofit and Voluntaty Sector Quarterly 20:137–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, David H. 1997. “The Rest of the Nonprofit Sector: Grassroots Associations as the Dark Matter Ignored in Prevailing ‘Flat Earth’ Maps of the Sector.” Nonprofit and Voluntaty Sector Quarterly 26(2):114–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, David H. 2000. Grassroots Associations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, David H. 2016. “A Survey of Voluntaristics: Research on the Growth of the Global, Interdisciplinary, Socio-Behavioral Science Field and Emergent Inter-Discipline.” Voluntaristics Review: Brill Research Perspectives 1(2):1–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Justin D., Colin Rochester, and Rodney Hedley. 1995. An Introduction to the Voluntaty Sector. London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Steven R. 2010. “Hybridization and Nonprofit Organizations: The Governance Challenge.” Policy and Society 29(3):219–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, Patricia H., and William Ocasio. [2008] 2013. “Institutional Logics.” Pp. 99–129 in The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, edited by R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby. London: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Til, Jon. 1988. Mapping the Third Sector: Voluntarism in a Changing Social Economy. New York: The Foundation Center

    Google Scholar 

  • Wamsley, Gary L. and Mayer N. Zald. 1976. The Political Economy of Public Organisations. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, Mark E. 2001. Democracy and Association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max, and Talcott Parsons, eds. [1947] 1964. The Theoty of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Free Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, Burton A. 1998. To Profit or Not to Profit: The Commercial Transformation of the Nonprofit Sector. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Billis, D. (2016). Hybrid Associations and Blurred Sector Boundaries. In: The Palgrave Handbook of Volunteering, Civic Participation, and Nonprofit Associations. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-26317-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-26317-9_9

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-26316-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-26317-9

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics