Abstract
This paper challenges widespread philosophical and conceptual theories of the nonprofit sector and the state that question, or leave little conceptual room for, extensive cooperation between nonprofit organizations and government. To do so, the paper calls attention to shortcomings in the prevailing market failure/government failure theories of the nonprofit sector that have obscured recognition of key features of the sector that make cooperation with the state a natural and necessary path to effectiveness, and to certain inherent limitations of the state that make engagement of nonprofits a natural and useful path to state effectiveness. The article then outlines a set of conditions that must be met by both nonprofits and governments for this partnership to achieve the promise of which it is capable.
Résumé
Cet article conteste les théories philosophiques et conceptuelles généralisées au sujet du secteur à but non lucratif et de l’État, qui interrogent la profonde coopération entre le gouvernement et les organisations à but non lucratif, ou qui lui laissent peu de liberté conceptuelle. Pour ce faire, l’article attire l’attention sur les lacunes des théories de défaillance du marché dominant ou de défaillance du gouvernement au sujet du secteur à but non lucratif qui ont fait perdre de vue l’appréciation des principales caractéristiques du secteur, qui font de la coopération avec l’État une démarche naturelle et nécessaire pour l’efficacité; et sur certaines limites inhérentes à l’État qui font de l’engagement des organisations à but non lucratif une démarche naturelle et utile pour l’efficacité de l’État. L’article décrit ensuite un ensemble de conditions qui doivent être remplies par les organisations à but non lucratif et les gouvernements pour que ce partenariat réalise les promesses dont il est capable.
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Beitrag hinterfragt weit verbreitete philosophische und konzeptuelle Theorien des gemeinnüztigen Sektors und des Staates, die die umfangreiche Zusammenarbeit zwischen gemeinnützigen Organisationen und der Regierung in Frage stellen oder wenig konzeptuellen Spielraum zulassen. Dazu macht die Abhandlung auf Schwachstellen in den vorherrschenden Theorien des Marktversagens und Regierungsversagens des gemeinnützigen Sektors aufmerksam, die die Anerkennung wesentlicher Merkmale des Sektors verhindert haben, welche eine Zusammenarbeit mit dem Staat zu einem natürlichen und notwendigen Pfad zur Effektivität machen, sowie auf gewisse einhergehende Einschränkungen des Staates, die das Engagement der gemeinnützigen Organisationen einen natürlichen und nützlichen Pfad zur Staatseffektivität machen. Der Beitrag stellt sodann eine Reihe von Bedingungen heraus, die sowohl von den gemeinnützigen Organisationen als auch den Regierungen erfüllt werden müssen, damit ihre Partnerschaft ihr Versprechen halten kann.
Resumen
El presente documento cuestiona las teorías conceptuales y filosóficas generalizadas del sector de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro y el estado que cuestionan, o dejan poco espacio conceptual, a la extensa cooperación entre las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro y el gobierno. Para hacerlo, el presente documento llama la atención sobre las limitaciones de las teorías predominantes sobre los fallos del gobierno/fallos del mercado del sector de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro que han oscurecido el reconocimiento de las características claves del sector que hacen de la cooperación con el estado una vía natural y necesaria para la efectividad; y sobre determinadas limitaciones inherentes del estado que hacen del compromiso de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro una vía natural y útil para la efectividad del estado. El artículo esboza después un conjunto de condiciones que deben ser satisfechas tanto por las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro como por los gobiernos para que esta asociación alcance la promesa de la que es capaz.
本文对广为流传的、有关非盈利领域和国家的哲学理论和概念理论提出了挑战,这些理论对非盈利机构和政府之间的广泛的合作提出了质疑或几乎没有为这种合作留下什么概念空间。 为了挑战这些理论, 文章呼吁大家注意 现在流行的有关非盈利领域的 市场失败/政府失败理论的缺点 , 这些理论忽略了非盈利领域的一些特点,而这些特点正是让其和国家进行合作成为实现效用的自然的必要的途径,文章也呼吁大家注意国家存在的某些固有的限制性因素,这些限制性因素让非盈利领域的参与 成为让国家实现效用的自然的有益的途径。 最后,为了让非盈利领域和政府之间的合作能够实现其能够实现的承诺,文章列出非盈利领域和政府为此需要满足的各种条件。
هذا البحث يتحدى النظريات الفلسفية والمفاهيمية الواسعة الإنتشار من القطاع الغير ربحي والدولة على هذا السؤال، أو يترك مجال مفاهيمي صغير من أجل، تعاون واسع النطاق بين المنظمات الغير ربحية والحكومة. للقيام بذلك، البحث يلفت الإنتباه إلى أوجه القصور في نظريات فشل السوق/فشل الحكومة السائد في القطاع الغير ربحي الذي يحجب فهم الملامح الرئيسية للقطاع الذي يجعل التعاون مع الدولة طريق طبيعي وضروري لفعالية؛ وبعض القيود المتأصلة في الدولة التي تجعل إشراك المنظمات الغير ربحية طريق طبيعي ومفيد لفعالية الدولة. يسلط هذا المقال الضوء على مجموعة من الشروط التي يجب الوفاء بها عن طريق كل من المنظمات الغير ربحية والحكومات لهذه الشراكة لتحقيق الوعود ااممكن تحقيقها.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Harvard College, America’s oldest nonprofit institution, was created in the early part of the 17th century by an act of the Massachusetts Commonwealth legislature and sustained through much of its early life by a dedicated tax on corn—the so-called “college corn.” As of 1898, 60 % of the funds that the City of New York was spending on the care of paupers and prisoners went to private benevolent institutions, and similar practices were evident in all but four American states (Fetter 1901/02, pp. 376, 360). Similarly, the very first national social service program in the United States took the form of a grant-in-aid to a nonprofit social service organization, and a sectarian one at that—the Little Sisters of the Poor in Washington, D.C. This program was enacted in 1874 (Warner 1894).
As conservative theorist Robert Nisbet (1962, p. 109) put it: “The real conflict in modern political history has not been, as is so often stated, between state and individual, but between state and social group.”
By the start of the 21st century, direct provision of goods or services by government bureaucrats accounted for only 5 % of the activity of the U.S. federal government. Even with income transfers, direct loans, and interest payments counted as “direct government,” the direct activities of the federal government amounted to only 28% of federal activities. Far larger in scale, and accounting for over 70% of the federal government’s financial activities, were the more indirect instruments of public action—contracting, grants-in-aid, vouchers, tax expenditures, loan guarantees, insurance, and regulation, to name just a few (Salamon 2002). While it is true that more direct activities are carried out at the state and local level in the United States, third-party government is a familiar and growing practice at these other levels as well (Goldsmith and Eggers 2004; Agranoff and McGuire 2003).
References
Agranoff, R. (2007). Managing within networks: adding value to public organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative public management: new strategies for local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Anheier, H., Toepler, S., & Sokolowski, S. W. (1997). The implications of government funding for non-profit organizations: Three propositions. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10, 190–213.
Ascoli, U., & Ranci, C. (2002). Dilemmas of the welfare mix: The new structure of welfare in an era of privatization. New York: Springer.
Bass, G., Abramson, A., & Dewey, E. (2014). Effective advocacy: Lessons for nonprofit leaders from research and practice. In R. Pekkanen, S. R. Smith, & Y. Tsujinaka (Eds.), Nonprofits and advocacy: Engaging community and government in an era of retrenchment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bass, G., Arons, D., Guinane, K., & Carter, M. (2007). Seen, but not heard: Strengthening nonprofit advocacy. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute Press.
Bode, I. (2006). Disorganized welfare mixes: Voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 4, 346–359.
Bode, I. (2014). State-third sector partnership frameworks: From administration to participation? In S. Harper & K. Hamblin (Eds.), International handbook on ageing and public policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bode, I., & Brandsen, T. (2014). State-third sector partnerships: A short overview of key issues in the debate, introduction to the special issue on state-third sector partnerships. Public Management Review, 16, 1055–1066.
Buckingham, H. (2012). Capturing Diversity: A typology of third sector organizations’ responses to contracting based on empirical evidence from homelessness services. Journal of Social Policy, 41, 569–589.
Crutchfield, L. R., & Grant, H. M. (2008). Forces for good: The six practices of high-impact nonprofits. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DeHoog, R. H., & Salamon, L. M. (2002). Purchase-of-service contracting. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Donahue, J., & Zeckhauser, R. (2011). Collaborative governance: Private roles for public goals in turbulent times. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Eliadis, P., Hill, M., & Howlett, M. (2005). Designing government: From instruments to governance. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Evers, A. (2005). Mixed welfare systems and hybrid organizations: Changes in the governance and provision of social services. International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 737–748.
Fetter, F. (1901/02). The Subsidizing of Private Charities. American Journal of Sociology, 7, 359–385
Gidron, B., Kramer, R., & Salamon, L. M. (1992). Government and the third sector in comparative perspective: Experience in modern welfare states. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Goldsmith, S., & Kettl, D. (2009). Unlocking the power of networks: Keys to high-performance government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Grant, H. M., & Crutchfield, L. R. (2007). Creating high-impact nonprofits. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5, 32–41.
Hansmann, H. (1987). Economic theories of nonprofit organizations. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hayes, T. (1996). Management, control and accountability in nonprofit/voluntary organizations. Brookfield: Ashgate.
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.
Jung, K., & Moon, M. (2007). The double-edged sword of public-resource dependence: The impact of public resources on autonomy and legitimacy in Korean cultural nonprofit organizations. The Policy Studies Journal, 35, 205–226.
Kettl, D. (1993). Sharing power: Public governance and private markets. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Kettl, D. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for the 21st century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kramer, R. (1981). Voluntary agencies in the welfare state. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lane, J. (2000). New public management. London: Routledge.
Le Grand, J. (2011). Quasi-market versus state provision of public services: some ethical considerations. Public Reason, 3(2), 80–89.
Le Grand, J., & Bartlett, W. (Eds.). (1993a). Quasi-markets and social policy. London: Palgrave.
Le Grand, J., & Bartlett, W. (1993b). Introduction. In J. Le Grand & W. Bartlett (Eds.), Quasi-markets and social policy. London: Palgrave.
Lecy, J., & van Slyke, D. (2013). Nonprofit sector growth and density: Testing theories of government support. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 189–214.
Leman, N. (2002). Direct government. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Milward, H., & Provan, K. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 359–380.
Moe, Terry M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(November), 739–777.
Neumayr, M., Schneider, U., & Meyer, M. (2013). Public funding and its impact on nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44, 297–318.
Nisbet, R. (1962). Community and power. New York: Oxford University Press.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8, 377–387.
Pekkanen, R., Smith, S. R., & Tsujinaka, Y. (2014). Nonprofits and advocacy: Engaging community and government in an era of retrenchment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pestoff, V., & Brandsen, T. (2010). Public governance and the third sector: opportunities for co-production and innovation? In S. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance? New perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance (pp. 223–235). London: Routledge.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Plowden, W. (2003). The compact attempts to regulate relationships between government and the voluntary sector in england. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 415–432.
Plumptre, T. (1993). Public sector reform: An international perspective. In C. McQuillan (Ed.), Proceedings of the Canada South-East Asia colloquium: transforming the public sector. Institute on Governance: Ottawa.
Pratt, John W., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (1985). Principals and agents: An overview. In J. W. Pratt & R. J. Zeckhauser (Eds.), Principals and agents: The structure of business. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
Reuter, M., Wijkstrom, F., & von Essen, J. (2014). Policy tools or mirrors of politics: Government-voluntary sector compacts in the post-welfare state age. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 3(2).
Ringling, A. (2002). European experience with tools of government. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rose-Ackerman, S. (1996). Altruism, nonprofits and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 701–728.
Salamon, L. M. (1981). Rethinking public management: Third-Party government and the tools of government action. Public Policy, 29, 255–275.
Salamon, L. M. (1987). Of market failure, voluntary failure and third party government: The theory of government–nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 16, 29–49.
Salamon, L. M. (1989). Beyond privatization: The tools of government action. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government–nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Salamon, L. M. (2005). Training professional citizens: Getting beyond the right answer to the wrong question in public affairs education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(1), 7–19.
Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2012). The state of nonprofit America (2nd ed.). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Salamon, L. M. (2015). The resilient sector revisited: the new challenge to nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brooings Institution Press.
Salamon, L. M., & Abramson, A. (1981). The federal government and the nonprofit sector: Implications of the reagan budget proposals. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. (1994). The emerging sector. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies.
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. (1998). The third route: Government–nonprofit collaboration in Germany and the United States. In W. Powell & E. Clemens (Eds.), Private action and the public good. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Salamon, L.M. & Geller, S.L. (2008). Nonprofit America: A force for democracy? Listening Post Communiqué No. 9. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies. http://ccss.jhu.edu/publications-findings/?did=260.
Salamon, L.M., Sokolowski, S.W. & Associates. (2004). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (Vol. Two). Greenwood: Kumarian Press.
Siriani, C., & Friedland, L. (2001). Civic innovation in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Smith, S. R. (2010). Managing the challenges of government contracts. In D. Renz, et al. (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, S. R., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Toepler, S. (2010). Government funding policies. In B. Seaman & D. Young (Eds.), Handbook of research on nonprofit economics and management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Tullock, G. (1965). The politics of bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.
van Slyke, D. (2003). The mythology of privatization in contracting for social services. Public Administration Review, 63, 277–296.
van Slyke, D. (2006). Agents of stewards: Using theory to understand the government–nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 157–187.
Warner, A. (1894). American charities. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Publishers.
Weisbrod, B. A. (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.
Whitehead, J. (1973). The separation of college and state: Columbia, Dartmouth, Harvard and Yale, 1776–1876. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Wurzel, R. K. W., Zito, A. R., & Jordan, A. J. (2013). Environmental governance in Europe: A comparative analysis of new environmental policy instruments. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Acknowledgment
This article was prepared within the framework of a subsidy granted to the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russian Federation by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program. None of the organizations with which the authors are affiliated or that have supported their work bear any responsibility for any errors or views expressed here. That is the authors’ own responsibility.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
This paper is part of the Special Issue: Unlikely Partners? Evolving Government–Nonprofit Relationships, East and West, edited by Lester M. Salamon.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Salamon, L.M., Toepler, S. Government–Nonprofit Cooperation: Anomaly or Necessity?. Voluntas 26, 2155–2177 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9651-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9651-6