The Changing Dynamic of Government–Nonprofit Relationships

Abstract

We advance nonprofit scholarship by using the conceptual framework of policy fields to examine differences across nonprofit fields of activity. We focus on the structure of relationships among four sectors (government, nonprofit, market, informal) and how relationships differ across policy fields (here health, human services, education, arts and culture, and religion). The fields differ notably in the economic share that each sector holds and the functional division of labor among the sectors. Systemic differences also exist in how the nonprofit sector interacts with the government, market, and informal sectors. The policy fields themselves operate within national contexts of distinctive economic and political configurations. The framework explores how government-nonprofit relationships differ across policy fields, the factors responsible for this variation, and offers predictive capacity to generate hypotheses and research designs for additional research. We provide insights on how nonprofit organizations differ in key sub-fields with direct relevance for policy and practice.

Still hold aloft the banner of social change? Nonprofit advocacy in the wave of commercialization

“…Two variables are used to assess the environmental conditions for nonprofit advocacy: policy environment and political opportunity structure . Policy environment is critical for nonprofits to sustain their democratic roles in the policymaking process (Grønbjerg and Salamon, 2012). The measure is based on a summative index of an organization’s response to five items asking whether policies became more relaxed or stricter in contract procurement, client eligibility, professional licensing, health and safety, and personnel regulation over the past three years.…”

“…The burgeoning literature on nonprofit commercialization suggests that nonprofit advocacy is driven by multiple causes. Many scholars point to the negative impact of commercialization on nonprofit civic functions because, they argue, commercial and advocacy interests are often in conflict (Grønbjerg and Salamon, 2012; Young et al., 2012). Whether commercialization compromises nonprofit civic functions depends on how it interacts with other conditions.…”

“…Grønbjerg and Salamon (2012) argue that even though they are more market-like in operation, NPOs will not necessarily depart from their charitable mission and could still carry out their civic functions if governments invest to improve the capacity of NPOs and ensure a level playing field in order to allow NPOs to directly compete with for-profit firms. In other words, after commercialization, strong government support can help NPOs maintain their distinctive civic functions such as advocacy activities.…”

Capturing the Civic Lives of Cities: An Organizational, Place-Based Perspective on Civil Society in Global Cities

“…One line of work focuses on relations between the state and nonprofits, positing an inverse relationship between the extent of government social welfare spending and the size of the nonprofit sector (Salamon 1987;Grønbjerg and Smith 2021). This approach often takes an added historical dimension to consider the sequence and timing of associational and state development to account for the size and composition of the nonprofit sector (Anheier and Salamon 2006).…”

Is it more difficult to replace the volunteer directors of non‐profit organizations that have recourse to public funds? Evidence from France

“…These reforms encouraged the use of outsourcing and subcontracting by making the public funds allocated to NPOs increasingly contract-based (Smith & Lipsky, 1993;Ferlie & Steane, 2002;Mitchell, 2016). Consequently, NPOs' access to public funds was increasingly governed by competitive mechanisms (Stone, 1996;Ashley, 2014;Grønbjerg & Smith, 2015). At the same time, the allocation of these funds was subject to many regulations, particularly in terms of standards to be met and performance evaluation (Froelich, 1999;Guo, 2007;Boris et al, 2010;Keevers et al, 2012;Smith & Philipps, 2016;Smith, 2018).…”