The Nonprofit Catallaxy: An Austrian Economics Perspective on the Nonprofit Sector

Wandel, Jürgen; Valentinov, Vladislav

doi:10.1007/s11266-012-9330-9

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the end of the interview, respondents expressed their agreement or disagreement with five statements describing reasons for their decision to establish a land trust. These statements were derived from different economic theories explaining the existence and function of NGOs (Will et al 2018;Valentinov et al 2015;Wandel & Valentinov 2014). Based on an overview of these theories (Murray Svidroňová et al 2016), we modified rele- Unsatisfied demand for public and quasi-public goods in situations of demand heterogeneity leads to emergence of non-profit providers S2: The public administration lacks the capacity and interest to provide sufficient biodiversity conservation; this is why we established the land trust.…”

Section: Methodology: Data Collection and Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public and community conservation of biodiversity—rivalry or cooperation?

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractAlthough private or community initiatives for biodiversity conservation (such as land trusts) have a strong tradition in many countries, rigorous evidence of recently evolved movements in post-socialist countries is missing. This study describes the evolution of Czech land trust movement and analyses their representatives’ motivation for engagement in biodiversity conservation. It also investigates the intensity of interaction among public and land trust conservation efforts. For this purpose, we identified localities in which the territory managed by Czech land trusts overlaps with small-scale public nature reserves managed by regional governments. We conducted semi-structured face-to-face interviews with representatives of all NGOs and regional officials in-charge. Our qualitative analysis revealed that some regional biodiversity conservation officials see land trusts as partners, but others are rather indifferent to, or uninformed about, their activities. Additionally, land trust representatives see themselves as complementing the public effort: their main motivation for engagement is to facilitate biodiversity conservation in addition to the public provision.

show abstract

Section: Methodology: Data Collection and Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public and community conservation of biodiversity—rivalry or cooperation?

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The third and final definition of a charity comprises of an institution. In the context of charity literature, an institution is conceptualized as governing mechanism that monitors, controls, and facilitates interactions between non-profit actors by enforcing rules and punishment/reward systems (Valentinov and Wandel, 2014). As a collective-action mechanism, the institution represents the sum of various interrelated contracts between principals (funders) and agents (charity mangers) who agree to perform certain tasks on behalf of the principal.…”

Section: Defining Charitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The principal (otherwise known as the donor) grants full donation distribution responsibility to the agent (otherwise known as the charity manager) due to perceived expertise in delivering greater mission outcomes. Yet the charity manager-while unmotivated by profit generation-may possess motivations that conflict with that of the donor (Valentinov and Wandel, 2014). Since the donor cannot fully monitor donation distribution, this creates potential for "agency slack" (Reinsberg, 2019, p. 414), or "agency slippages" (Gugerty and Prakash, 2010, p. 22), whereby the charity manager may exploit these information asymmetries for private gains.…”

Section: Monitoring Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Distributed Ledger Technologies Promote Trust for Charities? A Literature Review

Christie

2020

Front. Blockchain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a literature review on the role of the distributed ledger technology in promoting stakeholder trust for charitable organizations. The purpose of this review is to capture existing knowledge on the relationship between the following key variables: charity, trust and accountability, and distributed ledger technology-with emphasis on blockchain technology as a primary example of this technology. After shortlisting the discovered literature pool to 35 papers, the following three themes were identified. The first theme presents the various definitions of key concepts in crypto-philanthropy literature. The second theme captures existing views on why stakeholder trust is declining in charitable conduct. These views include: (1) organizational boundary shifts; (2) monitory complexity; and (3) poor regulatory design. The third and final theme presents a hypothesis on how the distributed ledger technology can promote trust for charities. The technology is hypothesized to promote trust by drawing on the following three elements: (1) decentralization; (2) provenance; and (3) rule-enforcement. A number of shortcomings are then highlighted in the literature pool. The first shortcoming pertains to the inconsistent treatment of key concepts in crypto-philanthropy studies. The second shortcoming pertains to the lack of discussion on whether the distributed ledger technology may potentially decrease stakeholder trust if implemented irresponsibly by charities. In conclusion, a series of future research pathways are provided. These recommendations include: (1) clarifying key concepts; (2) suggesting "crypto-philanthropy" as a formal disciplinary title; (3) highlighting under-researched areas; and, (4) recommending strategies for building a new crypto-philanthropic theory. From an academic perspective, the findings contribute to literature by bridging the gap between crypto-economic, institutional governance and non-profit accountability theories. The findings may also guide charity managers, regulators and policy-makers in understanding the capacities of the distributed ledger technology in legitimizing charitable conduct.

show abstract

Miteinander oder Gegeneinander?

Pies

Hielscher

2014

Unternehmen Im Öffentlichen Raum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Nonprofit Catallaxy: An Austrian Economics Perspective on the Nonprofit Sector

Cited by 12 publications

References 10 publications

Public and community conservation of biodiversity—rivalry or cooperation?

Public and community conservation of biodiversity—rivalry or cooperation?

Can Distributed Ledger Technologies Promote Trust for Charities? A Literature Review

Miteinander oder Gegeneinander?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About