An overview of recent trends in research on the Indian nonprofit sector is presented. The material is not exhaustive of all research that has been conducted, but instead discusses effects of globalization on the literature. As used here, globalization implies the worldwide rise of economic liberalism, universal trust in political democracy, the advent of cultural universalism, relative erosion of the power of nation-states, and global embracing of capitalism and commodity culture. The following distinct effects of globalization are discussed: diverse policy debates on nongovernmental organization (NGO) roles in development, challenges to the credibility of India ’s most popular and debated theory of nonprofits, the emergence of a large volume of literature on environmental and women’s movements and organizations, and the shifting of attention to the study of NGOs. A deliberate effort is made to identify the backgrounds of some of the authors discussed in the article to direct attention to differences in content of the writings of NGO officials, activists, scholars, policy analysts, development consultants, Westerners, and Indians.

Guided by organizational and social movement theories, this study compares the structures, resource bases, ideologies, and strategies of nongovernmental organizations engaged in peace and conflict resolution (P/CROs) in three regions with extended violent conflicts: Northern Ireland, South Africa, and Israel/Palestine. Qualitative content analysis techniques are used to analyze 27 detailed case reports. We analyze the funding patterns and structural attributes of the P/CROs in our sample, with particular attention to how they obtain fiscal resources and membership in spite of the risks they may experience. We then explore the degree of formalization among P/CROs over time and, finally, we examine the ideological frames that P/CROs use and how these frames relate to their tactics. Throughout the analysis we pay attention to how the political context of each region influences P/CRO behavior.

This article first sets out the principles of neoclassical microeconomic analysis and examines the advances in our understanding of individual giving to charitable organizations achieved within this framework of analysis. It then turns to sociology and considers alternative conceptions of sociological analysis, especially rational-action theories and the qualitative tradition. The contribution of these to our understanding of charitable giving is explored. The article concludes that rational-choice sociology can complement economic analyses in two ways but that qualitative sociology is contradictory to the economic approach.

How do and why might different nations demarcate socioeconomic activity into distinct societal sectors? In this review and critique of sector theories, we use the case study of nonprofit sectors compared with informal economies to evidence the difficulty of drawing separate conceptual spaces for economic, human, and social-capital-producing activities. Drawing upon international research on the origins and characteristics of both nonprofit (voluntary, third, independent) and informal (underground, black market) sectors, the conceptualizations of spheres of activity that are alternative to market and state are explored. Hypotheses about the preconditions of different third sectors are generated and a basis for further theorizing about sector interdependence and overlap is provided.

This article argues that existing concepts of the civil society-democracy relationship are misleading guides for analyzing political development because they incorporate limited perspectives on the nature and activities of civil society, particularly the nonprofit sector. First, three contemporary conceptualizations of civil society are critiqued, and a contradiction is noted between the importance assigned to ideational functions and the inadequacy of reliance upon elections and party systems. Particular emphasis is placed on civil society’s involvement in policy formation, for it is there that a weak state—society connection may be discovered, with significant ramifications for democratic development. Second, recent political instability in the Czech Republic is related to negative trends in political attitudes, indicating a weak connection. Third, the general nature of Czech policy-making processes is examined, and then a closer look is taken at the formation of nonprofit legislation and environmental policy. Finally, implications for the future development of Czech democracy are drawn.

Despite some encouraging trends, America’s nonprofit sector stands at a cross-roads because of an interrelated series of challenges. Government budget cuts beginning in the early 1980s have eliminated a significant source of nonprofit revenues and created a serious fiscal squeeze for many organizations. Although the sector as a whole managed to replace this lost revenue, it has done so largely through fees and charges that have attracted for-profit businesses into traditional fields of nonprofit action, creating a serious economic challenge to the sector. Simultaneously, important questions have been raised about the effectiveness and accountability of nonprofit organizations, and about what some see as the over-professionalization and bureaucratization of the sector. All of this has undermined public confidence in the sector and prompted questions about the basic legitimacy of the special tax and legal benefits it enjoys. To cope with these challenges, American nonprofits could usefully undergo a process of renewal that revives the sector’s basic values, reconnects it to its citizen base, and creates a better public understanding of its functions and role.

There is broad agreement that citizen participation is critical for successful democracy. Recently, scholars have linked such political participation with the notion of social capital—community-level resources, such as trust, norms, and networks, that foster collective action. Much uncertainty remains regarding the sources of social capital, however. Here we examine two different features of community life that are believed to nurture social capital, and political participation in turn: public venues where relative strangers can meet anonymously, socialize, and share information and opinions (i.e., venues for informal interaction); and venues for organized exchange between familiars, such as voluntary organizations and social clubs. Using quantitative data from America’s largest cities at the end of the 19th century, we examine the relationship between both supposed sources of social capital and respective rates of voter participation. We find little support for the role of informal interaction in fostering an active and engaged citizenry. We do, however, find evidence that citizen participation was related to some types of associationalism (or organized exchange). In particular, associations that fostered high levels of mutual interdependence among members seemed the most strongly linked to higher levels of political participation.

Salamon argues that the nonprofit sector is the core or “center” of civil society. He correctly diagnoses the nonprofit sector’s problems but his proposal to “hold the center” through sectoral renewal and a partnership model of state-nonprofit relations is problematic. This is the case in part because the effects of economic globalization are reducing nation-state autonomy. In addition, fragmentation of social identity in a postmodern era challenges sectoral legitimacy, while devolution and localization of social welfare responsibilities reduce nonprofit effectiveness. On the basis of U.S. evidence, I argue that, rather than trying to hold the center, we should decenter the nonprofit sector—away from dominant institutions, powerful groups, and privileged places—and join the margins in an effort to weave a new, more humane and inclusive social contract.

Archival evidence is used to explore the development of funding for the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR) and the Canadian Institute of International Affairs (the secretariat for the Canadian national council of the IPR) provided by the Rockefeller Foundation (RF). It suggests that the withdrawal of funding should be interpreted in a long-term perspective as a joint responsibility of mutually dependent recipients and funders, rather than simply as the fault of RF decision makers responding reactively to the prevailing climate of McCarthyism. Moreover, it is argued that the conventional wisdom as to the balance of influence within the RF between key staff and trustees is in need of revision. Conceptual implications of these examples of recipient dependence are explored, including the reasons for and dangers of such mutual dependence, the meaning of donor responsibility, and the mediating role of foundation officers.

By definition, interest groups are seen as self-interested, that is, organizations established to pursue the self-interest of their members. As such, this plethora of self-interested actors has been seen largely as a negative thing, cluttering the policy process, creating unmanageable demands, and leading to “iron triangles” of interest group/legislative/bureaucratic networks geared toward funneling benefits to narrow groups. In contrast, social movements, nongovernmental organizations, and the like typically are seen as positive, democratizing players in public policy. This paper seeks to muddy both sides of this neat distinction by bringing the Brazilian third-sector literature and field research on scientific and professional associations in the states of Sergipe and Santa Catarina to bear on the question of the self- versus public-interested stance of third-sector groups. On the one hand, social movements can be just as self-interested as the more traditional interest groups. On the other, interest groups often act wholly in the public interest.

A key aspect of civil society worldwide is the emergence of thousands of nongovernmental organizations that operate on a global scale. The special challenges of organizing and managing these organizations include massive communications problems and the need to accommodate a wide diversity of interests. In this paper, we ask what kinds of organizational structures and management strategies are utilized by globally oriented nongovernmental organizations involved in the development of civil society, and we consider the advantages and disadvantages of alternative structures. From 15 case studies, we find that three principal types of structures are utilized: corporate partnerships, federations, and membership associations. We also find that management challenges are addressed in various creative ways within these structures, and that the federation form appears to be generally effective and avoids some of the risks associated with other forms.

Salamon argues strongly in favor of a public-nonprofit partnership model expressing the European flavor of corporatism. Germany provides a textbook example of corporatist arrangements, particularly in the fields of health care and social services. Whereas American nonprofit organizations are suffering from a crisis of legitimacy caused by marketization, German nonprofit organizations have been confronted with a crisis of legitimacy and identity caused by corporatism since the early 1980s. This particular scenario, however, is not covered by Salmon’s analysis.

The Family Expenditure Survey provides a long time series of household-level data on U.K. charitable giving, which previously has not been exploited. Data analyzed for the period 1978-93 reveal a long-term decline in the proportion of households giving to charity, which persists once we control for changes in other characteristics that affect giving, such as income and wealth. The biggest declines in the number of givers are among younger and poorer households. We also draw out generation-specific trends in a way that is crucial to thinking about future trends in funding for the voluntary sector.

There have been three major analytical reviews that have examined the voluntary- statutory relationship during the 1990s, one undertaken by government in 1990 and the other two independently in 1993 and 1996. This article suggests that an historical understanding of this relationship (especially in terms of its sociopolitical dimensions) is crucial, but was missing from the 1990 review and misrepresented by the 1993 review. The 1996 document has been subjected to harsh criticism, but it was arguably sounder in its understanding of this fundamental issue. The national compact between representatives of the voluntary sector and the state, launched at the end of 1998, has built upon the arguments put forward in 1996. However, the paper suggests that given the vexed history of “partnership” between the sectors and the extent to which the statutory sector has become the dominant partner at the end of the 20th century, it would be premature to be overly optimistic. The paper examines three major shifts in the voluntary-statutory relationship during the 20th century, before reviewing the 1990s’ documents in more detail.

Managers of volunteers in human service interpret their job and experiences through a cognitive construct grounded in past interactions and experiences. This construct—sensemaking—then guides the managers’ perceptions of subsequent interactions with peers, volunteers, and supervisors. Volunteers similarly make sense of their surroundings through cognitive constructions grounded in their own experiences. Unfortunately, managers and volunteers do not always make sense of their surroundings in the same way. Research has demonstrated that supervisors and paid employees may not necessarily agree in their perceptions of such issues as, for example, employee motivation. Such differences can lead to disagreements about the meaning of behaviors and the design of reward systems, eventually compromising organizational performance. In this study, sensemaking of volunteer motivation was assessed from the manager’s perspective and compared with a previous study of volunteers themselves. Differences in understanding such a primary question as why volunteers are present can reasonably be expected to have an impact on organizational effectiveness. Interestingly, the predicted outcome of a different sensemaking schema was not supported in either the understanding of motivation or in the relative importance assigned to altruism. Additional attributes of volunteer managers were also considered to determine if sensemaking is driven by environmental factors such as exposure to volunteers, tenure as a volunteer manager, or social roles associated with gender constructs. These additional attributes were not found to significantly affect the process of attribution of altruistic motives.

This paper takes an initial step toward a better understanding of the complex set of pressing problems that need to be addressed by the Eastern European nonprofit sectors and their supporters in the near future. It gives an overview of the main challenges and claims that different nonprofit sectors of the region are at different crossroads. It identifies a general policy crisis that is fueled by the lack of a comprehensive knowledge of the sector and clear political intentions of cooperating with it. In addition, the dependence on foreign funding may result in a sustainability crisis in several Eastern European countries. In the most developed part of the region, the main elements of the present crisis are the fiscal, economic, effectiveness, identity, and legitimacy problems, which have something in common with the challenges facing the much more mature nonprofit sectors of the developed world.