The authors of this chapter conceptualize the “three-failures” perspective in nonprofit-sector theorizing. They then propose the sectoral advantage framework, which revises and generalizes the three-failures approach. The revised framework offers a set of questions and a way of thinking about and interpreting diverse puzzles in the field. The framework uses consistent definitions and criteria so that it can be applied to a broad range of institutions, cultures, and historical periods. The authors develop three themes within the framework: First, they add the family sector and consider its comparative advantages, failures, and activities. Second, they generalize government failure to make it more comprehensive and applicable outside Western democracies. Third, they suggest the capability approach should be incorporated in the determination of sectoral advantages.

Does the applicable law have an impact on the legal effects of contract terms? Is there a convergence between the common law and the civil law? To what extent does the principle of good faith influence the effects of a contract? Does arbitration ensure a uniform interpretation of contracts?

Witesman provides an institutional theory of the nonprofit. The chapter considers the argument developed by the author in a 2016 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly article. In it, she proposes an institutional theory of the nonprofit that defines its distinction from public and private institutions through (1) the voluntary (rather than coercive) assignment of roles and (2) the use of the good or service by non-payers. The voluntary and redistributive nature of such nonprofit-type institutions makes them primarily compatible with the distribution of goods that are non-subtractable and excludable (toll goods). This view is in contrast to legalistic or sector-based theories of the nonprofit.

Hansen and Witkowski introduce a new theory to understand how societal needs are met. The authors develop the cross-sectoral BIAS theory, an adaptation of the BIAS model, to assess factors that lead to persistent unmet needs among marginalized populations. Drawing on postcolonial theory, the authors indicate that the standard economic model of understanding the provision of services by market, government, and nonprofit sectors (three-failures theory) systematically fails to account for the underprivileged in society. The cross-sectoral BIAS theory explains that societal biases drive the persistent insufficient provision of goods to marginalized populations by all three sectors.

By following the Western mainstream theory on state–nonprofit relations, nonprofit research on developing countries usually overlooks the influence of political parties on nonprofits. However, political parties, particularly the ruling party, often decisively determine the development of the nonprofit sector in those societies. This article proposes a special model to analyze the state–nonprofit relations in the countries where a sole ruling party monopolizes the government. The model is applied in the one-party state of China to exemplify how the ruling Chinese Communist Party has fundamentally shaped the state–nonprofit relationship there in past decades. The article concludes with discussion about the model’s potentials and limitations.

Civil society has been lauded for its ability to act as a social glue that is critical to healthy and functioning democracies. Despite their centrality to US society, nonprofits have lacked legitimacy commensurate with the criticality of their civic purposes. Drawing upon the publicness debate in which government functions under a political authority and business operates within a market authority, Robichau and Fernandez propose a normative “Nonprofitness Framework” that accounts for the moral authority by which nonprofits operate, which is necessary for contributing to a vibrant democracy. A Nonprofitness Framework considers charitable and voluntary organizations in terms of degrees of moral authority and their expression of nonprofit ethos and missions in which some organizations move closer to public or private orientations. Understanding how nonprofits and their agents are conditioned by history and values in turn preserves and cultivates a thriving sector, generating the flexibility to enhance society and provide balance among a dominant private sector and an influential public sector.

In this concluding chapter, the editors take stock of the contributions, summarize overarching themes, and suggest new directions for research.

That a commercial contract is international may seem intuitive to some observers, yet it is difficult to find an accepted definition for the term. What is even more difficult is identifying the legal rules to which international commercial contracts are subject. Are international contracts subject to some sort of international law? What are the sources of this law and what is its scope of application? To the extent that international contracts are subject to national rules, which law’s rules are applicable? These questions become even more pressing when the practice of international contracting is taken into consideration: contracts are often written as if their terms were the only source with which to regulate the parties’ relationship and as if any sources of law were irrelevant.

Ressler introduces a sociological theory of transformative symbolic reality to illuminate a specific, but often overlooked, impact of the nonprofit sector that is directly tied to improving the quality of life for individuals and groups within society. Grounded in the sociology of communities and nonprofit theory, transformative symbolic reality states that society reproduces itself or changes through social reality, and that social reality can be purposefully manipulated to challenge the forces of inequity. Specifically, individuals or organizations can create both the physical and metaphysical spaces in which people manifest and manipulate social norms, expectations, and behaviors in an inter-relational way that generates transformative social capital. Through the lens of transformative symbolic reality, the chapter conceptualizes the nonprofit sector as a wellspring of this overlooked public good and argues that it is this transformative aspect of the nonprofit sector that undergirds connections between nonprofit organizations and any long-term social impact.

This chapter critically considers the historic and contemporary entanglements of the nonprofit sector with the state and the market, and the implications of such entanglements on nonprofits, marginalized communities, and the possibility of social change. Interrogating what happens to the structural institutional form of the nonprofit when intertwined with the state and the economy in what some call the nonprofit industrial complex, Rojas assesses the fallout that leads to exacerbated policing and incarceration of women and communities of color, among other deleterious impacts. The work of naming these concerns and critiques is necessary for nonprofits to potentially become avenues for social transformation. The chapter concludes with practical interventions toward building organizations capable of creating more just futures.

This chapter critiques Western and scientific philanthropy scholarly understanding of the nonprofit sector. It argues that this narrow analysis of nonprofits limits our understanding of Muslim prosocial behaviors that are less dominant in the academic literature. By examining the tenets and roots of Muslim prosocial action, we see how this specific view of social good has been limited in the broader conversation, which in turn has limited our understanding of the nonprofit sector across the world. The chapter also explores Muslim prosocial action by examining its theological and cultural sources to create a broader conception of giving behavior within an Islamic context, and discusses the challenges associated with strict adherence to the Western definition of the nonprofit sector for scholars who want to include Muslim perspectives and charitable acts. Ultimately, it suggests a framework that nonprofit-sector scholars can use to move beyond Western-centric definitions of prosocial action to include other cultural and faith perspectives. This approach treats Muslim prosocial action as a practice-oriented religious tradition.

To what extent does soft law ensure harmonisation? Does it replace the governing law or does it complement it?

Lamothe and colleagues view the nonprofit sector as being intentionally engineered or designed by government to create specific behaviors in the economy. This chapter examines the ways in which government and legal structures envision desirable outcomes in the broad economy and develop laws and policies intended to yield specific institutional state-sanctioned outcomes in the private market. Drawing on the Korean context as an example, the authors explore what government design of the social sector says about not only the strong-state context present in the global East, but also how this lens helps us to reinterpret our understanding of the legal underpinnings of the nonprofit sector elsewhere.

The chapter introduces readers to the major theories of the sector. Those covered include: market-failure theory, government-failure theory, contract-failure theory, voluntary-failure theory, supply-side (or entrepreneurship) theory, social-origins theory, interdependence theory, the commons, mediating structures, and associationalism.