Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-x2ktn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-11T11:38:48.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Government–Nonprofit Cooperation: Anomaly or Necessity?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Lester M. Salamon  and
Stefan Toepler
Lester M. Salamon*
Affiliation:
International Laboratory for Nonprofit Sector Studies, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia Center for Civil Society Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies Bologna Center, Bologna, Italy
Stefan Toepler*
Affiliation:
International Laboratory for Nonprofit Sector Studies, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia School of Policy, Government and International Affairs, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
*
ccss@jhu.edu
stoepler@gmu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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

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

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

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。

本論文では、国と非営利セクターにおける広範な哲学的かつ概念的な理論を提示する。非営利組織と国との間における広範な協力関係に概念的余地を残しているか、もしくは疑問点があるかを検討する。そうすることによって、非営利団体が自然で有効な方向で国の効果に関与するという協力関係のセクターにおける主要な特徴の認識、かつ非営利団体が自然で有効な方向で国の効果に関与するという協力関係と固定化された国の制約を明らかにしてこなかったため、本論文では支配的な市場での短所および非営利セクターの理論における国の短所が拡大する点に注目する。本論文では、非営利団体と国が公約を達成するためにパートナーシップに合う必要条件を説明する。

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.

Keywords

Government–nonprofit partnershipNew governanceWelfare stateNonprofit organizationsNew public managementVoluntary failure theory

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 26 , Issue 6 , December 2015 , pp. 2155 - 2177
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This paper is part of the Special Issue: Unlikely Partners? Evolving Government–Nonprofit Relationships, East and West, edited by Lester M. Salamon.

References

Agranoff, R. (2007). Managing within networks: adding value to public organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative public management: new strategies for local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
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. doi: 10.1108/09513559710166057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascoli, U., & Ranci, C. (2002). Dilemmas of the welfare mix: The new structure of welfare in an era of privatization. New York: Springer doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-4992-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, G., Abramson, A., & Dewey, E. (2014). Effective advocacy: Lessons for nonprofit leaders from research and practice. In Pekkanen, R., Smith, S. R., & Tsujinaka, Y. (Eds.), Nonprofits and advocacy: Engaging community and government in an era of retrenchment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bass, G., Arons, D., Guinane, K., & Carter, M. (2007). Seen, but not heard: Strengthening nonprofit advocacy. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute Press.Google Scholar
Bode, I. (2006). Disorganized welfare mixes: Voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 4, 346–359. doi: 10.1177/0958928706068273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bode, I. (2014). State-third sector partnership frameworks: From administration to participation?. In Harper, S. & Hamblin, K. (Eds.), International handbook on ageing and public policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
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. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2014.957344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. doi: 10.1017/S0047279412000086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crutchfield, L. R., & Grant, H. M. (2008). Forces for good: The six practices of high-impact nonprofits. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
DeHoog, R. H., & Salamon, L. M. (2002). Purchase-of-service contracting. In Salamon, L. M. (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donahue, J., & Zeckhauser, R. (2011). Collaborative governance: Private roles for public goals in turbulent times. Princeton: Princeton University Press doi: 10.1515/9781400838103.Google Scholar
Eliadis, P., Hill, M., & Howlett, M. (2005). Designing government: From instruments to governance. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. doi: 10.1081/PAD-200067318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetter, F. (1901/02). The Subsidizing of Private Charities. American Journal of Sociology, 7, 359–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, S., & Kettl, D. (2009). Unlocking the power of networks: Keys to high-performance government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Grant, H. M., & Crutchfield, L. R. (2007). Creating high-impact nonprofits. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5, 32–41.Google Scholar
Hansmann, H. (1987). Economic theories of nonprofit organizations. In Powell, W. W. (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, T. (1996). Management, control and accountability in nonprofit/voluntary organizations. Brookfield: Ashgate.Google Scholar
James, E. (1987). The nonprofit sector in comparative perspective. In Powell, W. W. (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
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. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00216.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettl, D. (1993). Sharing power: Public governance and private markets. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Kettl, D. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for the 21st century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. (1981). Voluntary agencies in the welfare state. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, J. (2000). New public management. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. (2011). Quasi-market versus state provision of public services: some ethical considerations. Public Reason, 3(2), 80–89.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J., & Bartlett, W. (Eds.). (1993a). Quasi-markets and social policy. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, J., & Bartlett, W. (1993b). Introduction. In Le Grand, J. & Bartlett, W. (Eds.), Quasi-markets and social policy. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mus010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leman, N. (2002). Direct government. In Salamon, L. M. (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Milward, H., & Provan, K. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 359–380. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(November), 739–777. doi: 10.2307/2110997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumayr, M., Schneider, U., & Meyer, M. (2013). Public funding and its impact on nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44, 297–318. doi: 10.1177/0899764013513350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbet, R. (1962). Community and power. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674041660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance?. Public Management Review, 8, 377–387. doi: 10.1080/14719030600853022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pestoff, V., & Brandsen, T. (2010). Public governance and the third sector: opportunities for co-production and innovation?. In Osborne, S. (Ed.), The new public governance? New perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance (pp. 223–235). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
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. doi: 10.1177/0899764003254909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plumptre, T. (1993). Public sector reform: An international perspective. In McQuillan, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Canada South-East Asia colloquium: transforming the public sector. Institute on Governance: Ottawa.Google Scholar
Pratt, John W, & Zeckhauser, R. J. (1985). Principals and agents: An overview. In Pratt, J. W. & Zeckhauser, R. J. (Eds.), Principals and agents: The structure of business. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Ringling, A. (2002). European experience with tools of government. In Salamon, L. M. (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, S. (1996). Altruism, nonprofits and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 701–728.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (1981). Rethinking public management: Third-Party government and the tools of government action. Public Policy, 29, 255–275.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (1989). Beyond privatization: The tools of government action. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government–nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2012). The state of nonprofit America (2nd ed.). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (2015). The resilient sector revisited: the new challenge to nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brooings Institution Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, L. M., & Abramson, A. (1981). The federal government and the nonprofit sector: Implications of the reagan budget proposals. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. (1994). The emerging sector. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. (1998). The third route: Government–nonprofit collaboration in Germany and the United States. In Powell, W. & Clemens, E. (Eds.), Private action and the public good. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Salamon, L.M., Sokolowski, S.W. & Associates (2004). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (Vol. Two). Greenwood: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
Siriani, C., & Friedland, L. (2001). Civic innovation in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. R. (2010). Managing the challenges of government contracts. In Renz, D., et al. (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Smith, S. R., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toepler, S. (2010). Government funding policies. In Seaman, B. & Young, D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on nonprofit economics and management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Tullock, G. (1965). The politics of bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.Google Scholar
van Slyke, D. (2003). The mythology of privatization in contracting for social services. Public Administration Review, 63, 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mul012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. (1894). American charities. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Publishers.Google Scholar
Weisbrod, B. A. (1975). Toward a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sector in a three-sector economy. In Phelps, E. (Ed.), Altruism, morality, and economic theory. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Whitehead, J. (1973). The separation of college and state: Columbia, Dartmouth, Harvard and Yale, 1776–1876. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
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 doi: 10.4337/9781849804721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar