Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-qcl88 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T04:46:08.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Third Sector in the Third Millennium?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Ralph M. Kramer
Ralph M. Kramer*
Affiliation:
School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, California
*
22Correspondence should be directed to Ralph M. Kramer, 62 York Drive, Piedmont, CA, 94611; email: ralphk1@socrates.berkeley.edu.
Get access

Abstract

Three trends since the 1960s underscore the need for different ways of conceptualizing the new mixed economy in the human services. First, there has been an enormous increase in the number and types of nonprofit organizations, and greater dependence on governmental revenue. Second, extensive growth in privatization and commercialization in the human services. Third, this culminated in the convergence and blurring of sectoral boundaries. Numerous metaphors have been suggested to describe these new patterns, but more suitable concepts and theories are needed. Four theoretical frameworks are analyzed for an intersectoral study of organizations in the same industry: (1) political economy, (2) organizational ecology, (3) neoinstitutionalism, and (4) mixed, open systems. As analytic paradigms, these frameworks could supplement, complement, or be integrated with other research models for third sector studies, and could contribute to theory building and social policy.

Résumé

Résumé

Depuis les années 60, trois tendances soulignent la nécessité de conceptualiser de différentes façons la nouvelle économie mixte des services aux personnes. On a observé (a) une croissance considérable du nombre et du type d’organisations sans but lucratif et une dépendance de plus en plus importante vis-à-vis des financements publics; ainsi que (b) l’extension de la privatisation et de la commercialisation des services aux personnes, aboutissant (c) à une certaine convergence en brouillant les frontières sectorielles. De nombreuses métaphores ont été utilisées pour décrire ces nouveaux modèles, mais des concepts et des théorie plus appropriées sont nécessaires. Quatre cadres théoriques sont analysés pour une étude intersectorielle d’organisations intervenant dans le même domaine d’activité: l’économie politique, l’écologie organisationnelle, le néo-institutionalisme et les systèmes mixtes. En tant de paradigmes analytiques, ces cadres théoriques peuvent s’ajouter, compléter ou être intégrés à d’autres modèles destinés à des études sur le tiers secteur et contribuer ainsi à la construction théorique et aux politiques sociales.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Drei Trends seit 1960 unterstreichen die Notwendigkeit, andere Wege zur Konzeptualisierung der neuen gemischten Wirtschaft der sozialen Dienste zu finden. Es gibt 1.) einen enormen Anstieg der Anzahl und Typen von gemeinnützigenOrganisationen und eine größere Abhängigkeit von staatlicher Finanzierung; 2.) eine umfassende Zunahme von Privatisierung und Kommerzialisierung der sozialen Dienste, die ihren Höhepunkt in 3.) der Annäherung und Verwischung der Sektorgrenzen erlebt. Viele Metaphern wurden vorgeschlagen, um diese neuen Muster zu beschreiben, aber es werden geeignetere Konzepte und Theorien gebraucht. Vier theoretische Systeme werden für eine intersektorale Studie von Organisationen in derselben Industriesparte analysiert: politische Ökonomie, Organisationsökologie, Neo-Institutionalismus und gemischte, offene Systeme. Als analytische Paradigmen können sie andere Forschungsmodelle für Studien des Dritten Sektors ergänzen, vervollständigen oder in sie integriert werden und zur Theoriebildung und Sozialpolitik ihren Beitrag leisten.

Resumen

Resumen

A partir de la década de los 60 surgen tres tendencias que recalcan la necesidad de encontrar formas diferentes de conceptualizar la nueva economía mixta en lo que respecta a los servicios humanos. Se ha producido (1) un enorme incremento en el número y tipos de organizaciones sin propósito de lucro, y una mayor dependencia de las rentas gubernamentales; (2) un vasto crecimiento en la privatización y comercialización de los servicios humanos, culminando en (3) la convergencia de los límites sectoriales y haciendo que éstos se vuelvan confusos. Se han sugerido numerosas metáforas para describir estos nuevos modelos, pero se precisan conceptos y teorías más apropiados. Analizamos cuatro marcos teóricos para un estudio intersectorial de las organizaciones de una misma industria: economía política, ecología organizativa, neoinstitucionalismo, y sistemas abiertos mixtos. En tanto que paradigmas analíticos, podrían suplir, complementar o integrarse a otros modelos de investigación para estudios del tercer sector, y contribuir al desarrollo de la teoría y a la política social.

Keywords

sectoral convergenceresearch modelsform of ownership

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University

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

References

Abzug, R. (1999). The nonprofit sector and the informal sector: A theoretical perspective. Voluntas, 10, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, C., and Perlmutter, F. (1991). Commercial venturing and the transformation of America’s social welfare agencies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 20(1), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, R. (1992). The political language of the nonprofit sector. In Merelman, R. (ed.), Language: Symbolism and Politics: Essays in Honor of Murray Edelman, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
Anderson, W., Frieden, B., and Murphy, M. (eds.) (1977). Managing Human Services, International City Managers Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Anheier, H., and Seibel, W. (eds.) (1990). The Nonprofit Sector: International and Comparative Perspectives, De Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
Austin, D. (1988). The Political Economy of Human Service Programs, JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Benson, K. (1975). The interorganizational network as a political economy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 229–249.10.2307/2391696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielefeld, W., and Galaskiewcz, J. (1998). Nonprofit Organizations in an Age of Uncertainty: A Study of Organizational Change, Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, N.Y.Google Scholar
Billis, D. (1993). Sector blurring and nonprofit centres: The case of the UK. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 22, 241–257.10.1177/0899764093223006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billis, D., and Glennerster, H. (1998). Human services and the voluntary sector: A theory of comparative advantage. Journal of Social Policy, 27, 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boje, D., Gephart, R., and Thatchenkery, T. (eds.) (1996). Postmodern Management and Organization Theory, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.10.4135/9781483345390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boris, E., and Steurle, E. (eds.) (1998). Nonprofits and Government: Collaboration and Conflict, Urban Institute Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Boulding, K. (1973). The Economy of Love and Fear, Wadsworth, Belmont, California.Google Scholar
Brody, E. (1996a). Agents without principals: The economic convergence of the nonprofit and for-profit organizational forms. New York Law School Law Review, 40, 457–536.Google Scholar
Brody, E. (1996b). Institutional dissonance in the nonprofit sector. Villanova Law Review, 41, 433–504.Google Scholar
Bruyn, S. (1977). The Social Economy, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Clarke, C., and Estes, C. (1992). Sociological and economic theories of markets and nonprofits: Evidence from home health organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 945–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claxton, G., Feder, J., Shactman, D., and Altman, S. (1997). Public policy issues in nonprofit conversions: An overview. Health Affairs, 16(2), 9–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeGennaro, R. M. (1988). A study of youth services from a political economy perspective. Journal of Social Service Research, 11(4), 61–73.10.1300/J079v11n04_04CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickens, P. (1996). Human services as service industries. Service Industries Journal, 16(1), 82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P., and Anheier, H. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evers, A. (1991). Shifts in the welfare mix. Eurosocial, 57/58, 7–8.Google Scholar
Evers, A. (1995). Part of the welfare mix: The third sector as an intermediate area. Voluntas, 6, 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evers, A., and Svetlik, I. (eds.) (1993). Balancing Pluralism: New Welfare Mixes in Care for the Elderly, Avebury, England.Google Scholar
Feeney, S. (1997). Shifting the prism: Case explications of institutional analysis in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 489–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, J., and Graddy, E. (1989). Fading distinctions among the nonprofit, government, and for profit sectors. In Hodgkinson, V., Lyman, R., and associates, (eds.), The Future of the Nonprofit Sector, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, pp. 123–139.Google Scholar
Ferris, J., and Graddy, E. (1996). Structural changes in the hospital industry and the nonprofit role in health care. In Merget, A., Weaver, E., and Hodgkinson, V. (eds.), Nonprofit Organizations as Public Actors, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
Ferris, J., and Graddy, E. (1999). The role of the nonprofit sector in a self-governing society: A view from the United States. Voluntas, 9, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geen, R., and Pollak, T. (1999). The changing role of the nonprofit sector in providing child welfare services in Maryland: The potential impact of managed care. In Crossing the Borders, Working Paper, Independent Sector, Spring Research Forum, Independent Sector, pp. 229–248.Google Scholar
Gidron, B., Kramer, R. M., and Salamon, L. (1992). Government and the third sector in comparative perspective: Allies or adversaries? In Gidron, B., Kramer, R., and Salamon, L. (eds.), Government and the Third Sector: Emerging Relationships in Welfare States, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. (1995). Welfare Justice: Restoring Social Equity, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Gray, B. (1997). Conversion of HMOs and hospitals: What’s at stake? Health Affairs, 16(2), 29–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grodzins, M. (1966). The American System: A New View of the United States, Rand McNally, Chicago.Google Scholar
Gronbjerg, K. (1993). Understanding Nonprofit Funding: Managing Revenues in Social Service and Community Development Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
Hall, P. (1992). Inventing the Nonprofit Sector and Other Essays on Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Nonprofit Organizations, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
Hall, P. D. (1998). Review of R. Kuttner, 1997, Everything for sale, Arnova News, 26(3), 9.Google Scholar
Hammack, D., and Young, D. (eds.) (1993). Nonprofit Organizations in a Market Economy, Jossey- Bass, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
Hannan, M., and Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational Ecology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.10.4159/9780674038288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansmann, H. (1987). Economic theories of nonprofit organizations. In Powell, W. (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar
Hansmann, H. (1996). The Ownership of Enterprise, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Hasenfeld, Y. (ed.) (1983). Human Service Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Hasenfeld, Y. (ed.) (1992). Human Services as Complex Organizations, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.Google Scholar
Hatch, M. J. (1996). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, Integrative in Post-Modern Perspectives, Oxford University Press, N.Y.Google Scholar
James, E. (ed.) (1989). The Nonprofit Sector in International Perspective: Studies in Comparative Culture and Policy, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Kagan, S., and Newton, J. (1989). For-profit and nonprofit child care: Similarities and differences. Young Children, 45, 4–10.Google Scholar
Kamerman, S., and Kahn, A. (eds.) (1989). Privatization and the Welfare State, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.10.1515/9781400860135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, F. X. (1991). The blurring of the distinction ‘state v. society’ in the welfare state. In Kaufmann, F. X. (ed.), The Public Sector-Challenge for Coordination and Learning, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 152–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, M., Beecham, J., and Hallam, A. (1997). The mixed economy of psychiatric reprovision. In Leff, J. (ed.), Care in the Community: Illusion or Reality? Wiley, London.Google Scholar
Knocke, D. (1990). Organizing for Collective Action: The Political Economies of Associations, Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, N.Y.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (1981). Voluntary Agencies in the Welfare State, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (1987). Voluntary agencies and the personal social services. In Powell, W. (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, pp. 240257.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (1994). Voluntary agencies and the contract culture: Dream or nightmare? Social Service Review, 65(1), 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (1995). Is the sector concept obsolete? Inside ISTR, 5(1), Summer, 6–7.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. (1998). Nonprofit organizations in the 21st century: Will sector matter? The Aspen Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Kramer, R., Lorentzen, H., Melief, W., and Pasquinelli, S. (1993). Privatization in Four European Countries in Four European Countries: Comparative Studies in Government-Third Sector Relationships, M. E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York.Google Scholar
Krashinsky, M. (1998). Does auspice matter? The case of day care in Canada. In Powell, W. and Clemens, E. (eds.), Private Action and the Public Good, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, pp. 114–123.Google Scholar
Kuhnle, S., and Selle, P. (eds.) (1992). Government and Voluntary Organizations: A Relational Perspective, Avebury, England.Google Scholar
Kuttner, R. (1997). Everything for Sale: The Virtues and Limits of Markets, Knopf, New York.Google Scholar
Lifset, R. (1989). Cash cows or sacred cows: The politics of the commercialization movement. In Hodgkinson, V. and Lyman, R. (eds.), The Future of the Nonprofit Sector, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
Locke, R. (1996). The Collapse of the American Managerial Mystique, Oxford University Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowndes, V. (1996). Varieties of new institutionalism: A critical appraisal. Public Administration, 74, Summer, 181–197.10.1111/j.1467-9299.1996.tb00865.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauser, E. (1998). The importance of organizational form: Parent perception versus reality in the day care industry. In Powell, W. and Clemens, E. (eds.), Private Action and the Public Good, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, pp. 124–136.Google Scholar
McGovern, J. (1989). The use of for-profit subsidiary corporations by nonprofits. In Hodgkinson, V., Lyman, R., and Associates, The Future of the Nonprofit Sector, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, pp. 168–182.Google Scholar
Meyer, J., and Rowan, B. (1991). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 41–62.Google Scholar
Milofsky, C. (1996). Organizations as process. Paper presented at the 1996 Annual Conference of ARNOVA.Google Scholar
Musolf, L., and Seidman, H. (1980). The blurred boundaries of public administration. Public Administration Review, March/April, 124–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortmann, A. (1996). Modern economic theory and the study of nonprofit organizations: Why the twain shall meet. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 470–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J., and Rainey, H. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, W. (1990). Neither markets nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.Google Scholar
Powell, W., and DiMaggio, P. (eds.) (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rein, M. (1989). The social structure of institutions: Neither public nor private. In Kamerman, S. and Kahn, A. (eds.), Privatization and the Welfare State, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 49–72.10.1515/9781400860135.49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitan, T. (1998). Theories of interorganizational relations in the human services. Social Service Review, 72, 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, L. (1999). The new landscape for nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 77(1), 127–136.Google ScholarPubMed
Salamon, L. (1993). The marketization of welfare: Changing nonprofit and for-profit roles in the American welfare state. Social Service Review, 67(1), 16–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, L. (1998). The nonprofit sector at a crossroads: The case of America. Voluntas, 10, 524.Google Scholar
Salamon, L., and Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationality. Voluntas, 9, 213–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, M. (1998). Mismeasuring the consequences of ownership. In Powell, W. and Clemens, E. (eds.), Private Action and the Public Good, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, pp. 85–113.Google Scholar
Scott, W. (1995). Institutions and Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Scotchmer, K., and Benschoten, E. (1999). Nonprofit pursuit of commercial ventures: Implications for nonprofit public purpose. In Independent Sector, Spring Research Forum, Crossing the Borders, Working Papers, pp. 397–418.Google Scholar
Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalism “old” and “new.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, June, 270–278.10.2307/2393719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharkansky, I. (1979). Wither the State? Politics and Public Enterprise in Three Countries, Chatham House, New Jersey.Google Scholar
6, P. (1994). Will anyone talk about the ‘third sector’ in 10 years’ time? In P. 6 and Vidal, I. (eds.), Delivering Welfare, Centre d’Iniciatives de l’Economica Social, Barcelona, pp. 401–409.Google Scholar
Skloot, E. (1988). The Nonprofit Entrepreneur, The Foundation Center, New York.Google Scholar
Smith, B. L. R. (1975). The New Political Economy: The Public Use of the Private Sector, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Stein, H. (ed.) (1986). Organizations and the Human Services: Cross-Disciplinary Reflections, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Steinberg, R. (1997). Overall evaluation of economic theories. Voluntas, 8, 179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svetlik, I. (1991). The future of welfare pluralism in the post-communist countries. In Evers, A. and Svetlik, I. (eds.), New Welfare Mixes in Care for the Elderly, European Center for Social Welfare Policy and Research, Vienna, pp. 13–24.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. (1992). The changing role of the nonprofit sector in Britain: Moving toward the market. In Gidron, B., Kramer, R. and Salamon, L. (eds.), Government and the Third Sector: Emerging Relationships in Welfare States, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, pp. 147–175.Google Scholar
Taylor, M., and Lansley, J. (1992). Ideology and welfare in the UK: Implications for the voluntary sector. Voluntas, 3, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, D. (1988). Ecological and institutional sources of change in organizational populations. In Carroll, G. (ed.), Ecological Models of Organizations, Ballinger, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 127–151.Google Scholar
Tuckman, H. (1998). Competition, commercialization and the evaluation of nonprofit structures. Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 165–174.Google Scholar
Social, United Nations and Council, Economic (1993). Statement of Guiding Principles, Commission for Social Development, New York.Google Scholar
Van Til, J. (1988). Mapping the Third Sector: Voluntarism in a Changing Social Economy, The Foundation Center, New York.Google Scholar
Van Til, J. (1994). Nonprofit organizations and social institutions. In Herman, Robert D. Associates (eds.), The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management, San Francisco, California, pp. 44–64.Google Scholar
Young, D. (1999). Complementary, supplementary or adversarial? A theoretical and historical examination of nonprofit-government relations in the US. In Boris, E. and Steuerle, C. (eds.), Nonprofits and Government: Collaboration and Conflict, The Urban Institute Press, Washington D.C., pp. 31–67.Google Scholar
Voluntas, 8 (1997). Special Issue on Economic Theory, 93–204.Google Scholar
Walmsley, G., and Zald, M. (1970). The Political Economy of Public Organizations, DC Heath, Lexington, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Weisbrod, B. (ed.) (1998). To Profit or Not to Profit: The Commercial Transformation of the Nonprofit Sector, Cambridge University Press, New York.10.1017/CBO9780511625947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wernet, S. (1994). A case study of adaptation in a nonprofit human service organization. Journal of Community Practice, 1(3).10.1300/J125v01n03_07CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wistow, G., Knapp, M., Hardy, B., Kendall, J., and Manning, R. (1996). Social Care Markets: Progress and Prospects, Open University Press, Buckingham.Google Scholar
Wolf, N., and Schlesinger, M. (1998). Access, hospital ownership, and competition between for profit and nonprofit institutions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27, 203–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zald, M. (1970). Organizational Change: The Political Economy of the YMCA, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Zucker, L. (1988). Combining institutional theory and population ecology: No legitimacy, no history. American Sociological Review, 54, 542–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar