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.

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.

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.

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.