This paper focuses on what from a global perspective must be seen as one of the most significant social movements during the post-war era: the transnational anti-apartheid movement. This movement lasted for more than three decades, from late 1950s to 1994, had a presence on all continents, and can be seen to be part of the construction of a global political culture during the Cold War. The paper argues that the history of the anti-apartheid struggle provides an important historical case for the analysis of present-day global politics—especially in so far that movement organizations, action forms, and networks that were formed and developed in the anti-apartheid struggle are present in the contemporary context of the mobilization of a global civil society in relation to neoliberal globalization and supra-national political institutions such as the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank.

This paper explores the roles of transnational civil society organizations and networks in transnational social learning. It begins with an investigation into social learning within problem domains and into the ways in which such domain learning builds perspectives and capacities for effective action among domain organizations and institutions. It suggests that domain learning involves problem definition, direction setting, implementation of collective action, and performance monitoring. Transnational civil society actors appear to take five roles in domain learning: (1) identifying issues, (2) facilitating voice of marginalized stakeholders, (3) amplifying the importance of issues, (4) building bridges among diverse stakeholders, and (5) monitoring and assessing solutions. The paper then explores the circumstances in which transnational civil society actors can be expected to make special contributions in important problem domains in the future.

This paper reviews some of the underpinnings of the current commercialization debate in the nonprofit sector, based on an analysis of Metropolitan Museum of Art data from 1960 to 2002. The case suggests at least two avenues for additional research: First, while analysts tend to see the origins of the commercialization phenomenon in the fiscal setbacks of the 1980s, the economic crisis of the 1970s and the resulting erosion of endowment funds may also have been an as of yet unexplored driving force behind the commercialization trend. Second, current conceptual frameworks of the phenomenon adequately explain the motivations behind the observable rise of the museum's commercial activities. However, the changing rationales as well as economic fortunes of commercial activities in this case highlight the need for a better understanding of the long-term effects and consequences of commercial activity by nonprofit organizations, particularly in light of the current push for increased entrepreneurialism.

This paper, a revised version of the keynote address to the Seventh International Conference of the International Society for Third Sector Research (Bangkok, July 2006), explores the increasing tendency of governments to view the third sector as a source of human insecurity and uncivil society in the wake of terrorist attacks. The paper discusses the means governments use to control third sector activity that they view as potentially linked to terrorism, the need for comparative analysis of these measures, and the role of the third sector and scholars in recognizing the responsibilities of governments to prevent third sector organizations being used in terrorism while preserving the independence and vitality of the third sector.

According to enthusiasts the concept of global civil society is spreading rapidly and becoming pivotal to the reconfiguring of the statist paradigm. However, critics have recently grown more numerous and outspoken in opposition to the term claiming that it is actually perpetuating statism by grafting the idea of civil society onto the global by way of an unhelpful domestic analogy. This paper examines the role the concept is playing in perpetuating/reconfiguring statism. First it summarizes current criticism by identifying three basic accusations: the ambiguity of the term, the “domestic fallacy,” and the undemocratic effects of using it. Second, these criticisms are considered in turn and it is concluded that all three points relate, ultimately, back to the failure of the critics themselves and some global civil society theorists to move beyond a state-centered framework of interpretation. In the final section it is shown how global civil society discourse is beginning to move not only the concept of “civil society” away from its state-centred historical meanings, but also how it is contributing to changing the content of the concept of “the global.”

Funding relationships in nonprofit management are increasingly defined by a philosophy of rational management, characterized by measurement of outputs and benchmarking, which represents an audit culture system (Burnley, Matthews, & McKenzie, 2005). There is concern that these approaches are constantly undermining the mission of community service nonprofit organizations (Darcy, 2002). In this research, we analyzed the management of funding relationships by examining dynamics within a nonprofit funding relationship in New Zealand. Through focus groups we explored the relationship between 17 representatives from nonprofit organizations and four Board members of a funding Trust. The management of this funding relationship was characterized by an appreciation of the diverse nature of nonprofit organizations, a balance between trust and control, and communication. We suggest that elements of these dynamics could be incorporated into nonprofit funding relationships in order to challenge an over-reliance on audit culture systems, and to re-establish relationships characterized by interaction between nonprofit organizations and their funders. Finally, we call for future research in this area.

In western capitalist societies the state has become increasingly criticized for its inadequacy as a mechanism for distributing welfare inclusively. In particular, it has been criticized for its lack of flexibility in meeting the needs of increasingly plural populations, and for being too distant to enable service users to participate in the meeting of their welfare needs. Consequently, in many countries, including the United Kingdom, voluntary and community associations have been used to distribute welfare with the belief that it can remedy the defects of universal state provision. This paper suggests the voluntary and community sector can only achieve this if the organizations are democratically organized, ensuring participation from staff and users. Moreover, participation should be based around the norms of deliberative democracy. The paper argues that this form of participation will best ensure that the needs, preferences, and interests of subordinate groups are included in social policy delivery, due to the fostering of public reason.

Recognition of the multi-cultural nature of the Canadian population has led companies across a wide array of business domains to reach beyond their traditional bases of support to focus on hitherto untapped communities as potential markets for their goods and services. Competitive conditions within the voluntary sector have pushed nonprofits along this same path. However, no systematic Canadian research reports on the attitudes, social norms, benefits sought, expectations, opportunities, experiences, or behaviors of sub-communities in the voluntary sector. This paper examines philanthropic behavior by religion using data from the Statistics Canada 2000 National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. The paper compares and contrasts the voluntary and philanthropic behaviors of the Canadian population across religious groups; compares and contrasts the motivations for and perceived impediments against such behaviors; and articulates and examines a model that traces the influence of religion on voluntary and philanthropic behavior in Canada’s multi-cultural society.

This paper argues that the operating environment of humanitarian assistance is best conceived as an interorganizational social network or regime and that the problem of power and authority in such situations must be re-founded or reconceived accordingly. This contention is developed to contribute to an important ongoing dialogue among analysts concerning how humanitarian aid may most effectively be delivered in the context of a realistic appraisal of the structural and operating conditions in which it is offered. The paper first outlines the primary elements of the organizational environment in which humanitarian efforts must proceed, next suggests a way of thinking about how one might conceive of those conditions that builds on recent work, and then sketches the elements of a strategic contingency approach to the humanitarian assistance coordination dilemma. This analytical frame leads one to rethink assumptions concerning how best to conceptualize both the environment and the behavior of humanitarian organizations engaged in providing assistance in emergency situations and to suggest that theory building for this domain of study should now turn to a network-based and strategically contingent perspective for its foundation.

Global civil society has become an important paradigm for progressive social change at a planetary level. It posits a bold new ethical project for global democratization. For its critics, though, it is just the social wing of neoliberal globalization diverting social movements from their tasks. It is also seen as irredeemably Eurocentric in its assumptions and orientation. A third option, proposed here, is to understand global civil society as a complex social and spatial terrain. By bringing politics back in, a progressive option can be presented to contest the dominant co-optive or reformist conception of global civil society.

Building on the current creativity literature, the authors developed and tested a model of employee creativity in a sample of Lithuanian nonprofit organizations. It was hypothesized that individual cognitive style, intrinsic motivation, leadership behaviors, job design, cultural norms of diversity, and work group relations would be related to employee creativity. Sixty nonprofit organizations were randomly sampled from the Database of Lithuanian Nonprofit Organizations and packets containing questionnaires were mailed to the organizations that agreed to participate. One hundred and twenty two questionnaires were returned out of 180 total (67.8% response rate). Results showed that innovative cognitive style, intrinsic motivation, and cultural norms for diversity were the most important predictors, explaining 41.5% of variance in employee creativity. Suggestions for hiring and staff development practices are provided along with implications for future research.

This paper explores the motivational frame of Italian young adults involved in volunteerism and its relation to several variables included in Omoto and Snyder’s Volunteer Process Model framework. Some 461 Italian young adults (aged 24–31) involved in voluntary activities with children and adolescents were considered. Referring to Omoto and Snyder’s functionalist and motivational framework, a Ward’s method cluster analysis was performed to identify specific patterns of motivations originating from the aggregation of 4 factors of motivation (social, career, ego-protective, and values) measured with the Voluntary Function Inventory (VFI). The results show that young volunteers are inspired by a distinctive and composite pattern of motivations, including both self and other-oriented motivations. Multiple motivations underlying the activities are associated to satisfaction and good integration in the organization confirming that people spurred by more than one motivation are less vulnerable to costs related to the activity and are more likely to maintain a longer involvement.

Australia, like many Western liberal democracies, has experienced an unprecedented shift toward market driven policy governance in the past decade, influenced heavily by the demands of globalization but also the dominance of conservative ideas of liberal democracy and market oriented neoliberalism. In this context nonprofit advocacy organizations (NPAOs) have not only been subject to criticism and a reduction in governmental support, but have had their legitimacy challenged and questioned. This paper responds to an audible, visible, and highly contestable critique of NPAOs by exploring their contemporary place and role in Australian democracy. This discussion relies on a review of some key ideas and theories of liberal democracy and an overview of the current Australian context in which NPAOs operate, particularly in regard to their participation in policy governance. A key observation about how integral NPAOs are to ensure an active and open democracy, challenges the current directions of Australian governance and suggests a need for reflection on what actually constitutes a fully functioning democracy that fits the demands of the twenty-first century.

This paper engages the concept of the organizational field to explore the status of a growing set of organizations referred to as social enterprises, nonprofit ventures, and social purpose businesses. The argument is developed through an ethnographic case study of a nonprofit hybrid organization (in the United States) that is training welfare recipients in their own in-house businesses. First, this paper provides an overview of the commercial trends in the nonprofit sector and the rise of social purpose enterprises. Then, employing key concepts from neo-institutional theory, the author proposes framing nonprofit-business hybrids as organizations positioned in two different organizational fields—each necessitating different internal organizational technologies—to elucidate the structural tensions that can emerge inside these new hybrid models. Internal organizational tensions identified in the case study are highlighted. Finally, the proposed use of organizational field theory developed from the case analysis is discussed in terms of social enterprise more generally.

This study offers a first empirical test at a truly global level of two contradictory models of global civil society in the global governance system that are put forth by neo-Gramscian thought. The first model posits that global civil society is coopted by hegemonic capitalist and political elites, and promotes hegemonic interests by distributing neoliberal values and providing a façade of opposition. The second model views global civil society as the infrastructure from which counter-hegemonic resistance, and ultimately a counter-hegemonic historic bloc will evolve and challenge neoliberal hegemony. The predictions that these two views make as to the structure of global civil society networks are tested through network analysis of a matrix of links between 10,001 international NGOs in a purposive sample of INGOs extracted from the database of the Union of International Associations. The findings provide partial support to the predictions of both models, and lead to the conclusion that at present global civil society is in a transitional phase, but that the current infrastructure provided by the global INGOs network is conducive to the development of a counter-hegemonic historic bloc in the future, providing the northern bias in network is decreased. Strategic steps needed to achieve this are presented.

Although it has gained wide currency in the analysis of African politics, civil society remains a “mysterious” concept in need of proper grounding and understanding as an integral part of African social formation. This paper argues that one of the widely acclaimed canonical works in African studies, Peter Ekeh’s theory of colonialism and the two publics in Africa provides one of the most original perspectives for locating and understanding the character of modern civil society as a product of colonialism. In particular, the theory provides an explanation for why primordial attachments have remained fundamental to the structuration of civil society and why state–civil society relations have largely been fractured, instrumentalist, and dialectical in the post-colonial period.

Since the 1980s both the United States and Europe have experienced a simultaneous expansion in social enterprise. However, little has been written comparing and contrasting American and European conceptions of social enterprise resulting in difficulty communicating on the topic and missed opportunities to learn and build on foreign experience. To address this need, this paper compares and contrasts American and European social enterprise through an extensive review of literature from the two regions and discussions with social enterprise researchers on both sides of the Atlantic. It outlines the definitions of social enterprise used by American and European academics and practitioners, identifies historical factors promoting and shaping different conceptions of social enterprise, and highlights the differing institutional and legal environments in which it operates. It concludes by identifying what Americans and Europeans can learn from each others’ experience with social enterprise.

International voluntary service (IVS) has a significant and growing presence worldwide. IVS is a policy and program tool used for international development aid, humanitarian relief, and promotion of international understanding. In the last century, forms of IVS have proliferated, while research on scope, effectiveness, and impacts has lagged behind. We propose a typology that addresses duration, nature of service, and degree of “internationality.” Further, we identify IVS networks and support organizations that bolster the capacity of IVS sending and hosting organizations, and in this process create large and little recognized international institutions of cooperation. Building on the typology, we suggest program, policy, and research implications to advance knowledge of the role of IVS, its role in global civil society, and impacts it may have on human conditions and cross-cultural understanding.

For many recent commentators, the association of citizenship with the nation-state is under siege, as transnational and even global forms of citizenship begin to emerge. The nascent phenomenon of global citizenship in particular is characterized by three components: the global discourse on human rights; a global account of citizenly responsibilities; and finally “global civil society.” This last component is supposed to give a new global citizenship its “political” character, and for many represents the most likely vehicle for the emergence of a global, democratic citizen politics. This paper critically examines this view, asking whether a global form of citizenship is indeed emerging, and if so whether “global civil society” is well-equipped to stand in as its political dimension. The paper examines two opposed narratives on the potential of global civil society to form a political arm of global citizenship, before returning by way of conclusion to the vexed notion of global citizenship itself.