The topic of “management” and nonprofit organizations (NPOs) continues to fascinate scholars. This paper draws on varying theoretical perspectives to explore their respective contributions to our knowledge of NPOs. The two longstanding and contrasting disciplines of economics and sociology have contributed most, traditionally, to the study of NPOs. However, neither of these disciplines has resolved all the dilemmas associated with NPOs. The standard economic model does not apply well to the distinctive nonmarket situation of NPOs. The sociological perspectives offer interesting insight, but fail to develop plans of action for NPOs. However, both of these traditional perspectives are starting to be eclipsed by the focus on marketing research.

Management practices in the nonprofit sector have been changing over the last decade. Many nonprofit organizations are now mimicking the management techniques of for-profit organizations. Referring to prevailing economic, psychological, and management theories, this paper deals with pay-for-performance plans and specifies reasons for their introduction into nonprofit organizations. The determinants of pay-for-performance effectiveness are analyzed with special emphasis on the motivational determinants. The results of the analysis are incorporated into a model of pay-for-performance effectiveness. Referring to theoretical reasoning as well as empirical studies, this paper analyzes how the motivational determinants of pay-for-performance effectiveness are coined in different types of nonprofit organizations. The paper ends with a discussion in which the author presents an alternative explanation for the introduction of pay-for-performance plans into nonprofit organizations and some suggestions for future research.

This paper argues that strategic management of a public interest organization not only needs to be aimed at the interests it represents, but it also has to incorporate the organization’s internal workings. The functioning of a public interest organization is seen to suffer from a primary dilemma of membership and influence and a secondary dilemma of representation and control. If these dilemmas are not handled adequately, the public interest organization will suffer from a vicious circle of contradiction and conflict, eventually threatening the organization’s long-term viability. A case study is elaborated to empirically underpin this proposition.

We provide improved evidence on effects that fund-raising, government support, and program revenue of U.S. higher education, hospital, and scientific research nonprofit organizations (NPOs) have on donations to those NPOs and provide improved estimates of price elasticities of donations to, and donor demand for output of, those NPOs. Applying econometric tests, we find the best-specified model is two-way fixed effects, which controls for organization-specific and time- specific factors. Results suggest that U.S. higher education, hospital, and scientific research NPOs fund-raise to the point where the marginal fund-raising dollar brings in zero dollars of donations, donor demand for output of hospitals and scientific research NPOs is price inelastic and price elastic, respectively, and results are not sensitive to specification of price.

The objectives of this study were to obtain a deeper understanding of the donor behavior characteristics of young affluent individuals; and to ascertain whether young affluent women differed significantly from young affluent males in their approaches to philanthropy. Two hundred and seventeen investment bankers, accountants, and corporate lawyers, aged under 40 years, earning more than £50,000 annually and working in the City of London were questioned about their attitudes and behavior in relation to charitable giving. Significant differences emerged between the donor behavior characteristics of males and females. A conjoint analysis revealed that whereas men were more interested in donating to the arts sector in return for “social” rewards (invitations to gala events and black-tie dinners, for example), women had strong predilections to give to “people” charities and sought personal recognition from the charity to which they donated.