Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-jhrpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T02:42:17.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nonprofit Comparative Research: Recent Agendas and Future Trends

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Georg von Schnurbein Open the ORCID record for Georg von Schnurbein [Opens in a new window] ,
Marybel Perez  and
Theresa Gehringer
Georg von Schnurbein*
Affiliation:
Center for Philanthropy Studies (CEPS), Universität Basel, Steinengraben 22, 4051 Basel, Switzerland
Marybel Perez
Affiliation:
Center for Philanthropy Studies (CEPS), Universität Basel, Steinengraben 22, 4051 Basel, Switzerland
Theresa Gehringer
Affiliation:
Center for Philanthropy Studies (CEPS), Universität Basel, Steinengraben 22, 4051 Basel, Switzerland
*
georg.vonschnurbein@unibas.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comparative research on nonprofit organizations (NPOs) has been a prominent approach for advancing our understanding of these organizations. This article identifies the primary drivers that shape the NPO comparative research agenda and explores new research trends. Based on a systematic literature review, nine definitional aspects and ten impulses are identified as drivers of NPO research. This article conducts a correspondence analysis to study the relationships between the definitional aspects and impulses that are discussed in 111 articles that were published in philanthropic and third-sector journals in the period January 2001–January 2015. Based on our results, we suggest three new clusters for future comparative research: investment and growth, participation and social impact, and social cohesion and civil society.

Résumé

Résumé

La recherche comparative sur les organismes sans but lucratif nous a grandement aidés à mieux comprendre ces derniers. Le présent article identifie les principaux facteurs qui donnent forme aux programmes de recherche comparative sur les organismes sans but lucratif, et explore les nouvelles tendances dans le domaine. Dans le cadre d’une revue systématique de la littérature, neuf aspects définitionnels et dix besoins furent identifiés en tant que facteurs d’incitation à la recherche sur les organismes sans but lucratif. Le présent article procède à une analyse des correspondances dans le but d’étudier les relations entre les aspects définitionnels et les besoins dont il est question dans 111 articles qui furent publiés dans des journaux philanthropiques et du tiers secteur de janvier 2001 à janvier 2015. Nous proposons, en fonction de nos résultats, trois nouveaux groupes pour la recherche comparative ultérieure : investissement et croissance, participation et incidence sociale, et cohésion sociale et société civile.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Vergleichende Forschungen zu Non-Profit-Organisationen sind ein verbreiteter Ansatz, um unser Verständnis über diese Organisationen zu erweitern. Dieser Beitrag ermittelt die Haupteinflussfaktoren, die die Agenda der vergleichenden Forschung zu Non-Profit-Organisationen gestaltet, und untersucht neue Forschungstrends. Beruhend auf einer systematischen Literaturauswertung werden neun Definitionsaspekte und zehn Impulse als Einflussfaktoren für die Forschung zu Non-Profit-Organisationen identifiziert. Man führt eine Korrespondenzanalyse durch, um die Beziehungen zwischen den Definitionsaspekten und den Impulsen zu untersuchen, die in 111 Artikeln in philanthropischen Journalen und Fachblättern des Dritten Sektors im Zeitraum von Januar 2001 bis Januar 2015 diskutiert wurden. Beruhend auf unseren Ergebnissen schlagen wir drei neue Gruppen für zukünftige vergleichende Forschungen vor: Investment und Wachstum, Partizipation und soziale Auswirkungen sowie sozialer Zusammenhalt und Bürgergesellschaft.

Resumen

Resumen

La investigación comparativa sobre las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro (NPO, por sus siglas en inglés) ha sido un enfoque prominente para el avance de nuestra comprensión de dichas organizaciones. El presente artículo identifica los impulsores fundamentales que dan forma a la agenda de investigación comparativa de las NPO y explora nuevas tendencias de investigación. Basándonos en una revisión sistemática del material publicado, se identifican nueve aspectos definitorios y diez impulsos como impulsores de la investigación de las NPO. El presente artículo realiza un análisis de correspondencia para estudiar las relaciones entre los aspectos definitorios y los impulsos que se tratan en 111 artículos que fueron publicados en diarios filantrópicos y del sector terciario en el período de enero de 2001 a enero de 2015. Basándonos en nuestros resultados, sugerimos tres nuevos grupos temáticos o clusters para la investigación comparativa: inversión y crecimiento, participación e impacto social, y cohesión social y sociedad civil.

Chinese

Chinese

非营利组织(NPO)比较研究已成为我们了解这些组织的重要方法。本文已列明制定非营利组织比较研究计划和探索最新研究趋势的主要驱动因素。基于系统性文献综述,九项定义内容和十种刺激因素被确认为非营利组织研究的驱动因素。本文通过对应分析,研究了慈善期刊与第三领域期刊在2001年1月至2015年1月期间发表的111篇文章讨论的定义内容和刺激因素之间的关系。根据我们的分析结果,我们建议,未来的比较研究采用三种新的组群:投资与增长、参与和社会影响、社会凝聚力与民间团体。

Japanese

Japanese

非営利組織(NPO)の比較研究は、組織の理解を深める卓越したアプローチである。本論文では、NPOの比較研究の具体化と新しい研究傾向の調査を主として推進する。体系的な文献の見直しに基づいて、9つの定義づけの側面と10の傾向をNPOの研究推進として明らかにする。本論文では、コレスポンデンス分析を行って、2001年1月から2015年1月までに出版された博愛的な第3セクターの雑誌で議論された111件の論文における定義づけの側面と傾向の関係を研究する。結果から、今後の比較研究における3つの要素、投資と成長、参加と社会的影響、社会的団結と市民社会を提示する。

Arabic

Arabic

البحث المقارن حول المنظمات الغير ربحية (NPOs) أصبح نهج بارز للنهوض بفهمنا لهذه المنظمات. تحدد هذه المقالة المحركات الرئيسية التي تشكل جدول أعمال البحوث النسبية للمنظمات الغير ربحية (NPO) وتستكشف إتجاهات البحث الجديدة. إستنادا” إلى إستعراض منهجي للأدبيات، تم تحديد تسعة جوانب للتعريف وعشرة نبضات كعوامل محركة لأبحاث المنظمات الغير ربحية (NPO). تجري هذه المقالة تحليل للمراسلات لدراسة العلاقات بين جوانب التعريف والنبضات التي نوقشت في 111 مقالة نشرت في مجلات خيرية وثالثة في الفترة من يناير/كانون الثاني 2001 إلى يناير/كانون الثاني 2015. إستنادا” إلى نتائجنا، نقترح ثلاث مجموعات جديدة من أجل البحوث المقارنة في المستقبل: الإستثمار والنمو، المشاركة والأثر الإجتماعي، والتماسك الإجتماعي والمجتمع المدني.

Keywords

Comparative researchNonprofit organizationsSocial capitalManagement

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , June 2018 , pp. 437 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2018

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

Update 2 July 2018 The PDF version of this article was reformatted to a larger trim size.

References

Anheier, Helmut K (2014). Civil society research: Ten years on. Journal of Civil Society. 10(4), 335–339. doi: 10.1080/17448689.2014.984973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anheier, H. K., & Daly, S. (2007). Politics of foundations : A comparative analysis. Florence: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anheier, H. K., Kaldor, M., & Glasius, M. (2012). The global civil society yearbook: Lessons and insights 2001–2011. In: Selchow, S., Kaldor, M., & Moore, H. (Eds.), Global civil society 2012. Ten years of critical reflection. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Anheier, H. K., & Salamon, L. M. (2006). The nonprofit sector in comparative perspective. In: Powell, W. W., & Steinberg, R. (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 89–114). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Anheier, H. K., & Seibel, W. (1990a). The third sector in comparative perspective: Four propositions. In: Anheier, H. K., & Seibel, W. (Eds.), The third sector: Comparative studies of nonprofit organizations. New York: de Gruyter doi: 10.1515/9783110868401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anheier, H. K., & Seibel, W. (1990b). The third sector: Comparative studies of nonprofit organizations. New York: de Gruyter doi: 10.1515/9783110868401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, M. (2001). Peer review’ culture. Science and Engineering Ethics. 7(2), 193–204. doi: 10.1007/s11948-001-0040-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basil, D., & Basil, M. (2012). Introduction to special issue. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. 17(2), 293–294. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, R. (1990). Nonprofit organizations in international perspective. In: Anheier, H. K., & Seibel, W. (Eds.), Third sector. Comparative studies in nonprofit research (pp. 271–275). New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Beh, E., & Lombardo, R. (2014). Correspondence analysis: Theory, practice and new strategies. New York: Wiley & Sons doi: 10.1002/9781118762875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review?. Science. 342(October), 60–65. doi: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45, 197–245. doi: 10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, J. (2016). Comparing nonprofit sectors around the world. What do we know and how do we know it?. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership. 6(3), 187–223. doi: 10.18666/JNEL-2016-V6-I3-7583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordery, C. J., & Morgan, G. G. (2013). Special issue on charity accounting reporting and regulation. Voluntas. 24(3), 757–759. doi: 10.1007/s11266-013-9376-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornforth, C. (2014). Nonprofit governance research: The need for innovative perspectives and approaches. In: Cornforth, C., & Brown, W. (Eds.), Nonprofit governance: Innovative perspectives and approaches (pp. 1–14). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crosby, B. C., Bloomberg, L., & Bryson, J. (2014). Public value governance: moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review. 74(4), 445–456. doi: 10.1111/puar.12238.Google Scholar
Defourny, J., Grønbjer, K., Mejis, L., Nyssens, M., & Yamauchi, N. (2016). Voluntas symposium: comments on Salamon and Sokolowski’s re-conceptualization of the third sector. Voluntas. 27(4), 1546–1561. doi: 10.1007/s11266-016-9743-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eikenberry, A. (2009). Refusing the market—a democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 38(4), 582–596. doi: 10.1177/0899764009333686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?. Public Administration Review. 64(2), 132–140. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00355.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epperly, B., & Lee, T. (2015). Corruption and NGO sustainability: A panel study of post-communist states. Voluntas. 26(1), 171–197. doi: 10.1007/s11266-013-9404-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, N. (2002). Explaining the new public management. The importance of context. In: McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S. P., & Ferlie, E. (Eds.), New public management: Current trends and future prospects (pp. 57–76). Routledge: London.Google Scholar
Gautier, A., & Pache, A. C. (2013). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 1–27. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1536-7.Google Scholar
Greenacre, M. (2007). Correspondence analysis in practice (2nd ed.). London: Chapman and Hall doi: 10.1201/9781420011234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruening, G. (2001). Origin and theoretical basis of new public management. International Public Management Journal, 4, 1–25. doi: 10.1016/S1096-7494(01)00041-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. (2012). Nonprofits and business: Towards a sub-field of nonprofit studies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 51(5), 892–902. doi: 10.1177/0899764012443735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, J., Ishkanian, A., Obadare, E., Seckinelgin, H., & Glasius, M. (2007). The backlash against civil society in the wake of the long war on terror. Civil society working paper 26, London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Hudock, A. C. (1999). NGOs and civil society. Democracy by proxy?. Cambridge: Wiley.Google Scholar
James, E. (1987). The nonprofit sector in comparative perspective. In Powell, W. W. (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 397–415). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kittel, B. (2006). A crazy methodology? On the limits of macro-quantitative social science research. International Sociology. 21(5), 647–677. doi: 10.1177/0268580906067835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, S-W, & Adler, P. S. (2014). Social capital: Maturation of a field of research. Academy of Management Review. 39(4), 412–422. doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (2014). Heading south: Time to abandon the ‘parallel worlds’ of international non-governmental organization (NGO) and domestic third sector scholarship?. Voluntas, 25, 1132–1150. doi: 10.1007/s11266-014-9438-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, M., & De Bruijn, J. (2006). Comparative research. persistent problems and promising solutions. International Sociology. 21(5), 619–631. doi: 10.1177/0268580906067833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, M., von Schnurbein, G., & Gehringer, T. (2016). Comparative research of non-profit organisations: A preliminary assessment. CEPS Working Paper Series, No. 9. Basel: CEPS.Google Scholar
Potluka, O., Spacek, M., & von Schnurbein, G. (2017). Impact of the EU structural funds on financial capacities of non-profit organizations. Voluntas. doi: 10.1007/s11266-017-9845-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, W. W. (1987). The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: Americas’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65–78. doi: 10.1353/jod.1995.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, C. (1987). The comparative method. Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. (2006). How to lure analytic social science out of the doldrums: Some lessons from comparative research. International Sociology. 21(5), 633–646. doi: 10.1177/0268580906067834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, C., & Amoroso, L. M. (2011). Constructing social research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Ragin, C., & Rubinson, C. (2009). The distinctiveness of comparative research. In: Landman, T., & Robinson, N. (Eds.), The sage handbook of comparative politics (pp. 13–34). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Rikmann, E., & Keedus, L. (2013). Civic sectors in transformation and beyond: Preliminaries for a comparison of six Central and Eastern European Societies. Voluntas, 4, 149–166. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9305-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (Eds.). (2014). New frontiers of philanthropy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199357543.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K.associates (1999). Civil society in comparative perspective. In Salamon, L. M., Anheier, H. K., List, R., Toepler, S., Sokolowski, S. W. & Associates Global Civil Society (Eds.), Dimensions of the nonprofit sector (pp. 3–39). Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M., Anheier, H. K., List, R., Sokolowski, S. W., Toepler, S., & Associates (2004). Global civil society: Dimensions of the nonprofit sector. Baltimore: John Hopkins Center for Civil Society.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, S. W. (2014). The third sector in Europe: Towards a consensus conceptualization. TSI Working Paper Series, no. 02. http://thirdsectorimpact.eu/documentation/tsi-working-paper-no-2-third-sector-europe-towards-consensus-conceptualization/.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, S. W. (2016). Beyond non-profits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. Voluntas. 27(4), 1515–1545. doi: 10.1007/s11266-016-9726-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, J. A. (2009). Organizational social capital and nonprofits. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 38(4), 643–662. doi: 10.1177/0899764009333956.Google Scholar
Studer, S., & von Schnurbein, G. (2013). Organizational factors affecting volunteers: A literature review on volunteer coordination. Voluntas. 24(2), 403–440. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9268-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Schnurbein, G. (2014). Managing social capital through value configurations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership. 24(3), 357–376. doi: 10.1002/nml.21096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiepking, P., & Handy, F. (Eds.). (2015). The Palgrave Handbook of Global Philanthropy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137341532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. (2012). Volunteerism research: A review essay. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 41(2), 176–212. doi: 10.1177/0899764011434558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wollebæk, D., & Selle, P. (2007). Origins of social capital: Socialization and institutionalization approaches compared. Journal of Civil Society. 3(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1080/17448680701390638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar