THE ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA UNIVERSITY OF IAŞI FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIAL-POLITICAL SCIENCES THE NONPROFIT SECTOR IN THE ERA OF GOOD GOVERNANCE:

Transcription

1 THE ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA UNIVERSITY OF IAŞI FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIAL-POLITICAL SCIENCES THE NONPROFIT SECTOR IN THE ERA OF GOOD GOVERNANCE: THE RELATION BETWEEN THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS AND THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN ROMANIA ABSTRACT OF PHD THESIS COORDINATOR, PROFESSOR, PHD, GEORGE POEDE PHD CANDIDATE, ANDREI (ATEȘOAE) MARIA ROXANA IAȘI 2013

2 INTRODUCTION Twenty five years ago, Lester Salamon (1987a) considered that: in the absence of a theoretical background of the relations between governance and the non-profit sector, the tensions between the governance and the non-governmental organizations (NGO) will lead to the impossibility of a positive work relation between the two sectors. Definitely, there are pros and cons regarding the relations between governance and NGOs. Nevertheless, on both sides, the relations between governance and NGOs are more and more accepted as being inevitable. The NGOs must admit they cannot isolate their members or beneficiaries beyond the political forces and must find ways to help communities recognize these forces. On one side, the NGOs must be informed upon the political and legal background of the governmental activities and upon the pressures and the emergent behaviour of the government officials. On the other side, the governance must be aware of the needs and activities of the NGOs, because these have a significant influence on all types of services and often influence the governmental policies. Beyond these minimal efforts, the governance as well as the NGOs could benefit, in different contexts, from the deliberate pursuit of a relationship of cooperation and partnership. A typology of the relations between the governance and the NGOs could be a useful tool in the assessment of the current realities in Romania. This model must be seen as an initial step in exploring the transformation of one type of relation between an NGO and a governmental agency, for a specific purpose or program. This thesis aims to analyze the current state of the relations between the governance and the non-profit sector in Romania, as well as to estimate the evolution of these relations in the good governance context. The shown model will be used in the analysis of the variety of relations types and offers a theoretical basis for the apprehension of the dynamics of existent relations, the potential strengths and limitations. More specific, it provides the key features and the specific characteristics in order to facilitate a quick assessment of the current relations in a particular background or in a specific geographical area, in order to give the possibility to identify the proper structural features, possible for the desired alternatives. 2

3 CHAPTER 1: GOVERNANCE, KEY CONCEPT OF THE DISCOURSE UPON THE CONTEMPORARY DEMOCRACY The analysis of modern theories upon governance (the theory of rational choice, the new institutionalism, the systems theory, and interpretative theories) reflect the interest of social sciences community regarding the changes in the governance s styles. Five assertions about governance are presented and critically debated: 1. Governance refers to a set of institutions and actors which come from within the governance, but also from outside it. 2. Governance recognizes the blurring boundaries and responsibilities in addressing social and economic problems. 3. Governance identifies the power dependency from the relation between institutions involved in collective action. 4. Governance is about autonomous self-governing networks of actors. 5. Governance recognizes the capacity to realize things which do not rely on the governance power to command or to use its authority. It sees governance capable to utilize new tools and techniques in order to lead and guide. The inter-organizational governance often relies on the idea that networks can coordinate the actions of a series of actors and organizations. Indeed, many times, its supporters suggest that networks allow a superior way of coordination, both hierarchies and markets in many circumstances. The networks determine a facilitator type of leadership, defined through a greater flexibility, creativity, inclusion and commitment. The second wave of reforms from the public sector tries to promote networks and partnerships rather than markets. Networks are the defining characteristic of governance, and offer a coordination mechanism considerably different from markets and hierarchies. The policies networks is the name given to the formal and informal connections which develop between governance and the associations of civil society, NGOs and interest groups in different political areas (Marsh & Rhodes, 1992a, b). A major assertion of the contemporary approaches of governance is that a greater number of decisions regarding policies are taken within and through self organized policies networks (Bell, Hindmoor, 2009, p. 4). 3

4 These partnerships could be established between public organizations, private and voluntary, as well as between different levels of governances or different state agencies. In many countries, the focus shifted from competitive auctions to building long-term relations within the public sector, based on trust, with suppliers and users. Public-private partnerships present a series of advantages, based on their capacity to combine the strengths of each sector. The partnerships and the inter-organizational governance are often recommended as means to promote the social inclusion, as well as for the increase of efficiency (Kersbergen and van Waarden, 2004, p. 148). Ideally, they increase citizen involvement in the political process. Citizen groups participate as partners in issues related to policies development and implementation. The second wave of reforms in the public sector aims to activate the civil society. Partnership and inter-organizational governance should provide frameworks in which the public sector can involve interested stakeholders citizens, non-profit organizations and private companies thus involving them in democratic processes. Also, it is hoped that involving stakeholders in the process of policies development and implementation will lead to an increase of public trust in governance. CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN STRENGHTENING AND SUPPORTING DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATIZATION From a liberal perspective, based on classical rights, in line with the vision of John Locke, civil society is seen as the sphere of individual citizens who lead their businesses free and independent from the state s interventions. A different point of view highlights the importance of a plurality of organizations and civil society associations, as a ground component of the modern democracy. A great importance is given to organizations and association which act as an intermediate sphere between society and state and mediate the plurality of interests in front of the state. Such a point of view applies a comprehensive perception of the civil society, including private and economic interests. The theory of critic democracy analyses the democratic problem and civil society as a way of self organizing and self governance. It was seen as the solution to the inherent problems of the contemporary democratic system, endangered by neo-corporatist arrangements, orchestrated by influent groups of interests. Social capital and its elements: 4

5 social trust, norms of generalized trust and horizontal networks of civic activity contribute to the economic success, as well as to the institutional one, by ensuring coordinated actions and spontaneous cooperation for the mutual benefit, according to the theory of social capital. Social networks and the networks of civic commitment are conceived as an essential element of the social capital, because they play a major role in creating the mutual trust and the generalized reciprocity norms. The communitarian approach sees civil society as the autonomous sphere in which communities and collective identity can appear. Walzer (1995) understands civil society as the revitalization of social networks and as a society with collective identity, which is oriented toward the public good and comprehensive interest. Civil society comprises, on one hand, institutions and organizations based on social self-organizing, and on the other hand, a political culture based on civic virtue. The analyses which focus upon the non-profit sector define civil society and its organizations as being more efficient than the state and the market, in fulfilling certain tasks. The research on non-governmental or non-profit sector has its origins in the state crisis, especially in the crisis of the welfare state (Salamon, Anheier et.all., 1999, p. 4) and brings forth the capacity of NGOs to compensate for the state and market s failures: the non-governmental organizations hold great advantages upon the state and the market. NGOs benefit from a greater public trust and credibility than the market and they are perceived as being much more flexible, innovative and more efficient in terms of costs, than the state, when providing services. There are identified and analyzed seven major functions of the civil society (Abele, 2006, p. 37): protection, control, coordination and mediation, communication, socialization, solidarity, and service function. Furthermore, it is proposed a dynamic model of the civil society, which sees it as a process. On one side, the civil society is a utopian ideal (unreachable), on the other side it refers at the process of development of civil society. Thus, civil society it is neither unchangeable nor a fixed state of society, but can take different forms, which are more or less civil. These forms are best depicted by the condition of the two dimensions of civil society: the structural and the cultural one. Therefore we identify and analyze four situations: absence of civil society, elitist civil society, the structural one and the classic civil society. 5

6 The second part of this chapter aims to elaborate analysis dimensions for the nonprofit sector. The starting point was given by the theoretical studies, which further led to analyzing the non-profit sector through its social position and the relations with other elements of society. Also, it was analyzed the difference between theoretical and empirical studies upon the non-governmental area. Generally, the theoretical approaches focus more on the macro-level of society, while the empirical ones more often aim different parts of the nonprofit sector, or give more attention to the micro-level of society. After we identify these differences, we make an exercise in order to discover which factors could be used to cover the gap given by a contextualized approach. The result is a social profile with four different dimensions. The social profiles are analysis devices for the non-profit sector and organizations, as social actors within networks and in interaction. CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL APPROACHES OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN NONPROFIT SECTOR AND GOVERNANCE This chapter focuses especially on the relations between the non-governmental sector and governance, analyzing themes such as: why the apprehension of the non-governmental sector is a difficult task, when the relations between the non-profit sector and the state have become a research subject of great interest, the level of governance which defines the relations between non-profit area and government, the manner in which these relations are explained, and why partnership agreements with the NGOs become more and more popular. Governance (and especially the notion of good governance ) is highly affiliated with the partnership theme, in the sense of non-hierarchic coordination, a peaceful solution for conflicts and the effective and efficient development of policies. Moreover, the non-profit organizations are perceived as offering means for civic participation, hence democratic legitimacy within governance s agreements. Depending on which side of the politic system is the focus, it is underlined the advocacy or lobby function or the function of development of public policies for non-profit organizations, when it is studied the role and importance of these organizations in specific agreements of the governance. In this chapter are analyzed in detail two of the most known heuristic models, developed by the researchers of non-profit sector, trying to explain the partnership agreements between NGOs and governance: the model of the 4C of Adil Najam and Young s typology of partnerships between non-governmental sector and government and three of the most 6

7 important theoretical approaches: the inter-dependence theory of Lester Salamon, the dilettantism functional theory of Wolfgang Seibel, and the theory of social origin developed by Lester Salamon and Helmut Anheier. The conclusion of these theories is that NGOs have a great potential to be integrated in partnership agreements, because they are multifunctional organizations, which are not based on a single justification or operating system (Zimmer, 2010, p. 214). NGOs are partners in the process of development and appliance of policies at every level of government. They are members of advocacy coalitions and of networks for government policies, international or European. In many welfare states, non-profit organizations are recognized as services producers in areas referring to welfare, defined as a basic concept. Locally, these organizations are mainly involved in co-production of services; at a regional and national level of government, they are active in lobby and advocacy activities. The integration of NGOs in governance agreements implied great expectations. Governance is closely linked to the subject of partnership, in the sense of non-hierarchic coordination, a peaceful resolution of conflicts, and efficient policies development. In governance s specific agreements, NGOs are seen to offer means of civic participation. Therefore, there are meant to significantly contribute to the legitimacy of democratic regimes. In this context, it is needed a model which takes into account in a greater proportion the types of institutional agreements between the State and the nongovernmental area. Therefore, it has to analyze the global background on which the relationships between players develop in the field. In order to highlight the types of possible relations between State and nongovernmental sector, two approaches were developed by Jennifer Coston (1998) and Adil Najam (2000), each of one based on a different algorithm. Coston s typology is build from the analysis of literature from many countries. It allows the highlight of a greater variety of possible agreements, depending on the history of the studied countries, the legal frameworks in force, the culture and policies related to NGOs. It suggests a continuum comprising eight types of possible relations between the State and the nongovernmental sector: repression, rivalry, competition, contractual, tripartite governance, cooperation, complementarity and cooperation. This typology relies on the analysis of three main parameters: the degree in which the State is opened to institutional pluralism (including the non-profit sector), the formality degree of relations and the balance of power. The model developed by Coston 7

8 allows introducing shades in analysis, which can be interesting, hence deepening the apprehension of relations developed between the State and the non-profit sector in Romania. CHAPTER 4: THE NON-PROFIT SECTOR AND THE GOVERNMENT S INSTRUMENTS The review of instruments opens a new and differentiated perspective upon the relations between state and non-profit sector. Public policies have positive or negative effects, depending on the used instruments, and through the impact they have on the basic features of the NGOs. Salamon (2002) underlines that if the public objectives will be implemented through means of the non-profit and market actors, it is necessary a new set of public instruments, different from the ones of hierarchic coordination. The welfare resulted from civic action mediates qualities such as reciprocity, volunteering, enthusiasm, mutual help, cooperation and many others characteristics specific for civic spirit. The social system which relies on these kinds of features reacts at public instruments differently than the public market players. In short, the study of governmental instruments in the non-profit area is linked to this sector s functions, as they are perceived and described by public authorities. I suggest two main functions: civic and providing services. The first one is connected to a better society, including the positive effects of non-profit sector upon social inclusion and the consolidation of social capital, as well as the welfare of representative democracy. These functions could be summarized as inclusion and advocacy. A common denominator is the fact that the intention behind the public support is not connected to a given task (in the narrow sense of the word), but to broader social functions of the sector. More often, tax exemption for non-profit providers are connected to this kind of objectives, and supporting the advocacy function for some association is also an example. The second function is linked to the services production, providing material or social goods, in forms described as being services. However, the civic functions and the services one could merge. Inclusion could also appear as a side effect of services production. For example, through activities producing welfare, in specific manners or with a special content, inclusion will appear as a product. Regarding these functions, few researches have been made on different instruments and their 8

9 relevance. The aim of this chapter is to develop an analytic framework for the analysis of connections between governmental instruments on one hand, and the civic and services functions on the other hand. Non-profit organizations have a wide range of properties, varying from an organization to another, and which are influenced by the applied instruments. I show in this chapter that the non-profit properties when present could be affected by the use of government instruments: voluntary or civic participation, activities developed by professional or paid personnel, marketing and governance (the governing structure of the non-profit associations). The provision of services in cooperation will be growing. Limited governmental resources, the growing political influence of the private sector and of the non-profit one and the donors tendencies within the international community meet to ensure continued growth of this type of approach towards public services, in developing countries as well as in developed ones. Also, there is a wide variety of actions which can be implemented in order to ensure a better offer of public services in cooperation. These vary from a better and mutual understanding of the activity in each sector, to the development of procedures which encourage, and maybe will ensure, trust and mutual understanding between those involved in this type of situations: government, partners and beneficiaries of public services. CHAPTER 5: DIMENSIONS AND SCOPE OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL SECTOR FROM ROMANIA In this chapter, after a review of the main legal aspects regarding non-governmental area in Romania, it is widely presented the dynamic of non-governmental area in our country: territorial and residency distribution, density of NGOs. The NGOs activity is analyzed through financial indicators of the main activity areas proposed by associations. Therefore, there are presented the public policies instruments from Romania and which support the direct or indirect mechanisms of financial support. For a better understanding of the research process, the chapter presents the nongovernmental sector s dimension in the county of Iasi: distribution by domains, the financial 9

10 support, and the NGOs budget in Iaşi. Also, it is presented a history of the development of this sector. Specific elements which influence the development of democracy could be noticed in the relation between NGOs and public authorities, in a detailed approach of the role of NGOs in Romania during the democratization of the Romanian society, in different development periods. The first sub-period is characterized by a conflict approach. The legal framework guaranteed the necessary rights for democratic development, such as freedom of association, freedom of speech, the right to vote and to be elected, free elections etc. Therefore, it can be said that in this period the fundamental issues of a democratic society were solved. The second sub-period is defined by partnership solutions were sought for current problems, based on the openness shown by the government. There were attempts to build solution based on key elements from the previous period. Thus, there were established the entities/institution to put into practice the key elements. The third sub-period of transition comprised of elements more specific for democratic development, such as transparency and involvement in taking decisions. Hence, it was aimed the democratic development, in terms of governmental activity, as well as in the political agenda. When we presented this period, nationally and in the county of Iaşi, we reached the conclusion the government was not systematically and programmatically interested in the development of this area. However, the discovery of the reality in the NGOs area by stakeholders will represent a good starting point for a debate regarding the policy towards this sector. Although there is a whole rhetoric of partnership with civil society, and in this case, with the non-governmental sector (in order to identify actual experiences, legal frameworks and mechanisms which support partnership) it is needed a better integration of NGOs in the public discourse, in the recognition practice, so that it is better valued and supported. CHAPTER 6: THE RELATION BETWEEN NON-PROFIT SECTOR AND PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN ROMANIA. CASE STUDY: THE COUNTY OF IAŞI 10

11 In this chapter are shown the results of the research I have made with the 28 NGOs from the county of Iaşi, NGOs which are linked with different organizations or agencies from the public sector. The NGOs are involved in areas with different activities. The research is based on Jennifer Coston s study, which identified eight possible types of relations between an NGO and an institution or a public entity, (Coston, 1998) and it was developed using the research instrument build by Savard and Proulx (2011). The research instrument allowed the respondent organizations to identify the nature of their connection with a public institution or entity chosen by them. However, the conception and the implementation of public policies are made more and more with the help of NGOs. Presently, the state does not have anymore the monopoly upon the provision of public services, but shares it, in different percentages, with other players, whether we refer to private sector oriented to profit, family or relatives of the persons who need different types of care, support or assistance, or NGOs. In the context given by theories of governance and reform in the area of social services, we conducted a research to explore the issue of what we called interfaces between state and NGOs. Through this research, we aimed to analyze the connections between NGOs and public institutions, based on a variety of possible models. Hence, we review the literature regarding the current typologies. Our choice is for the typology developed by Jennifer M. Coston (1998), adapted for Romania. The selected typology is the most complete one. Moreover, it has the advantage of including, in different manners, the majority of every other identified typology. Therefore, through its complexity, it allows a better refinement of the analysis of relations between state and the non-profit sector. Also it permits us avoid a binary analysis, which involved that NGOs are subcontracted to the State or are involved in a true partnership, with real power. Thus, we identified six possible types of relations: competition, subcontracting, indirect government, co-existence, complementarity and co-construction. Studies dated 2000s showed difficult and inconsistent relations between communitarian organizations and public institutions, where NGOs felt little respect of their identity and their ways of action. One might think this attitude of the public institutions and agencies towards NGOs is due to the large unaware of these new actors with whom they had to cooperate. This study shows that currently public organizations know much better the NGOs, and in a proportion of 11

12 85,7% NGOs declare they feel respected by the public entities, in regard their performance. It is perhaps maybe more important in the respondents opinion, and we saw how, that their legitimacy is no longer questioned and that NGOs expertise it is acknowledged. Moreover, the study shows the way in which has grown the relation between community s organizations and public institutions, being more formalized. Indeed, not only that NGOs participate in different work commission with the public entities, but no less than 89% of them reported some form of agreement with a public institution. Sometimes, the formality of the relations means, as shown, a subcontracting or indirect connection. Nevertheless, a small part of the NGOs are consulted when policies, programmes and action plans for common beneficiaries are planned. In fact, the majority of the respondents (over 90%) said the public institution they have an agreement, rarely or never consults them. Only 10,7% appreciate that often have participated in the process of policies development. Most of the respondents identified an indirect governing relation with the public institution they chose to describe. The result does not surprise, because this type is linked to the subcontracting type. Within this type, the public organization only establishes targets and priorities and appoints to the NGOs the responsibility to organize the services production. Thus, they limit their influence upon the organization s activities and the use of funds. In this relation, the public entity also delegates the responsibility for the beneficiaries. In conclusion, NGOs seem to presently have a much greater recognition from public institutions and agencies, a recognition translated by a greater respect for their identity and contribution. Moreover, we see that NGOs have now their place and are appreciated for their contribution in development of the specific area of expertise. FINAL CONCLUSIONS In this paper, we aimed to study the relation between the state and the NGOs area, from a micro-sociological perspective, in the idea of identifying the type of relation between and NGO and a certain public institution (the ones registered in the county of Iaşi). However, Jennifer Coston s typology allows the study of the same relation from a macro-sociological perspective. Thus, the typology permitted to identify the relation NGO-state in Romania and 12

13 to examine, in general, the ways in which institutions from public administration and NGOS have established agreements in certain areas of intervention. NGOs could contribute with knowledge and independent expertise in the process of taking decisions. This characteristic determined government from all levels, locally, regionally or nationally, as well as international institutions (especially on the background of applying the principles of good governance ), to use NGOs experience and relevant competencies, in developing and implementing policies. NGOs enjoy a unique trust from their members and from society, in order to express their concerns, to represent their interests, and to enhance participation. Thus they provide a crucial contribution to policy development. It is important to remember that, while civil society is an important feature of democracy, there is not a unique model for its development. Hence, NGOs are only part of a wider area, in which people should have greater opportunities, alternatives to gather resources, information and model, and to be represented in the public area. Some of the problems faced by Romanian NGOs are very specific and determined by local constraints or the pattern they follow. Moreover, there are legitimate questions regarding the NGOs purpose in modelling new forms of participation at the civic debate and their future development in contemporary societies. 13

14 SELECTED LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Abele, C. (2006). Civil Society Assistance in Central and Eastern Europe.The Cases of Poland and Slovakia, PhD Thesis, Humboldt University. Online: 2. Anheier, H.K. și Seibel, W. (2001). The Nonprofit Sector in Germany: Between State, Economy and Society, New York: Palgrave. 3. Anheier, H. K., Carlson, L. & Kendall, J. (2001). Third sector policy at the crossroads: continuity and change in the world of nonprofit organizations. In Helmut K. Anheier and Jeremy Kendall (ed.), Third Sector Policy at the Crossroads. An international nonprofit analysis, (p. 1-16). Londra: Routledge. 4. Anheier, H. K., Salamon L. (2006). The Nonprofit Sector in Comparative Perspective. În W.W. Powell și R. Steinberg (ed.) The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, second edition, (p ). New Haven: Yale University Press 5. Arato, A. & Cohen, J. L. (1992). Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press 6. Balogh, M. (2008). The rise of Romanian NGOs in the democratization process of the society after În Osborne, Stephen P. (ed.). The Third Sector in Europe, London & New York: Routledge, p Bell S., Hindmoor A. (2009), Rethinking Governance: The Centrality of the State in Modern Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 8. Bevir, M. (2007). Governance. In Mark Bevir (ed.), Encyclopedia of Governance. (p ). Newbury Park: SAGE Publications, 9. Bevir, M., Rhodes, R. A. W., & Weller, P. (Ed.). (2003). Traditions of governance: History and diversity [Special issue]. Public Administration, 81(1) 10. Bourque, D. (2008). Concertation et partenariat. Entre levier et piège du développement des communautés. Montreal: Presse de l Université de Québec 11. Commission on Global Governance (1995). Our Global Neighbourhood. Oxford: Oxford University Press 12. Constantinescu, Ș. (coord.) (2011). Atlasul Economiei Sociale România București: Fundația pentru Dezvoltarea Societății Civile. Online: Coston, J. (1998). A Model and Typology of Government-NGO Relationship, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quaterly, 27(3), September: Dakova, V. (coord.), Dreossi, B., Hyatt, J., & Socolovschi, A. (2000). O prezentare a sectorului neguvernamental din România, Bucharest: Editura FDSC 15. Della Sala,V., Ruzza, C. (ed.) (2007a). Governance and Civil Society in the European Union, Vol. 1: Normative Perspectives. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 16. Della Sala,V., Ruzza, C. (ed.) (2007b). Governance and Civil Society in the European Union, Vol. 2: Exploring Policy Issues. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 17. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 14

15 18. European Commission (2001). European Governance: A White Paper. Bruxelles: European Commission. Online: Evers, A., and Laville, J.-L. (ed.) (2004). The Third Sector in Europe. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar. 20. Fundația pentru Dezvoltarea Societății Civile (1999). Catalogul Asociațiilor și Fundațiilor. Bucharest: Editura FDSC 21. Fundația pentru Dezvoltarea Societății Civile (2007). Analiza mecanismelor de finanțare directă de la bugetul de stat pentru organizații neguvernamentale în România. Bucharest: Editura FDSC 22. Fundația pentru Dezvoltarea Societății Civile (2010). Barometrul Liderilor ONG, Bucharest: FDSC. Online: rezultate.pdf 23. Hall, J A. (1995). In Search of Civil Society. In John A. Hall (ed.), Civil Society Theory, History, Comparison (p. 1-31). Cambridge: Cambridge Polity Press. 24. Held, D. (2006). Models of Democracy, Stanford: Stanford University Press. 25. Hood, C. (1983). The Tools of Government. London: The Macmillan Press 26. Howard, M.M. (2003). The Weakness of Civil Society in Post-Communist Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 27. Hulme, D. & Edwards, M. (1997). NGOs, states and donors: An overview. In D. Hulme și M. Edwards (ed.), NGOs, states and donors: Too close for comfort? (pg. 3-22). New York, St. Martin s Press 28. James, E. (ed.) (1989). The Nonprofit Sector in International Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 29. Jetté, C. (2008). Les organismes communautaires et la transformation de l État-Providence. Trois décennies de coconstruction des politiques publiques dans le domaine de la santé et des services sociaux. Montreal: Presse de l Université de Québec 30. Johnson, K.A. and Young, D. (1997) A profile of the non-profit sector in Romania. Voluntas, 8 (3): Kendall, J. (ed.) (2009). Handbook on Third Sector Policy in Europe: Multi-Level Processes and Organised Civil Society. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar. 32. Kersbergen, K.van, and Waarden, F.van (2004). Governance as a bridge between disciplines: Cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research, 43(2), Kiviniemi, M. (2006). Differentiation within the Third Sector: Elaboration of Dimensions and Types. European Group of Public Administration, Meeting of the Study Group on the Third Sector, Milan, 6-9 September Kjær, A.M. (2010). Guvernanța, Cluj Napoca: Editura CA Publishing 35. Lambru M.; Mărginean, I. (coord.) (2004). Parteneriatul public privat în furnizarea de servicii sociale, Bucharest : Ed. Ziua 15

16 36. Lambru, M.; Vameșu, A. (coord.) (2010). România Sectorul neguvernamental profil, tendinţe, provocări, Bucharest: FDSC. Online: guvernamental1.pdf 37. Linz, J. & Stepan, A. (1996), Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press 38. Lorentzen, H. and Enjolras, B. (2005). Civil society and the tools of government. Paper to the first European Conference of ISTR și EMES, Paris, Aprilie Marsh, D. & Rhodes, R. (ed.) (1992a), Policy Networks in British Government, Oxford: Clarendon. 40. Marsh, D. & Rhodes, R. (ed.) (1992b), New Directions in the Study of Policy Networks, European Journal of Political Research, 21, p Najam,A. (2000). The four-c s of third sector government relations: Cooperation, confrontation, complementary, and co-optation. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(4), OECD (1994). Participatory Development and Good Governance, Paris. Online: Osborne, S. P. (ed.) (2008). The Third Sector in Europe: Prospects and Challenges, London: Routledge. 44. Osborne, S.P. (ed.) (2002), Public management. London: Routledge. 45. Panet-Raymond, J. și Bourque, D. (1991). Partenariat ou pater-nariat? La collaboration entre établissements publics et organismes communautaires auprès des personnes âgées. Groupe de recherche en développement communautaire, Université de Montréal 46. Papadopoulos, Y. (2007). Problems of democratic accountability in network and multilevel governance. European Law Journal, 13(4), Păsătoiu, F. și Petcu, R.(2009), The Role of Third Sector Organisations in Changing Welfare Systems in Central and Eastern European Countries, CINEFOGO WP46G PAPERS. Online: Peci A., Figale J., & Sobral, F. (2011). The invasion of manufactured civil society: government nonprofit partnerships in a Brazilian state. Public administration and development, 31, DOI: /pad 49. Pestoff, V., and Brandsen,T. (ed.) (2008). Co-Production: The Third Sector and the Delivery of Public Services, Londra: Routledge. 50. Pierre, J. (2000). Debating Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 51. Pralong, S. (2009). A Snapshot of Romania s Civil Society: Facing the Challenge of EU Integration, Bucharest: UNDP 52. Proulx, J., Bourque, D. & S. Savard (2007), Interfaces between State and Third Sector in Quebec, Voluntas : International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 18(3), September,

17 53. Proulx, J. & Savard, S. (2012), Les organismes communautaires au Québec De la coexistence à la supplémentarité, CAHIERS DU LAREPPS No 12-03, École de travail social Université du Québec à Montréal 54. Putnam, R. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 55. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996). The New Governance: Governing without Government, Political Studies, 1(2), Rhodes R.A.W. (2007). Understanding governance: ten years on, Organization Studies 28: Rosenbaum, A. (2006). Co-operative service delivery: The dynamics of public sector -private sector- civil society collaboration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72: Salamon, L.M. (1981), Rethinking public management: Third - party government and the changing forms of public action, Public Policy, 29(3): Salamon, L.M. (1987a). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third party government: Toward a theory of government nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state, Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 16(1): Salamon, L. M. (1987b). Partners in public services: The scope and theory of government nonprofit relations. In W. W. Powell (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, (p ). NewHaven: Yale University Press 61. Salamon, L. M. (1989). Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action. Washington: The Urban Institute Press. 62. Salamon L. (ed.). (2002). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press 63. Salamon M. L., Anheier Helmut K. and asocciates, (1999) Globalizarea sectorului nonprofit: o revizuire. Rezumat, Center for Civil Society Studies, Bucharest: Editura Fundației pentru Dezvoltarea Societății Civile 64. Salamon, L. M. & Anheier, H. K. (1992), In search of the non-profit sector: in search of definitions, Voluntas, 13, 2: Salamon, L. M. & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas, 9(3), Salamon, M. L., Sokolowski S.W. & List, R. (2003), Global Civil Society, An Overview, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies 67. Schendelen, R. van (2002). Machiavelli in Brussels, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 68. Seibel, W. (1989). The function of the mellow weakness: Nonprofit organizations as problem non-solvers. În E. James (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector in International Perspective, (p ). Oxford: Oxford University Press 69. Smith, S. R., Grønbjerg, K. A. (2006). Scope and theory of government nonprofit relations. In W.W.Powell and R. Steinberg (ed.) The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, second edition (p ). New Haven&Londra: Yale University Press. 17

18 70. Stan, D., Luca, C., Gulei, A.-S.(coord.) (2011), ONG-urile ieșene. Realitate și potențial în dezvoltarea locală. Raport de cercetare, Iași: Asociația Alternative Sociale 71. Steinberg, R. (2006). Economic theories of nonprofit organizations. In W. W. Powell and R. Steinberg (ed.) The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, second edition (pp ), New Haven: Yale University Press. 72. Stoker, G. (1998), Governance as theory: five propositions, International Social Science Journal, 50: Șaulean, D. & Epure, C. (1998). Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Romania. In Lester M. Salamon and Helmut K. Anheier (ed.) Working Papers Of The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, no.32.. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies. 74. Ștefan, L. & Georgescu, I. (2003) Transparența decizională în administrația publică ghid pentru cetățeni și administrație, Bucharest: Transparency International. 75. Torfing, J., Peters, B.G., Pierre, J., Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive Governance. Advancing the Paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press 76. Vakil, Anna C. (1997), Confronting the Classification Problem: Toward a Taxonomy of NGOs, World Development, 25, 12: Vameșu, A. & Constantinescu, L. (coord.) (1994) Nongovernmental Organizations Directory Romania, Bucharest: Soros Foundation for an Open Society. 78. Walzer, Michael (ed.) (1995) Toward a Global Civil Society, Oxford, UK: Berghahn Books 79. World Bank, (1994) Governance. The World Bank s Experience, Washington. D.C.: The World Bank. Online: 80. World Bank, (1992). Governance and Development. Washington. D.C.: The World Bank. 81. Young, D.R. (2000). Alternative models of government nonprofit sector relations: Theoretical and international perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1): Zimmer, A. (2010). Third Sector Government Partnerships. In Rubert Taylor (ed.), Third Sector Research, (p ). New York: Sprienger. DOI / _ Zimmer, A. & Priller, E. (ed.) (2004). Future of Civil Society: Making Central European Nonprofit Organizations Work, Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag. 18