How Do Third Sector Organizations Deal with Change? Perspectives from Five Countries in Three Policy Fields

Transcription

1 Annette Zimmer and Adalbert Evers How Do Third Sector Organizations Deal with Change? Perspectives from Five Countries in Three Policy Fields 1. Topic and Focus of the Volume The anthology addresses the topic of change. How do third sector organizations (TSOs) in selected countries and policy fields cope with turbulent environments? The chapters of the volume analyze the impact of change on TSOs from a comparative perspective by focusing on recent trends in selected countries and policy fields. There is no doubt that we are currently confronted with turbulent environments with respect to social and political developments. Globalization and individualization constitute the buzzwords used by social scientists to describe the multi-faceted process of societal and political alterations that are currently taking place. While political scientists highlight the effects of change on policy and politics by analyzing the dismantling of the welfare state and the growth of a modified global political economy, sociologists address the topic by investigating the shift from modernity to post-modernity. The changes in progress not only affect the realm of policy and politics, they also have a deep and lasting impact on the social and economic conditions of our daily lives and thus on our Lebenswelt. Against the background of deep political and societal transformations, why do the chapters of this volume focus particularly on third sector organizations? The reason is at least twofold and closely connected to the specific quality of TSOs. For one, third sector organizations are placed between the micro-level of the individual citizen and the macro-level constituted by state and society. As such, they stand for a bottom-up approach towards democracy and societal integration. Since Almond and Verba s seminal study Civic Culture (1963), we know that these organizations represent a solid base for the development and deepening of democracy. They are characterized as constituting the glue that keeps modern societies together by expressing and reinforcing cultural unity. At the same time, as symbols of the pluralism and diversity of modern societies, third sector organizations might provide the terrain for deliberation and hence for conflict resolution. They, therefore, have the potential to contribute to the civicness of modern societies (Dekker/Evers 2009). However, since Robert Putnam s seminal studies, we also know that TSOs not only enhance bridging social capital, but also serve as vehicles for setting boundaries between societal milieus and social groups by enforcing bonding social capital. Notwithstanding their positive or negative effects on social capital, according to Almond/Verba and other social scientists working in the tradition of political sociology and political culture research, these organizations are responsible for at least two types of societal integration: They provide avenues for the individual integration 7

2 of each citizen into society as such, while, at the same time, they are responsible for systemic integration that translates into the integration of the various societal communities and social milieus into the political and cultural system of a respective country. Apart from being a transmission belt of societal integration for the individual citizen, these organizations fulfill yet another function, which draws our attention to them: In numerous policy fields such as sports, the arts and culture, or social services, they are producers of services for their membership and/or the general public. As actors with an economic dimension, they are an integral part of so-called plural or three-sector economies that are constituted by public entities, commercial enterprises and non-profit organizations. When Amitai Etzioni published his pathbreaking article, in which he drew our attention to a societal sphere, a third alternative, indeed sector ( ) between the market and the state (Etzioni 1973), very little was known about these organizations. Since then, TSOs, which neither operate with the authority of public administration, nor are governed by the logic of the market, have become an important topic of social science research (Powell 1987; Powell/Steinberg 2006). As producers of services for members and the wider public, these organizations are deeply integrated into the governance arrangements of a respective country and policy field. As such, they are embedded in specific traditions of policy making. Governance has increasingly replaced the traditional understanding of government and policy making: On par with government and public entities, third sector organizations have become important players and participants in policy arrangements. With its focus on the variety of actors, the governance concept illustrates the increasing blurring of boundaries between social, economic, public and private spheres. All over the world, third sector organizations increasingly play an important role within these new arrangements. At the same time, the organizations that look back upon a certain heritage and organizational history have to cope with this changed environment, which, by and large, forces them to become more businesslike. Against this background the chapters of this volume address the topic of how third sector organizations that serve two very different purposes, namely service delivery and societal integration, manage to walk the tightrope in these times of change and alteration. Do they follow the same path everywhere? Or do they stick to their traditional embeddedness? 2. A Universe Waiting for Discovery Although governance has developed into a key concern of political science (Schuppert 2004; Fukuyama 2004; Kooiman 2003), very little is known about the modes of co-operation between third sector organizations, public entities, and commercial enterprises. Apart from a few exceptions (Kendall 2009), the third or nonprofit sector has not yet developed into an area of prime attention for policy research. Indeed, 8

3 there is still a universe to discover and to investigate. The fact that those governance arrangements that integrate third sector organizations have not yet been thoroughly researched by policy analysis is surprising since co-operation between state, business and TSO activities has always been a contested terrain. In many policy fields, the integration of third sector organizations into specific governance arrangements was the outcome of highly politicized processes of societal modernization. Accordingly, the third sector of today is sometimes portrayed as a repository of those former societal conflicts, which are deeply rooted in the 19 th century. However, those solutions that were worked out more than a century ago no longer suit the changed social, political and economic environments of our current societies in the 21 st century. Nevertheless, even third sector research primarily focuses on selected policy fields, first and foremost, on the area of social service provision (see Evers/Laville 2004), while other policy areas amongst those, sports or the arts and culture - have almost systematically been neglected. Indeed, concerning a wide range of policy fields there is still a significant knowledge gap with respect to the position, role and importance of third sector organizations. Apart from the area of social service provision, little is known about the integration of third sector organizations in established governance arrangements that already look back upon a history of institutionalization that materialized along with the development of classical modernity and whose embeddedness, rationale and legitimacy is increasingly put into question today. The research gap is even more evident when it comes to the analysis of more recent developments. Doubtlessly in the last decades, wide-ranging and even paradigmatic shifts concerning central features of co-operation between the public and the private spheres have taken place. We observe a shift towards commercialization in every policy field. The alteration of terminology more precisely, the shift from government to governance -- indicates that the modes of co-operation between society and government are undergoing a deep and probably lasting modification. Against this background, it is worthwhile mentioning that the ongoing changes of the modes of co-operation do not stop short at the macro-level. On the contrary, changes at the macro level of policy making have a significant impact on managerial procedures at the meso or organizational level. With respect to management procedures or organizational governance, major changes and modifications are currently underway or have already taken place. A case in point is the introduction of new public management that stands for an orientation towards efficiency and cost-cutting in public administration. However, the very recent boom of nonprofit management also indicates that TSOs are trying to adjust to a new environment that requires organizational behaviour directed by management-byobjectives, accountability and client orientation. As clearly indicated by the blossoming of the management-oriented literature for third sector organizations (Worth 2009; Badelt 2007; Herman et al. 2004), there is a discernable trend to become more business-like in the nonprofit world. Whether and to what extent this new trend might endanger the capacity of third sector organizations to provide avenues for so- 9

4 cietal integration and cultural affiliation is an open question waiting to be addressed and analysed. The chapters of the volume address precisely this topic, among others. Apart from the trend towards conversion, there are still considerable differences with respect to the embeddedness of third sector organizations in policy fields and countries. Depending on historical legacy, the involvement of third sector organizations in the mixed economy of service provision differs significantly from country to country and accordingly with respect to the policy arenas. There are strong indicators that relationships between third sector organizations and governments vary considerably in federalized and centralized countries. Moreover, the function of TSOs differs considerably depending on welfare state arrangements. The same holds true for the impact of strong and weak traditions of local self-government. Finally, the legacy of history, specifically different socio-cultural, socio-economic and politicalhistorical factors (De Vries 2002: 103f), has to also be taken into account while analysing modes of co-operation or compacts that balance autonomy and mutual dependence in the interactions of third sector organizations and governments. Against the background of a wide spectrum of governance arrangements, the analysis of both the embeddedness of TSOs and their modes of negotiating and cooperating with public and commercial actors opens up avenues for comparative analysis in selected countries and policy fields. 3. Policy Fields The policy fields examined in the volume are sports, arts and culture, and social services. They were chosen because they represent very different traditions of civic activity and engagement of third sector organizations. Doubtlessly, sport is the most popular arena for civic engagement all over Europe, with many activities in thousands of soccer, tennis, and other clubs. The European Union has increasingly acknowledged the importance of amateur sports for the development of active citizenship by improving the visibility of sport in EU policy making (Commission 2007a). Civic engagement in the area of arts and culture looks back upon a longer history in comparison with sports. According to Jürgen Habermas (1990), culture constitutes the core of the public sphere that facilitates discussion and communication. By strengthening a public space for debate, culture provides the bedrock for civic identity and hence democracy. The very beginnings of civic engagement in Europe were closely coupled with the rise of TSOs engaged in cultural activities in towns and urban areas at the beginning of the 19 th century. Today, associations and club-life focusing on cultural endeavours are again flourishing with numerous theatre groups, reading societies, dancing clubs, and choirs constituting a volunteer-based infrastructure of cultural productivity. Culture as a way of life that by definition embraces civicness has always been a key concern of the Council of Europe. More recently, the European Union started to build on the soft power of culture in its aim to achieve the EU s strategic objectives of prosperity, solidarity and security (Commission 2007b). 10

5 Compared to sports and culture, third sector organizations active in the policy field of social services build on a very different historical heritage. On par with other civic activities, the 19 th century witnessed the blossoming of a so-called culture of private welfare (Katz/Sachße 1996). The new social classes of business entrepreneurs as well as professionals and civil servants employed by the developing modern state founded numerous philanthropic social service organizations in towns and industrial centres all over Europe. Further initiatives of private welfare were affiliated with church-based organizations backed by the tradition of philanthropy. Finally in some countries, popular movements, mutuals and cooperatives, as well as organizations expressing nationalistic ideas, also contributed to the growing universe of third sector organizations in the 19 th century. With the growth of the modern state, many social initiatives and movements became an integral part of the (at that time) new and modern arrangement of country-specific and secular welfare regimes. Depending on the welfare regime and thus on the modes of co-operation between the public, the commercial and the non-profit sectors, third sector organizations active in the field of social services were integrated quite differently into the new arrangement. Today, the embeddedness of third sector organizations in the policy field of social service provision is contested. The European Union in particular challenges the modes of co-operation between third sector organizations and government. Indeed, the Commission has a dual attitude towards service provision by third sector organizations. In principle, the Commission acknowledges the diversity of social service provision in the European Union. The Commission even invites representatives of the umbrellas of third sector organizations to social dialogues and similar initiatives of co-operation and joint decision making. However at the same time, the Commission partly perceives third sector organizations active in social service provision on par with commercial enterprises. In accordance with the business-friendly attitude of the Commission, third sector organizations providing social services should be treated like any other economic entity, i.e., commercial providers (Commission 2007c). Hence according to the Commission, social service provision constitutes a growing market for private commercial actors. Whether the logic of the market supported by the Commission will allow exceptions for third sector organizations working in local communities and looking back upon a long history of embeddedness in local or regional welfare regimes is still a contested question, which is open for further negotiations. However, irrespective of the regulatory force of EU guidelines, the ongoing discussions in Brussels add to the legitimacy of those trends towards commercialization of social service provision that are already under way in many European countries in other fields of nonprofit activity. How third sector organizations that are active in the policy fields of sports, culture and social services react to the trend of an increasing market orientation of public policy constitutes a further important question addressed by the chapters of this volume. 11

6 4. Methodological Approach All the chapters build on a neo-institutional approach, which primarily highlights the macro-level of analysis: Third sector organizations and their activities are examined from a top-down perspective. In accordance with neo-institutionalism, the embeddedness of TSOs in the particular policy field represents an institutionalized arrangement constituting the outcome of historical developments. The chapters of the volume, therefore, perceive tradition and the legacy of history as an independent variable contributing significantly to the explanation of how third sector organizations are embedded in a particular country and in a specific policy field. The present-day embeddedness (Granovetter 1985) represents the outcome of very different societal, political and economic forces; amongst them, societal modernization, the emergence of the nation state, the development of the welfare state, and industrialization count most prominently. There is no doubt that we are currently witnessing important and long-lasting processes of change taking place at the macro level. Worldwide, welfare state regimes are put into question by neoliberalism. The nation state no longer represents a key point of reference; instead, globalization and Europeanization are the central issues of concern. However, third sector organizations, which are squeezed in between the macro and the micro level, are affected not only by macro-level developments. Trends and tendencies that are happening at the micro level of the individual citizen also have an impact. The integration of the individual into coherent social milieus constitutes a significant feature of modernity. Since the beginnings of the 19 th century, social milieus have been closely affiliated with social movements, of which third sector organizations form the organizational infrastructure. Still today, one might trace the history and development of many TSOs back to their early roots, which were linked to the sports, educational or philanthropic movement. As such, third sector organizations were promoters of integration by providing avenues for empowerment as well as for the conveyance of societal values. However, at that time, third sector organizations were organized along societal cleavages, which they, similar to political parties, helped to stabilize by simultaneously contributing to their appeasement. We do not have to forget that the coming into being of mass society constituted an important feature of modernity. Third sector organizations responded to the new trend toward the so-called mass society with the development of large and membership-based organizations. Starting in the late 19 th century all over the world, these organizations provided the most important avenues for societal integration. Today, however, membership organizations are no longer as attractive. How do third sector organizations address this very specific topic of change? At the meso level of investigation, we take a look at third sector organizations as such. How does the organization in a particular country and in one of the selected policy fields cope with the pressures and challenges coming simultaneously from above the macro level and from below the micro level? Deeply rooted in the 19 th century, the voluntary, membership-based organization constituted the classical organizational form of third sector organization. The integration into specific gov- 12

7 ernance arrangements had a deep and lasting impact on at least two aspects. Firstly, it made a difference on how TSOs were managed, and secondly, it had an impact on their funding structure. Due to changes taking place at the macro and micro levels, traditional management procedures of third sector organizations are increasingly being jeopardized. Questions about how to attract, sustain and integrate a respectable number of volunteers into the management arrangement and governance structure of the organization have developed into a challenging topic of third sector management. Volunteers are needed for the legitimacy of the nonprofit status of TSOs. However, for what else are they necessary? Is there no way of bypassing the iron law of isomorphism? Do TSOs have to adapt the dominant culture in a respective policy field in order to stay alive and in operation? Against the background of commercialization in all the countries under study and in every policy field, do we have to foresee the end of TSOs anyway? Does the shift of the traditional governance arrangement of TSOs towards managerialism symbolize the demise of the volunteer, membership and nonprofit organization as such? Is there no way around it? And are there no differences between countries and policy fields? Confronted with the overwhelming trends of change and modification of the classical state and societal structures, do we indeed have to forecast the very end of the voluntary, the subsidiarity, or the civil society organization in the countries and policy fields under study? 5. Organization of the Volume and Countries under Study The five sections of the volume are organized according to the countries under study: Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In each section, the chapters explore third sector activities in that country in the three selected policy fields: sports, the arts and culture, and social services. The individual contributions follow a similar framework. In accordance with the neo-institutional approach, the authors first take a look at the historical development of both the specific policy field and third sector activities in the respective country. This is followed by an overview of the funding and income structure of third sector organizations that are active in the particular field and country. To round up the overview, special emphasis is given to the importance of volunteer input. Since the volume specifically addresses the topic of change and how third sector organizations react to an environment which is in a state of flux and alteration, recent trends and developments with which third sector organizations are confronted are particularly highlighted and analysed. Finally, each chapter tries to direct our attention to both the macro level of third sector embeddedness and the micro level of organizational behaviour and civic engagement. Although each chapter addresses a single case, the anthology stands out for its comparative approach, which is taken up and thoroughly put into practice in the concluding chapter authored by the editors. Each of the countries on which the chapters of the volume focus - Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom - represents both a specific democratic and welfare state tradition and a particular embeddedness of third sector organiza- 13

8 tions within societal and governmental structures. Indeed, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the U.K. exemplify different governance regimes and different traditions of both democracy and embeddedness of TSOs. Two countries - Sweden and the U.K. - look back upon a long and uninterrupted tradition of democratic rule; two countries Germany and Italy transitioned to democracy after the Second World War; and one country Poland has very recently been re-integrated into the socalled family of European democracies. Furthermore, the countries covered by the volume represent different rounds of the process of EU enlargement. There are two pioneering countries Germany and Italy which definitely belong to the group of the early EU members. The U.K. and Sweden belong to a further round of enlargement. The same holds true for Poland which has recently become a full member of the EU. The five countries also are examples of very different welfare regimes. In accordance with Esping-Andersen (1990), the three types of welfare capitalism the social-democratic (Sweden), the conservative (Germany) and the liberal (U.K.) type - are covered. Referring to families of nations (Castles 1993), the anthology also includes examples for the South European (Italy) and the post-communist model (Poland) of the welfare state. Furthermore, the volume draws from the typology developed by Salamon/Anheier (1999) by including examples of a corporatist (Germany), a liberal (U.K.) and a social-democratic (Sweden) model of nonprofit sector embeddedness. Hence the countries covered by the volume represent an interesting mix of case studies with respect to the integration of third sector organizations into governance arrangements. 5.1 Germany Germany, for example, looks back upon a long tradition of government-nonprofit co-operation, particularly at the local level. It is a federalized country in which local communities are self-governed entities enjoying a respectable leeway for policy making. Since the late 19 th century, third sector organizations active in the fields of social service provision, the arts and culture and sports have been partners of local governments with respect to both policy formulation and implementation. In accordance with the German tradition of neo-corporatism, TSOs have always been thoroughly integrated into the country s governance arrangements. Until recently, in the area of social service provision, close co-operation between government and TSOs was indeed legally underpinned by the Subsidiaritätsprinzip, the concept of subsidiarity (Sachße 2003). According to German social laws, whenever possible government was required to co-operate with TSOs in social service provision. However, since the late 1980s, a deep paradigmatic shift in social policy has taken place in Germany. Step by step, the so-called logic of the market has successfully made inroads into policy and politics. The trend towards commercialization affects every policy field, though, as indicated by numerous publications (Liebig 2005; Dahme et al. 2005), the area of social service provision seems to be very 14

9 much at the forefront. In sum, the legacy of subsidiarity, which for a long time guaranteed German third sector organizations a somehow privileged position compared to their public sector and for-profit competitors, is increasingly losing importance. How German TSOs in the three selected policy fields cope with the new situation and how they try to adapt to the new environment that is characterized by a heightened competition for government grants, membership dues and private funds will be taken up by the chapters of this volume. The authors of the chapters focusing on Germany are Ulrike Müller, who takes a close look at recent developments in the policy field of sports, Rupert Graf Strachwitz, who discusses current trends in the arts and culture, and Christoph Strünck who highlights changes and adjustments in the area of social services. 5.2 Italy When change constitutes the point of reference, Italy is a very interesting country for research. The country looks back upon a legacy of a highly polarized society, whose cleavages were strongly organized along the left-right divide. Before the early 1990s, there was no special legislation for TSOs. The sector was strictly divided between the two dominant societal and political camps, i.e., the Catholic and the socialist/communist camps. In other words, third sector organizations were not perceived as intermediaries situated between the individual citizen, society and government; instead TSOs were an integral part of each of the two camps. As such, TSOs were part of the Lebenswelt in Italy. At the same time, they operated in close contact with the political parties and, hence, were highly politicized. Due to their embeddedness in the two competing political camps, Italian TSOs were unable to develop into a terrain for interest mediation and conflict resolution. To the contrary, by providing both the social base and the organizational infrastructure for the two political camps and social milieus, third sector organizations contributed to the stabilization and deepening of Italy s societal cleavages. During the last decades, much has happened in Italy. The country witnessed a coming and going of numerous politicians and governments. Cases of bribery and corruption were revealed at every level of government. The post-war political system did not survive the countless scandals that took place. The dominant parties of the past are no longer in operation. What does this mean for Italy s third sector? With respect to the cleavage structure of the past, do we see a different picture today? Did TSOs in Italy manage to overcome the pitfalls of a divided and highly politicized society? Furthermore, did the shift towards the market also take place in Italy? Are Italian TSOs faced with similar problems including, in particular, commercialization as their counterparts in other European countries? These issues are taken up by Simone Baglioni in his discussion on current developments in the area of sports, by Alex Turrini and Josè Manuel Irigoyen in the context of the arts and culture, and by Costanzo Ranci and Eugenia Montagnini in their contribution on social service provision. 15

10 5.3 Poland There are many reasons why Poland constitutes an interesting case for the analysis of processes of socio-political change and adaptation with a special emphasis on third sector organizations. First and foremost, the country still represents a society and polity in transition. Poland s third sector organizations look back upon a difficult historical legacy. In the 19 th century, the country was divided and partially governed by Prussia, Russia and Austria. Third sector organizations were founded in opposition to the occupying powers. At that time, co-operation with government was almost unthinkable for Polish third sector organizations. Against this background, Polish people developed an attitude towards the sector and civil society that positioned both in strong opposition to and therefore against the state. Furthermore, similar to other European countries, Poland went through the experience of successive authoritarian regimes. We all know that third sector organizations do not flourish under authoritarian or totalitarian rulers, whatever their political colour might be. In addition, as occurred in other post-communist countries, civil society boomed right after the breakdown of the communist regime in Poland. However, the heyday of the third sector s organizational boom did not last very long. Today, Polish third sector organizations are struggling with many problems, amongst which the lack of funds and decreasing support of volunteers count most prominently. Furthermore, the Polish third sector suffers from a lack of legitimacy. Legal reforms were not introduced until the mid-1990s. While some organizations, particularly those that used to be public welfare institutions, were transformed into social service providers that still are 100% funded by government, many TSOs, particularly those which are engaged in advocacy activities, struggle for survival due to the lack of both financial resources and membership support. More than twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the topic of how to cope with changing environments still remains an important issue for third sector organizations in Poland. This constitutes the central question addressed by the chapters focusing on TSOs there. The contribution of Anna Domaradzka draws our attention to the Polish third sector organizations active in sports; Renata Siemie ska focuses on the importance of third sector organizations in the field of arts and culture, and Jerzy Krzyszkowski takes up the issue of the involvement of third sector organizations in the field of social services. 5.4 Sweden Whenever social scientists write about Sweden, the country stands out for both its civicness and a strong welfare state. The welfare state has not put an end to the civic engagement of the citizenry. Government takes care of Swedish citizens by guaranteeing a high level of personal freedom, civil rights and individual well-being that -- at least in this country -- seems to facilitate civic activities. According to the results of the European Social Survey, Sweden scores remarkably high concerning any in- 16

11 dicator of civicness which ranges from membership in third sector organizations, to donations or holding an honorary position of authority in a third sector organization. Although Sweden is a centralized country, the local level of governance enjoys a fair amount of governing capacity. Similar to Germany, local communities in Sweden look back upon a long tradition of self-government. But in sharp contrast to Germany whose society has always been a patchwork based on religious and regional differences, Sweden was characterized by societal homogeneity. Against this background, it is not surprising that TSOs in Sweden are still today strongly membership based. Originally, they were closely connected to social movements, which had a significant and lasting impact on Swedish society, particularly the sports and the educational movement, both of which were strongly affiliated with social democracy in Sweden. A strong state and a homogeneous society paved the way for an embeddedness of TSOs that was very much in accordance with the so-called social-democratic model of nonprofit government relations: Government is responsible for providing social services, while TSOs are either engaged in advocacy and lobbying activities that aim at giving people a voice and a say in politics, or they provide avenues for social and particularly leisure activities. Hence, regardless of the area of activity, Swedish TSOs as primarily membership-based organizations reflected both the homogeneity of the Swedish society and a nonprofessional, volunteer-based character. However, similar to other countries, Sweden s society is becoming less and less homogeneous. With its open economy, the country invited immigrants from all over the world and managed to achieve a respectable degree of integration. Furthermore, Swedes are pioneers with respect to the use of new technologies. Compared to other European countries and regions, Sweden enjoys a very modern and highly mobile society. How do TSOs that originally were heavily integrated into local community life deal with Swedish post-modernity? The topic of whether the classical membership-based third sector organizations will survive in the future is addressed by Johan R. Norberg in relation to the Swedish sports movement, by Tobias Harding for the policy field of the arts and culture, and by Lars Svedberg and Lars-Erik Olsson who focus on third sector organizations in social services. 5.5 United Kingdom The United Kingdom has always been a centralized country in which the local level of government is highly dependent on London. Furthermore, as already mentioned, TSOs were integrated into state and society in accordance with the so-called liberal model of nonprofit embeddedness (Anheier/Salamon 1998). Accordingly, in the U.K., nonprofit activity constitutes a voluntary sector operating closely with society, but standing apart from the state and its government apparatus. Hence in the U.K., service provision by TSOs, particularly in the social service domain, has always been complementary to governmental provision. Against this background, advocacy and lobbying on behalf of the disadvantaged have always been a central fea- 17

12 ture of TSO activities in this country. Or to put it differently, the voice function of third sector organizations has always been of more importance than their service function. Starting in the 1980s the U.K. became a pioneer in Europe with respect to the introduction of a neo-liberalist approach in every policy field. In the 1990s, the country was again at the frontier of policy change by introducing the third way (Giddens 1999) as a new mode of governance, which -- apart from other incentives -- strongly builds on co-operation between TSOs and government. So-called compacts, which constitute contract-based partnership arrangements between TSOs and government, were introduced in numerous policy fields and at every level of governance in the U.K. Finally, the U.K. represents a very interesting case regarding the policy field of arts and culture. In contrast to Continental Europe and Scandinavia, where arts and culture constitute traditionally a prime domain of government activity, in the U.K., this particular policy field has always been integrated into the market economy with nonprofits providing an institutional alternative for those cultural activities suffering from the economic dilemma of arts production (Baumol/Bowen 1966; DiMaggio 2006). In other words, in those cases such as museums, opera houses or concert calls where the market fails, nonprofits in arts and culture stay in business because they are subsidized by government grants or private monies. Against the background that policy in the U.K. underwent at least two significant paradigmatic shifts in the last thirty years, how third sector organizations managed to get along with these turbulent environments in this country constitutes an interesting question addressed by the chapters focusing on the U.K. Jamie Cleland tackles the topic for sports, Cathy Pharoah for arts and culture, and Mike Aiken for social services. 6. An Outcome of CINEFOGO The chapters of the volume have been made possible through the support of the EUfunded Network of Excellence CINEFOGO, which is the acronym for Civil Society and New Forms of Governance in Europe the Making of European Citizenship ( With the focus on citizenship and civicness, CINE- FOGO, which ran from , aimed at bringing together researchers from all over Europe to compile the knowledge that speaks to the topic and theme of the network and which was already available due to previously conducted research activities that, however, were not co-ordinated and whose results were not distributed and made known among the very different research communities in the social sciences. The authors and editors of this volume want to use this opportunity to thank Thomas Boje and his team at the University of Roskilde, which served as the main co-ordinator of the network in which more than 250 researchers were involved and whose output in terms of conferences, edited volumes, and special issues of peer- 18

13 reviewed journals has been impressive. The management of the network constituted an enormous task. CINEFOGO was organized along 32 so-called work-packages, which means conferences and outcomes in terms of publications and dissemination activities to be financially controlled and logistically co-ordinated. Thomas Boje was the one finding a solution to any problem or difficulty related with the network. This volume constitutes the outcome of one of these work-packages that allowed the editors to organize a series of meetings and conferences in order to develop the concept of the publication and to discuss and further develop the manuscripts of the contributors. In other words, although the research reported on in the various chapters may have been conducted under other auspices, the results and outcomes have been brought together and are now made available through the CINEFOGO European Network of Excellence. In conclusion, the editors, who were also the co-ordinators of the respective work-package, would like to invite the reader to make the best use of the CINE- FOGO materials. There are at least two ways to read this volume. If you are interested in a specific policy field e.g., sports you might concentrate on the chapters dealing exclusively with that field. For example, the five chapters dealing specifically with sports will provide an overview of the embeddedness of sport clubs in Europe. You will be struck by the similarities of the voluntary sports movement in the countries under study. In particular, there is a striking proximity between sports and politics. However, if you would rather learn more about the embeddedness of third sector organizations in a specific country, and if you are interested in knowing how the sector in that country has developed, what problems the organizations are currently facing, and finally which potentials they might be able to activate, the volume offers you the opportunity to also take a one-country approach. Finally, if you would rather not go into detail because you are more interested in an overview of the state-of-the-art of third sector organizations in Europe, there is also the possibility of concentrating on the volume s final, summarizing chapter. 19

14 References Almond G.A./Verba, S. (1963): The Civic Culture. Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Anheier, H.K./Salamon, L.M. (1998): Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross nationally. In: Voluntas, 9(3), Badelt, C. (ed.) (2007): Handbuch der Nonprofit-Organisation. Strukturen und Management. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag. Baumol, W.J./Bowen, W. (1966): Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma. Cambridge: Twentieth Century Fund. Castles, F. (Ed.) (1993): Families of Nations: Patterns of Public Policies in Western Democracies. Aldershot: Dartmouth. Commission of the European Communities (2007a): White Paper on Sports. Brussels (COM(2007) 391 final). Commission of the European Communities (2007b): Communication: On a European Agenda for Culture in a Globalizing World. Brussels (COM(2007) 242 final). Commission of the European Communities (2007c): Communication: Services of General Interest, Including Social Services of General Interest: A New European Commitment. Brussels (COM(2007) 725 final). Dahme, H.-J. et al. (2005): Zwischen Wettbewerb und Subsidiarität: Wohlfahrtsverbände unterwegs in die Sozialwirtschaft. Berlin: Edition sigma. Decker, P./Evers, A. (Eds.) (2009): Civicness and the third sector. In: Voluntas (Special Issue) 20(3). De Vries, M.S. (2002): Interactive policy-making in local governance: An international comparison. In: Bovaird, T./Löfler, E./Parrado-Diez, S.: Developing Local Governance Networks in Europe. Baden-Baden: Nomos, DiMaggio, P. (2006): Nonprofit organizations and the intersectorial division of labor in the arts. In: Powell, W.W./Steinberg, R. (Eds.): The Nonprofit Sector. A Research Handbook (2nd Edition). New Haven: Yale University Press, Esping-Andersen, G. (1990): Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Etzioni, A. (1973): The third sector and domestic missions. In: Public Administration Review, 33, Evers, A./Laville, J.-L. (Eds.) (2004): The Third Sector in Europe. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar. Fukuyama, F. (2004): State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. Cornell: Cornell University Press. Giddens, A. (1999): The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Granovetter, M. (1985): Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. In: American Journal of Sociology, 91, Habermas, J. (1990): Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag. Herman, R.D. et al. (Eds.) (2004): The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Katz, M.B./Sachße, C. (Eds.) (1996): The Mixed Economy of Welfare. Public/Private Relations in England, Germany and the United States, the 1870 s to the 1930 s. Baden-Baden: Nomos. 20

15 Kendall, J. (Ed.) (2009): Handbook on Third Sector Policy in Europe: Multi-Level Processes and Organised Civil Society. Aldershot: Edward Elgar. Kooiman, J. (2003): Governing as Governance. London: Sage. Liebig, R. (2005): Wohlfahrtsverbände im Ökonomisierungsdilemma. Freiburg: Lambertus. Pierson, P./Skocpol, T. (2002): Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science. In: Katznelson, I. /Milner, H.V. (Eds.): Political Science: The State of the Discipline. New York: W.W. Norton, Powell, W.W. (Ed.) (1987): The Nonprofit Handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press. Powell, W.W./Steinberg, R. (Eds.) (2006): The Nonprofit Sector. A Research Handbook (2nd Edition). New Haven: Yale University Press. Putnam, R. (1993): Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sachße, C. (2003): Subsidiarität: Leitmaxime deutscher Wohlfahrtsstaatlichkeit. In: Lessenich, S. (Ed.): Wohlfahrtsstaatliche Grundbegriffe. Historische und aktuelle Diskurse. Frankfurt a. Main: Campus, Salamon, L.M./Anheier, H.K. (1999): Der Dritte Sektor. Aktuelle Internationale Trends. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann-Stiftung Schuppert, G.F. (2004): The Europeanisation of Governance. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Worth, M.J. (2009): Nonprofit Management: Principles and Practices. London: Sage. 21