Search results

There is still no universal definition of the third sector in Europe, but it can be seen as including all types of non-governmental not-for-profit entities such as non-profit organizations, mutuals, cooperatives, social enterprises and foundations. This article attempts to make sense of the current shifting conceptualization of the third sector in Europe. It is based on short country summaries of the images and concepts of the third sector in 13 European countries by EMES Network’s members, first presented in 2008 (Defourny and Pestoff, 2008; nine of them were recently revised and are found in the appendix to this article.). The perception and development of the third sector in Europe is closely related to the other major social governance institutions/mechanisms, like the market, state and community and through the third sector’s interaction with them. Moreover, many third sector organizations (TSOs) overlap with these other social institutions, resulting in varying degrees of hybridity and internal tensions experienced by them. TSOs can generate resources from their activities on the market, by providing services in partnership with the state and/or by promoting the interests of a given community or group. The country overviews document a growing professionalization of TSOs in most countries and a growing dependency of public funds to provide services. This has important theoretical and practical implications for orienting the articles included in this book. Thus, it can provide a key for better understanding the discussion and analysis in the remainder of this volume.

This study examines unexplored horizontal accountability types between public, private and third sector actors within a hybrid organization. The case organization was applying a novel alliance model to generate service paths for heterogeneous clientele consuming cultural, educational, health and social services. It was first to do so in Finland.

This research is on a case study that used documents and interviews to examine the design of the horizontal accountability. The descriptive analysis focused on identifying what type of formal accountability system was designed (i.e. who is the account holder, and who is accountable and for what and why).

An imbalanced accountability system was identified because accountability obligations were unevenly distributed between public, private and third sector actors. The private sector was the most accountable for performance, and the third sector (i.e. voluntary sector) was the least accountable. As account holders, the public, private and third sector actors were judging their conduct as account providers. This created a biased horizontal accountability system. The hybrid's accountability system was dynamic because the contracts made to establish the hybrid included opportunities to change horizontal accountability if future changes to the external environment affect too drastically the potential to achieve the hybrid's goals.

Three new concepts are proposed for studying dysfunctional accountability systems: dynamic, biased and horizontally imbalanced accountability.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the literature on third sector performance measurement system design.

A systematic literature review was undertaken. The abstracts of 917 articles identified from a database search were examined and, of these, 110 papers were put forward for full paper review. Totally, 55 papers were subsequently selected for the literature synthesis.

The findings examine the important questions of why and how the performance of third sector organizations is measured. The analysis of the sample of works suggests a potential methodological mismatch between the rationale for measuring the performance of third sector organizations and the measurement methods that are currently employed.

The study raises provocative questions about the usefulness of third sector performance measurement approaches, which may lead third sector managers to critically examine current practice.

As the papers in the synthesis are drawn from a broad range of journals, the review provides a multi-disciplinary discussion of the key themes of third sector performance measurement system design. Recent studies have been published simultaneously, suggesting that there has been limited opportunity for synthesis of this work. This study therefore offers a springboard for further research in this area.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the mismatch between the language and rhetoric used by UK Central Government departments to promote particular policy options and initiatives and the experiences of Third Sector organisations engaged in such programmes. The paper provides an overview of policy development involving the Third Sector in the UK and seeks to provide a practice and political context to facilitate the analysis.

The paper draws upon empirical research undertaken with Third Sector and public sector agencies in specific initiatives in England. The methodology adopted includes an analysis both of the policy documents and official guidance notes provided as well as qualitative data drawn from interviews with key participants in the process.

The paper observes that for both parties in the process the relationships/experience was uncomfortable. The diversity, size, ethos and shape of the Third Sector were not fully understood by public sector agencies and the implications of the governance and decision making processes were not fully grasped by either party.

While the policy and practice implications are explicitly discussed in the paper it is rooted in the particular organisational structures/culture of the UK (and England in particular). While comparisons are possible they are to be found in the discussion on processes.

The paper adds to the analysis/understanding of the policy and practice relationship(s) between the Third Sector and central/local government and points to ways in which these relationships are likely to become more significant over time.

The paper adds to the literature on the Third Sector but is significant because of its focus on specific policy initiatives.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate public partners’ motives for seeking and/or accepting partnerships with third sector organisations.

The approach is to seek to identify and explain motives from different perspectives; as responses to government failure or voluntary failure, as related to governance structures, and/or as driven by resource dependencies. The empirical material was gathered through semi-structured interviews with public employees in Swedish municipalities. The aim of the interviews was to grasp the public partners’ motives for partnerships with third sector organisations. Each interview started with questions on the presence and forms of partnerships, thus creating a backdrop for the motives, both during the interview and as a map of the partnership landscape.

The most prominent motives for public engagement in partnerships with third sector organisations are related to democratic values, the need to solve concrete problems, and economic rationality. The motives vary with the type of partnership of which there is considerable variation in scale, content and contribution; the types of partnership vary with different policy fields and services. Different perspectives highlight different motives but none of them excludes other perspectives.

The main contribution of the paper is the empirically based findings of a multi-layered public–third sector partnership landscape where policy fields, forms and complex motives are intertwined.

In the shift from government to governance the possibility of an increased role or roles for third sector actors becomes greater. In addition, the potential for different roles also increases. In public governance, for example, third sector civil society actors¹ can adopt an advocacy and campaigning role or a partnership role. This chapter seeks to understand public governance roles of Irish third sector organisations compared to those in South Africa inspired by the work of Habib (2008, 2007a, 2007b) which draws attention to the concept of substantive uncertainty. Substantive uncertainty, Habib says, is a necessary condition for democratic functioning and refers to uncertainty of outcomes in political processes. In other words, the ability to challenge elites and facilitate the dispersal of power, so that space for opposition is engendered, is the essence of democracy. Because substantive uncertainty involves this uncertainty of outcomes it challenges hegemony therefore, Habib says. Yet, he notes, the political literature has not paid a lot of attention to this concept.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the roles played by third sector organizations in forming and managing health innovation networks, and their contribution to the co-production of new health services.

Using data collected in four case studies, the findings highlight the central role of third sector organizations in forming and organizing public-private health networks.

They are trusted organizations, commonly patient advocates, with perceived neutrality. Members of these organizations take leading roles in innovations networks, using their excellent network connections and their prominent positions within their organizations to leverage competences and funding. A key asset of key third sector individuals is their prior experience of public and private sector organizations and, hence, the ability to move across public-private boundaries.

The research findings have important implications for practitioners. The author identifies a set of key drivers and barriers for the successful organization of innovation networks and the innovative services they develop. Prior knowledge and experience of partners, often linked to personal ties, in initial partner selection but are also important for trust and the effective organization of complementary competences during innovation projects. The absence of direct competitors – whether public, private or third sector organizations – is also highlighted. Non-rivalry and different partners’ interests in the outcomes of the innovation reduces moral hazard and the associated costs of setting up and monitoring formal contracts. Heterogeneity requires flexibility by actors; to understand partners’ different values, cultures, and organizational drivers. Finally, the research findings identify policy and practitioner enrolment as critical for the successful roll out and diffusion of service innovations.

The paper examines an important, but under researched issue – the role of third-sector organizations in collaborative innovation projects.

This paper aims to explore a current measurement system within a team of a national third sector umbrella organisation and to recommend a new set of ongoing changes to be implemented based on current literature from the third sector which can be applied to other similar sized organisations.

A series of semi‐structured interviews were used to examine current practices within the team.

Areas of weakness within the current measurement system were identified including secondary satisfaction measures for stakeholders who were not being examined before. Thorough descriptions of both impact assessment in the team and the organisational approach are discussed.

A follow up to see how the recommended changes are put into practice and what difference this has made to the team in regards to motivation and productivity would be useful after a year. The limitation of this case study is that this examines only one umbrella organisation and therefore is not representative of the entire third sector although it is certainly a useful addition.

Changes to practice are identified within the paper and this has implications for all third sector organisations as these changes are based upon a strong literature base within the sector.

This paper provides unique in‐depth insider viewpoint on a team of a national organisation. This also involved working with the Strategy and Impact team of National Council for Voluntary Organisations who are responsible for helping support the third sector through impact and performance measurement.

The paper aims to explore the relationship between commissioners of service and the third sector arising from research undertaken during a LinkAge Plus project by comparison to the eight principles of commissioning. It seeks to explore the issues concerning the development of services and the implications in an era of austerity for rapid changes to the implementation of policy nationally in the UK and internationally.

The main methods employed are interview, document analysis and observation. This research re‐evaluates research undertaken for a LinkAge Plus pilot evaluation.

The framework provided by the eight principles of good commissioning appeared to rely on the premise that the contracts entered into are long‐term in nature, however, where short‐term contracts are entered into the principles appear somewhat unachievable.

The paper examines the findings arising from one LinkAge Plus pilot site only, however, the authors contend that the findings offer genuine insights into the relationship between commissioners of services and the third sector, owing to the number of projects undertaken for the scheme.

The findings offer organisations and policy makers an insight into the issues faced by the third sector when dealing with large commissioners particularly with regards to the rapid change of service provision and short‐term contracts. This has considerable relevance in the changing economic climate and the associated austerity measures being imposed. The paper also fulfils the need for greater empirical work required in the important area of third sector delivery of services.

LinkAge Plus offered a unique opportunity to examine how a commissioner can use third sector organisations to develop services quickly and the associated issues that arise.