Book contents
- Reimagining Nonprofits
- Reimagining Nonprofits
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 An Invitation to Rethink the Nonprofit Sector
- Part I Overviews
- Part II Reflections and Refinements
- 5 Sector Theorists Should Consider How Social Values Determine Unmet Needs
- 6 Sector Theorists Should Embrace a Social Economy Perspective
- 7 Sector Theorists Should Expand Three-Failures Theory to Include the Family Sector and Varied Forms of Government
- 8 Sector Theorists Should Be Wary of the Nonprofit Industrial Complex
- 9 Sector Theorists Should Be Inclusive of Muslim and Non-Western Perspectives
- 10 Sector Theorists Should Revisit the Role of Information
- 11 Sector Theorists Should Borrow Epistemologies
- Part III New Directions
- Part IV Conclusion
- Index
- References
5 - Sector Theorists Should Consider How Social Values Determine Unmet Needs
from Part II - Reflections and Refinements
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 January 2024
Book contents
- Reimagining Nonprofits
- Reimagining Nonprofits
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 An Invitation to Rethink the Nonprofit Sector
- Part I Overviews
- Part II Reflections and Refinements
- 5 Sector Theorists Should Consider How Social Values Determine Unmet Needs
- 6 Sector Theorists Should Embrace a Social Economy Perspective
- 7 Sector Theorists Should Expand Three-Failures Theory to Include the Family Sector and Varied Forms of Government
- 8 Sector Theorists Should Be Wary of the Nonprofit Industrial Complex
- 9 Sector Theorists Should Be Inclusive of Muslim and Non-Western Perspectives
- 10 Sector Theorists Should Revisit the Role of Information
- 11 Sector Theorists Should Borrow Epistemologies
- Part III New Directions
- Part IV Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
Hansen and Witkowski introduce a new theory to understand how societal needs are met. The authors develop the cross-sectoral BIAS theory, an adaptation of the BIAS model, to assess factors that lead to persistent unmet needs among marginalized populations. Drawing on postcolonial theory, the authors indicate that the standard economic model of understanding the provision of services by market, government, and nonprofit sectors (three-failures theory) systematically fails to account for the underprivileged in society. The cross-sectoral BIAS theory explains that societal biases drive the persistent insufficient provision of goods to marginalized populations by all three sectors.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Reimagining NonprofitsSector Theory in the Twenty-First Century, pp. 91 - 112Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
AbouAssi, K., Faulk, L., Tran, L., Shaffer, L., & Kim, M. (2019). Use and perceptions of the availability of local government and nonprofit services in diverse urban settings. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(5), 975–997.Google Scholar
Andrew, D. (1989). Philanthropy and police: London charity in the eighteenth century. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Ner, A., McCall, B. P., Stephane, M., & Wang, H. (2009). Identity and in-group/out-group differentiation in work and giving behaviors: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72(1), 153–170.Google Scholar
Bhati, A., & Hansen, R. (2020). A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Chadborn, D., & Reysen, S. (2018). Moved by the masses: A social identity perspective on inspiration. Current Psychology, 37(3), 625–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, C. M., Masser, B. M., & Louis, W. R. (2020). Identity motives in charitable giving: Explanations for charity preferences from a global donor survey. Psychology & Marketing, 37(9), 1277–1291.Google Scholar
Chong, A. (2020). (Self-)Regulation of Muslim Charitable Sectors in the US and the UK in the Post-9/11 Era. Journal of Muslim Philanthropy & Civil Society, 4(2), 180–205.Google Scholar
Cikara, M., Bruneau, E., Bavel, J. V., & Saxe, R. (2014). Their pain gives us pleasure: How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55(Nov 1), 110–125.Google Scholar
Coule, T. M., Dodge, J., & Eikenberry, A. M. (2022). Toward a typology of critical nonprofit studies: A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(3), 478–506.Google Scholar
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS Map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648.Google Scholar
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS Map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40(2008), 61–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorfman, D. (2016). Re-claiming disability: Identity, procedural justice, and the disability determination process. Law & Social Inquiry, 42(1), 195–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dovidio, J. F., Major, B., & Crocker, J. (2000). Stigma: Introduction and overview. In Heatherton, T. F., Kleck, R. E., Hebl, M. R., & Hull, J. G. (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 1–28). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Duclos, R., & Barasch, A. (2014). Prosocial behavior in intergroup relations: How donor self-construal and recipient group-membership shape generosity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 93–108.Google Scholar
Dunning, C. (2022). Nonprofit neighborhoods: An urban history of inequality and the American state. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dyer, R. (2005). The matter of whiteness. In Rothenberg, P. S. (Ed.), White privilege: Essential readings on the other side of racism (2nd ed.) (pp. 9–14). Worth.Google Scholar
Fehrler, S., & Przepiorka, W. (2013). Charitable giving as a signal of trustworthiness: Disentangling the signaling benefits of altruistic acts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(2), 139–145.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. (2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and content endure. Association for Psychological Science, 27(2), 67–73.Google Scholar
Frumkin, P. (2002). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ghatak, M. (2020). Economic theories of the social sector: From nonprofits to social enterprise. In Powell, W. W. & Bromley, P. (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (3rd ed.) (pp. 319–332). Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Glied, S. A., & Frank, R. G. (2009). Better but not best: Recent trends in the well-being of the mentally ill. Health Affairs, 28(3), 637–648.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1986). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Touchstone. (Original work published 1963.)Google Scholar
Gostin, L. O. (2015). A tale of two diseases: Mental health and HIV/AIDS. The Milbank Quarterly, 93(4), 687–690.Google Scholar
Hansen, R. K. (2020). Stories of strangers: Writing donor acquisition letters in the human services. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 31(1), 153–173.Google Scholar
Hansmann, H. (1987). Economic theories of nonprofit organizations. In Powell, W. W. (Ed.), The nonprofit handbook (pp. 27–42). Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psychological Science, 17(10), 847–853.Google Scholar
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264.Google Scholar
Hatemi, P. K., McDermott, R., Eaves, L. J, Kendler, K. S., & Neale, M. C. (2013). Fear as a disposition and an emotional state: A genetic and environmental approach to out-group political preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 279–293.Google Scholar
Holstein, J. A. (1993). Court-ordered insanity: Interpretive practice and involuntary commitment. Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. C. (2006). Nonprofit organizations and political advocacy. In Powell, W. W. & Steinberg, R. (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed.) (pp. 307–331). Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, J. A., & Deitrick, L. (2020). Does the theory of voluntary sector failure provide insight into food pantries? A case study of a network of food pantries in San Diego, CA. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31(5), 870–880.Google Scholar
Katz, M. B. (2013). The undeserving poor: America’s enduring confrontation with poverty. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, J. (2016, May 4). Long ignored in global development, mental illness is declared a top priority. Voices. Open Society Foundations. www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/long-ignored-global-development-mental-illness-declared-top-priority?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_content=xrKbOkO7mGJLl7yITLBk4qmfIC8k27TmIGCDMOu2vu8&utm_campaign=news_051416Google Scholar
Kohl-Arenas, E. (2015). The self-help myth: How philanthropy fails to alleviate poverty. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lu, J. (2017). Does population heterogeneity really matter to nonprofit sector size? Revisiting Weisbrod’s demand heterogeneity hypothesis. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31(3), 1077–1092.Google Scholar
McClintock, A. (1995). Imperial leather: Race, gender, and sexuality in the colonial contest. Routledge.Google Scholar
Mosley, J. E. (2012). Keeping the lights on: How government funding concerns drive the advocacy agendas of nonprofit homeless service providers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 841–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, R., & Aggleton, P. (2003). HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: A conceptual framework and implications for action. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 13–24.Google Scholar
Rocha, M. G. D. L. (2006). Vanishing assets: Cumulative disadvantage among the urban poor. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 606(1), 68–94.Google Scholar
Said, E. W. (1989). Representing the colonized: Anthropology’s interlocutors. Critical Inquiry, 15(2), 205–225.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (1987). 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(1–2), 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). The behavioral assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510–529.Google Scholar
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(02), 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidel, M. (2010). Counter-terrorism and the Regulation of Civil Society in the USA. Development and Change, 41(2), 293–312.Google Scholar
Silver, I. (2005). Unequal partnerships: Beyond the rhetoric of philanthropic collaboration. Routledge.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1964). Conflict & the web of group affiliations (K. H. Wolff & R. Bendix, Trans.). The Free Press.Google Scholar
Steinberg, R. (2006). Economic theories of nonprofit organizations. In Powell, W. W. & Steinberg, R. (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed.) (pp. 117–139). Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Strub, S. (2014). Body counts: A memoir of politics, sex, AIDS, and survival. Scribner.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9(2), 187–204.Google Scholar
Weisbrod, B. A. (1977). Toward a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sector in a three sector economy. In Weisbrod, B. A. (Ed.), The voluntary nonprofit sector (pp. 51–76). Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Weisbrod, B. A. (1989). Rewarding performance that is hard to measure: The private nonprofit sector. Science, 244(4904), 541–546.Google Scholar
Witesman, E., & Heiss, A. (2017). Nonprofit collaboration and the resurrection of market failure: How a resource-sharing environment can suppress social objectives. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(4), 1500–1528.Google Scholar
Witkowski, G. R. (2022). Hoosier philanthropy: A state history of giving. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Wu, V. C. S. (2021). The geography and disparities of community philanthropy: A community assessment model of needs, resources, and ecological environment. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(1), 351–371.Google Scholar
Zagefka, H., Noor, M., Brown, R., de Moura, R., & Hopthrow, T. (2011). Donating to disaster victims: Responses to natural and humanly caused events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 353–363.Google Scholar