Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:56:44.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organisational Hybridity in a Post-Corporatist Welfare Mix: The Case of the Third Sector in Belgium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2014

LESLEY HUSTINX ,
BRAM VERSCHUERE  and
JORIS DE CORTE
LESLEY HUSTINX
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, Department of Sociology, Korte Meer 3–5, B-9000, Gent email: [email protected]
BRAM VERSCHUERE
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Department of Management, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Henleykaai 84, B-9000, Gent email: [email protected]
JORIS DE CORTE
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Faculty of Psychology and Eductional Sciences, Department of Social Welfare Studies, Henri Dunantlaan 2, B-9000, Gent email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although mixed public–private provisions of welfare have always been a typical characteristic of continental welfare states, recent international scholarship has pointed to a historically new process of institutional hybridisation, with a more systematic intermingling of rationalities of the state, market and third sector within one and the same organisation. In this article, we address two limitations in the current knowledge: first, the absence of an indicator-model for exploring organisational hybridity empirically; second, the lack of sensitivity to cross-national variation depending on the welfare regime. We develop a multi-dimensional analytical framework that takes regime differences into account and empirically assess organisational hybridity in a (post-)corporatist welfare regime. Based on a survey of 255 third-sector organisations (TSOs) in Flanders (Belgium) and using latent class analysis, we find three clusters of TSOs that reflect different types of organisational hybridity. Contextualising our results further shows that the positioning of TSOs in our cluster model to a large extent results from the institutional context in which TSOs operate.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 391 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anheier, H. K. (2005), Nonprofit Organizations: Theory, Management, Policy, London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anheier, H. K. (2009), ‘What kind of nonprofit sector – what kind of society? Comparative policy reflections’, American Behavioral Scientist, 52: 7, 1082–94.Google Scholar
Ascoli, U. and Ranci, C. (2002), ‘The context of new social policies in Europe’, in Ascoli, U. and Ranci, C. (eds.), Dilemmas of the Welfare Mix: The New Structure of Welfare in an Era of Privatization, New York: Kluwer Academi/Plenum Publishers, pp.1–24.Google Scholar
Billis, D. (ed.) (2010), Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector: Challenges for Practice, Theory and Policy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bode, I. (2006), ‘Disorganized welfare mixes: voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe’, Journal of European Social Policy, 16: 4, 346–59.Google Scholar
Bode, I. (2010), ‘Creeping marketization and post-corporatist governance: the transformation of state-nonprofit relations in continental Europe’, in Phillips, S. D. and Smith, S. R. (eds.), Governance and Regulation in the Third Sector: International Perspectives, New York: Routledge, pp.115–41.Google Scholar
Brandsen, T., van de Donk, W. and Putters, K. (2005), ‘Griffins or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable characteristic of the third sector’, International Journal of Public Administration, 28: 9–10, 749–65.Google Scholar
Brandsen, T., Dekker, P. and Evers, A. (2010), Civicness in the Governance and Delivery of Social Services, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Dart, R. (2004), ‘Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: a grounded and inductive typology’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33: 2, 290–310.Google Scholar
Eikenberry, A. M. and Drapal, J. (2004), ‘The marketization of the nonprofit sector: civil society at risk?’, Public Administration Review, 64: 2, 132–40.Google Scholar
Eliasoph, N. (2009), ‘Top-down civic projects are not grassroots associations: how the differences matter in everyday life’, Voluntas, 20: 3, 291–308.Google Scholar
Evers, A. (1993), ‘The welfare mix approach: understanding the pluralism of welfare systems’, in Evers, A. and Svetlik, I. (eds.), Balancing Pluralism: New Welfare Mixes in Care for the Elderly, Aldershot: Avebury, pp. 3–31. Google Scholar
Evers, A. (2005), ‘Mixed welfare systems and hybrid organizations’, International Journal of Public Administration, 28: 9–10, 737–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evers, A. (2008), ‘Hybrid organisations: background, concept, challenges’, in Osborne, S. P. (ed.), The Third Sector in Europe: Prospects and Challenges, London: Routledge, pp. 279–92.Google Scholar
Glänzel, G. and Schmitz, B. (2010), ‘Organizational hybridity concept and hybrid organizations typology’, Working Paper, ARNOVA.Google Scholar
Hagenaars, J. A. (1993), Loglinear Models with Latent Variables: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, no. 07–094, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Henriksen, L. S., Smith, S. R. and Zimmer, A. (2012), ‘At the Eve of Convergence? Transformations of Social Service Provision in Denmark, Germany, and the United States’, Voluntas, 23: 458–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessop, B. (1999), ‘The changing governance of welfare: recent trends in its primary functions, scale, and modes of coordination’, Social policy and Administration, 33: 4, 348–59.Google Scholar
Karré, P. (2011), Heads and Tails: Both Sides of the Coin – an Analysis of Hybrid Organizations in the Dutch Waste Management Sector, Den Haag: Eleven International Publishers.Google Scholar
Mareé, M., Gijselinckx, C., Loose, M., Rijpens, J. and Franchois, E. (2008), Verenigingen in België: Een kwantitatieve en kwalitatieve analyse van de sector, Brussel: Koning Boudewijn Stichting, pp. 1–82.Google Scholar
Mertens, S., Adam, S., Defourny, J., Mareé, M., Pacolet, J. and Van de Putte, I. (1999), ‘Belgium’, in Salamon, L. M., Anheier, H. K., List, R., Toepler, S. and Wojciech Sokolowski, S. (eds.), Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, pp. 43–61. Google Scholar
Milligan, C. and Fyfe, N. R. (2005), ‘Preserving space for volunteers: exploring the links between voluntary welfare organisations, volunteering and citizenship’, Urban studies, 42: 3, 417–33.Google Scholar
Phillips, S. D. and Smith, S. R. (2010), ‘Between governance and regulation: evolving government–third sector relationships’, in Phillips, S. D. and Smith, S. R. (eds.), Governance and Regulation in the Third Sector: International Perspectives, New York: Routledge, pp. 1–36. Google Scholar
Powell, M. (2007), ‘The mixed economy of welfare and the social division of welfare’, in Powell, M. (ed.), Understanding the Mixed Economy of Welfare, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Rajak, D. (2011), In Good Company: An Anatomy of Corporate Social Responsibility, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (1999), ‘The nonprofit sector at a crossroads: the case of America’, Voluntas, 10: 1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, L., Anheier, H., List, R., Toepler, S. and Sokolowski, S. (1999), Global Civil Society – Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector, Baltimore: John Hopkins.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’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 16: 1–2, 29–49.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. and Sokolowski, S. W. (2003), Institutional roots of volunteering: toward a macro-structural theory of individual voluntary action’, in Dekker, P. and Halman, L. (eds.), The Values of Volunteering: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulder, R. van and Zwart, A. van der (2006), International Business-Society Management: Linking Corporate Responsibility and Globalization, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vermunt, J. K. and Magidson, J. (2005), Latent GOLD 4.0 User's Guide, Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc. Google Scholar
Verschuere, B. and Vancoppenolle, D. (2010), Welzijn in Vlaanderen: Beleid, Bestuurlijke organisatie en Uitdagingen, Brugge: Die Keure.Google Scholar