Cross-sector interactions have long occurred in the public delivery of goods, services, and interests. While scholars have often addressed cross-sector interactions using the dimensions of publicness (state) and privateness (market), an intersectoral framework necessitates the understanding and incorporation of nonprofitness to account for the dimensions of nonprofits along the public-private continuum. This article proposes a framework for identifying the dimensions of nonprofits in an intersectoral world and draws on relevant examples to illustrate the presence and influence of nonprofitness. The article then focuses on the future of education in the field of public administration and, in light of the proposed framework, makes and considers recommendations to help educational programs better equip students to appreciate work across sectors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AddonizioM. F. (2000). Private funds for public schools.The Clearing House, 74(2), 70–74.
2.
AgranoffR. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers.Public Administration Review, 66 (s1), 56–65.
3.
AgranoffR. (2007). Managing within networks: Adding value to public organizations.Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
4.
AlexanderJ. A.WeinerB. J. (1998). The adoption of the corporate governance model by nonprofit organizations.Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 8(3), 223–242.
5.
AndrewsR.BoyneG. A.WalkerR. M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: A review of the evidence.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21 (Suppl. 3), i301–i319.
6.
AryaB.SalkJ. (2006). Cross-sector alliance learning and effectiveness of voluntary codes of corporate social responsibility.Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(2) 211–234.
7.
BartlettL.FrederickM.GulbrandsenT.MurilloE. (2002). The marketization of education: Public schools for private ends.Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33(1), 5–29.
8.
BatsonC. D.CokeJ. S. (1983). Empathic motivation for helping behavior. In CaccioppoJ. T.PettyR. E., Social Psychophysiology (pp. 417–433). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
9.
BelleflammeaP.LambertT.SchwienbacherdA. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd.Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 585–609.
10.
BennisW. G.O’TooleJ. (2005). How business schools lost their way.Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–104.
11.
BergerP.NeuhausR. (1977). To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy.Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
12.
BernholzL. (2013). Philanthropy and the new social economy: Blueprint 2013.New York, NY: The Foundation Center/GrantCraft. Retrieved from http://www.grantcraft.org/guides/philanthropyand-the-social-economy-blueprint-2013.
13.
BerryF. S.BrowerR. S. (2005). Intergovernmental and intersectoral management: Weaving networking, contracting out, and management roles into third party government.Public Performance & Management Review, 29(1), 7–17.
14.
BorisE. T. (1999). Nonprofit organizations in a democracy: Varied roles and responsbilities. In BorisE. T.SteuerleE. C., Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (pp. 3–29). Washington, DC: The Urban Insitute.
15.
BorisE. T.SteuerleC. E.. (2006). Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
16.
BowmanL. N.ThompsonJ. R. (2013). Departments of public administration and colleges of business administration: Allies or aliens?Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 239–261.
17.
BozemanB. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organizational theories (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18.
BozemanB. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism.Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
19.
BozemanB.MoultonS. (2011). Integrative publicness: A framework for public management strategy and performance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl. 3), i363–i380.
20.
BrentB. O.PijanowskiJ. C. (2003). Shaking the tree: The benefits (and costs) of district education foundations.School Business Affairs, 69(5), 6–10.
21.
BryceH. J. (2012). Players in the public policy process: Nonprofits as social capital and agents.New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
CarrollA. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders.Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
23.
CarrollA. B.ShabanaK. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice.International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.
24.
CialdiniR. B.SchallerM.HoulihanD.ArpsK.FultzJ. (1987). Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 749–758.
25.
CourseyD.BozemanB. (1990). Decision making in the public and private organizations: A test of alternative concepts of “publicness.”Public Administration Review, 50(5), 525–534.
26.
CunninghamB.RiverstoneL.RobertsS. (2005). Scholars, teachers, practitioners, and students: Learning by fishing, storytelling, and appreciative inquiry.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(1), 45–52.
27.
DartR. (2004). Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and inductive typology.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 290–310.
28.
DeesJ. G. (2004, Fall). Social entrepreneurship is about innovation and impact, not income. CASEconnection Newsletter. Retrieved from https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/knowledge_items/social-entrepreneurship-is-about-innovation-and-impact-notincome/.
29.
DeesJ. G.AndersonB. B. (2003). Sector bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and for-profit.Society, 40(4), 16–27.
30.
DekkerP. (2001). What crises, what challenges? When nonprofitness makes no difference. In AnheierH. K.KendallJ., Third sector policy at the crossroads: An international nonprofit analysis (pp. 61–68). London, UK: Routledge.
31.
De LunaP. (1998). Local education foundations: Right for many schools.Phi Delta Kappan, 79(5), 385–390.
32.
DesaiU. CSnavelyK. (2012). Three faces of the state and the nonprofit sector.Administration & Society, 44(8), 962–984.
33.
DilulioJ. J. (2003). Response: Government by proxy: A faithful overview.Harvard Law Review, 116(5) 1271–1284.
34.
DiMaggioP. J.AnheierH. K. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors.Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 137–159.
35.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. J., The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63–82). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
36.
EikenberryA. M.KluverJ. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.
37.
ElseD. (2013). Research findings: Assisting K-12 education through the national school foundations association. Retrieved from http://www.schoolfoundations.org/research-findings.
38.
FileK. M.PrinceR. A. (1998). Cause related marketing and corporate philanthropy in the privately held enterprise.Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14), 1529–1539.
39.
FisherM. (2000). Ethical decision making in fund raising.New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
40.
FrumkinP. (2005). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
GazleyB. (2008). Beyond the contract: The scope and nature of informal government–nonprofit partnerships.Public Administration Review, 68(1), 141–154.
42.
GazleyB. (2013). The shoe’s on the other foot: Government reliance on private philanthropy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA). Hartford, CT.
43.
GazleyB.BrudneyJ. L. (2007). The purpose (and perils) of government-nonprofit partnership.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 389–415.
44.
GellerS.SalamonL. (2008). A nonprofit workforce action agenda: Report on the Listening Post Project Roundtable on Nonprofit Recruitment and Retention.Listening Post Communiqué No. 10, 1–7. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Civil Society Studies. Retrieved from http://ccss.jhu.edu/publications-findings/?did=259.
45.
GlickmanN. J.ServonL. J. (2003). By the numbers: Measuring community development corporations’ capacity.Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(3), 240–256.
46.
HallP. D. (2010). Historical perspectives of nonprofit organizations in the United States. In RenzD. O.Associates, The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (3rd ed., pp. 3–41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
47.
HammackD. C.YoungD. R.. (1993). Nonprofit organizations in a market economy: Understanding new roles, issues, and trends.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
48.
HaqueS. M. (2001). The diminishing publicness of public service under the current mode of governance.Public Administration Review, 61(1), 65–82.
49.
HeinrichC. J.LynnL. E.Jr.MilwardH. B. (2010). A state of agents? Sharpening the debate and evidence over the extent and impact of the transformation of governance.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(Suppl. 1), i3–i19.
50.
HurstA. (2014). The purpose economy: How your desire for impact, personal growth and community is changing the world.Boise, ID: Elevate.
51.
HustedB. W. (2003). Governance choices for corporate social responsibility: To contribute, collaborate or internalize?Long Range Planning, 36(5), 481–498.
52.
IsettK. R.ProvanK. G. (2005). The evolution of dyadic interorganizational relationships in a network of publicly funded nonprofit agencies.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 149–165.
53.
JacobsJ. (1992). Systems of survival: A dialogue on the moral foundations of commerce and politics.New York, NY: Random House.
54.
JeavonsT. H. (1992). When the management is the message: Relating values to management practice in nonprofit organizations.Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2(4), 403–417.
55.
JeavonsT. H. (2010). Ethical nonprofit management: Core values and key practices. In RenzD. O.Associates, The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (3rd ed., pp. 178–205). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
56.
JørgensenT. B.BozemanB. (2007). Public values: An inventory.Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381.
57.
KanterR. M. (2011). How great companies think differently.Harvard Business Review, 89(11), 66–78.
58.
KatzD.KahnR. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
59.
KettlD. F. (2005). The global public management revolution.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
60.
KnutsenW. L. (2012). Adapted institutional logics of contemporary nonprofit organizations.Administration & Society, 44(8), 985–1013.
61.
KnutsenW. L.BrockK. L. (2014). Introductory essay: From a closed system to an open system: A parallel critical review of the intellectual trajectories of publicness and nonprofitness.Voluntas, 25(5), 1113–1131.
62.
LeRouxK.FeeneyM. K. (2015). Nonprofit organizations and civil society in the United States.New York, NY: Routledge.
63.
LiebmanJ. B. (2011). Social impact bonds: A promising new financing model to accelerate social innovation and improve government performance. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, Doing What Works.
64.
MarquisC.GlynnM. A.DavisG. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action.Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.
65.
MarxJ. D. (1999). Corporate philanthropy: What is the strategy?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(2), 185–198.
66.
MerzC.FrankelS. S. (1995). Private funds for public schools: A study of school foundations.Tacoma, WA: University of Puget Sound, School of Education.
67.
MinkoffD. C. (2002). The emergence of hybrid organizational forms: Combining identity-based service provision and political action.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(3), 377–401.
68.
MinowM. (2002). Public and private partnerships: Accounting for the new religion.Harvard Law Review, 116, 1229–1270.
69.
MirabellaR. M. (2013). Toward a more perfect nonprofit: The performance mindset and the “gift.”Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35(1), 81–105.
70.
MollickE. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study.Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1–16.
71.
MoultonS. (2009). Putting toghether the publicness puzzle: A framework for realized publicness.Public Administration Review, 69(5), 899–900.
72.
MoultonS.EckerdA. (2012). Preserving the publicness of the nonprofit sector: Resources, roles, and public values.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 656–685.
73.
MurrayJ. H. (2012). Choose your own master: Social enterprise, certifications, and benefit corporation statutes.American University Business Law Review, 2(1), 1–53.
74.
MyersJ.SacksR. (2003). Tools, techniques and tightropes: The art of walking and talking private sector management in non-profit organisations, is it just a question of balance?Financial Accountability & Management, 19(3), 287–306.
75.
NajamA. (2000). The four c’s of government third sector-government relations.Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(4), 375–396.
76.
Nonprofit Academic Centers Council. (2007). NACC’s curricular guidelines for graduate study in nonprofit leadership, the nonprofit sector and philanthropy. Retrieved from http://www.urban.csuohio.edu/nacc/documents/GradCG07.pdf.
77.
O’NeillM. (2007). The future of nonprofit management education.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(Suppl. 4), 169S–176S.
78.
O’RiainS. (2000). States and markets in an era of globalization.Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 187–213.
79.
OsborneD. E.GaeblerT. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
80.
PacheA. C.SantosF. (2012). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to conflicting institutional logics.Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.
81.
PatonR.MordauntJ.CornforthC. (2007). Beyond nonprofit management education: Leadership development in a time of blurred boundaries and distributed learning.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36 (4, Suppl.), 148–162S.
82.
PeschU. (2008). The publicness of public administration.Administration & Society, 40(2), 170–193.
83.
PutzelR. (1992). “Experience Base” learning: A classroom-as-organization using delegated, rank-order grading.Journal of Management Education, 16(2), 204–219.
84.
RobichauR. W. (2013). Between markets and government: Essays on nonprofitness and the institutional transformation of child welfare agencies. (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University). Retrieved from ProQuest. (3568343.)
85.
SabetiH. (2011). The for-benefit enterprise.Harvard Business Review, 89(11), 98–104.
86.
SalamonL. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
87.
SalamonL. M. (2002). The resilient sector: The state of nonprofit America. In SalamonL. M., The state of nonprofit America (pp. 3–63). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
88.
SalamonL. M. (2012). America’s nonprofit sector: A primer.New York, NY: The Foundation Center Press.
89.
SalamonL. M.GellerS.NewhouseC. (2012). What do nonprofits stand for?Listening Post Communique No., 22, 1–23. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Civil Society Studies. Retrieved from http://ccss.jhu.edu/publicationsfindings/?did=389.
90.
SavasE. S. (2000). Privatization and public-private partnerships.New York, NY: Chatham House.
91.
SchönD. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
92.
SchultzD. (2004). Profesional ethics in postmodern society.Public Integrity, 6(4), 279–297.
93.
ScottW.DavisG. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
94.
SengeP. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization.London, UK: Random House.
95.
SimonC. A.YackM.OttJ. S. (2013). MPA program partnerships with nonprofit organizations: Benefits to MPA programs, MPA students and graduates, nonprofit organizations, and communities.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 355–374.
96.
SisodiaR. S.WolfeD. B.ShethJ. W. (2007). Firms of endearment: How world-class companies profit from passion and purpose.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.
97.
SkelcherC.SmithS. R. (2014). Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits.Public administration. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padm.12105/full.
98.
SmithS. R. (2010). Hybridization and nonprofit organizations: The governance challenge.Policy and Society, 29(3), 219–229.
99.
SuX.Bozeman.B. (2009). Dynamics of sector switching: Hazard models predicting changes from private sector jobs to public and nonprofit sector jobs.Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1106–1114.
100.
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW.LounsburyM. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
101.
Van SlykeD. M.RochC. H. (2004). What do they know, and whom do they hold accountable? Citizens in the government–nonprofit contracting relationship.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(2), 191–209.
102.
Van TilJ. (1987). The three sectors: Voluntarism in a changing political economy.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 16 (1–2), 50–63.
103.
Van TilJ. (2008). Growing civil society: From nonprofit sector to third space.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
104.
WaddellS. (2000). New institutions for the practice of corporate citizenship: Historical, intersectoral, and developmental perspectives.Business and Society Review, 105(1), 107–126.
105.
WeisbrodB. A. (1997). The future of the nonprofit sector: Its entwining with private enterprise and government.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(4), 541–555.
106.
WiseC. R. (2010). Organizations of the future: Greater hybridization coming.Public Administration Review, 70 (Suppl. 1), s164–s166.
107.
YoungD. R. (1999). Complementary, supplementary, or adversarial? Nonprofit-government relations. In BorisE. T.SteuerleE. C., Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (pp. 37–80). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
