Civil servants’ mutual aid organizations can be characterized as premodern welfare state organizations. They are still very common in countries with well-developed social security systems but even more so in countries where these systems remain underdeveloped. They assist members and their families in times of sickness, disability or death, and provide dowries and scholarships. This paper systematically analyzes the autonomy and governance of 28 civil service mutual aid organizations in Pakistan. It reveals that mutual aid organizations are governed by four different types of boards and that most have low strategic human resource management (HRM), policy and structural autonomy. This study contributes novel empirical insights into mutual aid organizations as a phenomenon in public sector personnel studies that is often ignored. Overall, this study adds to the scant literature on mutual aid organizations, which has taken a welfare state perspective.
Points for practitioners
Mutual aid organizations are vital for civil servants’ welfare. Practitioners must prioritize enhancing their strategic human resource management autonomy for improved effectiveness. They must also advocate for increasing the policy autonomy of these organizations to address the evolving needs of civil servants and improve welfare outcomes. Their structural autonomy should also be enhanced to enable adaptability, reduce political influence, foster trust, and develop a more complementary relationship with government.
AbideenZUAbbasF (2021) Believers, Islamic brotherhood and mosque-based emotional and informal social support system among Muslims in Pakistan. Journal of Religion, Spirituality & Aging33(1): 54–85.
2.
ArchambaultE (1990) Public authorities and the non profit sector in France. In: HelmutKAWolfgangS (eds) The Third Sector: Comparative Studies of Nonprofit Organizations Public Authorities and the Non Profit Sector in France. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 293–302.
3.
BachT (2014) The autonomy of government agencies in Germany and Norway: explaining variation in management autonomy across countries and agencies. International Review of Administrative Sciences80(2): 341–361.
4.
BarrAFafchampsMOwensT (2005) The governance of non-governmental organizations in Uganda. World Development33(4): 657–679.
5.
BeitoDT (1990) Mutual aid for social welfare: the case of American fraternal societies. Critical Review4(4): 709–736.
6.
BhattiMW (2023) Sehat sahulat programme in federal territories facing closure: officials. The News, December.
7.
BodeIBrandsenT (2014) State–third sector partnerships: a short overview of key issues in the debate. Public Management Review16(8): 1055–1066.
8.
BorkmanT (1990) Self-help groups at the turning point: emerging egalitarian alliances with the formal health care system?American Journal of Community Psychology18(2): 321–332.
9.
BoydNMNowellB (2020) Sense of community, sense of community responsibility, organizational commitment and identification, and public service motivation: a simultaneous test of affective states on employee well-being and engagement in a public service work context. Public Management Review22(7): 1024–1050.
CavanaghAFreemanSKalfadellisP, et al. (2017) Assigned versus assumed: towards a contemporary, detailed understanding of subsidiary autonomy. International Business Review26(6): 1168–1183.
12.
CheemaIFarhatMHuntS, et al. (2015) Benazir income support programme: Second impact evaluation report. Oxford Policy Management.
13.
ChristensenJG (2008) Bureaucratic autonomy as a political asset. In: Politicians, Bureaucrats and Administrative Reform. London: Routledge, 132–144.
14.
CornforthC (2004) The governance of cooperatives and mutual associations: a paradox perspective. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics75(1): 11–32.
15.
DaleyDM (1998) An overview of benefits for the public sector: not on the fringes anymore. Review of Public Personnel Administration18(3): 5–22.
16.
DattaDKGrantJH (1990) Relationships between type of acquisition, the autonomy given to the acquired firm, and acquisition success: an empirical analysis. Journal of Management16(1): 29–44.
17.
DavisPSRobinsonRBPearceJA, et al. (1992) Business unit relatedness and performance: a look at the pulp and paper industry. Strategic Management Journal13(5): 349–361.
18.
DicksonTJHuytonJ (2008) Customer service, employee welfare and snowsports tourism in Australia. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management20(2): 199–214.
19.
DumontJP (1993) Mutualism in the world: ignorance, inequalities and market pressures. International Social Security Review46(3): 99–108.
20.
GrijpstraDBroekSBuiskoolBJ, et al. (2011) The Role of Mutual Societies in the 21st Century. Belgium: European Parliamentary Research Service.
21.
GuptaRD (1993) Social security and mutual assistance in India: a preliminary account. International Social Security Review46(3): 53–68.
22.
HameedIIjazMUSabharwalM (2022) The impact of human resources environment and organizational identification on employees’ psychological well-being. Public Personnel Management51(1): 71–96.
23.
HasanSSMustafaZUKowCS, et al. (2022) “Sehat Sahulat Program”: a leap into the universal health coverage in Pakistan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health19(12): 6998.
24.
HermanRD (1989) Concluding thoughts on closing the board gap. In: HermanRVan TilJ (eds) Nonprofit Boards of Directors: Analyses and Applications. New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 193–199.
25.
HitchinsK (1993) Mutual benefit societies in Hungary, 1830-1941. International Social Security Review46(3): 79–98.
26.
HoodC (1991) A public management for all seasons?Public Administration69(1): 3–19.
27.
IqbalN (2019) Police autonomy as important as independence of judiciary: cjp. Dawn, 4 October.
28.
JosephBInjodeyJVargheseR (2009) Labour welfare in India. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health24(1–2): 221–242.
29.
KatzAH (1993) Self-help in America: A Social Movement Perspective. Woodbridge: Twayne Publishers.
30.
KatzAHBenderEI (1976) Self-help groups in western society: history and prospects. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science12(3): 265–282.
31.
KernaghanKBorinsSFMarsonDB (2000) The New Public Organization. Institute of Public Administration of Canada.
32.
KettlDF (2000) The Global Public Management Revolution: A Report on the Transformation of Governance. Massachusetts: Brookings Institution Press.
33.
KinnaR (1995) Kropotkin’s theory of mutual aid in historical context. International Review of Social History40(2): 259–283.
34.
KropotkinP (1972) Mutual Aid. A Factor of Evolution. New York: New York University Press.
35.
LaamanenMSkålénP (2015) Collective–conflictual value co-creation: a strategic action field approach. Marketing Theory15(3): 381–400.
36.
LægreidPVerhoestKJannW (2008) The governance, autonomy and coordination of public sector organizations. Public Organization Review8(2): 93–96.
37.
LeesM (1995) Corporate governance in European cooperatives. In: The World of Cooperative Enterprise. Oxford: Plunkett Foundation, 59.
38.
LeesMVolkersR (1996) General trends, findings & recommendations. Review of International Cooperation89: 37–49.
39.
LimSWangTKLeeSY (2017) Shedding new light on strategic human resource management: the impact of human resource management practices and human resources on the perception of federal agency mission accomplishment. Public Personnel Management46(2): 91–117.
40.
LumpkinGTCogliserCCSchneiderDR (2009) Understanding and measuring autonomy: an entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice33(1): 47–69.
41.
MichaelSLurieERussellN, et al. (1985) Rapid response mutual aid groups: a new response to social crises and natural disasters. Social Work30(3): 245–252.
42.
MidgleyJ (2011) Challenges to mutual aid: the microinsurance response. In: JamesMMitsuhikoH (eds) Grassroot Social Security in Asia: Mutual Aid, Microinsurance and Social Welfare. Routledge, 29–44.
43.
MishraDBiswasSNRoyS (2005) Governance of NGOs: contextualizing in the Indian experience. International Journal of Rural Management1(2): 185–201.
44.
Norris-TirrellD (2005) Book review: good governance: the board’s role in building successful nonprofit organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration25(1): 96–102.
45.
OtenyoEESmithEA (2017) An overview of employee wellness programs (EWPs) in large US cities: does geography matter?Public Personnel Management46(1): 3–24.
46.
PatroCS (2017) Employee welfare measures in public and private sectors: a comparative analysis. In: Public Health and Welfare: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global, 1026–1042.
47.
PollittCBouckaertG (2004) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press.
48.
PunekarSDDeodharSBSankaranS (2004) Labour Welfare, Trade Unionism and Industrial Relations. Mumbai, India: Himalaya Publishing House.
49.
QuratulainSKhanAKSabharwalM (2019) Procedural fairness, public service motives, and employee work outcomes: evidence from Pakistani public service organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration39(2): 276–299.
50.
RanftALLordMD (2002) Acquiring new technologies and capabilities: a grounded model of acquisition implementation. Organization Science13(4): 420–441.
51.
RendallJCurtinMRoyMJ, et al. (2024) Relationships between community-led mutual aid groups and the state during the COVID-19 pandemic: complementary, supplementary, or adversarial?Public Management Review26(2): 313–333.
52.
SabharwalMKielLDHijal-MoghrabiI (2019) Best practices in local government wellness programs: the benefits of organizational investment and performance monitoring. Review of Public Personnel Administration39(1): 24–45.
53.
SariWPCahyaningsihESensuseDI, et al. (2016) The welfare classification of Indonesian national civil servant using TOPSIS and k-Nearest Neighbour (KNN). In: 2016 IEEE Student Conference on Research and Development (SCOReD). IEEE, pp.1–5.
54.
SakamotoJ (2009) Unifying pension schemes in Japan: toward a single scheme for both civil servants and private employees. In: SMOGaryA (eds) The Future of Public Employee Retirement Systems. OUP Oxford, 164.
55.
ShaheenSBashirSKhanAK (2017) Examining organizational cronyism as an antecedent of workplace deviance in public sector organizations. Public Personnel Management46(3): 308–323.
56.
SpadeDWillseC (2020) The Mutual Aid Toolkit. Big Door Brigade.
57.
TariqIAslamTKhanMA (2021) Impact of selected social welfare programs on poverty alleviation and health outcomes in Pakistan. Journal of Humanities, Social and Management Sciences (JHSMS)2(1): 214–232.
58.
TosoSG (1993) The mutual benefit movement in Chile from its origins to the present time (1853–1992). International Social Security Review46(3): 29–52.
59.
van der MeerJVermeerenBSteijnB (2022) Wellbeing during a crisis: A longitudinal study of local government civil servants. Review of Public Personnel Administration44(1): 32–59.
60.
Van LeeuwenMH (2012) Historical welfare economics in the nineteenth century: mutual aid and private insurance for burial, sickness, old age, widowhood, and unemployment in The Netherlands. In: Charity and Mutual Aid in Europe and North America since 1800. London: Routledge, 97–138.
61.
Van ThielSYesilkagitK (2014) Does task matter? The effect of task on the establishment, autonomy and control of semi-autonomous agencies. International Review of Administrative Sciences80(2): 318–340.
62.
VeraDNemanichLVélez-CastrillónS, et al. (2016) Knowledge-based and contextual factors associated with R&D teams’ improvisation capability. Journal of Management42(7): 1874–1903.
63.
VerhoestKPetersBGBouckaertG, et al. (2004) The study of organizational autonomy: a conceptual review. Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice24(2): 101–118.
64.
VermeerenB (2017) Influencing public sector performance: studying the impact of ability-, motivation-and opportunity-enhancing human resources practices on various performance outcomes in the public sector. International Review of Administrative Sciences83(4): 717–737.
65.
WiednerRMantereS (2019) Cutting the cord: mutual respect, organizational autonomy, and independence in organizational separation processes. Administrative Science Quarterly64(3): 659–693.
66.
YoungDR (2000) Alternative models of government-nonprofit sector relations: theoretical and international perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly29(1): 149–172.
67.
YoungDR (2006) Complementary, supplementary or adverserial? Nonprofit-government relations. In: TBEEugeneS (eds) Nonprofits & government: collaboration & conflict, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 37–80.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
