Nonprofit organizations are now involved in human service provision internationally. However, these organizations perform in variable ways that potentially undermine their public service function. Eldercare is a case in point. Drawing on various strands of organization theory and taking German care homes as an example, this article argues that differences in performance (concerning “input quality”) may emanate from a distinctive mode of external governance that is crowding out capacity for quality-oriented internal governance. This is illustrated by evidence from an embedded case study. The findings hint at general problems with a “marketized” devolution of public services to nonprofits.
AlexanderV. S. (1998). Environmental constraints and organizational strategies: Complexity, conflicts, and coping in the third sector. In PowellW. W.ClemensE. S. (Eds.), Private action and the public good (pp. 272-290). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3.
AnheierH. K. (1990). A profile of the third sector in West Germany. In AnheierH. K.SeibelW. (Eds.), The third sector: Comparative studies of nonprofit organizations (pp. 313-331). Berlin, Germany, and New York, NY: De Gruyter.
BaumJ. A. C. (1996). Organizational ecology. In CleggS. R.HardyC.NordW. R. (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 77-114). London, England: Sage.
6.
Ben-NerA.Karaca-MandicP.RenT. (2012). Ownership and quality in markets with asymmetric information: Evidence from nursing homes. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 12(1), 1-33.
7.
BodeI. (2003). Flexible response in changing environments: The German third sector in transition. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 190-210.
8.
BodeI. (2009). Governance-Performance bei gemeinnützigen Trägern der stationären Altenhilfe. Zwei Fallstudien und ihre Botschaften [Nonprofit agencies in residential eldercare and their performance in governance. Two case studies and their messages]. Report contributed to the research project 3Q (Institut für Sicherheitstechnik, Bereich Empirische Arbeitsforschung). Wuppertal, Germany: Bergische Universität.
9.
BodeI. (2010). Results and performance. In AnheierH. K.ToeplerS. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of civil society (pp. 1318-1323). New York, NY: Springer.
10.
BodeI. (2011). Creeping marketization and post-corporatist governance: The transformation of state-nonprofit relations in continental Europe. In PhillipsS. D.SmithS. R. (Eds.), Governance and regulation in the third sector (pp. 115-141). London, England: Routledge.
11.
BradshawP. (2009). A contingency approach to nonprofit governance. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20, 61-81.
12.
BrennanD.CassB.HimmelweitS.SzebehelyM. (2012). The marketisation of care: Rationales and consequences in Nordic and liberal care regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 22, 377-391.
13.
BrinckerhoffP. C. (2009). Mission-based management: Leading your not-for-profit in the 21st century (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
14.
BuckinghamH. (2012). Capturing diversity: A typology of third sector organisations’ responses to contracting based on empirical evidence from homelessness services. Journal of Social Policy, 41, 569-589.
15.
BurnsJ. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
16.
CarollG. R.DelacroixJ.GoodsteinJ. (1988). The political environments of organizations: An ecological view. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 359-292.
17.
ChesteenS.HelgheimB.RandallaT.WardellaD. (2005). Comparing quality of care in non-profit and for-profit nursing homes: A process perspective. Journal of Operation Management, 23, 229-242.
18.
ChildJ. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6, 1-22.
19.
CooneyK. (2006). The institutional and technical structuring of nonprofit hybrids: Organizations caught between two fields?Voluntas, 17, 137-155.
20.
CyertR. M.MarchJ. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
DartR. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14, 411-424.
22.
DeckerF. H. (2008). Nursing home performance in resident care in the United States: Is it only a matter of for-profit versus not-for-profit?Health Economics, Policy and Law, 3, 115-140.
23.
DennyS.SeddonF. (Eds.). (2014). Social enterprise: Accountability and evaluation around the world. London, England: Routledge.
24.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
25.
DolleryB. E.WallisJ. L. (2003). The political economy of the voluntary sector: A reappraisal of the comparative institutional advantage of voluntary organizations. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
26.
DonaldsonL. (1996). The normal science of structural contingency theory. In CleggS. R.HardyC.NordW. R. (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 57-76). London, England: SAGE.
27.
EikenberryA. M.KluwerJ. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?Public Administration Review, 64, 132-140.
28.
EmirbayerM.JohnsonV. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory and Society, 37, 1-44.
29.
EtzioniA. (1973). The third sector and domestic missions. Public Administration Review, 33, 314-323.
30.
FeiockR. C.AndrewS. A. (2006). Understanding the relationships between nonprofit organizations and local governments. International Journal of Public Administration, 29, 759-767.
31.
GalaskiewiczJ.BielefeldW. (1998). Nonprofit organizations in an age of uncertainty: A study of organizational change. New York, NY: De Gruyter .
32.
GidronB.HasenfeldY. (2012). Social enterprises: An organizational perspective. Basigstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
33.
GingrichJ. R. (2011). Making markets in the welfare state: The politics of varying market reforms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
HämelK. (2012). Öffnung und Engagement. Altenpflegeheime zwischen staatlicher Regulierung, Wettbewerb und zivilgesellschaftlicher Einbettung [Opening up and becoming engaged. Residential care homes between public regulation, competition, and civic agency] Wiesbaden, Germany: VS.
35.
HannanM. T.FreemanJ. (1988). The ecology of organizational mortality: American labor unions, 1836-1985. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 25-52.
36.
HansmanH. B. (1986). The role of nonprofit enterprise. In Rose-AckermanS. (Ed.), The economics of nonprofit institutions: Studies in structure and policy (pp. 57-84). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
37.
HenriksenL. S.SmithS. R.ZimmerA. (2012). At the eve of convergence? Transformations of social service provision in Denmark, Germany and the United States. Voluntas, 23, 458-501.
38.
HielscherV.NockL.Kirchen-PetersS.BlassK. (2013). Zwischen Kosten, Zeit und Anspruch. Das alltägliche Dilemma sozialer Dienstleistungsarbeit [Between costs, time and ambition. The day-to-day dilemma of social service work]. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
39.
HwangH.PowellW. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 268-298.
40.
JensenM. C.MecklingW. M. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
41.
KraatzM. S.BlockE. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SahlinaK.SuddabyR. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243-275). London, England: Sage.
42.
LawrenceP. R.LorschJ. W. (1967). Organization and environment. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
LeiterJ. (2005). Structural isomorphism in Australian nonprofit organizations. Voluntas, 16, 1-31.
44.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
45.
OsborneS. P.ChewC.McLaughlinK. (2008). The once and future pioneers? The innovative capacity of voluntary organisations and the provision of public services: A longitudinal approach. Public Management Review, 10, 51-70.
46.
PatonR. (2003). Managing and measuring social enterprises. London, England: Sage.
47.
PowellF. (2013). The politics of civil society: Big society and small government (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
48.
PozzebonM. (2004). The influence of structurationist views on strategic management research. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 247-272.
49.
RothgangK. H. (2010). Social insurance for long-term care: An evaluation of the German model. Social Policy & Administration, 44, 436-460.
50.
SchmidtS.HasselhornH.-M. (2007). 3Q-Studie – Qualität in Altenpflegeeinrichtungen. Auswertung der Basisbefragung 2007 [3Q – study; Quality in residential care homes. Analysis of the basic survey from 2007]. Wuppertal, Germany: Bergische Universität.
51.
SellS. (2009). Das Kreuz mit der Pflege. Konfessionelle Träger von Pflegeheimen als Getriebene und Treiber in Zeiten einer fortschreitenden Ökonomisierung des Pflegesektors [The crux of care. Faith-based care homes as driven and driving actors in the context of spreading economization]. Remagener Beiträge zur aktuellen Sozialpolitik06: University of Remagen.
52.
SharpZ.BrockD. M. (2012). Implementation through risk mitigation: Strategic processes in the nonprofit organization. Administration & Society, 44, 571-594.
53.
SinghJ. V.TuckerD. J.MeinhardA. G. (1991). Institutional change and ecological dynamics. In PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. (Eds.), New institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 361-390). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
54.
StoneM. M.OstrowerF. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 416-438.
55.
SudaY. (2011). For-profit and nonprofit dynamics and providers’ failures: The long-term care insurance system in Japan. Public Management Review, 13, 21-42.
56.
TuckmannH. P.ChangC. F. (2006). Commercial activity, technological change, and nonprofit mission. In PowellW. W.SteinbergR. (Eds.), The third sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 629-644). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
57.
WeickK. E.BougonM. G. (1986). Organizations as cognitive maps: Charting ways to success and failure. In SimsH. P. J.GioiaD. A. (Eds.), The thinking organization (pp. 103-135). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
58.
WeitC.LaingD.McKnightP. J. (2002). Internal and external governance mechanisms: Their impact on the performance of large UK public companies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 29, 579-611.
59.
WinsløwH. J.BorgV. (2008). Resources and quality of care in services for the elderly. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 36, 272-278.
60.
YinR. K. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.
61.
YoungD. R. (1998). Commercialism in nonprofit social service associations: Its character, significance, and rationale. In WeisbrodB. A. (Ed.), To profit or not to profit: The commercial transformation of the third sector (pp. 195-216). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
