This article explores the emergence of nonprofit self-regulation in long-established and emergent nonprofit sectors in Europe. An application of agency, resource dependence, and institutional theories to specific national cases reveals three predominant self-regulation types, compliance, adaptive, and professional models, conditioned on varied market, political, and social antecedents. The compliance system predominates in the Western European cases (Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Austria), where the nonprofit sector is long established and public regulation of the sector is weak. The adaptive model is evidenced in the United Kingdom, where the nonprofit sector is well established but self-regulation design shifts in response to changes in public regulation and the resource environment. The professional self-regulation type occurs when the nonprofit sector and its legal system both are emergent, as in Poland, with self-regulation emerging to shape philanthropic, civil society, and nonprofit practice. An analysis of the European context more broadly reveals that as self-regulation is emerging across a number of contexts, there is evidence of isomorphism.
Bekkers, R. ( 2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands . Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 596-615.
5.
Benjamin, L. ( 2008). Bearing more risk for results: Performance accountability and nonprofit relational work. Administration & Society , 39, 959-983.
6.
Biekart, K. ( 1996). European NGOs and democratization in Central America: Assessing performances in light of changing priorities. In M. Edwards & D. Hulme (Eds.), Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world (pp. 80-90). West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
7.
Bies, A. ( 2002). Accountability, organizational capacity and continuous improvement: Findings from Minnesota’s nonprofit sector. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 31(1), 51-80.
8.
Blackhurst, C. ( 1996, April 16). Charities to be policed by a new watchdog. The Independent (London), p. 7.
9.
Boczoń, J., Erene, J., & Gałęziak, J. (1996). A new relationship between non-governmental and public sectors. In B. Synak & M. Ruzica (Eds.), The voluntary sector in a changing society (pp. 215-222). Gdansk, Poland and Indianapolis: Gdansk University and Indiana University .
10.
Bothwell, R.O. ( 2001). Trends in self-regulation and transparency of nonprofit organizations in the U.SInternational Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 4(1). Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.icnl.org/knowledge/ijnl/vol4iss1/art_1.htm
11.
Bowman, W., & Bies, A. ( 2005). Can the charitable sector regulate itself?Nonprofit Quarterly12(Special Issue), 39-43.
12.
Brehm, J.,& Gates, S. ( 1997). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic responses to a democratic public. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
13.
Brody, E. ( 2001). Accountability and public trust. In L. Salamon (Ed.), The state of America’s' nonprofit sector. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute and Brookings Institution.
14.
Brown, W. ( 2005). Exploring the association between board and organizational performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15, 317-339.
15.
Brown, L.D., & Moore, M.H. ( 2001). Accountability, strategy and international nongovernmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30 (3), 569-587.
16.
Brown, L.D. ( 2007). Multiparty social action and mutual accountability. In A. Ebrahim & E. Weisband (Eds.), Global accountabilities: Participation, pluralism, and public ethics (pp. 89-111). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Carman, J.G. ( 2005). Program evaluation use and practice in nonprofit organization: A theory-based study of nonprofit organizations in New York State. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Public Administration, State University of New York, Albany.
18.
Caudle, S.L. ( 2004). Qualitative data analysis. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 417-438). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
19.
Chanial, P., & Laville, J.-L. (2004). French civil society experiences: Attempts to bridge the gap between political and economic dimensions. In A. Evers & J.- L. Laville (Eds.), The third sector in Europe (pp. 83-100). Cheltenham , UK: Edward Elger.
20.
Chicago Journal of International Law. (2002 ). Special section: NGOs and democratic accountability. Chicago Journal of International Law, 3 (1), 155-206.
21.
Chitty, D., & Morgan, N. ( 2001). Charities: an Industry Accounting and Auditing Guide . London, United Kingdom: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
22.
Cordery, C., & Baskerville, R. (2007). Charity financial reporting regulation: A comparative study of the U.K. and New Zealand. Accounting History, 12(1), 7-27.
23.
Cornwall, A., Lucas, H., & Pasteur, K. ( 2000). Introduction: Accountability through participation: Developing workable partnership models in the health sector. IDS Bulletin , 31(1), 1-13.
24.
Creswell, J.W. ( 1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Czech Donors Forum. (2009). Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://donorsforum.tvorba.com/en/home
26.
Dicke, L. ( 2001). Ensuring accountability in human services contracting: Can stewardship theory fill the bill? American Review of Public Administration, 32, 455-470.
27.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. ( 1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
28.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. ( 1991). Introduction. In P. DiMaggio & W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1-38). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
29.
Dubnick, M., & Justice, J. ( 2004, September). Accounting for accountability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
30.
Ebaugh, H., Chafetz, J., & Pipes, P. ( 2005). Funding good works: Funding sources of faith-based social service coalitions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 34, 448-472.
31.
Ebrahim, A. ( 2003a). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31, 813-829.
32.
Ebrahim, A. ( 2003b). Making sense of accountability: Conceptual perspectives for northern and southern nonprofits. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14, 191-212.
33.
Ebrahim, A. ( 2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 56-87.
34.
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (Eds.). (1996). Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
35.
Eikenberry, A., & Kluver, J.D. ( 2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64, 132-140.
European Commission Directorate, General of Justice, Freedom and Security. (2009). Study on recent public and self-regulatory initiatives enhancing NPO transparency and accountability of non-profit organizations (NPOs) in the European Union. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from http://www.ecnl.org/dindocuments/306_ECNL%20Accountability%20Study_published%20on%20DG%20JLS.pdf
38.
Evers, A., & Laville, J.-L. (2004). Defining the third sector in Europe. In A. Evers & J.-L. Laville (Eds.), The third sector in Europe (pp. 11-42). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elger.
39.
Fama, E., & Jensen, M. ( 1983). Agency problems and residual claims. Journal of Law & Economics, 26, 327-349.
40.
Feeney, S. ( 1997). Shifting the prism: Case explications of institutional analysis in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 489-508.
41.
Frysztacki, K. ( 1996). The voluntary sector and the development of civil society in Poland. In B. Synak & M. Ruzica (Eds.), The voluntary sector in a changing society (pp. 215-222). Gdansk, Poland and Indianapolis : Gdansk University and Indiana University.
42.
Fundraising Standards Board. (2007). Give with confidence (Homepage). Available from http://www.frsb.org.uk
43.
Fundraising Standards Board. (2008). Do you give to charity? Are you unhappy about the way a charity is fundraising? [Marketing brochure]. Retrieved May 29, 2008, from http://www.frsb.org.uk/pdf/FRSB_public_leaflet.pdf
44.
Galaskiewicz, J., & Bielefeld, W. ( 1998). Nonprofit organizations in an age of uncertainty: A study of organizational change. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
45.
Goetz, A.M., & Jenkins, R. ( 2002). Voice, accountability and human development: the emergence of a new agenda. Human Development Report 2002. New York : United Nations Development Program.
46.
Gray, B., & Wood, D. ( 1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory . Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 3-22.
47.
Grønbjerg, K.A. ( 1993). Understanding nonprofit funding: Managing revenues in social services and community development organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
48.
Gruber, J. ( 1987). Controlling bureaucracies: Dilemmas in democratic governance . Berkeley: University of California Press.
49.
Guet, I.H. ( 2002). Monitoring fundraising: A comparative survey of ICFO members and their countries. Berlin, Germany: International Committee on Fundraising Organizations.
50.
GuideStar UK. (2008). GuideStar UK and civil society board’s joint statement on merger (Press release) . Retrieved June 7, 2008, from http://www.guidestar.org.uk/trustees.aspx
51.
GuideStar International. (2008). Available from http://www.guidestarinternational.org
52.
Gunningham, N., & Rees, J. ( 1997). Industry Self-Regulation. Law and Policy , 19 (4), 393-414.
53.
Guo, C. ( 2007). When government becomes the principal philanthropist: The effects of public funding on patterns of nonprofit governance. Public Administration Review, 67, 458-473.
54.
Harrow, J. ( 2006). Chasing shadows? Perspectives on self-regulation in U.K. charity fundraising. Public Policy and Administration, 21(3), 86-104.
55.
Hayes, T. ( 1996). Management, control and accountability in nonprofit/voluntary organizations. Brooksfield, VT: Avebury.
56.
Institute of Fundraising. (2010). Available from http://www.institute-of-fundraising.org.uk
57.
International Committee on Fundraising Organizations. ( 2008). About ICFO. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://www.icfo.de/about.htm
58.
Jaffee, D. ( 2001). Organization theory, tension and change. New York: McGraw-Hill.
59.
Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. ( 1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360.
60.
Jordan, L. ( 2007). A rights-based approach to accountability. In A. Ebrahim & E. Weisband (Eds.), Global accountabilities: Participation, pluralism, and public ethics (pp. 151-167). New York: Cambridge University Press.
61.
Jung, K., & Moon, M.J. ( 2007). The double-edged sword of public resource dependence: The impact of public resources on autonomy and legitimacy in Korean cultural nonprofit organizations. Policy Studies Journal, 35, 205-226.
62.
Kardam, N. ( 1997). Making Development Organizations Accountable: The Organizational, Political and Cognitive Contexts. In A.M. Goetz (Ed). Getting Institutions Right for Women in Development (pp. 44-60). New York: Zed Books.
63.
Kearns, K. ( 1994). The strategic management of accountability in nonprofit organizations: An analytical framework. Public Administration Review, 54 (2), 185-192.
64.
Kearns, K. ( 1996). Managing for accountability: preserving the public trust in nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-BassScott, W.R. (1995). Institutions and organizations: Foundations for organizational science. San Francisco, California: Sage.
65.
Kendall, J., & Anheier, H. ( 2001). The third sector and the European Union policy process: An initial evaluation. In H. K. Anheier & J. Kendall (Eds.), Third sector policy at the cross-roads: An international nonprofit analysis. (pp. 126-152). New York: Routledge Press.
66.
Keohane, R.O. ( 2003). Global governance and democratic accountability. In D. Held & M. Koenig-Archibugi (Eds). Taming Globalization: Frontiers of Governance (pp. 130-59). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
67.
Leś, E., Nałecz, S., & Wygnański, J. (2000). Defining the nonprofit sector: Poland (Working papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project No. 36). Baltimore : Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.
68.
Lewis, D., & Opoku-Mensah, P. (2007). Moving forward research agendas on international NGOs: Theory, agency, and context. Journal of International Development, 18, 665-675.
69.
Lipsky, M. ( 1980). Street level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Wilson, James Q.1989. Bureaucracy. New York: Free Press.
70.
Macdonald, S., 1995. Learning to change: an information perspective on learning in the organization. Organization Science, (6) 5, 557-568.
71.
Middleton, M. ( 1987). Nonprofit boards of directors: Beyond the governance function. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 141-153). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
72.
Miller, J.L. ( 2002). The board as a monitor of organizational activity: The applicability of agency theory to nonprofit boards. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12, 429-450.
73.
Miller-Millesen, J. ( 2003). Understanding the behavior of nonprofit boards of directors: A theory-based approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 32, 521-547.
74.
Millesen, J., & Bies, A. ( 2005). Why engage? Understanding the incentive to build nonprofit capacity (Tropman Report). Journal of Applied Research, 4, 9-13.
75.
Millesen, J., Carman, J., & Bies, A. ( 2011). Why Engage? Understanding the Incentive to Build Nonprofit Capacity. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(1), no page numbers assigned yet.
76.
Naidoo, K. ( 2004). Coming clean: Civil society organisations at a time of global uncertainty. Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 6 (3), 1-3.
77.
Najam, A. ( 1996). NGO accountability: A conceptual framework. Development Policy Review, 14, 339-353.
78.
O’Connell, L. ( 2005). Program accountability as an emergent property: the role of stakeholders in a program’s field. Public Administration Review, 65 (1). 85-93.
79.
Oliver, C. ( 1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management review, 15, 241-265.
80.
Ortmann, A., Svítková, K., & Krnáčová, A. (2005). Certification as a viable quality assurance mechanism: Evidence, theory, and open questions (Working Paper No. 288). Prague: Charles University and Economics Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education and Transparency International.
81.
Ospina, S., Diaz, W., & O’Sullivan, J. (2002). Negotiating accountability: Managerial lessons from identity-based nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 5-31.
82.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York : Harper & Row.
Romzek, B., & Dubnick, M. ( 1987) Accountability in the public sector: lessons from the Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47 (3), 227-38.
85.
Romzek, B., & Ingraham, P. ( 2000). Cross pressures of accountability: initiative, command, and failure in the Ron Brown plane crash Public Administration Review , 60 (3), 240-53.
86.
Salamon, L.M., Helmut, M., Anheier, K., List, R., Toepler, S., & Sokolowski, S.W. (1999). Global civil society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies .
87.
Sidel, M. ( 2005). The guardians guarding themselves: a comparative perspective on nonprofit self-regulation. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 80, 803-836.
88.
Sloan, Margaret F. ( 2009). The effects of nonprofit accountability ratings on donor behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38 (2), 220-236.
89.
Smith, S.R., & Lipsky, M. ( 1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
90.
Stone, M., & Ostrower, F. ( 2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 36, 416-438.
91.
Svítková, K., & Ortmann, A. ( 2006). Certification as a viable quality assurance mechanism: Theory and suggestive evidence. Unpublished manuscript.
92.
Taylor, M. ( 2004). The welfare mix in the United Kingdom. In A. Evers & J.-L. Laville (Eds.), The third sector in Europe (pp. 122-142). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elger.
93.
Van Slyke, D.M. ( 2003). The mythology of privatization in contracting for social services. Public Administration Review, 63, 296-315.
94.
Van Slyke, D.M. ( 2006). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 157-187.
95.
Welthungerhilfe. (2008). Urgent need to change agricultural practices in developing countries (Press release). Retrieved May 11, 2008, from http://www.welthungerhilfe.de/2826.html
96.
Woods, N. ( 2000). The challenge of good governance for the IMF and the World Bank Themselves. World Development, 28 (5), 823-41.
97.
Wspolinota Robocza Organizacji Socjalnych. ( 1999). Working community of social organizations: Mission and practices. Warsaw, Poland: Researcher .
98.
Young, D. ( 2000). Alternative models of government-nonprofit sector relations: Theoretical and International Perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 149-172.
99.
Zahra, S., & Pearce, J. ( 1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15, 291-334.
