This article presents a conceptual framework for exploring the development
of voluntary organizations. The first part of the theory distinguishes busi
ness and public bureaucracies from associations and defines the agency
as a hybrid or ambiguous organization. The second part of the theory
analyzes the system of "roots" of voluntary agencies, which is defined as
the relationship between implicit welfare policy, financial resources, and
human resources. It is suggested that voluntary agency development can
be understood, and therefore planned, by examining its root system and
that severe imbalances among operational explanations, root system, and
governing body can lead to many familiar problems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldrich, H. (1976). Resource Dependence and Interorganizational Relations . Administration and Society, 7(4).
2.
Ben-Ner, A. (1987). Birth, Change and Bureaucratization in Nonprofit Organizations : An Economic Analysis. In Politics, Public Policy and the Voluntary Sector. Pullman, WA: Association of Voluntary Action Scholars.
3.
Benson, J.K. (1975). The Interorganizational Network as a Political Economy. American Scientific Quarterly, 20.
4.
Billis, D. (1984a). Self-Help and Service (Working Paper No. 2). London: PORTVAC/ Centre for Voluntary Organisation, London School of Economics.
5.
Billis, D. (1984b). Welfare Bureaucracies. London : Heinemann.
Harris, M. (1990). Voluntary Leaders in Voluntary Welfare Agencies . Social Policy and Administration, 24(2).
11.
Herman, R. D., and Jon Van Til. (eds.). (1989). Nonprofit Boards of Directors: Analyses and Applications. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
12.
Jaques, Elliot. (1951). The Changing Culture of a Factory. London: Tavistock.
13.
Jaques, Elliot. (1976). A General Theory of Bureaucracy. London: Heinemann.
14.
Kramer, R. (1965, October). Ideology, Status and Power in Board Executive Relationships. Social Work.
15.
Kramer, R. (1985). Towards a Contingency Model of Board-Executive Relationships. Administration in Social Work, 9(3).
16.
Leach, E. (1976). Culture and Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Levine, S., and P.E. White. (1961). Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Interorganizational Relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6.
18.
Michels, R. (1962). Political Parties. New York : Free Press.
19.
National Marriage Guidance Council. (1987). Annual Review, 1987. Rugby, United Kingdom: National Marriage Guidance Council.
20.
Olsen, M. (1971). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
Popper, Karl. (1974a). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (5th ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
22.
Popper, Karl. (1974b). Objective Knowledge. London : Oxford University Press.
23.
Quinn, R.E., and K. Cameron. (1983). Organizational Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence. Management Science, 29(1), 33-51.
24.
Rowbottom, R. (1977). Social Analysis. London: Heinemann.
25.
Schmidt, S.M., and T.A. Kochan. (1977). Interorganizational Relationships: Patterns and Motivations. Administrative Science Quarterly , 22.
26.
Scott, W.R. (1987). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27.
Stinchombe, A.L. (1965). Social Structure and Organizations. In J. G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations . Chicago: Rand McNally.
28.
Van Til, Jon. (1988). Mapping the Third Sector: Voluntarism in a Changing Social Economy. New York: Foundation Center.
29.
Weisbrod, Burton A. (1988). The Nonprofit Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
Weitzel, W., and E. Jonsson. (1989). Decline in Organizations: A Literature Integration and Extension. Administrative Science Quarterly , 34, 91-109.
31.
Williamson, P.J. (1989). Corporatism in Perspective: An Introductory Guide to Corporatist Theory. London: Sage.
32.
Yuchtman, E., and S.E. Seashore. (1967). A System Resource Approach to Organizational Effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32, 891-903.
