At first glance, the answer to this question seems all too obvious: The greater the share of government finances the greater the loss of autonomy. But from a resource-dependency and institutional approach, three more influential factors come to mind: the association's counterinfluence, the calculations of the governmental agencies (their alternatives, costs and benefits); and cultural factors. The paper presents evidence from a German survey in which 397 registered associations of four widely differing types were investigated with the aid of a standardized questionnaire: sport clubs in comparison with philanthropic associations, interest associations and self-help groups. The findings support the importance of the perspective of the government agencies, whereas the association's counterinfluence seems to be to small to limit a loss of autonomy. Last but not least, the results support the reasonable assumption that cultural factors might be of importance which restrict governmental interference.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blau, P.M. and Scott, W.R., 1962: Formal Organizations. A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler.
2.
Burt, R.S., 1980: "Autonomy in a Social Typology." In: American Journal of Sociology85:892-925.
3.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W., 1983: "The Iron Cage Revisited.Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organization Fields." In: American Sociological Review48:147-160.
4.
Gordon, C.W. and Babchuk, N., 1959: "A Typology of Voluntary Associations." In: American Sociological Review24:22-29.
5.
Heinemann, K. and Horch, H.-D., 1991: Elemente einer Finanzsoziologie freiwilliger Vereinigungen . Stuttgart: Enke.
6.
Horch, H.-D., 1983: Strukturbesonderheiten freiwilliger Vereinigungen.Analyse und Untersuchung einer alternativen Form menschlichen Zusammenarbeitens. Frankfurt am Main/ New York: Campus.
7.
Horch, H.-D., 1992: Geld, Macht und Engagement in freiwilligen Vereinigungen. Grundlagen einer Wirtschaftssoziologie von Non-Profit-Organisationen. Berlin: Duncker u. Humblot.
8.
James, E., 1987: "The Nonprofit Sector in Comparative Perspective ." Pp.397-415. In: The Nonprofit Sector. A Research Handbook, edited by W. Powell . New Haven: Yale University Press .
9.
Knapp, M., Thomason, E., and Robertson, C., 1990: "Public Money, Voluntary Action. Whose Welfare ?" Pp.183-218. In: The Third Sector. Comparative Studies of Nonprofit Organizations . edited by H. K. Anheier and W. Seibel.Berlin/ New York: Walter de Gruyter.
10.
Knoke, D., 1988: "Incentives in Collective Action Organizations ." In: American Sociological Review53: 311-329.
11.
Kramer, R.M., 1981: Voluntary Agencies in the Welfare State. Berkeley: University of California Press .
12.
Kramer, R.M., 1990: "Nonprofit Social Service Agencies and the Welfare State. Some Research Considerations." Pp.255-268. In: The Third Sector. Comparative Studies of Nonprofit Organizations. edited by H. K. Anheier and W. Seibel.Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter .
13.
Kramer, R.M., and Terell, P., 1984: Social Service Contracting in the Bay Area. Berkeley: University of California, Institut of Governmental Studies.
14.
Kramer, R.M., Terell, P., and Grossman, B., 1987: "Contracting for Social Services. Process Management and Resource Dependencies." In: Social Service Review61: 32-55.
15.
Leat, D., 1990: "Voluntary Organizations and Accountability. Theory and Practice." Pp.141-154. In: The Third Sector. Comparative Studies of Nonprofit Organizations. edited by H. K. Anheier and W. Seibel.Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter .
16.
Leat, D., Tester, S., and Unell, J., 1986: A Price Worth Paying? A Study of the Effects of Government Grant Aid to Voluntary Organisations. London : Policy Studies Institute.
17.
Lipsky, M., and Smith, S.R., 1989: "Nonprofit Organizations, Government, and the Welfare State." In: Political Science Quarterly104: 625-647.
18.
Lloyd, P.C., 1990: "The Relationship Between Voluntary Associations and State Agencies in the Provision of Social Services at the Local Level . Pp.241-253. In: The Third Sector. Comparative Studies of Nonprofit Organizations . edited by H. K. Anheier and W. Seibel.Berlin/ New York: Walter de Gruyter.
19.
Lukes, S., 1974: Power. A Radical View. London : Macmillan.
20.
Nell-Breuning, O. von, 1957: "Solidarität und Subsidiarität im Raum von Sozialpolitik und Sozialreform." Pp.213-226. In: Sozialpolitik und Sozialreform , edited by E. Boettcher.Tübingen: Mohr.
21.
Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G.R., 1918: The External Control of Organizations. A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York et al.: Harper a. Row.
22.
Rose-Ackerman, S., 1990: "Efficiency, Funding, and Autonomy in the Third Sector ." Pp.157-164. In: The Third Sector. Comparative Studies of Nonprofit Organizations . edited by H. K. Anheier and W. Seibel.Berlin/ New York: Walter de Gruyter.
23.
Salamon, L.M., 1987: "Of Market Failure, Voluntary Failure, and Third Party Government: Toward a Theory of Government-Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State." In: Journal of Voluntary Action Research16: 29-49.
24.
Saxon-Harrold, S., 1990: "Competion, Resources, and Strategy in the British Nonprofit Sector." Pp.123-140. In: The Third Sector. Comparative Studies of Nonprofit Organizations. edited by H. K. Anheier and W. Seibel.Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter .
25.
Simmel, G., 1968: Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung . Berlin: Duncker u. Humblot.
26.
Streeck, W., 1981: Gewerkschaftliche Organisationsprobleme in der sozialstaatlichen Demokratie. Königstein: Athenäum .
27.
Winkler, J., and Karhausen, R.-R. , 1985: Verbände im Sport. Eine empirische Analyse des Deutschen Sportbundes und ausgewdhlter Mitgliederorganisationen . Schorndorf: Karl Hofmann.
28.
Wolch, J.R., 1990: The Shadow State. Government and Voluntary Sector in Transition. New York: The Foundation Center.
