Nội dung được dịch bởi AI, chỉ mang tính chất tham khảo
Nghiên cứu về việc Thị trường hóa Bộ phận Phi lợi nhuận: Nghiên cứu so sánh hai Tổ chức Phi lợi nhuận
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations - Tập 31 - Trang 494-510 - 2019
Tóm tắt
Trong những năm gần đây, việc các tổ chức phi lợi nhuận ngày càng trở nên thị trường hóa đã được ghi nhận rõ ràng. Tuy nhiên, điều ít được hiểu rõ từ các nghiên cứu này là sự biến thể của quá trình thị trường hóa trong lĩnh vực phi lợi nhuận và cách thức mà nó biểu hiện trong các tổ chức phi lợi nhuận. Bài viết này nhằm lấp đầy khoảng trống kiến thức này bằng cách kể lại kết quả của một nghiên cứu trường hợp so sánh hai tổ chức phi lợi nhuận. Chúng tôi xem xét việc thị trường hóa của họ thông qua một khuôn khổ lý thuyết đa diện cho phép chúng tôi ghi nhận quá trình thị trường hóa một cách toàn diện và đưa ra một số giải thích sơ bộ về lý do tại sao sự biến thể này lại xảy ra. Các phát hiện của chúng tôi chỉ ra rằng một tổ chức đang áp dụng định hướng doanh nhân mạnh mẽ trong khi tổ chức còn lại đang tích hợp định hướng cộng đồng truyền thống với sự chuyên nghiệp hóa hơn. Sự khác biệt quan sát thấy ở các tổ chức trong trường hợp nghiên cứu cho thấy rằng quá trình thị trường hóa có thể được hiểu rõ nhất như một quá trình đặc thù mà một phần có thể được giải thích bởi các phản ứng chiến lược khác nhau đối với các áp lực thể chế.
Từ khóa
#thị trường hóa #tổ chức phi lợi nhuận #nghiên cứu trường hợp #định hướng doanh nhân #áp lực thể chếTài liệu tham khảo
Ashkehave, I. (2007). The impact of marketization on higher education genres: The international student prospectus as case in point. Discourse Studies,9, 723–742.
Balanoff, E. (2013). A special, set-apart place no longer? Administrative Theory & Praxis,35, 11–27.
Birch, K., & Siemiatycki, M. (2016). Neoliberalism and the geographies of marketization: The entangling of state and markets. Progress in Human Geography,40, 177–198.
Brennder, N., Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). After neoliberalization? Globalizations,7, 327–345.
Bush, R. (1992). Survival of the nonprofit spirit in a for-profit world. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,21, 391–410.
Clohesy, W. W. (2003). Fund-raising and the articulation of common goods. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,32, 128–140.
Cruikshank, B. (1999). The will to empower: Democratic citizens and other subjects. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage Publications.
Dempsey, S. E., & Sanders, M. L. (2010). Meaningful work? Nonprofit marketization and work/life imbalance in popular autobiographies of social entrepreneurship. Organization,17, 437–459.
Dey, P., & Teasdale, S. (2013). Social enterprise and dis/identification. Administrative Theory and Praxis,35, 248–2070.
Ebrahim, A. (2002). Information struggles: The role of information in the reproduction of NGO-funder relationships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,31, 84–114.
Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,38, 582–596.
Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review,64, 132–140.
Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France, 1978–1979 (G. Burchell Trans.). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Harvie, P., & Manzi, T. (2011). Interpreting multi-agency partnerships: Ideology, discourse and domestic violence. Social and Legal Studies,20, 79–95.
Hvenmark, J. (2016). Ideology, practice, and process? A Review of the concept of managerialism in civil society studies. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,6, 2833–2859.
Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly,54, 268–298.
Jayasuriya, K. (2002). The new contractualism: Neo-liberal or democratic? Political Quarterly,73, 309–320.
Jones, J. P., Roberts, S. M., & Fröhling, O. (2011). Managerialism in motion: Lessons from Oaxaca. Journal of Latin American Studies,43(4), 633–662.
Keevers, L., Treleaven, L., Sykes, C., & Darcy, M. (2012). Made to measure: Taming practices with results-based accountability. Organization Studies,33, 97–120.
Kerlin, J. A., & Pollack, T. H. (2011). Nonprofit commercial revenue: A replacement for declining government grants and private contributions? American Review of Public Administration,41, 686–704.
King, S. (2006). Pink ribbons, inc. Breast cancer and the politics of philanthropy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
King, D. (2017). Becoming business-like: Governing the nonprofit professional. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,46, 241–260.
Larsson, O. S. (2013). Convergence in ideas, divergence in actions: Organizational hypocrisy in nonprofit organizations. Administrative Theory and Praxis,35, 271–289.
LeRoux, K. M. (2005). What drives nonprofit entrepreneurship? A look at budget trends of metro Detroit social service agencies. American Review of Public Administration,35, 350–362.
Liebschutz, S. F. (1992). Coping by nonprofit organizations during the Reagan years. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,2, 363–380.
Logan, S., & Wekerle, G. R. (2008). Neoliberalizing environmental governance? Land trusts, private conservation and nature on Oak Ridges Moraine. Geoforum,39, 2097–2108.
Lyon-Callo, V. (2004). Inequality, poverty, and neoliberal governance: Activist ethnography in the homeless sheltering industry. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,45, 64–86.
McDermott, M. (2007). Mixed messages: Housing associations and corporate governance. Social and Legal Studies,16, 71–94.
Melnick, E., Petrella, F., & Richez-Battesti, N. (2013). Does the professionalism of management practices in nonprofits and for-profits affect job satisfaction? The International Journal of Human Resource Management,24, 1300–1321.
Merz, S. (2012). “Missionaries of the new era”: Neoliberalism and NGOs in Palestine. Race and Class,54, 50–66.
Mirabella, R. (2013). The performance mindset and the “gift”. Administrative Theory and Praxis,35, 81–105.
Nazneen, S., & Sultan, M. (2009). Struggling for survival and autonomy: Impact of NGOization on women’s organizations in Bangladesh. Development,52, 193–199.
Nickel, P. M., & Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). A critique of the discourse of marketized philanthropy. American Behavioral Scientist,52, 974–989.
O’Malley, P. (1996). Risk and responsibility. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government. London: UCL Press.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management Review,16, 145–197.
Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode,34, 380–404.
Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2006). Conceptualizing neoliberalism, thinking Thatcherism. In H. Leitner, J. Peck, & E. S. Sheppard (Eds.), Contesting neoliberalism: Urban frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.
Ridder, H. G., Piening, E., & Baluch, A. (2012). The third way reconfigured: How and why nonprofit organizations are shifting their human resource management. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,23, 605–635.
Roelofs, J. (2007). Foundations and collaboration. Critical Sociology,33, 479–504.
Rose, N. (1996). Governing “Advanced” Liberal Democracies. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government. London: UCL Press.
Roy, S. (2011). Politics, passion and professionalization in contemporary Indian feminism. Sociology,45, 587–602.
Salamon, L. M. (1999). The nonprofit sector at a crossroads: The case of America. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,10, 5–23.
Sandberg, B. (2013). The road to market. Administrative Theory and Praxis,35, 28–45.
Sandberg, B. (2016). Against the cult(ure) of the entrepreneur for the nonprofit sector. Administrative Theory and Praxis,38, 52–67.
Shoham, A., Ruvio, A., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Schwabsky, N. (2006). Market orientation in the nonprofit and voluntary sector: A meta-analysis of their relationship with organizational performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,35, 453–476.
Simpson, M., & Cheney, G. (2007). Marketization, participation, and communication within New Zealand retirement villages: A critical-rhetorical and discursive analysis. Discourse & Communication,1, 191–222.
Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Schram, S. F. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stivers, C. (2000). Bureau men, Settlement women: Constructing public administration in a progressive era. University Press of Kansas: Lawrence, Kansas.
Wirgau, J. S., Farley, K. W., & Jensen, C. (2010). Is business discourse colonizing philanthropy? A critical discourse analysis of (product) red. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,21, 611–630.
Woolford, A., & Curran, A. (2013). Community positions, neoliberal dispositions: Managing nonprofit social services within the bureaucratic field. Critical Sociology,39, 45–63.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: The Guilford Press.