No abstract

Club goods with information asymmetry are frequently provided through mixed economies of for-profit, nonprofit, and public providers. Theory explaining mixed economies relies on sector to classify providers based on assumptions that sector-level differences in how organizations either distribute or reinvest profit will affect behavior. However, this classification is overly broad and is not able to adequately capture the diversity of providers of these types of goods. The author utilizes the Institutional Analysis and Development framework to identify six "governance structures" in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors. Governance structures are constitutional-choice level rule variations in who has the power to make rules. I argue that there are two types of power that affect rules: (1) concentration of constitutional-choice level decision-making power (i.e., how many principals) and (2) proximity of monitoring and enforcement of those rules. The extent to which the constitutional rules actually guide service delivery outcomes depends on a nested rule environment. Only if there is consistency across three level of rules (constitutional, collective, and operational) can we connect sector to outcomes. The empirical reality of service delivery, particularly for club goods with information asymmetry, is far too complex for simplistic assumptions linking profit distribution or its reinvestment to outcomes. This article directs further research toward building contingent theory, with if/then conditions, based on empirical research.

No abstract

The question of relevance and the production of usable knowledge for practice has been a foremost concern for the field of nonprofit studies since the early years of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA). Exploring the research of nonprofit scholars from 2000 to 2010, this research note examines the following overarching question: How well do authors in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly ( NVSQ) explore the practice implications of their research? We find that more work needs to be done in improving the applicability of our research for practice, while recognizing that some work is geared toward the advancement of basic knowledge in the field of nonprofit studies. We adopt the position that scholars engaging in research with direct relevance for practice should invest in supporting praxis, investing a portion of their writing in addressing the “so what” question for both scholars and practitioners.

The field of nonprofit and voluntary action (NVA) studies in the United States originates in the 1970s and has since grown to encompass multiple scholarly associations around the world and graduate degree programs producing faculty with NVA as their primary scholarly focus. This article introduces readers to the NVA field by describing the development of the field, its scholarly associations and publication venues, and education programs. The second section discusses three areas of foundational research: why nonprofit organizations exist, why people give, and nonprofit relations with government. Each of these areas can be drawn upon by public policy scholars to more fully understand how individuals and nonprofit organizations participate in the policy process. The final section identifies three nexuses with policy process: policy design, advocacy, and the role of foundations. These are three areas that have significant potential for research collaborations to connect NVA with policy process literature.KEY WORDS: nonprofit, voluntary, foundations, advocacy, policy design 50 0190-292X