Despite widespread concerns about nonprofit organizations becoming “business-like” by hybridizing toward the market sphere, systematic knowledge about the extent and coherency to which this phenomenon finds traction beyond the liberal welfare context remains largely absent to date. Based on survey data (N = 496), this study addresses this lacuna for the region of Flanders (Belgium), an emblematic case of a post-corporatist welfare state. We find that (a) business practices are on the rise yet not prominently present, and (b) the theorized conceptual coherence of this phenomenon corresponds with a more fragmented empirical reality. This raises the question to what extent the conception of nonprofit hybridization toward the market sphere as a “monolithic threat” to the distinctiveness of the nonprofit sphere is an empirical reality in a post-corporatist welfare context.
AdamsC.PerlmutterF. (1991). Commercial venturing and the transformation of America’s voluntary social welfare agencies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 20(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/089976409102000104
2.
AlexanderJ. A.WeinerB. J. (1998). The adoption of the corporate governance model by nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 8(3), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.8302
3.
AnderssonF. O. (2017). A new focus on nonprofit entrepreneurship research: Highlighting the need and relevance of nascent stage inquiry. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 28(2), 249–258.
4.
AnderssonF. O.SelfW. (2015). The social-entrepreneurship advantage: An experimental study of social entrepreneurship and perceptions of nonprofit effectiveness. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(6), 2718–2732.
BillisD. (2010a). From welfare bureaucracies to welfare hybrids. In BillisD. (Ed.), Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy (pp. 3–24). Palgrave.
7.
BillisD. (2010b). Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy. Palgrave Macmillan.
8.
BodeI. (2006). Disorganized welfare mixes: Voluntary agencies and new governance regimes in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(4), 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928706068273
9.
BodeI. (2011). Creeping marketization and post-corporatist governance: The transformation of state–nonprofit relations in continental Europe. In S.D. Phillips and S.R. Smith (Eds.), Governance and regulation in the third sector (pp. 123–149). Routledge.
10.
BoenigkS.SchuchardtV. (2015). Nonprofit collaboration with luxury brands: Positive and negative effects for cause-related marketing. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(4), 708–733.
11.
BrownM. (2018). The moralization of commercialization: Uncovering the history of fee-charging in the U.S. nonprofit human services sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(5), 960–983.
12.
ConsidineM.O’SullivanS.NguyenP. (2014). Governance, boards of directors and the impact of contracting on not-for-profit organizations—An Australian study. Social Policy & Administration, 48(2), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12055
13.
CooneyK. (2006). The institutional and technical structuring of nonprofit ventures: Case study of a U.S. hybrid organization caught between two fields. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-006-9010-8
14.
DartR. (2004a). Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and inductive typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 290–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764004263522
15.
DartR. (2004b). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(4), 411–424.
16.
DartR.ClowE.ArmstrongA. (2010). Meaningful difficulties in the mapping of social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 6(3), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508611011088797
17.
DefournyJ.NyssensM. (2017). Fundamentals for an international typology of social enterprise models. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(6), 2469–2497.
18.
Del GiudiceA.MigliavaccaM. (2019). Social impact bonds and institutional investors: An empirical analysis of a complicated relationship. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), 50–70.
19.
EikenberryA. M. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 582–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009333686
20.
EikenberryA. M.KluverJ. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00355.x
21.
EversA.LavilleJ.-L. (2004a). Defining the third sector in Europe. The third sector in Europe, 11.
22.
EversA.LavilleJ.-L. (2004b). The third sector in Europe. Edward Elgar.
23.
GeorgeB.Van de WalleS.HammerschmidG. (2019). Institutions or contingencies? A cross-country analysis of management tool use by public sector executives. Public Administration Review, 79, 330–342.
24.
GuoB. (2006). Charity for profit? Exploring factors associated with the commercialization of human service Nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764005282482
25.
HoodC. (1991). A public management for all seasons?Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
26.
HustinxL.De WaeleE. (2015). Managing hybridity in a changing welfare mix: Everyday practices in an entrepreneurial nonprofit in Belgium. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 1666–1689.
27.
HustinxL.VerschuereB.De CorteJ. (2014). Organisational hybridity in a post-corporatist welfare mix: The case of the third sector in Belgium. Journal of Social Policy, 43(2), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279413000962
28.
HvenmarkJ. (2013). Business as usual? On managerialization and the adoption of the balanced scorecard in a democratically governed civil society organization. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35(2), 223–247.
29.
HvenmarkJ. (2016). Ideology, practice, and process? A review of the concept of managerialism in civil society studies. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(6), 2833–2859.
30.
HwangH.PowellW. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 268–298. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.2.268
31.
KingD. (2017). Becoming business-like: Governing the nonprofit professional. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(2), 241–260.
32.
KreutzerJägerU. (2011). Volunteering Versus Managerialism: Conflict Over Organizational Identity in Voluntary Associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(4), 634–661. http://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010369386
33.
LægreidP.RonessP. G.RubecksenK. (2007). Modern management tools in state agencies: The case of Norway. International Public Management Journal, 10(4), 387–413.
34.
LeeG.Benoit-BryanJ.JohnsonT. P. (2012). Survey research in public administration: Assessing mainstream journals with a total survey error framework. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 87–97.
35.
LettsC. W.RyanW.GrossmanA. (1997). Virtuous capital: What foundations can learn from venture capitalists. Harvard Business Review, 75, 36–50.
36.
MaierF.MeyerM. (2009). “Business-like” form without “business-like” substance? The thin line between nonprofit Managerialism and economization. Business, Department of Nonprofit, Vienna University of Economics.
37.
MaierF., Meyer, M.SteinbereithnerM. (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64–86.
38.
MarbergA.KorziliusH.van KranenburgH. (2019). What is in a theme? Professionalization in nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations research. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 30, 113–131.
39.
McDermontM. (2007). Mixed messages: Housing associations and corporate governance. Social & Legal Studies, 16(1), 71–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663907073448
40.
McKayS.MoroD.TeasdaleS.CliffordD. (2015). The marketisation of charities in England and Wales. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(1), 336–354.
41.
MeyerM.BuberR.AghamanoukjanA. (2013). In search of legitimacy: Managerialism and legitimation in civil society organizations. Voluntas, 24(1), 167–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9306-9
42.
PacheChowdhury. (2012). Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 494–510.
43.
PowellM.OsborneS. P. (2020). Social enterprises, marketing, and sustainable public service provision. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86, 62–79.
44.
SalamonL. M. (1993). The marketization of welfare: Changing nonprofit and for-profit roles in the American welfare state. The Social Service Review, 16–39.
45.
SalamonL. M.SokolowskiS. W. (2016). Beyond nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1515–1545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9726-z
46.
SandersM. L. (2015). Being nonprofit-like in a market economy: Understanding the mission-market tension in nonprofit organizing. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013508606
47.
SmithS. R. (2014). Hybridity and nonprofit organizations the research agenda. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(11), 1494–1508.
48.
SuarezD. F. (2010). Street credentials and management backgrounds: Careers of nonprofit executives in an evolving sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 696–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009350370
49.
SuykensB.De RynckF.VerschuereB. (2019a). Examining the influence of organizational characteristics on nonprofit commercialization. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 30(2), 339–351.
50.
SuykensB.De RynckF.VerschuereB. (2019b). Nonprofit organizations in between the nonprofit and market spheres: Shifting goals, governance and management?Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 29(4), 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21347
51.
ToeplerS. (2006). Caveat venditor? Museum merchandising, nonprofit commercialization, and the case of the metropolitan museum in New York. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(2), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-006-9012-6
52.
TuckmanH. P. (1998). Competition, commercialization, and the evolution of nonprofit organizational structures. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(2), 175–194.
53.
VacekováG.ValentinovV.NemecJ. (2017). Rethinking nonprofit commercialization: The case of the Czech Republic. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(5), 2103–2123.
54.
VidovichL.CurrieJ. (2012). Governance networks: Interlocking directorships of corporate and nonprofit boards. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22(4), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21042
55.
WilliamsA. C. (2010). New and improved? A case study of nonprofit policy governance. Human Organization, 69(3), 295–305.
56.
YuJ.ChenK. (2018). Does nonprofit marketization facilitate or inhibit the development of civil society? A comparative study of China and the USA. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 95, 925–937.
