Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T00:32:16.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining Collaboration and Commitment in Danish Non-Profit Organizations: Linking Institutional Environments to Outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Malene Thøgersen
Malene Thøgersen*
Affiliation:
Danish Institute for Non-formal Education, Frederiksgade 78B, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark
*
malene.thogersen@vifo.dk
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to shed light on the characteristics and impact of different institutional environments in non-profit welfare provision in Denmark. Based on an analytical framework inspired by the policy fields approach (Stone and Sandfort 2009), the paper argues that to understand the non-profit sector, it is necessary to take a closer look at the differences and similarities not only across welfare fields, but also across non-profit providers and their public counterparts within the same field. Based on data from case studies on primary schools and nursing homes in two Danish municipalities, a number of explanatory factors are identified and analyzed: Regulative rules, funding issues, norms and expectations, and the degree of competition. Results show important differences in the institutional environment of the two welfare fields, and that these differences have an actual impact on outcomes: Both collaborative activities of welfare providers and organizational commitment among leaders, employees, and users are highly influenced by characteristics of the institutional environment. It is argued that the applied analytical framework can help understand and explain the large variations in non-profit welfare provision across fields, within countries.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article vise à apporter un éclairage sur les caractéristiques et l’influence des différents environnements institutionnels dans la protection sociale du secteur à but non lucratif au Danemark. Basé sur un cadre analytique inspiré par l’approche du domaine politique (Pierre et Sandfort 2009), l’article soutient que, pour comprendre le secteur à but non lucratif, il est nécessaire de regarder de plus près les différences et les similitudes dans les domaines de protection sociale, mais aussi au niveau des fournisseurs à but non lucratif et de leurs homologues publics dans le même domaine. Tenant compte de données issues d’études de cas sur les écoles primaires et les maisons de soins de deux municipalités danoises, un certain nombre de facteurs explicatifs est identifié et analysé : règles régulatrices, problèmes de financement, normes et attentes, et degré de concurrence. Les résultats montrent des différences importantes dans l’environnement institutionnel de ces deux domaines de protection sociale et que ces différences ont une incidence réelle sur les résultats : les activités de collaboration des fournisseurs de protection sociale et l’engagement des organisations entre les dirigeants, les employés et les utilisateurs sont fortement influencés par les caractéristiques de l’environnement institutionnel. Il est soutenu que le cadre analytique appliqué peut permettre de comprendre et d’expliquer les variations importantes de prestations sociales du secteur à but non lucratif à travers les domaines au sein des pays.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, die Merkmale und Auswirkungen unterschiedlicher institutioneller Umfelder im Zusammenhang mit der gemeinnützigen Bereitstellung von Sozialleistungen in Dänemark zu veranschaulichen. Beruhend auf einem analytischen Rahmenwerk in Anlehnung an den Politikfeld-Ansatz (Stone und Sandfort 2009) behauptet man, dass zum Verständnis des gemeinnützigen Sektors die Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen allen Sozialbereichen, aber auch zwischen den gemeinnützigen Anbietern und ihren entsprechenden staatlichen Gegenstücken im gleichen Bereich genauer betrachtet werden müssen. Anhand von Daten aus Fallstudien zu Grundschulen und Pflegeheimen in zwei dänischen Gemeinden werden eine Reihe von Erklärungsfaktoren identifiziert und analysiert: Regulierungen, Finanzierungsfragen, Normen und Erwartungen und das Ausmaß des Wettbewerbs. Die Ergebnisse zeigen wichtige Unterschiede im institutionellen Umfeld der beiden Sozialbereiche und dass diese Unterschiede in der Tat Auswirkungen haben: Die Merkmale des institutionellen Umfelds nehmen großen Einfluss sowohl auf die kollaborativen Aktivitäten der sozialen Versorgungsträger als auch auf das organisatorische Engagement der Führungskräfte, Mitarbeiter und Leistungsempfänger. Man behauptet, dass das angewandte analytische Rahmenwerk zum Verständnis und zur Erläuterung der erheblichen Differenzen im Zusammenhang mit der gemeinnützigen Bereitstellung von Sozialleistungen in verschiedenen Bereichen innerhalb eines Landes beitragen kann.

Resumen

Resumen

El objetivo del presente documento es arrojar luz sobre las características y el impacto de diferentes entornos institucionales en la provisión de bienestar social sin ánimo de lucro en Dinamarca. Basándose en un marco analítico inspirado por el enfoque de campos políticos (Stone y Sandfort 2009), el documento argumenta que para comprender el sector sin ánimo de lucro, es necesario examinar más detenidamente las diferencias y similitudes en los campos del bienestar social, y también en los proveedores sin ánimo de lucro y sus contrapartes públicas dentro del mismo campo. Basándose en datos de estudios de casos sobre escuelas primarias y guarderías en dos municipios daneses, se identifican y analizan una serie de factores explicativos: Reglas reguladoras, cuestiones de financiación, normas y expectativas y el grado de competencia. Los resultados muestran diferencias importantes en el entorno institucional de los dos campos de bienestar social, y que dichas diferencias tienen un impacto real sobre los resultados: Tanto las actividades de colaboración de los proveedores de bienestar social como el compromiso comunitario entre líderes, empleados y usuarios están muy influenciados por las características del entorno institucional. Se argumenta que el marco analítico aplicado puede ayudar a comprender y explicar las grandes variaciones en la provisión de bienestar social sin ánimo de lucro en todos los campos, dentro de los países.

本论文旨在说明在丹麦提供非盈利性福利所处的各种组织机构环境的特点和影响。根据一种受政策领域法启迪的分析框架 (Stone 和 Sandfort, 2009),论文称要想理解非盈利领域,有必要更仔细考察各个福利领域的异同,以及同一福利领域中非盈利性供应商和公共领域同行之间的异同。论文根据丹麦两个自治市的小学和疗养院的案例研究数据,发现了很多解释能够解释这些差异的因素,并对这些因素进行了分析:监管规定、融资问题、准则、期望以及竞争程度。结果显示, 两个福利领域在机构环境方面存在重要差异,这些差异对结果有实际影响: 福利供应商的协作活动以及领导、员工和用户的组织机构承诺受组织机构环境的影响很大。论文称, 采用的分析框架有助于理解和解释国内不同领域在非盈利性福利提供方面存在的巨大差异。

本論文の目的は、デンマークにおける非営利団体の福祉の提供での制度環境の特質と影響に焦点を当てることである。政策分野アプローチ(ストーンとサンドフォート2009)に触発された分析的な枠組みに基づいて、本論文では非営利団体セクターを理解するためには、福祉分野における相違点と類似点だけでなく、非営利団体のプロバイダーと同じ分野内の公共の対応について詳しく検討する必要がある。デンマークの自治体における小学校および特別養護老人ホームの2件の事例研究のデータに基づくと、多数の説明要因、資金問題、規範や期待、競争の程度調節の規則が識別されて分析される。結果から、2つの福祉分野における制度上の環境で重要な相違点を表示して、これらの違いが結果として実際の影響を与えていることがわかった。福利厚生のプロバイダーの協力的な活動と指導者、従業員およびユーザー間での組織的なコミットメントは、制度環境の特性によって強く影響を受けている。応用分析の枠組みは、国内のフィールド間で非営利団体の福祉に大きな変動を説明して理解するのに役立っている。

الهدف من هذا البحث هو تسليط الضوء على خصائص وتأثير البيئات المؤسسية المختلفة في توفير الرعاية الغير ربحية في الدنمارك. إستنادا” إلى الإطار التحليلي المستوحى من نهج مجال السياسة (Stone and Sandfort 2009)، يجادل البحث إنه لفهم القطاع الغير ربحي، من الضروري أن نلقي نظرة فاحصة على أوجه الشبه والإختلاف بين مجالات الرعاية الإجتماعية، لكن أيضا” عبر مقدمي الرعاية الغير ربحية ونظرائهم من العامة في إطار نفس المجال. إستنادا” إلى بيانات من دراسات الحالة على المدارس الابتدائية ودور التمريض في إثنين من البلديات الدنماركية، يتم تحديد عدد من العوامل التفسيرية وتحليلها: القواعد التنظيمية، مشاكل التمويل ، المعايير والتوقعات ودرجة المنافسة. أظهرت النتائج إختلافات هامة في البيئة المؤسسية لمجالين الرعاية ، وأن هذه الإختلافات لها تأثير فعلي على النتائج: كل من الأنشطة التعاونية لمقدمي الرعاية والإلتزام التنظيمي بين القادة، أثرت إلى حد كبير في الموظفين والمستخدمين عن طريق خصائص البيئة المؤسسية. يقال أن إطار التطبيق التحليلي يمكن أن يساعد على فهم وتفسير الإختلافات الكبيرة في توفير الرعاية الغير ربحية عبر المجالات، داخل البلدان.

Keywords

Nonprofit welfare provisionInstitutional environmentsPolicy fieldsCase studies

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , October 2015, pp. 1639 - 1665
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References

Alber, J. (2010). What the European and American Welfare States have in common and where they differ: facts and fiction in comparisons of the European Social Model and the United States. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(2), 102–125. doi: 10.1177/0958928709358791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, J. G. (2008). Welfare state transformations in an affluent Scandinavian state: The case of Denmark. In Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (Ed.), Welfare state transformations. comparative perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Andersen, J. G. (2012). The Concept of Universalism and its Operationalisation in a Mixed Economy of Welfare. CCWS Working Paper. Aalborg, Centre for Comparative Welfare Studies, Institut for Økonomi, Politik og Forvaltning, Aalborg Universitet. 81.Google Scholar
Anheier, H. K. (2009). What kind of nonprofit sector? what kind of society?. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(7), 1082–1094. doi: 10.1177/0002764208327676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. (2005). Work psychology: Understanding human behaviour in the workplace (4th ed.). London: Prentice Hall Financial Times.Google Scholar
Baldersheim, H., & Rose, L. E. (Eds.). (2010). Territorial choice: The politics of boundaries and borders. London: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9780230289826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. London and New York: VERSO.Google Scholar
Bogason, P. (2001). Forvaltning og stat. Systime: Aarhus.Google Scholar
Boje, T. (2011). Active citizenship, participation and governance. In Potůček, M. & Boje, T. P. (Eds.), Social rights, active citizenship and governance in the european union. Baden Baden: Nomos doi: 10.5771/9783845230290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
Dølvik, J. E., et al. (2015). The Nordic model towards 2030. A new chapter? Fafo Report.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Evers, A. (2005). Mixed welfare systems and hybrid organizations: Changes in the governance and provision of social services. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9–10), 737–748. doi: 10.1081/PAD-200067318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feilberg, S. & Hovgaard, A. M. (2012). Kommunernes skolestruktur - Analyse af udviklingen 2004-2011. Aarhus.Google Scholar
Feltenius, D. (2014). Sollentuna kommun: Arbetsrapport inom ramen för projektet “Outsourcing of Scandinavian welfare societies? Consequences of private and nonprofit service provision for active citizenship”. Umeå, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen, Umeå Universitet.Google Scholar
Galaskiewicz, J., & Bielefeld, W. (1998). Nonprofit organizations in an age of uncertainty. New York, Aldine de Gruyter: A study of Organizational Change.Google Scholar
Garrow, E. E., & Hasenfeld, Y. (2014). Institutional logics, moral frames and advocacy among nonprofit human-service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 80–98. doi: 10.1177/0899764012468061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gidron, B., et al. (1992). Government and the third sector. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Hansen, H., & Henriksen, C.S. (2001). Selvejende institutioner på det sociale område: Aktuelle problemstillinger. København.Google Scholar
Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2008). Institutional Entrepreneurship. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 198–217). London: SAGE Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781849200387.n8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, L. S., & Bundesen, P. (2004). The moving frontier in Denmark: Voluntary-state relationships since 1850. Journal of Social Policy, 33(4), 605–625. doi: 10.1017/S0047279404008025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, L. S., et al. (2012). At the eve of convergence? transformations of social service provision in Denmark, Germany and the United States. Voluntas, 23(2), 458–501. doi: 10.1007/s11266-011-9221-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hvinden, B. H., & Johansson, H. (Eds.). (2007). Citizenship in Nordic welfare states. Dynamics of choice, duties and participation in a changing Europe. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203933527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibsen, B., & Habermann, U., (2006). De selvejende institutioner. Frivillighed og nonprofit i Danmark - Omfang, organisation, økonomi og beskæftigelse. T. P. Boje and B. Ibsen. København, Socialforskningsinstituttet.Google Scholar
Ibsen, B., & Habermann, U., (2005). Definition af den frivillige sektor i Danmark. Temahæfte, Frivillighedsundersøgelsen - En kortlægning af den friviillige sektor i Danmark.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, C. B., et al. (2014). Command and motivation: How the perception of external interventions relates to intrinsic motivation and public service motivation. Public Administration, 92(4), 790–806. doi: 10.1111/padm.12024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B., & Bull, A. C. (2006). Governance through civil society? An Anglo-Italian comparison of democratic renewal and local regeneration. Journal of Civil Society, 2(2), 89–110. doi: 10.1080/17448680600905874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kersting, N., & Vetter, A. (Eds.). (2003). Reforming local governments in Europe. Opladen: Leske + Budrik.10.1007/978-3-663-11258-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvist, J., & Greve, B. (2011). Has the Nordic welfare model been transformed. Social Policy & Administration, 45(2), 146–160. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2010.00761.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Mixed methods in social and behavioral science (pp. 145–167). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G. (2011). Steering, rowing, drifting or sinking? Changing patterns of governance. Urban Research & Practice, 4(1), 5–12. doi: 10.1080/17535069.2011.550493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, O. H., & Hjelmar, H. (2014). Marketization of welfare services in Scandinavia: A review of Swedish and Danish experiences. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 17(4), 3–20.10.58235/sjpa.v17i4.15712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Powell, M. A. (2007). Understanding the mixed economy of welfare. Bristol: Policy Press.10.2307/j.ctt1t89b4mCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Produktivitetskommissionen (2014). Offentlig-privat samspil. København. Analyserapport 6.Google Scholar
Ramböll. (2011). Slurrapport: Undersøgelse af selvejende daginstitutioners vilkår og rammebetingelser. København: Socialministeriet.Google Scholar
Ramböll. (2012). Evaluering af lov om friplejeboliger. Ministeriet for By, Bolig og Landdistrikter.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1996). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University, Institute for Policy Studies. 22.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (Ed.). (2008). Welfare state transformations. comparative perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230227392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segaard, S. B. (Forthcoming). Skole og eldreomsorg i Skandinavia. Nasjonale føringer for ikke-offentlige aktører. Oslo. 2015: xx.Google Scholar
Sivesind, K. H. (2007). Structured, qualitative comparison: between singularity and single-dimensionality. In Sarantakos, S. (Ed.), Data analysis. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sivesind, K. H., & Selle, P. (2010). Civil society in the nordic countries: between displacement and vitality. In Alapuro, R. & Stenius, H. (Eds.), Nordic associations in a European perspective (pp. 89–120). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Smith, S. R., & Grønbjerg, K. (2006). Scope and theory of government-nonprofit relations. In Powell, W. & Steinberg, R. (Eds.), The nonprofit sector. A research handbook (pp. 221–242). London & New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, S. R. (2010). Hybridization and nonprofit organizations: The governance challenge. Policy and Society, 29, 219–229. doi: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE: Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
Statistics Denmark: www.statistikbanken.dk (U1907, KVOTIEN, PASS22 + requested tables).Google Scholar
Stone, M. M., & Sandfort, J. R. (2009). Building a policy fields framework to inform research on nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(6), 1054–1075. doi: 10.1177/0899764008327198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thøgersen, M. (2012). Institutionelle omgivelser og foreningslivet. Kommunalreformens betydning for samspillet mellem kommuner og frivillige foreninger. Odense, Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Thøgersen, M. (2013). Selvejende institutioner i Danmark. Institutionernes udvikling, udbredelse og karakter på udvalgte samfundsområder. Arbejdsnotat Netværk for forskning i Civilsamfund og Frivillighed. www.cifri.fk. 1.Google Scholar
Thøgersen, M. (2015). Offentlige og frivillige velfærdsudbydere og aktivt medborgerskab. En analyse af plejehjems- og skoleområdet i to udvalgte kommuner. Arbejdsnotat, Netværk for forskning i civilsamfund og frivillighed. www.cifri.dk. 02:2015.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H., et al. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process oxford. Oxford: Oxford University Press doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trætteberg, H. D. (2014). Aktivt medborgerskap i skoler og sykehjem i Asker kommune. En sammenligning av kommunal, profittorientert og ideell drift. Oslo, Institutt for Samfunnsforskning.Google Scholar

Legislative documents

Act on nursing homes and sheltered housing (BEK nr 1324 af 10/12/2014)Google Scholar
Danish constitution (LOV nr 169 af 05/06/1953)Google Scholar
Law of independent and private schools (LBK nr 917 af 13/08/2014)Google Scholar
Law of free nursing homes (LBK nr 897 af 17/08/2011)Google Scholar
Law of public schools (LBK nr 665 af 20/06/2014)Google Scholar
Law of school boards (BEK nr 28 af 14/01/2014)Google Scholar
The social service act (LBK nr 150 af 16/02/2015)Google Scholar