This report presents the preliminary findings applicable to India, from a wider survey of family philanthropy in Asia. It is based on interviews and survey responses collected from 27 philanthropists and foundation professionals between December 2010 and June 2011.
{"title":"Insights into UHNW Family Philanthropy in India","authors":"Dweep I. Chanana","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2013287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2013287","url":null,"abstract":"This report presents the preliminary findings applicable to India, from a wider survey of family philanthropy in Asia. It is based on interviews and survey responses collected from 27 philanthropists and foundation professionals between December 2010 and June 2011.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"75 9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128066247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This talk explores several issues connected with a change from a legal presumption of transparency to one of confidentiality of board deliberations and work product, a change which is proposed by the draft Principles of the Law of Nonprofit Organizations. In addition to presenting historical and cultural claims, it offers a Coasean analytic model to demonstrate that under the most reasonable assumptions a presumption of transparency would be beneficial.
{"title":"The Problematic Presumption of Board Confidentiality","authors":"Norman I. Silber","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1743105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1743105","url":null,"abstract":"This talk explores several issues connected with a change from a legal presumption of transparency to one of confidentiality of board deliberations and work product, a change which is proposed by the draft Principles of the Law of Nonprofit Organizations. In addition to presenting historical and cultural claims, it offers a Coasean analytic model to demonstrate that under the most reasonable assumptions a presumption of transparency would be beneficial.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"22 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129120149","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In my 2009 essay, Private Public Interest Environmental Law: History, Hard Work, and Hope, I wrote about the rich possibilities for practicing private public interest environmental law, which means representing clients seeking environmental protection through a private-practice entity rather than in a non-profit. Professor Kenneth Manaster has responded (Kenneth A. Manaster, The Many Paths of Environmental Practice: A Response to Professor Bonine, 28 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. (2010)), expressing his admiration for business environmental law as a career choice, while ruing my failure to express the same enthusiasm in my own essay. In fact, he asserts that my essay painted a distorted picture of such practice. Respectfully, I submit that it is Professor Manaster‘s article that has the potential to mislead public interest-oriented law students regarding the reality of a business environmental law practice. My reply is intended to clarify my own perspective as well as highlight some of what he says about business and public interest environmental law practice.
{"title":"The Divergent Paths of Environmental Law Practice: A Reply to Professor Manaster","authors":"John E. Bonine","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1709069","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1709069","url":null,"abstract":"In my 2009 essay, Private Public Interest Environmental Law: History, Hard Work, and Hope, I wrote about the rich possibilities for practicing private public interest environmental law, which means representing clients seeking environmental protection through a private-practice entity rather than in a non-profit. Professor Kenneth Manaster has responded (Kenneth A. Manaster, The Many Paths of Environmental Practice: A Response to Professor Bonine, 28 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. (2010)), expressing his admiration for business environmental law as a career choice, while ruing my failure to express the same enthusiasm in my own essay. In fact, he asserts that my essay painted a distorted picture of such practice. Respectfully, I submit that it is Professor Manaster‘s article that has the potential to mislead public interest-oriented law students regarding the reality of a business environmental law practice. My reply is intended to clarify my own perspective as well as highlight some of what he says about business and public interest environmental law practice.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117246260","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper reviews the existing literature on the property tax exemption for nonprofit organizations and identifies gaps to be addressed in future research. We start by examining justifications and existing eligibility criteria for the property tax exemption, followed by studies of the magnitude of the revenue loss from the exemption. We focus on theoretical and empirical studies of the economic effects of the exemption. We consider the effect of the tax advantage on nonprofit decisions about inputs, outputs and organizational form, decisions to rent or own, location decision, market share, and the effect of the exemption on neighboring property values. Finally, we evaluate research about the use of PILOTs and the implications of their possible expansion. We conclude that future studies need to examine further the magnitude of the revenues forgone, the advantages and disadvantages of PILOTs, and other solutions for distributing more evenly the burden of the exemption. Further studies are also needed to understand the economic effects of the property tax exemption, with opportunities for theoretical and empirical contributions.
{"title":"The Property Tax Exemption for Nonprofits","authors":"D. Sjoquist, R. Stoycheva","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1260297","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1260297","url":null,"abstract":"This paper reviews the existing literature on the property tax exemption for nonprofit organizations and identifies gaps to be addressed in future research. We start by examining justifications and existing eligibility criteria for the property tax exemption, followed by studies of the magnitude of the revenue loss from the exemption. We focus on theoretical and empirical studies of the economic effects of the exemption. We consider the effect of the tax advantage on nonprofit decisions about inputs, outputs and organizational form, decisions to rent or own, location decision, market share, and the effect of the exemption on neighboring property values. Finally, we evaluate research about the use of PILOTs and the implications of their possible expansion. We conclude that future studies need to examine further the magnitude of the revenues forgone, the advantages and disadvantages of PILOTs, and other solutions for distributing more evenly the burden of the exemption. Further studies are also needed to understand the economic effects of the property tax exemption, with opportunities for theoretical and empirical contributions.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"120 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128109126","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We examine charitable spending by faith-based organizations on community services. We find that government spending on such activities has a depressing or "crowding out" effect as initially found in Hungerman (2005). However, we also find that competition from other faith-based organizations also plays an important role. Specifically, we find that beyond a threshold level, greater concentration in the religious marketplace leads to less church social spending per member. This is true with respect to both inter- and intra-denominational competition. Spending on charitable services appears to be a mechanism by which churches compete.
{"title":"Crowding Out and Competition in the Religious Marketplace","authors":"L. Pepall, Daniel Richards, John D. Straub","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.910264","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.910264","url":null,"abstract":"We examine charitable spending by faith-based organizations on community services. We find that government spending on such activities has a depressing or \"crowding out\" effect as initially found in Hungerman (2005). However, we also find that competition from other faith-based organizations also plays an important role. Specifically, we find that beyond a threshold level, greater concentration in the religious marketplace leads to less church social spending per member. This is true with respect to both inter- and intra-denominational competition. Spending on charitable services appears to be a mechanism by which churches compete.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133513013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In recent years, aggrieved groups around the world have portrayed their problems as human rights issues. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is expansive, for most of its history civil and political rights have garnered the bulk of resources. Yet today groups such as the disabled, gays and lesbians, Third World slumdwellers, South Asian Dalits (Untouchables), AIDS patients, and victims of corporate malfeasance - all seek to establish rights to protect their groups. In many cases, their efforts have met resistance from governments and corporations. Even apparent allies among human rights NGOs have voiced misgivings, arguing that proliferation of new rights vitiates core concerns. My paper proposes a framework for understanding the emergence of new rights, those omitted from or given little prominence in the UDHR. The process involves three phases: First, groups frame long-felt grievances as rights. Why and how they do so has received little scholarly attention. Second, they seek to place their claims on the international agenda, chiefly by convincing gatekeepers in major human rights NGOs to endorse new norms. This seldom-examined stage is crucial since a handful of NGOs exercise great power in certifying rights. Third, assuming key NGOs adopt a norm, they promote it in international arenas where they face strong opposition from states and non-state actors espousing contrary norms. To make this argument, I analyze the recent successes, failures, and strategies of Dalits and the physically disabled as they seek new rights internationally. My analysis challenges dominant theories of transnational relations and social movements. In contrast to Keck and Sikkink's concept of cohesive transnational advocacy networks, I distinguish within networks between established NGO gatekeepers and new rights claimants. I find that NGOs' organizational interests make them less receptive than often assumed, forcing claimants to adapt themselves to NGO predispositions. Moreover, unlike constructivists, I argue that logics of appropriateness and argument cannot explain norm acceptance. Bearers of new norms face opposition from transnational counter-movements that champion equally appropriate counter-norms. Even the rules of argument and participation are contested - a far cry from the deliberative truth-seeking envisioned by constructivists.
{"title":"Rights on the Rise: International Mobilization for New Human Rights","authors":"C. Bob","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.902692","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.902692","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, aggrieved groups around the world have portrayed their problems as human rights issues. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is expansive, for most of its history civil and political rights have garnered the bulk of resources. Yet today groups such as the disabled, gays and lesbians, Third World slumdwellers, South Asian Dalits (Untouchables), AIDS patients, and victims of corporate malfeasance - all seek to establish rights to protect their groups. In many cases, their efforts have met resistance from governments and corporations. Even apparent allies among human rights NGOs have voiced misgivings, arguing that proliferation of new rights vitiates core concerns. My paper proposes a framework for understanding the emergence of new rights, those omitted from or given little prominence in the UDHR. The process involves three phases: First, groups frame long-felt grievances as rights. Why and how they do so has received little scholarly attention. Second, they seek to place their claims on the international agenda, chiefly by convincing gatekeepers in major human rights NGOs to endorse new norms. This seldom-examined stage is crucial since a handful of NGOs exercise great power in certifying rights. Third, assuming key NGOs adopt a norm, they promote it in international arenas where they face strong opposition from states and non-state actors espousing contrary norms. To make this argument, I analyze the recent successes, failures, and strategies of Dalits and the physically disabled as they seek new rights internationally. My analysis challenges dominant theories of transnational relations and social movements. In contrast to Keck and Sikkink's concept of cohesive transnational advocacy networks, I distinguish within networks between established NGO gatekeepers and new rights claimants. I find that NGOs' organizational interests make them less receptive than often assumed, forcing claimants to adapt themselves to NGO predispositions. Moreover, unlike constructivists, I argue that logics of appropriateness and argument cannot explain norm acceptance. Bearers of new norms face opposition from transnational counter-movements that champion equally appropriate counter-norms. Even the rules of argument and participation are contested - a far cry from the deliberative truth-seeking envisioned by constructivists.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"151 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131981438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper reports and reflects on the development, over the period 1997 - 2004, of a typology and growth model of nonprofit organisations, through an iterative research process involving academics, practitioners and undergraduate students. The conceptual development of the models is first outlined. The models are then critiqued relative to three aspects of theoretical value, managerial utility and pedagogic capacity. The paper concludes with a brief reflection on the impact of the varied requirements of the different audiences for organisational and managerial research.
{"title":"Model Development for Nonprofit Management: A Case Study of Emergent Issues of Theoretical Sufficiency, Managerial Utility, and Pedagogic Capacity","authors":"Andrew O'Regan, Gemma Donnelly-Cox","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.949843","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.949843","url":null,"abstract":"The paper reports and reflects on the development, over the period 1997 - 2004, of a typology and growth model of nonprofit organisations, through an iterative research process involving academics, practitioners and undergraduate students. The conceptual development of the models is first outlined. The models are then critiqued relative to three aspects of theoretical value, managerial utility and pedagogic capacity. The paper concludes with a brief reflection on the impact of the varied requirements of the different audiences for organisational and managerial research.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131364117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The first donor-advised gift fund was established nearly 90 years ago. But it was not until Fidelity Investments created its Charitable Gift Fund in 1992, soon followed by other large brokerage firms and mutual fund companies, that the funds became, in the words of Forbes magazine, "the hottest trend in philanthropy."Donor-advised gift funds offer a simple, flexible, and tax-efficient way to convert appreciated securities into a "charitable checkbook" from which to make relatively small, routine donations. They are, in effect, charitable foundations "for the rest of us." This presentation, made at the National YMCA Conference and Training Center at Silver Bay, New York, explains what donor-advised gift funds are and how they work. (Readers are cautioned that certain tax rates, legal restrictions, and administrative regulations may have changed since the presentation was made in 2001.)
首个由捐赠者建议的捐赠基金成立于近90年前。但直到1992年富达投资公司(Fidelity Investments)创建了自己的慈善捐赠基金(Charitable Gift Fund)，其他大型经纪公司和共同基金公司也紧随其后，这些基金才用《福布斯》(Forbes)杂志的话来说，成为“慈善事业中最热门的趋势”。捐赠者建议捐赠基金提供了一种简单、灵活、省税的方式，将增值证券转换为“慈善支票簿”，从中进行相对较小的常规捐赠。实际上，它们是“为我们其他人”设立的慈善基金会。这是在纽约银湾的全国基督教青年会暨训练中心所作的简报，解释什么是捐赠人建议捐献基金，以及如何运作。(请读者注意，自2001年发布报告以来，某些税率、法律限制和行政法规可能发生了变化。)
{"title":"All About Donor-Advised Gift Funds: How Middle-Class Families Can Enhance Their Charitable Giving with Maximum Tax Benefits","authors":"N. Stockmeyer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1729373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1729373","url":null,"abstract":"The first donor-advised gift fund was established nearly 90 years ago. But it was not until Fidelity Investments created its Charitable Gift Fund in 1992, soon followed by other large brokerage firms and mutual fund companies, that the funds became, in the words of Forbes magazine, \"the hottest trend in philanthropy.\"Donor-advised gift funds offer a simple, flexible, and tax-efficient way to convert appreciated securities into a \"charitable checkbook\" from which to make relatively small, routine donations. They are, in effect, charitable foundations \"for the rest of us.\" This presentation, made at the National YMCA Conference and Training Center at Silver Bay, New York, explains what donor-advised gift funds are and how they work. (Readers are cautioned that certain tax rates, legal restrictions, and administrative regulations may have changed since the presentation was made in 2001.)","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134043508","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.36646/mjlr.49.2.charitable
Kenya J. H. Smith
Uniform laws serve an important role in our society, balancing state autonomy and the need to provide consistent solutions to common problems among the states. The Uniform Law Commission (ULC) is the preeminent authority that promulgates uniform laws. To date, the ULC has promulgated over 150 uniform and model acts. ULC tackles a wide array of issues, including child custody and protection, probate, electronic records, and commercial law. The ULC aims to “provide[ ] states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law.”
{"title":"Charitable Choices: The Need for a Uniform Nonprofit Limited Liability Company Act (UNLLCA)","authors":"Kenya J. H. Smith","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.49.2.charitable","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.49.2.charitable","url":null,"abstract":"Uniform laws serve an important role in our society, balancing state autonomy and the need to provide consistent solutions to common problems among the states. The Uniform Law Commission (ULC) is the preeminent authority that promulgates uniform laws. To date, the ULC has promulgated over 150 uniform and model acts. ULC tackles a wide array of issues, including child custody and protection, probate, electronic records, and commercial law. The ULC aims to “provide[ ] states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law.”","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129929195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：