Cesario Barreto, Paul Berbée, Katia Gallegos Torres, Martin Lange, Katrin Sommerfeld
Abstract Civil society has played an important role in meeting the challenges of refugee migration in recent years. This commentary documents the importance of civic engagement for the integration of refugees by linking individual survey data on refugees to a regional measure of civic engagement in Germany. Using the density of newly established civic associations at the county level as a measure of civic engagement, we exploit regional differences in civic engagement in order to estimate its association with refugee integration outcomes. We find that in regions with particularly high levels of civic engagement, refugees have significantly more frequent contact to Germans, higher life satisfaction, and better German language skills. This correlation is robust to regional contextual factors such as the local population structure, economic strength, and the state of the labor market. In terms of language acquisition, women and refugees with a low level of education benefit the most from high civic engagement. Moreover, refugees with university degrees find significantly better-paying jobs in areas with higher civic engagement. However, no direct correlation could be established between civic engagement and the likelihood that refugees are employed. Nonetheless, the results suggest that support from civil society translates into improved access to government benefits. Our findings highlight that local civic engagement is an important complement to public assistance services and policy makers should give a high priority to partnering with the civil society to improve refugees’ integration outcomes.
{"title":"The Civic Engagement and Social Integration of Refugees in Germany","authors":"Cesario Barreto, Paul Berbée, Katia Gallegos Torres, Martin Lange, Katrin Sommerfeld","doi":"10.1515/npf-2022-0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2022-0015","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Civil society has played an important role in meeting the challenges of refugee migration in recent years. This commentary documents the importance of civic engagement for the integration of refugees by linking individual survey data on refugees to a regional measure of civic engagement in Germany. Using the density of newly established civic associations at the county level as a measure of civic engagement, we exploit regional differences in civic engagement in order to estimate its association with refugee integration outcomes. We find that in regions with particularly high levels of civic engagement, refugees have significantly more frequent contact to Germans, higher life satisfaction, and better German language skills. This correlation is robust to regional contextual factors such as the local population structure, economic strength, and the state of the labor market. In terms of language acquisition, women and refugees with a low level of education benefit the most from high civic engagement. Moreover, refugees with university degrees find significantly better-paying jobs in areas with higher civic engagement. However, no direct correlation could be established between civic engagement and the likelihood that refugees are employed. Nonetheless, the results suggest that support from civil society translates into improved access to government benefits. Our findings highlight that local civic engagement is an important complement to public assistance services and policy makers should give a high priority to partnering with the civil society to improve refugees’ integration outcomes.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91236705","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}
{"title":"LeRoux, Kelly and Nathaniel Wright: Performance and Public Value in the ‘Hollow State’","authors":"J. Terman","doi":"10.1515/npf-2022-0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2022-0011","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73413570","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}
Abstract Discrimination by charities raises questions about the appropriate extent of equality regulation and has implications for government outsourcing through charities and for the provision of tax concessions. Professor Parachin has recently provided a justification for denying the application of public equality norms to charities through the public policy test of charity law. This paper builds on that work by considering whether liberal societies might, however, have good grounds to apply public equality norms to charities in circumstances such as the provision of outsourced government services, state enforcement of egoistic giving, or where doing so is a proportionate means to prevent harm.
{"title":"Charities & Discrimination: Is Charity Law Always a Better Solution than Public Policy?","authors":"I. Murray","doi":"10.1515/npf-2021-0066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2021-0066","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Discrimination by charities raises questions about the appropriate extent of equality regulation and has implications for government outsourcing through charities and for the provision of tax concessions. Professor Parachin has recently provided a justification for denying the application of public equality norms to charities through the public policy test of charity law. This paper builds on that work by considering whether liberal societies might, however, have good grounds to apply public equality norms to charities in circumstances such as the provision of outsourced government services, state enforcement of egoistic giving, or where doing so is a proportionate means to prevent harm.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88473278","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}
Abstract In South Africa, government relies significantly on NGOs in the delivery of social services (Patel, L. 2012. “Developmental Social Policy, Social Welfare Services and the Non‐Profit Sector in South Africa.” Social Policy & Administration 46 (6): 603–18). The services NGOs provide in areas such as early childhood development, education, health care, skills development, food security, elder care, and other arenas form part of South Africa’s framework for achieving its long-term development goals. Also aligned to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this government-NGO shared vision for development highlights the importance of NGOs in the development ecosystem. At the policy level, government explicitly refers to NGOs as stakeholders and development partners. However, at the level of practice, questions remain about NGOs’ participation in planning for the development to which they so significantly contribute, and the extent of NGOs’ role in increasing participation in democratic processes. In an effort to better understand whether NGOs adequately participate in development planning processes in South Africa, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 73 participants, including NGO leaders and relevant key informants from national, provincial and municipal levels of government. The interview data were supplemented with content analysis of government documents. In spite of the fact that NGOs’ involvement in development planning is explained by the state as a good governance principle ensuring meaningful participation of stakeholders (Republic of South Africa: Department of Social Development 2017, United Nations Development Programme 2011), the research findings suggest that NGOs’ participation in the development planning process is deficient. This deficiency stems from institutional and policy issues including the lack of a framework for participation, government’s perception of NGOs and neglect of the NGO sector, and political issues such as partisan political activity in spaces of participation and engagement. The democratic potential of NGO participation is also hindered by organizational issues relating to the amorphous nature of the NGO sector, apathy of NGOs and a fragmented NGO sector.
在南非，政府在提供社会服务方面严重依赖非政府组织(Patel, L. 2012)。南非的发展社会政策、社会福利服务和非营利部门。社会政策与管理，6(6):603-18。非政府组织在儿童早期发展、教育、保健、技能发展、粮食安全、老年人护理和其他领域提供的服务构成了南非实现其长期发展目标框架的一部分。这一政府与非政府组织共同的发展愿景也与联合国可持续发展目标(sdg)保持一致，强调了非政府组织在发展生态系统中的重要性。在政策层面，政府明确将非政府组织视为利益相关者和发展伙伴。然而，在实践层面上，关于非政府组织如何参与它们为之作出重大贡献的发展规划，以及非政府组织在促进参与民主进程方面的作用程度等问题仍然存在。为了更好地了解非政府组织是否充分参与南非的发展规划进程，对73名参与者进行了半结构化访谈，其中包括非政府组织领导人和来自国家、省和市各级政府的有关关键线人。访谈数据辅以政府文件内容分析。尽管非政府组织参与发展规划被国家解释为确保利益相关者有意义参与的良好治理原则(南非共和国:社会发展部2017年，联合国开发计划署2011年)，但研究结果表明，非政府组织参与发展规划过程是有缺陷的。这种不足源于制度和政策问题，包括缺乏参与框架，政府对非政府组织的看法和忽视非政府组织部门，以及政治问题，如参与和参与空间中的党派政治活动。非政府组织参与的民主潜力也受到组织问题的阻碍，这些问题与非政府组织部门的无定形、非政府组织的冷漠和非政府组织部门的分裂有关。
{"title":"Challenges to Nonprofit Organization Participation in Social and Development Policy Planning in South Africa","authors":"Sokeibelemaye Nwauche, S. Flanigan","doi":"10.1515/npf-2021-0049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2021-0049","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In South Africa, government relies significantly on NGOs in the delivery of social services (Patel, L. 2012. “Developmental Social Policy, Social Welfare Services and the Non‐Profit Sector in South Africa.” Social Policy & Administration 46 (6): 603–18). The services NGOs provide in areas such as early childhood development, education, health care, skills development, food security, elder care, and other arenas form part of South Africa’s framework for achieving its long-term development goals. Also aligned to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this government-NGO shared vision for development highlights the importance of NGOs in the development ecosystem. At the policy level, government explicitly refers to NGOs as stakeholders and development partners. However, at the level of practice, questions remain about NGOs’ participation in planning for the development to which they so significantly contribute, and the extent of NGOs’ role in increasing participation in democratic processes. In an effort to better understand whether NGOs adequately participate in development planning processes in South Africa, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 73 participants, including NGO leaders and relevant key informants from national, provincial and municipal levels of government. The interview data were supplemented with content analysis of government documents. In spite of the fact that NGOs’ involvement in development planning is explained by the state as a good governance principle ensuring meaningful participation of stakeholders (Republic of South Africa: Department of Social Development 2017, United Nations Development Programme 2011), the research findings suggest that NGOs’ participation in the development planning process is deficient. This deficiency stems from institutional and policy issues including the lack of a framework for participation, government’s perception of NGOs and neglect of the NGO sector, and political issues such as partisan political activity in spaces of participation and engagement. The democratic potential of NGO participation is also hindered by organizational issues relating to the amorphous nature of the NGO sector, apathy of NGOs and a fragmented NGO sector.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89457634","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}
Abstract Research has long established nonprofit organizations’ vital role advocating for the needs of vulnerable populations before legislative policymakers. In the best of times, it is difficult for 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofits employing grassroots advocacy to mobilize vulnerable constituencies to compete with 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) advocacy and special interest groups. The latter organizations inherently have greater flexibility and resources to lobby lawmakers directly, permitting greater access to influencing the policy agenda. Through a multi-method case study of the 2020 regular session of the Louisiana State Legislature, this article demonstrates how the COVID-19 pandemic’s unique contextual conditions made legislative advocacy more difficult than usual for charitable nonprofits promoting a progressive policy response to the pandemic within a politically conservative state. Conducted through interviews with nonprofit leaders and an analysis of legislative records and committee hearings, the case study reveals specific barriers that hampered charitable nonprofits’ access to the legislative process, including physical capacity restrictions and health concerns, as well as issues with virtual legislative protocols and conservative committee chairs’ discretion to ignore remote testimony. The article analyzes how these barriers negatively impacted charitable nonprofits’ ability to advocate for vulnerable populations and explores potential implications for equitable political participation and response to the pandemic.
{"title":"Barriers to Charitable Nonprofit Access and Advocacy amid a Pandemic: A Case Study of the Louisiana State Legislature","authors":"Stephanie M. Riegel, S. Mumford","doi":"10.1515/npf-2021-0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2021-0016","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Research has long established nonprofit organizations’ vital role advocating for the needs of vulnerable populations before legislative policymakers. In the best of times, it is difficult for 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofits employing grassroots advocacy to mobilize vulnerable constituencies to compete with 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) advocacy and special interest groups. The latter organizations inherently have greater flexibility and resources to lobby lawmakers directly, permitting greater access to influencing the policy agenda. Through a multi-method case study of the 2020 regular session of the Louisiana State Legislature, this article demonstrates how the COVID-19 pandemic’s unique contextual conditions made legislative advocacy more difficult than usual for charitable nonprofits promoting a progressive policy response to the pandemic within a politically conservative state. Conducted through interviews with nonprofit leaders and an analysis of legislative records and committee hearings, the case study reveals specific barriers that hampered charitable nonprofits’ access to the legislative process, including physical capacity restrictions and health concerns, as well as issues with virtual legislative protocols and conservative committee chairs’ discretion to ignore remote testimony. The article analyzes how these barriers negatively impacted charitable nonprofits’ ability to advocate for vulnerable populations and explores potential implications for equitable political participation and response to the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78041297","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}
Abstract Singapore, with a five million population, has a vibrant charitable sector with over 2000 registered charities attracting approximately USD$2.18 billion in annual donations. How did Singapore’s charitable sector achieve its current level when it has been, in the past, segregated along mainly religious, race and clan-based communities? This paper explores this question by piecing together the current ecosystem, regulatory and tax infrastructure which facilitates the charitable sector in Singapore. Central to the development of the charitable sector has been the Singapore government’s role of being a gatekeeper, regulator and enabler of charities. In analysing the government’s role in the charitable sector, this paper locates Singapore’s charitable sector within the literature on government and nonprofit organization relations which has been described at times being cooperative, complementary, confrontational, and co-optive. These astute observations ring true with respect to the Singapore government’s relationship with the charitable sector. For organizations which pursue purposes consistent with state’s vision of public good, the state’s relationship with these charities has been largely cooperative and complementary. However, even within charities considered by the state to further public good, there is a strong element of co-optation where the state wields significant direct and indirect power over the charitable sector by way of provision of funding and board composition. In contrast, nonprofit organizations which engage in aims inconsistent with the state’s perceived public interest are, by law, unable to register itself as charities and enjoy corresponding fiscal benefits. Such nonprofit organizations also typically do not receive state funding. This demonstrates the confrontational nature of the state’s relationship with these nonprofit organizations. Through a close analysis of the laws, codes, media reports and academic literature on the charitable sector, the central thesis of this paper is that the charitable sector in Singapore is essentially a state facilitated endeavor.
{"title":"Charitable Organizations in Singapore: From Clan Based to State Facilitated Endeavors","authors":"H. Tang","doi":"10.1515/npf-2021-0032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2021-0032","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Singapore, with a five million population, has a vibrant charitable sector with over 2000 registered charities attracting approximately USD$2.18 billion in annual donations. How did Singapore’s charitable sector achieve its current level when it has been, in the past, segregated along mainly religious, race and clan-based communities? This paper explores this question by piecing together the current ecosystem, regulatory and tax infrastructure which facilitates the charitable sector in Singapore. Central to the development of the charitable sector has been the Singapore government’s role of being a gatekeeper, regulator and enabler of charities. In analysing the government’s role in the charitable sector, this paper locates Singapore’s charitable sector within the literature on government and nonprofit organization relations which has been described at times being cooperative, complementary, confrontational, and co-optive. These astute observations ring true with respect to the Singapore government’s relationship with the charitable sector. For organizations which pursue purposes consistent with state’s vision of public good, the state’s relationship with these charities has been largely cooperative and complementary. However, even within charities considered by the state to further public good, there is a strong element of co-optation where the state wields significant direct and indirect power over the charitable sector by way of provision of funding and board composition. In contrast, nonprofit organizations which engage in aims inconsistent with the state’s perceived public interest are, by law, unable to register itself as charities and enjoy corresponding fiscal benefits. Such nonprofit organizations also typically do not receive state funding. This demonstrates the confrontational nature of the state’s relationship with these nonprofit organizations. Through a close analysis of the laws, codes, media reports and academic literature on the charitable sector, the central thesis of this paper is that the charitable sector in Singapore is essentially a state facilitated endeavor.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89178370","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}
It is a great honor and pleasure to have my book as the subject of this review symposium and to benefit from the extremely thoughtful remarks of the group of scholars included here, each a major author on the theme of transitional justice. Each scholar brings a wealth of research and experience to the subject from a diverse perspective. The comments are too rich and varied for me to do justice to all of them in my response, but I hope to address some of the major points of each reviewer. In particular, I will address issues about (1) the policy scope of the book, (2) methods of comparison, (3) data concerns, and (4) processes of historical change. First, on policy scope, Bronwyn Anne Leebaw points out correctly that I do not intend the book to be a history or analysis of the entire field of transitional justice, but rather a comprehensive but focused account of a central transitional justice mechanism—prosecutions for individual criminal accountability. To do a history of the emergence and spread of this single transitional justice mechanism, as well as a systematic analysis of its effectiveness, was already a huge challenge. As Leslie Vinjamuri notes, I do not argue that prosecutions are more or less popular or effective than other transitional justice mechanisms, such as truth commissions, reparations, or amnesties. Leebaw persuasively reminds us that activists themselves have had long and continuing debates about the role and limits of legalism, something she has explored eloquently in her own work.1 These debates about the limits of legalism were often couched as debates about the advantages of alternative transitional justice mechanisms. While I did not make these debates a central focus on the book, I try to address them at times. Since it is impossible to present in the book even a fraction of the number of those who worked for accountability, the stories of a few actors stand in for the countless individuals and groups who work for justice. Thus I present skeptical arguments about justice by respected colleagues and friends like José Zalaquett or Ellen Lutz, in the
{"title":"Review Symposium Response","authors":"Kirsten A. Grønbjerg, Steven Rathgeb Smith","doi":"10.1515/npf-2021-0063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2021-0063","url":null,"abstract":"It is a great honor and pleasure to have my book as the subject of this review symposium and to benefit from the extremely thoughtful remarks of the group of scholars included here, each a major author on the theme of transitional justice. Each scholar brings a wealth of research and experience to the subject from a diverse perspective. The comments are too rich and varied for me to do justice to all of them in my response, but I hope to address some of the major points of each reviewer. In particular, I will address issues about (1) the policy scope of the book, (2) methods of comparison, (3) data concerns, and (4) processes of historical change. First, on policy scope, Bronwyn Anne Leebaw points out correctly that I do not intend the book to be a history or analysis of the entire field of transitional justice, but rather a comprehensive but focused account of a central transitional justice mechanism—prosecutions for individual criminal accountability. To do a history of the emergence and spread of this single transitional justice mechanism, as well as a systematic analysis of its effectiveness, was already a huge challenge. As Leslie Vinjamuri notes, I do not argue that prosecutions are more or less popular or effective than other transitional justice mechanisms, such as truth commissions, reparations, or amnesties. Leebaw persuasively reminds us that activists themselves have had long and continuing debates about the role and limits of legalism, something she has explored eloquently in her own work.1 These debates about the limits of legalism were often couched as debates about the advantages of alternative transitional justice mechanisms. While I did not make these debates a central focus on the book, I try to address them at times. Since it is impossible to present in the book even a fraction of the number of those who worked for accountability, the stories of a few actors stand in for the countless individuals and groups who work for justice. Thus I present skeptical arguments about justice by respected colleagues and friends like José Zalaquett or Ellen Lutz, in the","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81705609","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：