重读萨拉蒙:为什么自愿失败理论不是(真的)关于自愿失败

IF 2.2 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Nonprofit Policy Forum Pub Date : 2023-10-17 DOI:10.1515/npf-2023-0080
Stefan Toepler
{"title":"重读萨拉蒙:为什么自愿失败理论不是(真的)关于自愿失败","authors":"Stefan Toepler","doi":"10.1515/npf-2023-0080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Voluntary Failure or Interdependence Theory remains among the most salient of Salamon’s conceptual contributions to nonprofit studies globally. Broad criticism has been scarce. Yet, there are questions about how the theory can be tested, or whether it is even testable in the first place. A lot of these questions focus on the four voluntary failures. In this commentary, I argue that the role of the voluntary failures is often overemphasized as part of Salamon’s theoretical constructs. This overemphasis in turn lends itself to problematic interpretations of his theory, which was not intended to offer a ‘failure rationale’ for the existence of the nonprofit sector—akin to the twin failures of the market and government, but at its core seeks to provide a rationale for the positive collaborative relations between government and the nonprofit sector. Within that rationale, the voluntary failures play only a relatively minor role.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rereading Salamon: Why Voluntary Failure Theory is Not (Really) About Voluntary Failures\",\"authors\":\"Stefan Toepler\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/npf-2023-0080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Voluntary Failure or Interdependence Theory remains among the most salient of Salamon’s conceptual contributions to nonprofit studies globally. Broad criticism has been scarce. Yet, there are questions about how the theory can be tested, or whether it is even testable in the first place. A lot of these questions focus on the four voluntary failures. In this commentary, I argue that the role of the voluntary failures is often overemphasized as part of Salamon’s theoretical constructs. This overemphasis in turn lends itself to problematic interpretations of his theory, which was not intended to offer a ‘failure rationale’ for the existence of the nonprofit sector—akin to the twin failures of the market and government, but at its core seeks to provide a rationale for the positive collaborative relations between government and the nonprofit sector. Within that rationale, the voluntary failures play only a relatively minor role.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nonprofit Policy Forum\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nonprofit Policy Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2023-0080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2023-0080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自愿失败或相互依赖理论仍然是萨拉蒙对全球非营利研究最突出的概念贡献之一。广泛的批评很少。然而,关于如何检验这个理论,或者它是否首先是可检验的,还存在一些问题。很多问题都集中在四种自愿失败上。在这篇评论中,我认为,作为萨拉蒙理论结构的一部分,自愿失败的作用经常被过分强调。这种过分强调反过来又导致了对他的理论的有问题的解释,他的理论并不是要为非营利部门的存在提供一个“失败的理由”——类似于市场和政府的双重失败,但其核心是寻求为政府和非营利部门之间的积极合作关系提供一个理由。在这一理论基础上,自愿破产只起到相对较小的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rereading Salamon: Why Voluntary Failure Theory is Not (Really) About Voluntary Failures
Abstract Voluntary Failure or Interdependence Theory remains among the most salient of Salamon’s conceptual contributions to nonprofit studies globally. Broad criticism has been scarce. Yet, there are questions about how the theory can be tested, or whether it is even testable in the first place. A lot of these questions focus on the four voluntary failures. In this commentary, I argue that the role of the voluntary failures is often overemphasized as part of Salamon’s theoretical constructs. This overemphasis in turn lends itself to problematic interpretations of his theory, which was not intended to offer a ‘failure rationale’ for the existence of the nonprofit sector—akin to the twin failures of the market and government, but at its core seeks to provide a rationale for the positive collaborative relations between government and the nonprofit sector. Within that rationale, the voluntary failures play only a relatively minor role.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nonprofit Policy Forum
Nonprofit Policy Forum PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
18.80%
发文量
23
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Avoiding Burnout with Compassionate Accompaniment: A Novel Approach to Training, Selecting, Managing, and Regulating Frontline Workers Nonprofit Disaster Response and Climate Change: Who Responds? Who Plans? The Rise of Learning Pods: Civil Society’s Expanding Role in K-12 Education in the United States Rereading Salamon: Why Voluntary Failure Theory is Not (Really) About Voluntary Failures Frontmatter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1