建立慈善财务复原力的监管对策:"拖车 "还是 "守护天使"?

IF 3.1 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Financial Accountability & Management Pub Date : 2024-04-22 DOI:10.1111/faam.12392
Carolyn Cordery, David Yates
{"title":"建立慈善财务复原力的监管对策:\"拖车 \"还是 \"守护天使\"?","authors":"Carolyn Cordery,&nbsp;David Yates","doi":"10.1111/faam.12392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Charity regulation is increasing internationally, leading to divergent views on what might constitute “better regulation.” The purpose of a charity regulator and appropriate regulation may also be contested. Many modern charity regulators are required to maintain public trust and confidence in charities in order to bolster ongoing charity support from funders and the donating public. Nevertheless, public trust and confidence is precarious. At its nadir, in England and Wales “the person in the street” was deemed more trustworthy than charities, with donations diminishing in the current environment and the charity sector close to crisis. Further, charities contribute to crises when they incite negative media interest in their operations, fail to comply with regulatory filing deadlines, and/or manipulate their accounts. Charity regulators must maintain legitimacy within a changing regulatory space, despite often being resource-constrained themselves. Yet, some suggest regulators could “do more” to increase sector-wide resilience and to increase public trust and confidence. Hence, this raises the question of how charities should be regulated and whether (and how) a regulator could build resilience. We depict charity-sector crises as a vehicular incident and ponder: should the regulator act as a “Guardian Angel” to prevent crises through interventions to build and maintain sectoral resilience, or should it appear postincident as a “Tow Truck” to clear the road for other traffic through closely bounded regulatory action focused on sanctions and deregistration. We address this question by analyzing publicly available regulatory data from the Charity Commission of England and Wales and semistructured interviews, which provide additional “behind the scenes” depth to our analysis and findings. We contribute to literature on charity regulation and expected regulatory responsibilities within a confined but permeable regulatory space.</p>","PeriodicalId":47120,"journal":{"name":"Financial Accountability & Management","volume":"40 3","pages":"260-281"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/faam.12392","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regulatory responses to build charity financial resilience: “Tow Truck” or “Guardian Angel”?\",\"authors\":\"Carolyn Cordery,&nbsp;David Yates\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/faam.12392\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Charity regulation is increasing internationally, leading to divergent views on what might constitute “better regulation.” The purpose of a charity regulator and appropriate regulation may also be contested. Many modern charity regulators are required to maintain public trust and confidence in charities in order to bolster ongoing charity support from funders and the donating public. Nevertheless, public trust and confidence is precarious. At its nadir, in England and Wales “the person in the street” was deemed more trustworthy than charities, with donations diminishing in the current environment and the charity sector close to crisis. Further, charities contribute to crises when they incite negative media interest in their operations, fail to comply with regulatory filing deadlines, and/or manipulate their accounts. Charity regulators must maintain legitimacy within a changing regulatory space, despite often being resource-constrained themselves. Yet, some suggest regulators could “do more” to increase sector-wide resilience and to increase public trust and confidence. Hence, this raises the question of how charities should be regulated and whether (and how) a regulator could build resilience. We depict charity-sector crises as a vehicular incident and ponder: should the regulator act as a “Guardian Angel” to prevent crises through interventions to build and maintain sectoral resilience, or should it appear postincident as a “Tow Truck” to clear the road for other traffic through closely bounded regulatory action focused on sanctions and deregistration. We address this question by analyzing publicly available regulatory data from the Charity Commission of England and Wales and semistructured interviews, which provide additional “behind the scenes” depth to our analysis and findings. We contribute to literature on charity regulation and expected regulatory responsibilities within a confined but permeable regulatory space.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Financial Accountability & Management\",\"volume\":\"40 3\",\"pages\":\"260-281\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/faam.12392\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Financial Accountability & Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faam.12392\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Accountability & Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faam.12392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

慈善监管在国际上日益增多,导致人们对什么是 "更好的监管 "意见不一。慈善监管机构的目的和适当的监管也可能存在争议。许多现代慈善监管机构需要维持公众对慈善机构的信任和信心,以加强资助者和捐赠公众对慈善机构的持续支持。然而,公众的信任和信心岌岌可危。在英格兰和威尔士,"街上的人 "被认为比慈善机构更值得信赖,而在当前环境下,捐款正在减少,慈善部门濒临危机。此外,当慈善机构煽动媒体对其运作的负面兴趣、不遵守监管申报期限和/或操纵账目时,也会加剧危机。慈善监管机构必须在不断变化的监管环境中保持合法性,尽管它们自身往往资源有限。然而,一些人建议监管机构可以 "做得更多",以提高整个行业的应变能力,增强公众的信任和信心。因此,这就提出了一个问题,即应该如何监管慈善机构,监管机构是否(以及如何)能够建立复原力。我们将慈善行业的危机描绘成一起车辆事故,并思考:监管机构是应该扮演 "守护天使 "的角色,通过干预措施建立和维持行业复原力来预防危机,还是应该在事故发生后扮演 "拖车 "的角色,通过以制裁和注销登记为重点的有严格约束的监管行动为其他车辆扫清道路。我们通过分析英格兰和威尔士慈善委员会的公开监管数据和半结构式访谈来解决这一问题,这些数据和访谈为我们的分析和发现提供了额外的 "幕后 "深度。我们为有关慈善监管和在有限但可渗透的监管空间内的预期监管责任的文献做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Regulatory responses to build charity financial resilience: “Tow Truck” or “Guardian Angel”?

Charity regulation is increasing internationally, leading to divergent views on what might constitute “better regulation.” The purpose of a charity regulator and appropriate regulation may also be contested. Many modern charity regulators are required to maintain public trust and confidence in charities in order to bolster ongoing charity support from funders and the donating public. Nevertheless, public trust and confidence is precarious. At its nadir, in England and Wales “the person in the street” was deemed more trustworthy than charities, with donations diminishing in the current environment and the charity sector close to crisis. Further, charities contribute to crises when they incite negative media interest in their operations, fail to comply with regulatory filing deadlines, and/or manipulate their accounts. Charity regulators must maintain legitimacy within a changing regulatory space, despite often being resource-constrained themselves. Yet, some suggest regulators could “do more” to increase sector-wide resilience and to increase public trust and confidence. Hence, this raises the question of how charities should be regulated and whether (and how) a regulator could build resilience. We depict charity-sector crises as a vehicular incident and ponder: should the regulator act as a “Guardian Angel” to prevent crises through interventions to build and maintain sectoral resilience, or should it appear postincident as a “Tow Truck” to clear the road for other traffic through closely bounded regulatory action focused on sanctions and deregistration. We address this question by analyzing publicly available regulatory data from the Charity Commission of England and Wales and semistructured interviews, which provide additional “behind the scenes” depth to our analysis and findings. We contribute to literature on charity regulation and expected regulatory responsibilities within a confined but permeable regulatory space.

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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Environmental reporting in public sector organizations: A review of literature for the future paths of research Unfolding crowd‐based accountability of a charity fund during the war Tribute for Irvine Lapsley Making sense of climate change in central government annual reports and accounts: A comparative case study between the United Kingdom and Norway
×
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