NGOs: definition, characteristics, functions.

The lecture starts with the defining of the place of NGOs in the society using the poly-sector model of the society in different variation (3-sector, 4-sector, 5-sector models of the society). Special attention is paid to the third sector.

As NGOs are situated in the most vulnerable sector of the society, we will continue the lecture with the ways of representation and protection of the rights and interests of NGOs members in state bodies and local government, participation in the rule-making, social control, "social partnership". It will help understand the relationships ‘civil society – NGO- state’ and the principles of the legal cooperation of the state and civil society better. The lecture also draws attention to the history of NGOs in Ukraine.

Following that the lecture will be concentrated on the theoretical issues such as: do we need a unified definition of NGO? What are the main characteristics of NGOs (not-for-profit, voluntary, others). What are the functions of NGOs?

Learning outcome:

By the end of the lecture students should be able to explain the difference between NGOs and state bodies and to be familiar with the history of NGOs in Ukraine.

Key terms of the topic:

NGO	Third sector
Poly-sector model of the society	Not-for-profit
Civil society	Voluntary

The poly-sector model of society is widely used in the NGOs’ studies, thus in order to research the constitutional status of NGOs one should be familiar with it. The poly-sector model of society sees the society as a certain number of sectors (from 3 to 5) that interact with one another. If the sectors have the same influence to the society’s life, it helps strengthen the democracy and protect the human rights in the state in the most efficient way. The poly-sector model of society resembles the theory of separation of powers – the difference is that it deals not with the state power, but with the different society institutions.

The most wide-spread version of the poly-sector model of society is the tree-sector model of the society. The first sector is traditionally called “public”; some scientists suggest considering that state is the first sector. However, firstly, it is not clear what “the state” is: all state bodies, the state itself, so on. Secondly, in this case the municipal bodies are outside the three-sector model of the society; but their nature is also public. So it seems more correct to consider among the institutions of public sector all the bodies of the public power – both state and municipal.

The second sector is traditionally called “private”, “private for-profit” or “the market”. This sector involves all the private for-profit institutions.

Some researchers consider that the order of the sector’s enumeration has to be somewhat different. Some of them list the sectors in the non-traditional order without any argumentation (L. Salamon, H.Anheir), others draw attention to this fact and propose to put private for-profit sector “on the first place” and public sector – “on the second place“. For example, C. Gunn argues his point as follows: «The first sector – for-profit corporations and small business. The first sector is the heart of the U.S. economy … The second sector consists of government organisations at the state, local and federative levels. Government is (ideally) under democratic control and exists to do business of its citizens”.

But it is hardly possible to agree with this proposal. If arrange sectors in a certain order, it will be worthwhile to place public sector “on the first place”: 1) the question if other sectors will exist (and if yes –what is the scope), is solving on its level; 2) the legal regulation of other sectors is carried out by the institutions of the public sector.

There we can draw analogy with the theory of the separation of state power. All three branches of state power are theoretically equal. But it is hardly possible in practice, because the biggest part of the legal norms (including the norms that regulate creation of executive and judicial branches’ bodies and their functioning) are passed by the parliament.

It is suggested that the “third sector” consists of non-profit institutions, which do not have public nature. NGOs are the part of the third sector.

The three-sector model of society is very sketchy and generalised. In fact it contrasts the public bodies to the civil society’s institutions, i.e., to the institutions of second and third sectors. Thus, the three-sector model of society does not make clear the full picture of the contemporary society. For example, it has no place for the family units.

The three-sector model of society was created mainly for the effective planning of the social partnership (the supporters of the theory of social partnership claim it is the most efficient when institutions of all the three sectors take part in this partnership). The use of three-sector model of the society in this sphere, generally, is advisable.

Also hardly we can consider the three-sector model of society as universal and a maximum acceptable for the legal regulations and the doctrinal researching of the NGOs.

Therefore there are proposals to introduce other sectors to that model. Thus C.Gunn mentions that «The term fourth sector is sometimes employed, but it has various meanings. For some it is used to identify a segment for cooperatives; for others it points to a ‘house-hold’ sector», but adds, that he supports the three-sector model of society. However, the proposal to divide society into five sectors seems to be more interesting. This idea was suggested by J.Garton; he proposes to distinguish: the private sector; the public sector; the informal sector (consists of family units); the black market; and the civil society. Concerning the black market he mentions: «The black market consists of institutions which, like the private sector, operate to generate profits for their owners, but, unlike the private sector, operate outside the law. The sector includes organisations which engage in activities which by their nature are illegal such as mafia-type institutions, drug dealers and arms smugglers, and also those whose otherwise lawful activities are carried out in an illegal manner – for example practising a profession without a licence».

The category “ civil society ” is so widespread now, that some authors even do not give their definition (for example, Ann Florini in the chapter “The civil society” of her book “The coming democracy: new rules for running a new world”). But obviously it is not correct. It does not help us understand the author’s position particularly and author’s research in general. It is because there are two opposite views, when it comes about the civil society. The supporters of the first think that the terms “civil society” and “third sector” are synonyms. The others state, that civil society is composed not only of the third sector’s institutions.

Surely, the definition of civil society will depend on the researcher’s point of view. Moreover, if the researcher supports the latter position, the definition will be also influenced by his opinion what institutions exactly should be included to the civil society (for example, cooperatives).

P.Allum defines civil society ‘as a part of society distinct from and largely independent of the state, comprising a complex of autonomous organisations – households and markets, churches and sects, newspapers and electronic media, schools and universities, parties and interest groups, philanthropic and civic voluntary associations – which mediate the relations of the individual with the state’. This definition raises two fundamental objections. Firstly, it is hardly possible to list all the institutions of the civil society; the more effective way is to list their main distinguishing characteristics. Secondly, the author includes family to the civil society.

The latter point of view is rather widespread. For example, J.L.Cohen and А.Arato mention, that they «understand ‘civil society’ as a sphere of social interaction between economy and state, composed above all of the intimate sphere (especially the family), the sphere of associations (especially voluntary associations), social movements, and forms of public communication. Modern civil society is created through forms of self-constitution and self-mobilization».

Generally, the statement, that the family is one of the civil society’s institutions, is a vexed one. Some researchers consider, that civil society includes the family units (for example, J. Wedel mentions that “a ‘civil society’ exists when individuals and groups are free to form organisations that function independently of the state, and that can mediate between citizens and state”, others – that can not (R.Fries, L.M. Salamon, H.K. Anheier, J. Garton, others). M.Kaldor’s explanation is rather unusual: «the exclusion of the family reflected the male nature of citizenship».

The fact that «рarticipation in family life is not fully voluntary and social roles are described and not freely chosen» (M. Buchowski) is one of the most cogent arguments. Among others, there are statements that legal regulation of the family units is possible only fragmentally; after all, love and other interpersonal relations are not regulated by law.

When it comes about the family, often not the legal, but moral norms have a bigger influence. For example, “members of a family unit will usually feel some moral compulsion to provide for other members of the unit who are poorer than themselves, and any activity undertaken in pursuit of this would normally fall under the umbrella of the informal sector” (J. Garton). Considering this, it is suggested that the definitions, which separate family and civil society, are more correct. For example, this definition: «civil society is broadly regarded as the domain of relationships which falls between the private realm of the family on the one hand and the state on the other» (E. Dunn). But it is too laconic and does not contain characteristics of the civil society’s institutions. It only outlines the institutions, which are considered to be the parts of the civil society.

More detailed versions of the civil society’s definitions are given by:

- H.K. Anheier: “modern civil society is the sum of institutions, organisations and individuals located between the family, the state and the market, in which people associate voluntary to advance common interests”;

- M. Walzer: ‘the word ‘civil society’ name the space of uncoerced human association and also the set of relations networks – formed for the sake of family, faith, interest and ideology – that fill this space’.

However these definitions also do not contain essential characteristics of the civil society’s institutions. Thus the following definition seems to be the most acceptable: «civil society is the union of people in which every person is free, has inalienable natural rights, equal in rights with other members of the association, independently choose civil status, has possibilities to associate with other people in non-governmental civil associations according to their social, ethnical, religious and others characteristics, political, economical, professional and others interests. These civil (non-governmental) relations develop and function on the basis of self-government and free demonstration of interests and wishes of single individuals and their associations” (M.P. Orzikh).

Thus, in this research civil society considered to be the union of people, which have possibilities to create legal associations with certain characteristics.

It is advisable to distinguish two kinds of associations, that exist within the civil society, - depending on the basic purpose of their creation:

- if the association is officially created mainly to receive the profit, it is included in the second sector;

- if the association is officially created to achieve another main goal, it is included in the third sector (although the purpose of receiving the profit may be among the secondary purposes).

The associations, which were created with the main non-profit purpose, in their turn, could be classified according to their participation in the political activity. They are political parties, if they “contribute to the forming of citizen’s political views” and have a purpose “to take part in the elections and other political actions” (Law of Ukraine ‘On the political parties’). All other associations, which were created with main non-profit purpose, will be non-political.

Associations
Associations, which were established to profit		Associations, which were established with another purpose
				Political parties		Non-political associations

There are a lot of discussions when it comes to the inclusion of the private for-profit (second) sector to the civil society, but it seems appropriate.

Firstly, the institutions of both sectors (second and third) supply goods and services. “Some nonprofits behave in ways that are similar to business organisations, emphasizing efficiency norms and striving to reduce costs”, - mention the researchers (J. Galaskiewicz, W. Bielefeld). But this institutions act with different purposes; they also have another essential differences. For example, «nonprofits are distinguishes by their mix of goods and services, the character оf their labour forces, and the source of revenues» (S.M. Oster). That is why the proposal «to distinguish civil society from … an economic society composed of organizations of production and distribution, usually firms, cooperatives, partnerships and so on” (J.L. Cohen, A. Arato) seems to be not very apt.

It is very wide-spread among the public non-profit institutions to be not only at non-business, but also at business activities simultaneously.

Furthermore, there are some groups of the institutes within the civil society, which one can include neither to the second, nor to the third sector: «сertain types of organisations occupy a ‘gray area’... For example, most cooperatives, mutual societies, and economic self-help groups would be excluded … because they generally would not meet the ‘nonprofit distributing’ criterion. However, it was determining that those cooperatives, mutuals, and similar organisations for which the profit motive is secondary and the primary intent is to offer services that benefit the broader local community could be included» (Global civil society: dimensions of the nonprofit sector).

Sometimes the group of institutions “migrates” between these two sectors of the civil society. It is mentioned in the report of the Wolfenden Committee on Voluntary Organisations: «An organisation may also cross the boundary between the voluntary and commercial sectors... The Friendly Societies, counted as voluntary organisations during the last century… today are profit-making». H.K. Anheier also mentions analogical tendency: «organisations “migrate” from one sector to another, e.g. hospitals change from public to nonprofit, or from nonprofit to forprofit status».

Moreover, the second and the third sectors together have enough possibilities to balance the influence of the public sector. The view of М. Buchowski seems to be very figurative: «we may best understand civil society as a coin with political power on one side, and all that eludes it on the other. The discontinuity between the two sides is the effect of a dialectical tension, which will depend upon the historical and the social context. Civil society is a means, a technology of governing and at the same time, a mode of exerting pressure on the power of state».

The majority of researchers agree with this. For example, J. Hall mentions that «сivil society is a particular form of society, appreciating social diversity and able to limit the depredations of political power», аnd E. Gellner asserts that «civil society is that set of diverse non-governmental institutions, which is strong enough to counterbalance the state, and, whilst not preventing the state from fulfilling its role of keeper of the peace and arbitrator between major interests, can nevertheless prevent the state from dominating and atomizing the rest of society». But the statement of А.Giddens concerning the fact that «the prevailing modern view sees civil society as a sphere between state and market: a buffer zone strong enough to keep both state and market in check, thereby preventing each from becoming too powerful and dominating» seems to be vexed. If the civil society consists only of the private non-profit institutions, its possibility to balance public power decreases essentially, if not vanish at all (it depends on the country).

Thus, the effective functioning of the civil society’s institutions creates the modern version of the system of checks and balances. D. Blunkett mentions, that «power in contemporary society goes far beyond the checks and balances of formal democracy described in the textbooks … When the institutions of representative democracy were designed, the ‘separation of powers’ was seen as the best way to limit absolute power … But power is now both more widely disperses and more concentrated in specific parts of society, in ways that render much of this traditional theory obsolete … Although the formal pillars of democratic power remain, they must relate to the … corporations, trade unions and pressure groups; NGOs and local communities within civil society... which exert considerable control over the political culture».

The history of NGOs on the territory of Ukraine is closely connected with the history of the civil society and the third sector.

During the times of the Russian Empire, the civil society in the country was not very strong. There were several reasons – the state paid practically no attention to the development of the civil society and gave no support to such a development; the Russian Empire was mostly a rural country and thus, the family and the territorial community links between the people were very strong, - there was practically no need in NGOs. Even the charitable activity was mostly exercised either by the family and relatives or by the clerical institutions (the Russian Orthodox Church). On the other hand, the state power created no obstacles for the civil society to grow. As the result, the civil society in the cities became stronger and stronger due to the development of the literature, artistic, sport, technical, charitable and other activities. The civil society and the third sector were not very strong, so the poly-sector model of the society worked not totally in the Russian Empire.

But with some attention from the side of the first sector, with the introduction of the support to the wider range of the NGOs, the poly-sector model might become well-balanced. In the Russian Empire the non-regulatory approach to NGOs was taken – the state mostly did not provide rules and regulations for the institutions of the third sector. They were free to decide themselves the biggest part of their current problems.

J. Bradley states, that after the Revolution 1917 the new regime started to destroy the civil society in the country rapidly. After 10 years of the Soviet power, - J.Bradley continues, - all of NGOs were created and totally controlled by the state. In fact, it is true – membership in the Communist party, Komsomol, Pioneer organization was only relatively voluntary. For example, career in many fields depended on such a membership. There were a lot of sport, artistic and other non-political types of NGOs, but they were mostly ideologized, very often controlled by the state bodies and used for the political propaganda.

Because of the antidemocratical regime in the USSR the poli-sector model of the society was not in use. Practically all of the spheres of the society were controlled by the state, and the civil society was extremely weak. Essential part of the institutions of the civil society situated as the illegal institutions (including national Ukrainian societies, movements and groups – the Ukrainian Helsinki group, the Society of the Ukrainian language named after T.G. Shevchenko, the People Movement of Ukraine (RUKH) and many others. These societies, movements and groups were always led by the most progressive, talanted and educated representatives of the Ukrainian nation such as V. Stus, V. Simonenko, L. Osyka, L. Kostenko, O. Gonchar.

During the years of Soviet power NGOs were heavily regulated by the state bodies, including the regulations by the legal norms. There were several general Laws of the USSR that were relevant to the biggest part of the NGOs, but the more common approach was to create the special regulations for each NGO (group of the NGOs). The leftovers of this approach are still visible in democratical Ukraine.

Independence of Ukraine gave a new spirit to the development of NGOs in Ukraine. NGOs became the active participants when it comes about the representation and protection of the rights and interests of NGOs members in state bodies and local government, in the rule-making, social control, "social partnership". The next lecture will be dedicated to the basic acts that form the grounds of the constitutional status of NGOs in Ukraine. As for the current implementation of the poly-sector model of the society in Ukaine, there are some essential problems. The first problem is that the first sector, that represents public power, is blurred with the second sector in our country. The business activity is restricted to the government and municipal officials – yet some of them still hold it, partly illegally. So there is no strict boundary between the first and the second sectors. This leads to the domination of the increased ‘first+second’ sector in the society – and the third sector is the only one to balance this ‘double strength’ sector. Because of that and the essential drawbacks of the current legislation (that the next lectures will discuss), NGOs are quite weak in Ukraine. Yet they are the institutions of the growing civil society.

So, NGOs are the substantial part of the civil society and comprise the third sector. In Ukrainian and Russian researches the institutions of the non-profit sector are usually called “non-commercial organisations” or “non-governmental organisations”. The term “non-governmental non-commercial organisations” is less wide-spread and more exact, but it is not also correct enough.

The adjective “non-governmental” seems to be inadequate to separate the public sector’s institutions from the private non-profit sector’s institutions (as public sector includes and state, and municipal bodies). H.K. Anheier adds, that “the term NGO (nongovernmental organisation) is the term used to depict these organizations in the developing world and in international relations, but it tends to refer only to a portion of what elsewhere is considered to be part of this (third. – N. M.) sector – namely, the organisations engaged in promotion of economic and social development, typically at the grassroots level». The adjective “non-commercial” is not accurate too – as the legal definition of the term “commercial” (and also “non-commercial”) in Ukraine is close to the trade activity (this definition is given in the Law of Ukraine ‘On the International Commercial Arbitrage’ (1994)).

As for the title of the relevant sector, in Ukrainian and Russian researches it is usually referred as the “third sector”. As far as is known, this term is not subjected to criticism. In the English-language doctrinal literature it is the topic of discussion. Thus, some researchers do not support the term “third sector” because it gives some advantage to the “first sector”. For example, N. Deakin notes: «This definition (the third sector. – N. M.)... assumes the primacy of the first and the second sectors, the state and the market; it also assumes that each is a self-contained area with distinct boundaries and that the status of this third sector rests on not possessing any of the characteristics of the past two». One more convincing argument is given by J. Garton: “this is unsatisfactory to the extent that it might lead people to assume … that civil society is the third choice of provider of public goods, after the private and public sectors”.

In the English-language literature there are more proposals about the most correct name of this sector. The researchers mention great profusion of terms: “nonprofit sector”, “charities”, “third sector”, “voluntary sector”, “nongovernmental organisations”, the ‘civil society’ and so on.

The proposals to use the titles “third sector” and “non-governmental sector” were discussed above. The term “civil society” is used by the authors, which consider that the civil society is represented only by the private non-profit sector’s institutions (see above).

The term “non-profit sector” is one of the most wide-spread. The researches use it rather often, but mention, that «the term nonprofit organizations / sector … is not without its problems. This term emphasises the fact that these organizations do not exist primarily to generate profit for their owners. But these organizations sometimes do earn profits, i.e. they generate more revenues than they spend in a given year» (H.K. Anheir).

There is also another suggestion concerning the meaning of the term “non-profit”. Thus E. James proposes to define the non-profit organisations as «organisations that are constrained from distributing a monetary profit to their members». But this proposal is hardly acceptable – after all, for-profit institutions may also not distribute the monetary profit to their members, for example, when they do not have this profit or when they reinvest it.

The term “non-profit organisations” also raises other doubts, especially when it comes to Ukraine. There is no definition of the term “non-profit” in the Ukrainian legislation, only the list of non-profit organisations for the tax purposes; this list includes some public institutions. Besides, not all of the non-profit institutions are “organisations”, some of them are “bodies” (for example, bodies of self-organization of population – house, street, block and other committees).

As for the title “voluntary sector”, H.K. Anheier states: «voluntary sector emphasizes the significant input that volunteers make to management and operation of this sector. But a good deal of the activity of the organisations in this sector in mane countries is not carries out by volunteers at all, but by paid employees». But – and it will be shown further – voluntarism is only one of the characteristics of private non-profit sector’s institution (besides, the inclusion of this characteristic to this list is a vexed question). Therefore, it seems not advisable to use the term “voluntary” in the title of the sector.

Two approaches are the most wide-spread in the researches of the third sector. Some academics think that «it is not particularly profitable to devote much effort to identifying a set of characteristics that serve to draw a sharply defines boundary round the voluntary sector. It is more frightful to place the voluntary sector in a broad context by distinguishing it from the three other systems - the informal, the statutory and the commercial» (Wolfenden Committee). Indeed, «the term “sector” suggests precise boundaries» (J. Douglas). These boundaries can be determined: 1) using the method of exclusion – by enumeration of the institutions, which are not included; 2) listing the main characteristics of the institutions, that are included to this sector.

The second group of scientists considers the most optimal and uses in their works the latter opinion. This position seems to be more convincing. The biggest part of the academics agree with the proposition of L. Salamon, H.K. Anheier and the group of researchers, which was worked out as the part of terminological instrument for the comparative analysis of non-profit organisations in different countries (Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project). So it seems worthwhile to mention it (quoting mainly the most recent book, which includes this idea, H.Anheier’s «Nonprofit organizations. Theory, management, policy» (2006)).

He proposes to distinguish between the following definitions of the term “non-profit sector”.

1) The legal definition – the one provided in a country’s laws and regulations. But, the legal definitions are:

- usually criticized by the academics;

- suitable for only one country.

Besides, the legislation may not provide such a definition (for example, in Ukraine).

2) The functional definition. The second type of the definition of the nonprofit sector emphasizes the functions or purposes that organizations in this sector carry out. This definition seems to be the most voluminous. Besides, some private for-profit and private non-profit institutions (as the institutions of the civil society) have many shared functions – e.g. service supply, advocacy, lobbying and others.

3) Тhe economic definition. «This is the approach taken by the U.N. System of National Accounts (SNA), which is the set of conventions adopted by governments around the world for official reporting on national income. The U.N. System of National Accounts breaks all economic activity into five major sectors, of which the nonprofit sector is the one».

There are some objections regarding this definition. Firstly, it defines the sources of financing, not the results of these institutions’ economic activity. Thus the name «financial definition» (J. Garton) seems to be more accurate. Secondly, the private non-profit institution may have no property and no profit at all – for example, if the institution is not registered as the legal entity. Thus, if use this definition, such institutions will be excluded.

4) The structural-operational definition (was first introduced by L.Salamon and H.Anheier in 1992) – an organization is defined as a nonprofit entity has the following five characteristics.

1. Organized, i.e. institutionalized to some extent. H.Anheier and L.Salamon suggest that a formal charter or incorporation signifies this, if no – to have regular meetings, officers, so on.

It is advisable to add one more requirement to this criterion– the creation of the third sector institution has to be initiated by non-public entities.

2. Private, i.e. institutionally separate from government. «What is important from the point of view of this criterion, - mention the researchers, - is that the organization has an institutional identity separate from that of the state, that is not an instrumentality of any unit of government whether national or local, and that it therefore does not exercise governmental authority». However, it is hardly possible to agree with this statement. When the institutions of the third sector fulfil the functions, that were delegated to them by state or municipal bodies, it does not change the nature of these institutions.

3. Self-governing, i.e. equipped to control their own activities (in researches with L. Salamon as co-author the second and the third criteria are combined into one – «independence of government and self-governed»).

4. Non-profit-distributing, i.e. not returning profits generated to their owners or directors (see above).

As the third sector is the part of the civil society, this sector’s institutions have all the main characteristics of the civil society’s institutions: private nature, independent governing and organisational unity. The main purpose of institution’s creation will be the criterion which distinguishes institutions of the private non-profit sector from the institutions of the private for-profit sector.

H.Anheier and L.Salamon suggest one more characteristic for an organization to be defined as a nonprofit entity:

5. Voluntary, i.e. involving some meaningful degree of voluntary participation. «To be included within the nonprofit sector, - continues H.Anheier, - organizations must embody the concept of voluntarism to a meaningful extent. This involves two different, but related, considerations:

- first, the organization must engage volunteers in its operations and management.

- second, “voluntary” also carries the meaning of “non-compulsory”. Organizations in which membership is required or otherwise stipulated by law would be excluded from the nonprofit sector».

This characteristic does not seem to be essential, integral characteristic of the private non-profit sector’s institutions. The first criterion (“the organization must engage volunteers in its operations and management”) is discussable. The voluntary work in both public and private bodies is very wide-spread now, more then it was 10-15 years ago. Thus, volunteers can take part in the operation of the state of municipal bodies, but this fact does not make these public institutions closer to the private non-profit sector.

As for the second criterion, it is not always possible to imply it. Sometimes there is no membership in the institutions of the third sector. Besides, R.D. Putnam mentions: “formal “card-carrying” membership may not accurately reflect actual involvement in community activities. And individual who “belongs to” half a dozen community groups may actually be active in none. What really matters from this point of view of social capital and civic engagement is not merely nominal membership, but active and involved membership”.

Thus, the main characteristics of the institutions of the third sector are: organisational unity; private nature; independent creation and governing; the institution was created with the main non-profit purpose and voluntary features in the institution’s functioning. The main functions of NGOs as of the institutions of the third sector are service provision, law enforcement, social control, organizational, fiscal, material and technical, informational, rule-making, advocacy and some others.

Mandatory reading:

1. O’Connell Brian. Civil Society: Definitions and Descriptions. Non profit and Voluntary Sec tor Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 3, September 2000 471-478 (the text is included).

2. Anheir Helmut K. Nonprofit Organizations: theory, management, policy. London and New Yourk, Routledge, 2006. – Chapter 3 (pp. 37-62, the text is included).

Recommended reading:

Law of Ukraine ‘On Civic Associations’ (1992). Available at: http://www.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/7132

Buchowski M. The shifting meanings of civil and civic society in Poland // Civil society: challenging western models. - London: Routledge, 1996.

Cohen J.L., Arato A. Civil society and political theory. - Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992.

Deakin N. In Search of Civil Society. – London: Palgrave, 2001.

Garton J. The Regulation of Organised Civil Society. – London: Hart Publishing, 2009.

Gunn C. E. Third-sector development: making up for the market. - Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2004.

Perri 6. The Voluntary and Non-Profit Sectors in Continental Europe // An introduction to the voluntary sector / edited by Justin Davis Smith, Colin Rochester and Rodney Hedley. - London: Routledge, 1995.

Putnam R.D. The Collapse and Revival of American Community. - Touchstone Books by Simon & Schuster, 2001. - 544 p.

Salamon L.M., Anheier H.K. Defining the non profit sector: a cross-national analysis. New York: Manchester University Press, 1997.

Дата добавления: 2015-08-05