Regulating Diverse Civil Society and Nonprofit Organizations The Cases of Ecuador and Colombia
Susan Appe, University at Albany, SUNY
Government regulation toward the nonprofit sector has received growing attention in public administration scholarship (Bies, 2010; Bowman & Bies, 2005; Boris, Renz, & Hager, 2005; Christensen & Ebrahim, 2006; Ebrahim, 2005; Jackson, 2006; Perry, 2007; Salamon & Geller, 2005). Literature on civil society and nonprofit legal frameworks has flourished and recognized that governments must strike a balance between regulating civil society and also encouraging its development (Brody, 2006; Open Society Institute, 2004; Salmon & Toepler, 2000).. This paper examines nonprofit regulation across diverse nonprofit sectors and the challenges that emerge. The paper focuses on the difficulty of blanket regulations for nonprofits organizations, using as case studies the countries of Ecuador and Colombia in South America.
Given the nonprofit sector’s diversity, how do nonprofit organizations respond differently to blanket government regulation? The paper uses a policy lens in order to highlight the “multiple realities” (Berger & Luckmann, 1967) that exist within the sector. The paper is concerned with social construction that places meaning-making at the center (Yanow, 2007). Through a policy analysis this research identifies several interpretative communities in response to the regulation of nonprofit organizations. Interpretative communities—also called ‘communities of meaning,’ ‘communities of practice,’ ‘speech or discourse communities’ (Yanow, 2007)—highlight the way different organizations frame their position and interests in the context of a policy issue, in this case, nonprofit sector regulation.
In Ecuador and Colombia, several civil society organizations consider regulation appropriate, while others are concerned about excessive government interference. Some civil society organizations are trying to negotiate regulatory policy with the government and other organizations have simply ignored regulation. Three interpretative communities of nonprofit organizations are discussed in the paper: (1) organizations that find more regulation needed; (2) organizations that are compliant with regulation but have concerns; and (3) organizations that have brought regulation issues into public debate. To explain why some organizations fall into one interpretative community and not the others, the paper examines the conditions and characteristics of the nonprofit organizations within the communities identified.
The paper examines the three interpretative communities using data from 82 interviews with nonprofit organizations in Ecuador and Colombia from two stages of data collection (2009; 2010-2011) and addresses the emerging discourses of ‘rights’ and ‘self-regulation’ among the diverse nonprofit organizations in Ecuador and Colombia. In addition, notes from dozens of meetings among nonprofit organizations about regulation and media coverage in both Ecuador and Colombia are reviewed and analyzed. It contributes to policy studies and civil society research by illuminating the debates and contradictions that emerge when regulatory policy attempts to encompass a wide range of diverse nonprofit organizations. On these bases, the paper addresses the conference theme “Policy, Politics and Relations.”
References
Bell, Jeanne and Steve Zimmerman. (2007). Absent the Audit: How Small Nonprofits can Demonstrate Accountability Without One." Nonprofit Quarterly, 14, 61-4.
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966).The social construction of reality. NY: Anchor.
Boris, E., Renz, L. and Hager, M. A. (2005). Foundation Expenses and Compensation: Interim Report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Bothwell, R. O. (2000). Trends In self-regulation and transparency of nonprofits in the U.S.
The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law 2(3).
Bowman, W. & Bies, A. L. (2005). Can the Charitable Sector Regulate Itself? Nonprofit Quarterly, 12, 39-42.
Christensen, R. A. & Ebrahim, A. (2006). How Does Accountability Affect Mission? The Case of a Nonprofit Serving Immigrants and Refugees. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 17, 195-209.
Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability Myopia: Losing Sight of Organizational Learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 56-87.
Jackson, P. M. (2006). Sarbanes-Oxley for Nonprofit Boards: a New Governance Paradigm. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Open Society Institute. (2004). Guidelines for laws affecting civic organizations. New York, NY.
Perry, S. (2007, January 25). Charities Continue to Face Scrutiny from the Senate." Chronicle of Philanthropy, 19, 29-30.
Salamon, L. M. & Geller , S. L. (2005). Nonprofit Governance and Accountability. Communiqué No. 4. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.
Salamon, L.M. & Toepler, S. (2000). The influence of the legal environment on the development of the nonprofit sector. Center for Civil Society Studies Working Paper