Neziskový sektor v mezinárodním srovnání. Identifikace srovnávacího projektu: The Johns...

Neziskový sektor v mezinárodním Neziskový sektor v mezinárodním srovnánísrovnání

Identifikace srovnávacího Identifikace srovnávacího projektu:projektu:

The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector ProjectThe Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project is a systematic effort to analyze is a systematic effort to analyze the scope, structure, financing, and role of the private nonprofit sector in a cross-section of the scope, structure, financing, and role of the private nonprofit sector in a cross-section of countries around the world in order to improve our knowledge and enrich our theoretical countries around the world in order to improve our knowledge and enrich our theoretical understanding of this sector, and to provide a sounder basis for both public and private action understanding of this sector, and to provide a sounder basis for both public and private action towards it.towards it.The project utilizes a The project utilizes a comparative, empirical approachcomparative, empirical approach that that relies heavily on a team of local relies heavily on a team of local associatesassociates in the target countries and involves a network of local advisory committees. in the target countries and involves a network of local advisory committees.

Center for Civil Society StudiesCenter for Civil Society StudiesInstitute for Policy StudiesInstitute for Policy StudiesThe Johns Hopkins UniversityThe Johns Hopkins University3400 N. Charles Street3400 N. Charles StreetBaltimore, MD 21218-2688, USABaltimore, MD 21218-2688, USAPhone: 410-516-5463Phone: 410-516-5463Fax: 410-516-7818Fax: 410-516-7818E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

Web site: Web site:

http://www.ccss.jhu.edu/index.php?section=content&view=9&sub=3&tri=8

Project CountriesProject Countries

Venezuela Colombia

Brazil Chile

Mexico

Argentina

Slovakia

Hungary

Romania

Poland

Japan

United States

Australia

Israel

Ireland

TheNetherla

nds Austria

Spain

Germany

Finland

Belgium

France

Norway

Italy

United Kingdom

Russia

New Zealand

Canada

Denmark

Egypt

KenyaTanzaniaUgandaSout

h Africa

India

Pakistan

The Philippin

es

Korea

Thailand

Portugal Moroc

coGhana

Peru

Lebanon

Switzerland

Sweden

Czech Republic

Denmark

The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project

Kterých zemí se projekt týká…Kterých zemí se projekt týká…

Kdo spolupracovalKdo spolupracoval

Argentina - Argentina - Mario RoitterMario RoitterAustralia - Australia - Mark LyonsMark Lyons Austria – Austria – Ulrike SchneiderUlrike SchneiderBelgium - Belgium - Jacques Defourny & Sybille Jacques Defourny & Sybille MertensMertensBrazil - Brazil - Leilah Landim & Neide BeresLeilah Landim & Neide BeresCanada – Canada – Michael HallMichael HallChile – Chile – Ignacio IrarrazavalIgnacio IrarrazavalColombia - Colombia - Rodrigo VillarRodrigo VillarCzech Republic - Czech Republic - Martin Potucek & Martin Potucek & Pavol FricPavol FricDenmark – Denmark – Ole Gregersen & Thomas Ole Gregersen & Thomas BojeBojeEgypt – Egypt – Amani KandilAmani Kandil Finland – Finland – Susan SundbackSusan Sundback

• France - Edith Archambault• Germany - Annette Zimmer & Eckhard Priller• Hungary - István Sebestény &

Renata Nagy• India – Rajesh Tandon & S.S. Srivastava• Ireland - Freda Donoghue• Israel - Benjamin Gidron• Italy – Gian Paolo Barbetta• Japan - Naoto Yamauchi• Kenya – Karuti Kanyinga• Korea, Republic of - Tae-Kyu Park• Lebanon – Hashem el-Husseini• Mexico - Gustavo Verduzco & CEMEFI

Morocco - Morocco - Salama SaidiSalama SaidiThe Netherlands - The Netherlands - Paul Dekker & Bob Paul Dekker & Bob KuhryKuhryNew Zealand - New Zealand - Massey University & Massey University & Statistics New ZealandStatistics New ZealandNorway - Norway - Hakon Lorentzen & Karl Hakon Lorentzen & Karl Henrik SivesindHenrik SivesindPakistan – Pakistan – Muhammad Asif IqbalMuhammad Asif IqbalPeru - Peru - Felipe Portocarrero & Cynthia Felipe Portocarrero & Cynthia SanbornSanbornThe Philippines - The Philippines - Ledivina CariLedivina CariññooPoland - Poland - Ewa Les & Slawomir NaleczEwa Les & Slawomir NaleczPortugal – Raquel Campos FrancoPortugal – Raquel Campos FrancoRomania - Romania - Carmen EpureCarmen Epure

• Russia – Oleg Kazakov• Slovakia - Helena Woleková• South Africa - Mark Swilling• Spain - Jose Ignacio Ruiz Olabuenaga• Sweden - Tommy Lundstrom & Filip

Wijkstrom• Switzerland – Bernd Helmig• Tanzania - Laurean Ndumbaro &

Amos Mhina• Thailand – Amara Pongsapich• Uganda – John-Jean Barya• United Kingdom – Les Hems & Karl

Wilding• United States - Lester Salamon &

Wojtek Sokolowski• Venezuela – Rosa Amelia Gonzalez

……a kterých typů organizací:a kterých typů organizací:

OrganizationsOrganizations, , i.e., they have an institutional presence i.e., they have an institutional presence and structure;and structure;PrivatePrivate, , i.e., they are institutionally separate from the i.e., they are institutionally separate from the state;state;Not profit distributingNot profit distributing, , i.e., they do not return profits to i.e., they do not return profits to their managers or to a set of “owners”;their managers or to a set of “owners”;Self-governingSelf-governing, , i.e., they are fundamentally in control of i.e., they are fundamentally in control of their own affairs;their own affairs;VoluntaryVoluntary, , i.e., membership in them is not legally i.e., membership in them is not legally required and they attract some level of voluntary required and they attract some level of voluntary contribution of time or money.contribution of time or money.

……a jakých aktivit:a jakých aktivit:

4 typy zdrojů dat4 typy zdrojů dat

Hlavní zjištění projektuHlavní zjištění projektu

1. Neziskový sektor jako 1. Neziskový sektor jako významná ekonomická sílavýznamná ekonomická síla

In the first place, in addition to its social In the first place, in addition to its social and political importance, the civil society and political importance, the civil society sector turns out to be a sector turns out to be a considerable considerable economic forceeconomic force, accounting for a , accounting for a significant share of national significant share of national expenditures and employmentexpenditures and employment. More . More specifically, in just the 35 countries for specifically, in just the 35 countries for which they have collected information:which they have collected information:

1995-19981995-1998A $1.3 trillion industry. A $1.3 trillion industry. The civil society sector had aggregate expenditures ofThe civil society sector had aggregate expenditures ofUS$1.3 trillion as of the late 1990s, with religious congregations included. ThisUS$1.3 trillion as of the late 1990s, with religious congregations included. Thisrepresents 5.1 percent of the combined gross domestic product (GDP) of theserepresents 5.1 percent of the combined gross domestic product (GDP) of thesecountries.countries.

• • The world’s seventh largest economy. The world’s seventh largest economy. To put these figures into context, if theTo put these figures into context, if thecivil society sector in these countries were a separate national economy, itscivil society sector in these countries were a separate national economy, itsexpenditures would make it the seventh largest economy in the world, ahead ofexpenditures would make it the seventh largest economy in the world, ahead ofItaly, Brazil, Russia, Spain, and Canada and just behind France and the U.K.Italy, Brazil, Russia, Spain, and Canada and just behind France and the U.K.

• • A major employer. A major employer. The civil society sector in these 35 countries is also a majorThe civil society sector in these 35 countries is also a majoremployer, with a total workforce of 39.5 million full-time equivalent workersemployer, with a total workforce of 39.5 million full-time equivalent workersincluding religious congregations.including religious congregations.

Kdyby byl neziskový sektor Kdyby byl neziskový sektor samostatnou ekonomikou:samostatnou ekonomikou:

Kdyby byl neziskový sektor Kdyby byl neziskový sektor samostatnou ekonomikou (1995):samostatnou ekonomikou (1995):

If the civil society sector were a If the civil society sector were a country...country...20002000

Country GDP (trillion $)United States $11.7Japan 4.6Germany 2.7

China 1.7

United Kingdom 2.1

France 1.9

Italy 1.2

Civil Society Land Expenditures (40 Countries)

1.9*

Canada 1.0Spain 1.0Brazil 0.6Russia 0.6

* In 2004 U.S. Dollars Source of GDP Figures: World Bank


19951995

Employment in Civil Society Employment in Civil Society Organizations vs. Largest firmsOrganizations vs. Largest firms

20002000Civil Society Organizations

48 million

Largest Private Companies

4 million


Kdyby byl neziskový sektor Kdyby byl neziskový sektor samostatnou ekonomikou – samostatnou ekonomikou –

zaměstnanost:zaměstnanost:

Civil Society Organization Civil Society Organization Workforce in context, 40 Workforce in context, 40

countriescountries

110.4

46.5

41.3

6.2

48.4

Manufacturing

construction

transportation

Utilities

Civil Society Orgs.*

Number of employees (millions)* Including volunteers


Neziskový sektor - Neziskový sektor - zaměstnanostzaměstnanost

Paid Workers

56%

Volunteers44%


CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATION PAID VS. CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATION PAID VS. VOLUNTEER LABOR, VOLUNTEER LABOR, 36 COUNTRIES36 COUNTRIES

n=65.5 million(including religion)

2. Rozdíly mezi zeměmi2. Rozdíly mezi zeměmi

In the first place, countries vary greatly in In the first place, countries vary greatly in the the overall scale of their civil society overall scale of their civil society workforceworkforce. . the civil society sector workforce—the civil society sector workforce—volunteer and paid—varies from a high of volunteer and paid—varies from a high of 14 percent of the economically active 14 percent of the economically active population in the Netherlands to a low of population in the Netherlands to a low of 0.4 percent in Mexico.0.4 percent in Mexico.

1.82.3

2.83.2

2.82.9

2.63.8

2.43.5

4.43.8

1.72.7

3.76.6

4.86.3

8.3

8.49.2

2.9

1.61.5

1.11.0

1.51.9

2.21.1

2.82.3

1.92.7

5.14.4

3.71.4

3.63.5

2.1

2.75.1

1.7

3.4%3.8%

4.0%4.2%4.3%

4.8%4.9%4.9%

5.3%5.9%

6.3%6.6%

7.1%7.2%

7.6%8.0%

8.5%9.8%

10.4%10.9%11.1%

14.4%4.6%

8.6 2.3

South AfricaItaly

PortugalJapanSpain

ArgentinaChile

AustriaFinland

GermanyAustraliaDenmarkSwedenNorwayFrance

IsraelUnited Kingdom

United StatesIreland

BelgiumCanada

Netherlands40 countries

Paid staff

Volunteers

The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector ProjectCSO workforce as a share of the CSO workforce as a share of the

economically active population, by economically active population, by countrycountry 2000 2000

CSO workforce as a share of the CSO workforce as a share of the economically active population, by economically active population, by

countrycountry 2000 2000

0.4%

0.8%

0.8%

0.8%

1.0%

1.1%

1.4%

1.5%

1.6%

1.9%

2.0%

2.1%

2.1%

2.3%

2.4%

2.4%

2.5%

2.8%

4.6%

Mexico

Romania

Poland

Slovakia

Pakistan

Hungary

India

Morocco

Brazil

Philippines

Czech Republic

Tanzania

Kenya

Uganda

Colombia

Korea, Rep. of

Peru

Egypt

40 countries

Paid staff

Volunteers


VOLUNTEERS AS % OF CSOVOLUNTEERS AS % OF CSOWORKFORCE, BY COUNTRY CLUSTERWORKFORCE, BY COUNTRY CLUSTER

Developed 39%

Developing 37%

All countries 38%


0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

% of CSO Workforce

Africa 54%

Nordic 64%

Latin America 30%

Welfare Partnership 32%

Asian Industrialized 24%

Central Europe 32%

Anglo-Saxon 37%

Rozvinuté vs. rozvojové a Rozvinuté vs. rozvojové a tranzitivní ekonomikytranzitivní ekonomiky

Developed vs. developing and transitional countries. Developed vs. developing and transitional countries. Civil Civil society sector is relatively larger in the more developed countries. society sector is relatively larger in the more developed countries. – In fact, the civil society organization workforce in the developed countries is In fact, the civil society organization workforce in the developed countries is

proportionally more than three times larger than that in the developing countries proportionally more than three times larger than that in the developing countries (7.4 percent vs. 1.9 percent of the economically active population, respectively).(7.4 percent vs. 1.9 percent of the economically active population, respectively).

This is so, moreover, even when account is taken of volunteer labor and not just paid employment.This is so, moreover, even when account is taken of volunteer labor and not just paid employment.

The relatively limited presence of civil society organizations in the The relatively limited presence of civil society organizations in the developing countries does not, of course, necessarily mean the developing countries does not, of course, necessarily mean the absence of helping relationships in these countriesabsence of helping relationships in these countries. . – To the contrary, many of these countries have strong traditions of To the contrary, many of these countries have strong traditions of

familial, clan, or village networks that perform many of the same familial, clan, or village networks that perform many of the same functions as civil society institutions. What is more, there are functions as civil society institutions. What is more, there are considerable differences in the scale of civil society activity even among considerable differences in the scale of civil society activity even among the less developed countries.the less developed countries.

Rozdíly v zapojení dobrovolníkůRozdíly v zapojení dobrovolníků

Vybraná data, vybrané země…Vybraná data, vybrané země…

Value Added as % of GDP, NPIs vs. Selected Industries, Canada,

2000

5.1%

6.1%

7.9%

2.3%

1.5%

1.4%

% of

GDP

Retail Trade

Mining, oil & gas

extractions

Nonprofit sector

Accommodations & food services

Agriculture Motor Vehicle

Manufacturing

Volunteers

NPIs

The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies

Contribution to GDP, Contribution to GDP, Volunteers vs. Selected Volunteers vs. Selected

Industries, CanadaIndustries, Canada

55

1010

1515

B

illi

ons

of C

anad

ian

$

$14.1 billion

Volunteers

$6.1 billion

Motor Vehicle Mfg.

$12.8 billion

Agriculture


Value Added as % of GDP, NPIs* vs. Selected Industries, Belgium, 2003

1.6%

4.8%5.0 %

2.4%

1.1%

% of GDP

Hotels & Restaurants

Construction NPIs Utilities Agriculture & Fishing

* Without Volunteers


NPI Share of Belgian Value Added, Selected Fields

HEALTH 42.7%

SOCIAL SERVICES 66.6%

CULTURE & RECREATION 26%

Percent of Total Value

10% 50% 80%


Average Annual Change in GDP and GDP Contribution of NPIs

1.3%

4.7%4.3% 4.3%

3.3%

4.2%

Belgium

(2000-2003)

Canada

(1997-2001)

USA

(1996-2004)

1%

5%

GDP

NPI


3. NS není jen poskytovatelem 3. NS není jen poskytovatelem služebslužeb

Service functionsService functions involve the delivery of direct involve the delivery of direct services such as education, health, housing, economic services such as education, health, housing, economic development promotion, and the like.development promotion, and the like.

Expressive functionsExpressive functions involve activities that provide involve activities that provide avenues for the expression of cultural, religious, avenues for the expression of cultural, religious, professional, or policy values, interests, and beliefs. professional, or policy values, interests, and beliefs. Included here are cultural institutions, recreation groups, Included here are cultural institutions, recreation groups, religious worship organizations, professional religious worship organizations, professional associations, advocacy groups, community organizations associations, advocacy groups, community organizations and the like.and the like.

---The distinction between ---The distinction between expressiveexpressive and and serviceservice functions is far from perfect, of course, and functions is far from perfect, of course, and many organizations are engaged in both.many organizations are engaged in both.

… … i tak lze říci, že:i tak lze říci, že:

Service functions dominate in scale. Service functions dominate in scale. From From the evidence available, it appears that the service the evidence available, it appears that the service functions of the civil society sector clearly absorb functions of the civil society sector clearly absorb the lion’s share of the activity. the lion’s share of the activity. – Excluding religious worship, … an Excluding religious worship, … an average of average of

over 60 percent of the total paid and over 60 percent of the total paid and volunteer full-time equivalent workforcevolunteer full-time equivalent workforce of of the civil society sector in the 32 countries for the civil society sector in the 32 countries for which we have activity data which we have activity data work for work for organizations primarily engaged in service organizations primarily engaged in service functions.functions.

DISTRIBUTION OF CIVIL SOCIETY DISTRIBUTION OF CIVIL SOCIETY WORKFORCE, BY FUNCTIONWORKFORCE, BY FUNCTION

Service64%

Education23%

Social Services19%

Health14%

Development8%

Expressive32%

Culture19%

Misc. Advocacy13%Other 4%


A ještě ke službám:A ještě ke službám:

Education and social services are the Education and social services are the dominant service functions. dominant service functions. Among the service activities of the civil Among the service activities of the civil society sector, education and social society sector, education and social services clearly absorb the largest share. services clearly absorb the largest share. – Over 40 percent of the nonprofit workforce—Over 40 percent of the nonprofit workforce—

paid and volunteer—is engaged in these two paid and volunteer—is engaged in these two service functions on average.service functions on average.

Rozdělení zaměstnanosti v NS Rozdělení zaměstnanosti v NS dle typu aktivitydle typu aktivity

Dobrovolníci a typy aktivitDobrovolníci a typy aktivit

Odchylky od obecných vzorcůOdchylky od obecných vzorců

The first of these relates to the The first of these relates to the Nordic countriesNordic countries of of Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

The second relates to the countries of The second relates to the countries of Central and Central and Eastern EuropeEastern Europe (the Czech Republic, Hungary, (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, and, to a slightly lesser extent, Poland). Slovakia, and, to a slightly lesser extent, Poland). – In both of these groups of countries organizations primarily In both of these groups of countries organizations primarily

engaged in expressive activities absorb a larger share of the engaged in expressive activities absorb a larger share of the civil society workforce than do those engaged in the service civil society workforce than do those engaged in the service functions. The most likely explanation for this is that functions. The most likely explanation for this is that in both in both groups of countries the state assumed a dominant groups of countries the state assumed a dominant position in both the financing and delivery of social position in both the financing and delivery of social welfare services, leaving less room for private, civil welfare services, leaving less room for private, civil society organizations.society organizations.

To se týká nás…To se týká nás…

In Central Europe this was a product of the In Central Europe this was a product of the imposition of a Soviet-style regime in the imposition of a Soviet-style regime in the aftermath of World War II. While this regime aftermath of World War II. While this regime concentrated social welfare services in the concentrated social welfare services in the hands of the state and hands of the state and discouraged, or discouraged, or prohibited, the emergence of independent prohibited, the emergence of independent civil organizationscivil organizations, it did sanction the limited , it did sanction the limited creation of professional and recreational creation of professional and recreational organizations, many of which survived into the organizations, many of which survived into the post-Communist era.post-Communist era.

A tohle Seveřanů:A tohle Seveřanů:

In the Nordic countries, by contrast, a robust In the Nordic countries, by contrast, a robust network of grassroots labor and social-network of grassroots labor and social-movement organizations took shape during the movement organizations took shape during the late nineteenth century and pushed through a late nineteenth century and pushed through a substantial program of social welfare protections substantial program of social welfare protections financed and delivered by the state. financed and delivered by the state. – This limited the need for active civil society This limited the need for active civil society

involvement in service provision but left behind a involvement in service provision but left behind a vibrant heritage of citizen-based civil society activity in vibrant heritage of citizen-based civil society activity in advocacy, recreation, and related expressive fields.advocacy, recreation, and related expressive fields.

Co dodat:Co dodat:

While the While the structure of the civil society sector in structure of the civil society sector in these two groups of countries is similarthese two groups of countries is similar, , however, however, the scale of the sector differs widelythe scale of the sector differs widely. . – In particular, the civil society sector in the Central and In particular, the civil society sector in the Central and

Eastern European countries remained quite small Eastern European countries remained quite small nearly a decade after the overthrow of the Soviet-type nearly a decade after the overthrow of the Soviet-type regimes.regimes.

– By contrast, in the Nordic countries, a sizable civil By contrast, in the Nordic countries, a sizable civil society sector remains in existence today, though it is society sector remains in existence today, though it is largely staffed by volunteers and engaged in a variety largely staffed by volunteers and engaged in a variety of cultural, recreational, and expressive functions.of cultural, recreational, and expressive functions.

4. Zajímavá struktura příjmů4. Zajímavá struktura příjmů

Fees53%Government

35%


Philanthropy12%

SOURCES OF CIVIL SOCIETY SOURCES OF CIVIL SOCIETY REVENUE (32 COUNTRYAVERAGE)REVENUE (32 COUNTRYAVERAGE)

Platby a poplatkyPlatby a poplatky

Fees are the dominant source of Fees are the dominant source of revenue. revenue. – In the 32 countries on which revenue data are In the 32 countries on which revenue data are

available,23 over half (53 percent) of civil available,23 over half (53 percent) of civil society organization income comes, on society organization income comes, on average, average, not from private philanthropy but not from private philanthropy but from fees and charges for the servicesfrom fees and charges for the services that that these organizations provide and the related these organizations provide and the related commercial income they receive from commercial income they receive from investments and other commercial sources, investments and other commercial sources, including dues.including dues.

Veřejné zdrojeVeřejné zdroje

Significant public sector support. Significant public sector support.

Nor is philanthropy the second largest source of civil Nor is philanthropy the second largest source of civil society organization revenue internationally. That society organization revenue internationally. That distinction belongs, rather, to government or the distinction belongs, rather, to government or the public sector. public sector. – An average of 35 percent of all civil society organization An average of 35 percent of all civil society organization

revenue comes from public sector sources, either revenue comes from public sector sources, either through through grants and contracts or reimbursement grants and contracts or reimbursement paymentspayments made by governmental agencies or quasi- made by governmental agencies or quasi-nongovernmental organizations such as publicly nongovernmental organizations such as publicly financed social security and health agencies.financed social security and health agencies.

Omezená role filantropieOmezená role filantropie

Limited role of private philanthropy.Limited role of private philanthropy.– Private giving from all sources—individuals, Private giving from all sources—individuals,

foundations, and corporations—accounts for a foundations, and corporations—accounts for a much smaller 12 percent of total civil society much smaller 12 percent of total civil society organization revenue in the countries we have organization revenue in the countries we have examined, or one-third as much as examined, or one-third as much as government and less than one-fourth as much government and less than one-fourth as much as fees and charges.as fees and charges.

Philanthropy as share of GDP, Philanthropy as share of GDP, selected countries, 1995-2004selected countries, 1995-2004

0.80%

1.83%1.82%

1.73%

1.93%1.79%

1.73%1.69%

1.56%

1.47%

1.33%

0.92%

0.83%

0.83%0.83%

0.39%0.36%0.37%0.39%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Pe

rce

nt

of

GD

P

US

Canada

Belgium


Srovnání zemí podle typů zdrojůSrovnání zemí podle typů zdrojů

Fees, Charges Public Sector PhilanthropyAll Countries 53% 35% 12%FEE DOMINANT

SOURCES OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONSOURCES OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONREVENUE, BY COUNTRYREVENUE, BY COUNTRY

Spain

Japan

Hungary

U.S.

Czech Rep.

Pakistan

Tanzania

Slovakia

FinlandNorwayPoland

ItalySweden

AustraliaPeru

ColombiaS. Korea

ArgentinaBrazilKenyaMexico

Philippines

40% 0% 20% 60% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

81%

55%

70%

60%

57%

53%

51%

74% 73%

70%

62%61%

58%58%

55%

49%47%

52%

63%

71%

85% 92%

27%

22% 23%

32% 19%

20%

31% 13% 36% 6%

24% 4%

35% 7%

29% 9%

24% 15%

15% 15%

39% 14%

11%15%14%5%

43%6%45% 3%

27% 18%

37% 3%

31% 6%

18% 12%

19% 7%

9% 6%5% 3%


12%Fees, Charges Public Sector Philanthropy

All Countries 53% 35%

Government Dominant

SOURCES OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATION SOURCES OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATION REVENUE, BY COUNTRYREVENUE, BY COUNTRY

60%40% 0% 20% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

IrelandBelgium

GermanyIsrael

NetherlandsFranceAustria

U.K.Romania

South Africa 45%

50%

59%

64%

47%

58%

64%

77%

77%

44%

39%

32%

16%

29%

45%

35%

26%

43%

19%

32%

9%

26%

10%

8%

6%

3%

7%

2%

5%

24%

% may not add up to 100% due to rounding


5. Regionální vzorce5. Regionální vzorce

Regionální vzorce - Central and Eastern Regionální vzorce - Central and Eastern EuropeEurope

……Notable, perhaps, is the extremely small scale Notable, perhaps, is the extremely small scale of the civil society sector in these countries—of the civil society sector in these countries—engaging only one-fourth as large a proportion of engaging only one-fourth as large a proportion of the economically active population as the overall the economically active population as the overall 35-country average.35-country average.– Indeed, the civil society sector in these countries is Indeed, the civil society sector in these countries is

smaller than in any of the other regions we examined, smaller than in any of the other regions we examined, including the developing countries of Africa and Latin including the developing countries of Africa and Latin America. Also notable is the relatively large presence America. Also notable is the relatively large presence of expressive activity within what little civil society of expressive activity within what little civil society sectors exist in these countries.sectors exist in these countries.

Regionální vzorce - Central and Regionální vzorce - Central and Eastern EuropeEastern Europe

This is likelyThis is likely a a reflection of the social welfare reflection of the social welfare policies of the Soviet-era governmentspolicies of the Soviet-era governments, , which reliedwhich relied on on direct provision of the most direct provision of the most important social servicesimportant social services by the “workers’ by the “workers’ state” andstate” and discouraged reliance on private discouraged reliance on private voluntary groups, including those affiliated with voluntary groups, including those affiliated with religiousreligious groups. groups. – An embryonic civil society sector was tolerated in these An embryonic civil society sector was tolerated in these

countries, butcountries, but largely for social, recreational, and largely for social, recreational, and professional purposes, and even then at least partlyprofessional purposes, and even then at least partly as as vehicles for state control. In the aftermath of the vehicles for state control. In the aftermath of the collapse of the state socialistcollapse of the state socialist regimes, a number of these regimes, a number of these sanctioned organizations were able to make the sanctioned organizations were able to make the transitiontransition into nonprofit status, often with the aid of into nonprofit status, often with the aid of captured state resources (buildings, equipment,captured state resources (buildings, equipment, and and occasionally subsidies), and their relatively sizable occasionally subsidies), and their relatively sizable presence is reflected inpresence is reflected in the data.the data.

Regionální vzorce - Central and Regionální vzorce - Central and Eastern EuropeEastern Europe

One particularly ironic byproduct of this peculiar history One particularly ironic byproduct of this peculiar history of civil society development in Central and Eastern of civil society development in Central and Eastern Europe is the Europe is the relatively high level of reliance on relatively high level of reliance on philanthropic supportphilanthropic support on the part of the region’s civil on the part of the region’s civil society organizations. society organizations. – Ironically, despite its socialist past, philanthropy constitutes a Ironically, despite its socialist past, philanthropy constitutes a

larger share of the revenues of civil society organizations in this larger share of the revenues of civil society organizations in this region than in any other region (region than in any other region (20 percent vs. an all-country 20 percent vs. an all-country average of 12 percentaverage of 12 percent). ).

One explanation for this may be that when state enterprises were One explanation for this may be that when state enterprises were transformed into private firms, they spun off into nonprofit transformed into private firms, they spun off into nonprofit organizations many of the health and recreational services they organizations many of the health and recreational services they previously provided to their workers free of cost, but they continued previously provided to their workers free of cost, but they continued some degree of financial or in-kind support to these activities. Since some degree of financial or in-kind support to these activities. Since these state enterprises became private firms, however, this support these state enterprises became private firms, however, this support shows up in our data as private charity.shows up in our data as private charity.

Neziskový sektor v mezinárodním srovnání. Identifikace srovnávacího projektu: The Johns...

Documents

Transcript of Neziskový sektor v mezinárodním srovnání. Identifikace srovnávacího projektu: The Johns...