print

Understanding to collaborate:
the unique characteristics of NGOs and intersectoral policy

Jakobson L.I.,

Doctor of Economics, HSE University, Moscow, Russia, ljakobson@hse.ru

ORCID: 0000-0002-2057-2888 | RESEARCHER_ID: E-9450-2014

Ivanova N.V.,

HSE University, Moscow, Russia, nvivanova@hse.ru

ORCID: 0000-0002-5225-8367 | RESEARCHER_ID: I-3894-2015

Article received: 2024.08.30 13:30. Accepted: 2024.11.04 13:30


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2025.01.07
EDN: FTNTMP

Rubric: Russia today

For citation:

Jakobson L.I., Ivanova N.V. Understanding to collaborate: the unique characteristics of NGOs and intersectoral policy. – Polis. Political Studies. 2025. No. 1. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.01.07. EDN: FTNTMP (In Russ.)

The study was carried out within the framework of the program of the Center for Fundamental Research of the National Research University Higher School of Economics.

Abstract

This paper aims to explore ways to foster more effective collaboration between the state and non-governmental non-proft organizations (NGOs) when their interests align. While NGOs often perceive state policies as well intentioned but poorly executed, this paper argues that a more effective approach would leverage the unique strengths and weaknesses of NGOs, informed by scientific insights. By comparing Russian realities with established theories, we identify the prerequisites for a thriving NGO sector. A key factor is the intrinsic motivation of NGOs, coupled with adherence to legal frameworks that define their role within the broader societal landscape. Our analysis reveals shortcomings in current state policies. These include a lack of clear distinctions between sectors, hindering the optimal utilization of each sector's strengths, as well as an underestimation of the NGO sector's innovative potential and its unique governance structures. To improve this situation, we propose a gradual transition towards a more efficient model of NGO sector operation. This model would encourage the state to support NGOs without disrupting existing practices, while fostering a shift toward more progressive approaches.

Keywords

state, cross-sector partnership, comparative advantages, motivation, trust, trust goods, innovations, corporate governance.

Anheier, H.K. (2005). Nonprofit organizations. Theory, management, policy. London, New York: Routledge.

Benevolenski, V.B., & Toepler, S. (2016). Modernising social service delivery in Russia: evolving government support for non-profit organisations. Development in Practice, 27(1), 64-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2017.1259392

Ben-Ner, A., & Gui, B. (2003). The theory of nonprofit organization revisited. In H.K. Anheier, & A. Ben-Ner (Eds.), The Study of the Nonprofit Enterprise: Theories and Approaches (pp. 3-26). Boston: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0131-2_1

Blodgett, M., Melconian, L., & Peterson, J. (2003). Evolving corporate governance standards for healthcare nonprofits: is board of director compensation a breach of fiduciary duty? Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial and Commercial Law, 7(2), 4.

Bode, I., & Brandsen, T. (2014). State-third sector partnership: a short overview of key issues in the debate. Public Management Review, 16(8), 1055-1066. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.957344

Choudry, A., & Kapoor, D. (2014). NGOization: Complicity, Contradictions and Prospects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cook, L., Iarskaia-Smirnova, E., & Tarasenko, A. (2020). Outsourcing social services to NGOs in Russia: federal policy and regional responses. Post-Soviet Affairs, 37(6), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060 586X.2020.1853454

Dance, F. (2015). The duality of coercion in Russia: cracking down on “foreign agents”. Demokratiya, 23(1), 57-75.

Dolsak, N., & Prakash, A. (2022). NGO failure: a theoretical synthesis. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 33(4), 661-671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00416-9

Gee, I.H., Nahm, P.I., Yu, T., & Cannella, A.A. (2023). Not-for-profit organizations: a multi-disciplinary review and assessment from a strategic management perspective. Journal of Management, 49(1), 237-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221116581

Hansmann, H. (1980). The role of non-profit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89(5), 835-901. https://doi.org/10.2307/796089

Hummel, D., & Kusumasari, B. (2023). Power dynamics and resource dependence: NGO-government collaboration in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Public Administration and Development, 44(1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2034

Jakobson, L.I., & Sanovich, S. (2010). The changing models of the Russian third sector: import substitution phase. Journal of Civil Society, 6(3), 279-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2010.528951

Jang, H., Valero, J.N., & Ford, S. (2023). Homeless services during the COVID-19 pandemic: revisiting Salamon's voluntary failure theory. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 14(3), 279-308. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2022-0037

Kovdr, A, Antal, A., & Dedk, I. (2021). Civil society and COVID-19 in Hungary: the complete annexation of civil space. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 12(1), 93-126. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0060

Krause, M. (2014). The good project: humanitarian relief NGOs and the fragmentation of reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226131535.001.0001

Ljubownikow, S., & Crotty, J. (2017). Managing boundaries: the role of non-profit organisations in Russia's managed democracy. Sociology, 51(5), 940-956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038515608111

Salamon, L.M. (1987). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third-party government: toward a theory of government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 16(1-2), 29-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764087016001

Salamon, L.M. (2003). Voluntary failure theory correctly viewed. In H.K. Anheier, & A. Ben-Ner (Eds.), The Study of the Nonprofit Enterprise: Theories and Approaches (pp. 183-186). Boston: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0131-2_11

Salamon, L.M., & Toepler, S. (2015). Government-nonprofit cooperation: anomaly or necessity? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(6), 2155-2177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9651-6

Shafiq, S., Albrecht, K., & LeRoux, K. (2023). Extending the interdependence theory to local public service provision: evidence from Iowa. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 14(3), 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2022-0036

Soldatkin, A., & Blackburn, M. (2020). Institutional changes in state authorities collaboration with NGOs. The Journal of Social Policy Studies, 18(3), 523-538. https://doi.org/10.17323/727-0634-2020-18-3-523-538

Spires, A.J. (2020). Regulation as political control: China's first charity law and its implications for civil society. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(3), 571-588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019883939

Stuvoy, K. (2020). “The Foreign Within”: state-civil society relations in Russia. Europe-Asia Studies, 72(7), 1103-1124. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2020.1753658

Toepler, S. (2023). Rereading Salamon: why voluntary failure theory is not (really) about voluntary failures. Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, 14(4), 405-414. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2023-0080

Weisbrod, B.A. (1975). Toward a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sector in a three-sector economy. In E. Phelps (Ed.), Altruism, Morality and Economic Theory (pp. 171-195). New York: Russell Sage.

Weisbrod, B.A. (1988). The nonprofit economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674045064

Zhang, Z., & Guo, C. (2021). Nonprofit-government relations in authoritarian China: a review and synthesis of the Chinese literature. Administration & Society, 53(1), 64-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720934891

Jakobson, L.I., Ivanova, N.V., & Telitsyna, A.Yu. (2021). NGO corporate governance: theories and Russian practices. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 6, 459-476. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2021.6.1835

Mersianova, I.V. (2024). Monitoring sostoyaniya grazhdanskogo obshchestva:metodologiya I struktura [Monitoring of the state of civil society: Methodology and structure]. In L.I. Jakobson (Ed.), Samoorganizatsiya grazhdan, blagotvoritel'nost' I tretiy sektor: teorii, istoriya I sovremennye tendentsii [Self-organization of Citizens, Charity and the Third Sector: Theories, History and Modern Trends] (pp. 109-130). Moscow: The Higher School of Economics Publishing House. (In Russ.)

Mersianova, I.V., & Benevolenski, V.B. (2016). The comparative advantages of NPOs as social welfare services providers: an examination in the Russian context. Public Administration ISSUES, 4, 7-26. (In Russ.)

Skokova, Yu.A., & Rybnikova, M.A. (2022). The size of nonprofit sector in Russian regions: differentiating factors. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 25(1), 70-102. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2022.25.1.3

Vasilenok, N.A., Polishchuk, L.I., & Shagalov, I.L. (2019). State and society as co-production partners: theory and Russian realities. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost', 2, 35-53. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S086904990004392-3

Yakimets, V.N., & Nikovskaya, L.I. (2018). Mechanisms and principles of intersectoral social partnership as a basis for developing the public-state governance. Vlast', 26(4), 15-25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31171/vlast.v26i4.5757

See also: