PDF The nonprofit sector a research handbook second edition walter w. powell download by willisgoodrich2482

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-nonprofitsector-a-research-handbook-second-edition-walterw-powell/

Download more ebook from https://ebookgate.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...

The advertising handbook Third Edition Powell

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-advertising-handbook-thirdedition-powell/

Routledge Handbook of Critical Criminology Second Edition Walter S. Dekeseredy

https://ebookgate.com/product/routledge-handbook-of-criticalcriminology-second-edition-walter-s-dekeseredy/

A Performer s Guide to Renaissance Music Second Edition Jeffery Kite-Powell

https://ebookgate.com/product/a-performer-s-guide-to-renaissancemusic-second-edition-jeffery-kite-powell/

Operations Research Calculations Handbook Second Edition Operations Research Series Dennis Blumenfeld

https://ebookgate.com/product/operations-research-calculationshandbook-second-edition-operations-research-series-dennisblumenfeld/

The Handbook of Social Work Research Methods Second Edition Bruce Thyer

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-handbook-of-social-workresearch-methods-second-edition-bruce-thyer/

Systems Research for Behavioral Science A Sourcebook 1st Edition Walter Buckley

https://ebookgate.com/product/systems-research-for-behavioralscience-a-sourcebook-1st-edition-walter-buckley/

California Insects Jerry A. Powell (Editor)

https://ebookgate.com/product/california-insects-jerry-a-powelleditor/

Handbook for Health Care Research Second Edition

Robert L. Chatburn

https://ebookgate.com/product/handbook-for-health-care-researchsecond-edition-robert-l-chatburn/

Third Sector Policy at the Crossroads An International Nonprofit Analysis Routledge Studies in Themanagement of Voluntary and Non Profit Organizations 1st Edition Helmut Anheier

https://ebookgate.com/product/third-sector-policy-at-thecrossroads-an-international-nonprofit-analysis-routledge-studiesin-themanagement-of-voluntary-and-non-profit-organizations-1stedition-helmut-anheier/

TheNonproﬁtSector

THENONPROFITSECTOR AResearchHandbook

SECONDEDITION

EDITEDBY

WALTERW.POWELLANDRICHARDSTEINBERG

YaleUniversityPress NewHaven&London

Allrightsreserved.

Thisbookmaynotbereproduced,inwholeorinpart,including illustrations,inanyform(beyondthatcopyingpermittedby Sections107and108oftheU.S.CopyrightLawandexceptby reviewersforthepublicpress),withoutwrittenpermissionfrom thepublishers.

SetinTimesRomanwithOptimadisplayby Technologies’NTypography,Inc. PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData

Thenonproﬁtsector : aresearchhandbook / editedbyWalterW. PowellandRichardSteinberg.—2nded. p.cm.

Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.

ISBN-13:978-0-300-10903-0(cloth :alk.paper)

ISBN-10:0-300-10903-2(cloth :alk.paper)

1.Nonproﬁtorganizations—Management.2.Nonproﬁt organizations.3.Charitableuses,trusts,andfoundations. I.Powell,WalterW.II.Steinberg,Richard. HD62.6.N672006

338.7′4—dc222006009076

AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritish Library.

Thepaperinthisbookmeetstheguidelinesforpermanenceand durabilityoftheCommitteeonProductionGuidelinesforBook LongevityoftheCouncilonLibraryResources.

10987654321

GabrielG.Rudney,BurtonA.Weisbrod, and JohnSimon, fortheireffortsincreatingtheﬁeldofnonproﬁtstudies

PrefacetotheSecondEdition

PartIHistoryandScopeoftheNonproﬁtSector

1TheNonproﬁtSectorinHistoricalPerspective:Traditionsof PhilanthropyintheWest 13 KevinC.Robbins

2AHistoricalOverviewofPhilanthropy,VoluntaryAssociations,andNonproﬁt OrganizationsintheUnitedStates,1600–2000 32 PeterDobkinHall

3ScopeandDimensionsoftheNonproﬁtSector 66 ElizabethT.BorisandC.EugeneSteuerle

4TheNonproﬁtSectorinComparativePerspective 89 HelmutK.AnheierandLesterM.Salamon

PartIINonproﬁtsandtheMarketplace

5EconomicTheoriesofNonproﬁtOrganizations 117 RichardSteinberg

6NonproﬁtOrganizationsandtheMarket 140 EleanorBrownandAlSlivinski

7WorkintheNonproﬁtSector 159 LauraLeete

8CollaborationbetweenCorporationsandNonproﬁtOrganizations 180 JosephGalaskiewiczandMichelleSinclairColman

PartIIINonproﬁtsandthePolity

9TheConstitutionofCitizens:PoliticalTheoriesofNonproﬁtOrganizations207 ElisabethS.Clemens

10ScopeandTheoryofGovernment-NonproﬁtRelations221 StevenRathgebSmithandKirstenA.Grønbjerg

11TheLegalFrameworkforNonproﬁtOrganizations243 EvelynBrody

12TheFederalTaxTreatmentofCharitableOrganizations

JohnSimon,HarveyDale,andLauraChisolm

13NonproﬁtOrganizationsandPoliticalAdvocacy

J.CraigJenkins

14InternationalNongovernmentalOrganizations

JohnBoli

PartIVKeyActivitiesintheNonproﬁtSector

15Foundations

KennethPrewitt

16NonproﬁtOrganizationsandHealthCare:SomeParadoxesof PersistentScrutiny

MarkSchlesingerandBradfordH.Gray

17SocialCareandtheNonproﬁtSectorintheWesternDevelopedWorld

JeremyKendall,MartinKnapp,andJulienForder

18NonproﬁtOrganizationsandtheIntersectoralDivisionofLaborintheArts432 PaulDiMaggio

19HigherEducation:EvolvingFormsandEmergingMarkets

PatriciaJ.GumportandStuartK.Snydman

20ReligionandtheNonproﬁtSector

WendyCadgeandRobertWuthnow

21NonproﬁtCommunityOrganizationsinPoorUrbanSettings: BridgingInstitutionalGapsforYouth

SarahDeschenes,MilbreyMcLaughlin,andJenniferO’Donoghue

PartVWhoParticipatesintheNonproﬁtSectorandWhy?

22NonproﬁtMembershipAssociations 523 MaryTschirhart

23CharitableGiving:HowMuch,byWhom,toWhat,andHow?

JohnJ.Havens,MaryA.O’Herlihy,andPaulG.Schervish

24WhyDoPeopleGive?

LiseVesterlund

PartVIMissionandGovernance

25NonproﬁtMission:Constancy,Responsiveness,orDeﬂection?

DebraC.MinkoffandWalterW.Powell

26Governance:ResearchTrends,Gaps,andFutureProspects

FrancieOstrowerandMelissaM.Stone

27CommercialActivity,TechnologicalChange,andNonproﬁtMission

HowardP.TuckmanandCyrilF.Chang

PrefacetotheSecondEdition

Weareverypleasedtopresentthissecondeditionof TheNonprofitSector:A ResearchHandbook. Sometimehas passedsincethefirstedition,andscholarlyanalysisofthenonprofitsectorhas advancedconsiderably.Wetookthisopportunitytoupdate andrefocusthediscussionthroughtwenty-sevenneworrevisedchapters.Indoingso,wefilledinsomeconspicuous gapsfromthefirstedition.Wewidenedthecoverageofnonprofitindustriesorfieldsofendeavortoincludereligious andmembershiporganizations.Weexpandedthediscussion ofphilanthropytoincludeachapteroneconomictheoriesof givingandanotheronworkinthenonprofitsector,including volunteering.Wemadesomeprogresstowardcoveringthe burgeoningliteratureonnonprofitorganizationsoutsidethe UnitedStates,althoughclearlymoreworkremainstobe done.Somechapterswererevisedtoaddressinternational issues,andwecommissionedadditionalchaptersonthehistoryofphilanthropyintheWest,cross-nationalcomparisonsofthescopeanddimensionsofthenonprofitsector, andinternationalnongovernmentalorganizations.Finally, weaddedachapteronthelegalframeworkfornonprofitorganizations.

Somechaptersfromthefirsteditionwereomitted—those havingtodoprimarilywiththemanagementofnonprofitorganizations.Thischoicewasdictatedbyspacelimitationsas wellastheemergenceofanothervolumethatcoversthe subject, TheJossey-BassHandbookofNonprofitLeadership andManagement, 2nded.,byRobertD.HermanandAssociates(SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass,2004).Thosechapters thatborderonmanagementissues(notablythechapteron

nonproﬁtgovernance)focusonsocialscienceresearchtopicsratherthanprovidingguidanceongoodpractice.

Asthefieldcontinuestogrow,futureeditionsofthis handbookwilltoo.Topicsincludedinthecurrentchaptersmaywellbeexpandedintochaptersoftheirown.For example,wemaysomedayseechaptersdedicatedtoanthropological,psychological,andconsumerbehaviortheories ofgiving;non-Westerntraditionsofphilanthropy;crossnationalcomparisonsoftaxandregulatoryregimes;nonprofitthinktanks,environmentalorganizations,primaryand secondaryeducationalinstitutions,disasterreliefagencies, self-helpgroups,andimmigrantsocieties;orcross-sectoral comparisons.Newchaptersdedicatedtotherolesofnonprofitorganizationscoulddiscusstheredistributive,affiliative,expressive,entrepreneurial,misanthropic,andsocial capitalrolesplayedbythesector.Wemightexpandfurther intothehumanities,withchaptersonethics,cross-cultural dimensionsofphilanthropy,andevenrepresentationsofphilanthropyinliterature,popculture,andothermedia.

Wehavetriedtominimizeunnecessaryredundancybut askedourauthorstomakeeachchapterself-contained,providingsufficientbackgroundforthereadertofollowtheargumentwithoutreadingotherchapters.Ourauthorswere askedtokeepthebulkoftheirdiscussionaccessibletoreaderswhoarenottrainedintherespectivedisciplinesand fields,butasmallamountofdetailedcontentwasallowed forthosewhowillappreciateit.Whereappropriate,we askedauthorstoincludeinternationalandcomparativeperspectives,smallandinformalorganizations,anddiscussion ofthe“darksides”ofphilanthropyandnonprofitorganizations.

Acknowledgments

FundingandsupportwereprovidedbytheMcCormickTribuneFoundation,theAspenInstitute’sNonproﬁtSectorResearchFund,theCenterforSocialInnovationattheStanfordUniversityGraduateSchoolofBusiness,andtheCenteronPhilanthropyatIndianaUniversity.Many individualswerehelpfulattheplanningstageforthisproject,includingDwightBurlingame, PaulDiMaggio,PeterDobkinHall,LeslieLenkowsky,JanetHuettner,KevinRobbins,Kathryn Steinberg,EugeneTempel,MaryTschirhart,BurtonWeisbrod,andJamesWood.Numerous individualscommentedondraftsofindividualchapters,includingAlanAbramson,Helmut Anheier,WolfgangBielefeld,JohnBoli,EvelynBrody,ArthurBrooks,EleanorBrown,Jeffrey Brudney,DwightBurlingame,MarkChaves,JeannetteColyvas,TomDavis,BenjaminDeufel, MarionFremont-Smith,PhilipGrossman,DavidHammack,ZekeHasenfeld,RobertHerman, JeromeHimmelstein,AlanHough,HokyuHwang,EstelleJames,StanKatz,SheilaKennedy, DanKessler,JenniferKuan,LeslieLenkowsky,TamiMark,KathleenMcCarthy,Deborah Minkoff,AdilNadjam,ColleenO’Neal,KelleyPorter,AnnePreston,NancyRobertson,Patrick Rooney,KerstinSahlin-Andersson,AdrianSargeant,MarcSchneiberg,MarkDavidson Schuster,StevenSchwartz,W.RichardScott,ErikShokkaert,DavidHortonSmith,David Suarez,AndrewWalsh,NatalieWebb,BurtonWeisbrod,MarkWilhelm,DennisYoung,and MayerZald.TheeditorsthankTanyaChamberlainandNatalieHarveyforsecretarialassistance.

Introduction

RICHARDSTEINBERG WALTERW.POWELL

Anysocietyhasamultiplicityoftasksandan accompanyingvarietyofwaystoaccomplish them.Sometasksareundertakenbyindividuals,othersbyorganizations,formalandinformal.Organizationsaremultidimensional,and thesedimensionsvarywidelyfromorganizationtoorganization.Thisvolumefocusesononesuchdimension,the structureofownership,andonekindofentity,thenonprofit organization.Thechaptershereinassesswhichtasksareundertakenbynonprofitorganizations,eitheraloneorincombinationwithorcompetitionwithotherkindsofentities,and explorethereasonsforthesepatterns.Theauthorsanalyze thecommonelementslinkingadvocacy,charitableassistance,highereducation,healthcare,artsperformances,residentialnursingcare,andreligiousceremonies,allofwhich areoftenprovidedbynonprofitorganizations.Theyalsoexaminepatternsofconvergenceordifferentiationwhennonprofitscompetewiththeothersectors.Finally,theauthors assesswhethernonprofitorganizationsshouldreceivespecialregulatoryprivilegesandtaxbreaksorwhethervirtue shouldserveasitsownreward.

Thisvolumemakestheconstructiveargumentthat,despiteconsiderablediversityandsometimesfuzzyboundaries,nonprofitstudiesisacoherentandvaluablelineof scholarlyinquiry.Tosustainthisargument,wefirstneedto defineourterms.

SCOPE

Nonprofitorganizationsareubiquitous.Manypeopleareborn inanonprofithospital,attendanonprofituniversity,send theirchildrentoanonprofitday-carecenter,worshipata nonprofitreligiousinstitution,watchtheperformancesof nonprofitsymphoniesanddancecompanies,visittheirparentsinanonprofitnursinghome,andfacetheendoftheir lifeinanonprofithospice.Someneedtheservicesofnon-

profitjob-trainingorganizations,soupkitchens,familycounseling,andhousingassistanceagencies.Peoplehopethat nonprofithealth-researchassociationswillfindcuresand treatmentsfortheailstheystudy,thatnonprofitthinktanks andadvocacygroupswillfosterabettersociety,andthatinternationalnongovernmentalorganizationswillpromotethe spreadofhumanrightsandeconomicdevelopment.Wefear thatsomenonprofitswilldivideusintowarringfactions, thattaxbreakswillbewastedonlargelyunaccountableand antidemocraticorganizations,orthatthewrongsidewill wintheadvocacywars.Whatfactorsdefinethisdiversecollectionoforganizationsandcauses?

FollowingHansmann(1980),wedefinea nonprofitorganization asonethatisprecluded,byexternalregulationor itsowngovernancestructure,fromdistributingitsfinancial surplustothosewhocontroltheuseoforganizationalassets. Nonprofitboardshavesomeownershiprights,suchasthe righttodirecttheuseofresources,butnotothers,suchas therightstoprofitfromthatuseofresourcesandtosell theserightstoothersforaprofit(Ben-NerandJones1995). Otherdefinitionsareavailable,ofcourse,andweconsider themlater,butthisdefinitionhasthevirtueofbeingembodiedinthenonprofitcorporationstatutesofallfiftystatesin theUnitedStates.SalamonandAnheierhavealsofoundthe conceptofnondistributionusefulintheireffortstodefinea setofinstitutionscross-nationally(1992;alsoAnheierand Salamon,thisvolume).Nondistributionhastheadditional virtueofdefiningthingsintermsofwhattheyareratherthan whattheyarenot(Lohmann1989),evenifthelabel nonprofit doesnotimmediatelybringthenondistributiondefinitiontomind.Finally,Hansmann’sdefinitionhasthevirtue ofdefininganorganizationaltypebyitsstructureofcontrol rightsratherthanbyapossiblyinaccurateself-statementof purpose.

Next,wedefinethe nonprofitsector asthecollectionof privateentitiesdefinedasnonprofit.Hall(thisvolume)ar-

guesthattheshiftinfocusfrom“what voluntaryassociations,charitabletrusts,eleemosynarycorporations,cooperatives,religiousbodies,andothernonproprietaryentitiesand activitiesdid”to“ownershipformastheframeworkforenquiry”isamoderndeﬁnitionthatsomescholarshavecriticized.Weshallreturntothequestionofwhetherthisfocus isindeeduseful.

Inmostchapters,thenonprofitsectorisclearlydistinguishedfromfor-profitandgovernmentsectors. For-profit firms providefullownershiprights—thatis,therightstodirect,profitfrom,andsellownership—tothoseincontrol oforganizationalassets.Indemocraticregimes, government agencies areownedbyanelectorateanditschosenrepresentatives.Weisbrod(1988)notesthatmostgovernmentsrestricttheirofficeholdersfromreceivingdistributionsofbudgetarysurplus,soheregardsgovernmentagenciesaspublic nonprofits.If,instead,weregardtheelectorateastheultimateownersofgovernmentassets,profitdistributiondoes occur.Eitherway,governmentisdistinguishedbyitsmonopolyonlegitimatecoercivepowerandtherulesandproceduresthatarenecessarysothatthispowerisseenaslegitimateandappropriate(Clemens,thisvolume).

Mostleadingtheoriesoftheroleofthenonprofitsector adoptthisconceptofatrichotomyofsectors—nonprofit, for-profit,andgovernment.Eachsectorrespondstofailures todelivertheappropriatequantityorqualityofservicesorto makethoseservicesavailabletoappropriateconstituencies. Thiscollectionoftheorieshasbecomeknownas three-failurestheory (detailedinSteinberg,thisvolume).For-profits aregoodatmeetingconsumerneedswhentwoconditions aremet.First,consumersmustbewellinformedaboutthe qualityandquantityoftheirpurchase,oratleastprotected fromanymisperceptionsbyregulation,reputation,andwarranties.Second,purchasesmustbeindividually,ratherthan collectively,consumed.Violationofthefirstconditionis knownas contractfailure (Hansmann1980),andwhenthis occurs,nonprofitsarelikelytobemoretrustworthybecause theprofit-distributionmotiveisremoved.Violationsofthe secondconditionareoftenusedtojustifygovernmentexpenditures,butsuchexpendituresmustaccordwiththemajoritywishesoftheelectorate.Theminoritydesiringthat morebespentoncollectivelyconsumedservicesorwantingtheseservicesprovidedinadifferentway(say,withareligiousfocus)viewgovernment’sattentiontothemajority asasourceof governmentfailure and,inresponse,may choose to support nonprofits with their donations (Weisbrod 1975).Asaresult,nonprofitssufferfromphilanthropicinsufficiency,amateurism,paternalism,andparticularism,the chiefformsof voluntaryfailure. Governmentagenciesand for-profitfirmsprovidegoodsandservicesthatarepoorly providedbynonprofits,andthiscompletesthecircleof three-failuretheory(Salamon1987).

Nonproﬁtsarefurthercategorizedinvariousways,one ofwhichisrelevanthere. Charitableorganizations (incommonusage,notthelegalsense)areorganizationsconcerned withhelpingthoseinneedoffood,shelter,andothernecessitiesoflife.Inthelegalsense,charitableorganizationsin-

cludethoseorganizationsthathelptheneedybutalsoincludechurches,schools,hospitals,andsocialserviceorganizations,whichgenerallybenefitanindefiniteclassofindividuals.Theyaredistinguishedfrom mutualbenefit organizations, suchaslaborunions,tradeassociations,and socialclubs,whicharealsononprofitbutbenefitaspecific classofmembers.Charitableorganizationsaretreatedmore favorablyundertaxandregulatorylaws,sothatfavored churchesarecountedascharitableeventhoughtheyusually havemembersthatbenefitfromreligiousservices.Most chaptersinthisbookconcerncharitableorganizations(in thelegalsense),butTschirhart’schapterexaminesmutual benefitorganizations.

THEBOUNDARIESOFTHESECTOR

Threeproblemsoccurwhenwedefineourfieldintermsof nondistribution(see,forexample,BilodeauandSteinberg 2006).Thefirstisthechallengeofconstructinganoperationaldefinitionofprofitdistribution.Questionsarisewith respecttowhoisacontrollingparty,whatisadistributionof profit(ratherthanapaymenttoaresourcesupplier),and whatisexcessiveexecutivecompensation.Therearealsoissuesrelatingtowhenself-dealing(purchasesfromcompaniesownedbynonprofitboardmembers)isimpermissible andhownonprofitassetscanbelawfullyusedbyfor-profit entities(eitherwhenthenonprofitconvertsitsstatusorwhen itentersintojointventureslikethosebetweennonprofituniversitiesandbiotechnologyfirms).Thewayinwhichthese questionsareansweredcanhavepowerfuleffectsonthedistinctiverolesandbehaviorsofnonprofitorganizations.

Second,theboundariesofmanyorganizationsareunclear.Coase(1937)definedtheboundaryofafirmasthedivisionbetweeninternalnonmarkettransactionsandexternal markettransactions.Thisdefinitionworkswellforfor-profit firms;however,nonprofitsoftenprovideservicestoclients forfree,anonmarkettransactionwithagentsthatareclearly outsidetheorganizationalboundary.Inaddition,whennonprofitsaremembersofafor-profitshellcorporation,possess for-profitsubsidiaries,orparticipateinjointventureswith for-profitfirms,itcanbeextremelyhardtoisolatethenondistributingpartsandensuretheyfunctionasanindependent entity.

Athirdchallengeinsomecasesisdistinguishingprivate nonprofitorganizationsfrompublicgovernmentagencies. Whatconstitutesseparationfromgovernment,especiallyin caseswhereanorganizationreceivesnearlyallitsresources frompurchase-of-servicecontractswiththegovernment?Is ithiringandfiringpower,orthefreedomtodecideobjectivesandmethodsofimplementation?Whendoespublic regulationamounttoatakingofnonprofitproperty?The formaldividinglinewasquitevagueandfluidearlierinthe historyoftheUnitedStates(Hall1987),andtherapidgrowth ofexclusivelygovernment-fundedsocialserviceagencies inthe1960smadetheproblemmoreevident(Smithand Lipsky1993).

Thisbookismostlyaboutthenonproﬁtsector,butsome

chaptersconcernphilanthropy,orthevolunteeringoftime, money,andproperty.Mostdonationstoformalorganizationsaregiventononprofits,buttheothertwosectorsalso benefitfromdonationsandvolunteeringandsomephilanthropyisgivendirectlytoindividuals(Havens,O’Herlihy, andSchervish;Leete;boththisvolume).Further,manynonprofitsreceivethebulkoftheirrevenuesfromcommercial salesandcontracts,benefitingfromlittleornophilanthropy (BorisandSteuerle;AnheierandSalamon;boththisvolume).Theconceptsofnonprofitandphilanthropicoverlap onlyinpart,butthatoverlapseemssufficienttowarrantthe attentionwehavepaidtophilanthropyinthisvolume.

Tothispoint,wehavedefinedphilanthropylooselyas consistingofgiftsoftime,money,orproperty.Whenwe lookatthecategorymoreclosely,weseethatliketheboundariesofthenonprofitsector,theboundariesofphilanthropy arealsoblurry.Writershavedefined philanthropy as“voluntaryactionforthepublicgood”(Payton1984)or“loveto mankind;practicalbenevolencetowardsmeningeneral;the dispositionoractiveefforttopromotethehappinessand well-beingofone’sfellow-men”(OxfordEnglishDictionary 1989).Somedefinitionsofphilanthropyincludeboththe actandtheinstitutionsthatfacilitatethatact (philanthropies), butherewefocusonthefirstmeaning.

Thereis,ofcourse,thedifﬁcultyofdividingphilanthropyfrom misanthropy, orvoluntaryaction against the publicgood.Thischallengeisparticularlytrueforgiftssupportingadvocacy,wherevoluntaryactionsupportscauses thattheoppositionviewsasagainstthepublicgood.Atvarioustimesandplaces,giftstoreligiousdenominations,laborunions,privatefoundations,andsocialmovementshave beendeclared,bygovernmentalauthorities,tobeagainstthe publicgood.Thelivelydebateoverthisdividingline,however,makesvoluntaryaction,thoughtbymanyparticipants tobeforthepublicgood,intoanelementforscholarlyinquiry.

Todefinephilanthropyaspeople,actions,andinstitutionsdoingwhattheythinkisgoodforothersistooall-encompassing,however.Inanuanceddiscussionofthemeaningofphilanthropy,VanTilasks,“Doestheconceptinclude allthoughts,words,anddeedsthatinvolvetheloveoffellow humans(thefirstdictionarydefinition)?Orshoulditberestrictedtothetransferoffundsfromonesuchbeingtoanother(whichraisesthequestionofitsdistinctionfromcharity)?Andifthelatter,shoulditthenbefurtherrestrictedto suchtransfersasaremediatedbyformalinstitutions(those weearliersawidentifiedby Webster’s as‘philanthropies’)?” (1990:21).Mostchaptersinthisvolumeemploythemore restrictivedefinition,includingdonationsandvolunteering directedtoformalorganizations.

MULTIPLEDEFINITIONSANDCATEGORIZATIONS

Therearemanywaystodividetheworldintocategoriesand manylabelsattachedtothesecategories.Ourfocusison nonproﬁtorganizationsandphilanthropy,butavarietyofalternativenomenclaturesarefoundintheliteratureandmay

confusesomereaders.Therefore,weprovideacatalogof commonlyusedtermsinordertodistinguishthesynonyms fromthealternativepartitions.Considerfirstthevarietyof labelsattachedtothebroadterrainofnonprofitorganizations.Asnoted,nonprofit(ornot-for-profit)organizations aredefinedbythestructureofownership. Nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs)havevariousdefinitions,butitis commontodefinethemsimilarlytoprivatenonprofitorganizations(Boli,thisvolume).Likewise,theterm thirdsector isoftenusedsynonymouslywithnonprofits,voluntarysectororganizations,orothertermsdefinedbelow.TheInternationalSocietyforThird-SectorResearch(ISTR)definesits termsimplicitly,listingitsmissionas“promotingresearch andeducationinthefieldsofcivilsociety,philanthropy,and thenonprofitsector”(http://www.istr.org/about).Thisdefinitioncombinesanalysisoforganizationsandindividualsin awaysimilartothisvolume.

Voluntaryorganizations arethosethatreceivesubstantial contributionsoftime(volunteering),below-costgoodsor services,ormoney.Asnotedearlier,manynonprofitorganizationsreceivelittleornodonationsandsomefor-profit organizationsandgovernmentagenciesreceivesubstantial contributionsoftimeandmoney.Nevertheless,somewriters regardthevoluntarysectorassynonymouswiththenonprofitsector,whileothersrestrictthetermtothefirstdefinition,resultinginsomeconfusion.

Independentsectororganizations arethosecategorized undertheU.S.InternalRevenueCodeassection501(c)(3) or501(c)(4)organizations,consistingofallcharitable(in thelegalsense)andsomemutualbenefitnonprofits.Asdetailedlaterinthisbook,independentsectororganizations arehardlyfinanciallyindependent,andnominallyindependentorganizationsaredependentonthestate(andvice versa)inavarietyofways(BorisandSteuerle;Smithand Grønbjerg;boththisvolume). Tax-exemptentities include varioussortsofprofit-distributingandnondistributingorganizationsthatareexemptfromtheU.S.FederalCorporate IncomeTax(Simon,Dale,andChisolm,thisvolume).

Nonmarketinstitutions includegovernmentagencies,nonprofitorganizations,consumercooperatives,socialclubs,unincorporatedassociations,andthelike.Thiscategoryisthe organizingprincipleadoptedbythePublicChoiceSociety. Incontrast,theInternationalCentreofResearchandInformationonthePublicandCooperativeEconomy(CIRIEC)is dedicatedtothestudyofthe“public,social,andcooperative economy.”The socialeconomy includes“privatecompanies that...providegoods,services,insuranceorfinance,in whichthedistributionofsurplusesandthedecision-making processesarenotdirectlylinkedtothesharecapitalofeach member”aswellas“thoseeconomicagentswhosemain functionistoproduceservicesnotintendedforsale,forparticulargroupsofhouseholds,financedbythevoluntarycontributionsoffamilies”(BareaTejeiro1990:400).Thisconceptincludescooperatives,mutuals,creditunions,labormanagedfirms,andassociations,someofwhichdistribute theirprofitsaccordingtodemocraticdecision-makingprocesses.

Ben-Ner(1986)distinguishesorganizationsthatarecontrolledbypatron-ordemand-sidestakeholders(nonproﬁts andconsumercooperatives)fromthosethatarecontrolled bysupply-side-stakeholders(ﬁrmsandproducercooperatives),thekeydistinctionbeingwhetherthesupplierofresourcesconsumestheresultingservices.

Severalconceptsrelatetophilanthropyandphilanthropic acts.Schervishbroadensthetopictoincludethe economy ofcaring: “[A]broaddefinitionofphilanthropy ...encompassesallthoseactivitiesofgivingandvolunteeringby whichanindividualrespondsdirectlytothosemoralsignals thatcommunicateneed.Excludedwouldbethosesocialrelationshipsinwhichanindividualrespondstothematerial mediumofneedsvoicedthroughdollars(asinthecommercialsphere)orthroughcampaigncontributionsandvotes(as inthepoliticalsphere)....[Thisdefinitionincludes]certain formsofintra-familytransfersoftimeandmoney,giftsof moneytoindividuals,politicalcontributionsoftimeand money,andvariousbusinessexpendituresdesignedtoprovidebenefitstoemployeesandcustomersthatexceedmarketstandards”(1993:224).Tothislist,onemightadddonationsofblood,organs,andgenomicmaterials.

Frompsychology,wehavethestudyof pro-socialbehavior, definedbyEisenbergandMussenas“voluntaryactions intendedtobenefitothers”regardlessofthemotivebehind thoseactions.Thisincludes altruism, definedas“voluntary actionsintendedtobenefitothersthatareintrinsicallymotivated,”asasubsetofpro-socialbehavior,whereintrinsic motivationsincludeconcernandsympathyforothers (1989:3).

Fromanthropology,wehavethe giftrelationship, deﬁnedbycontrasttocommodityexchange.O’Nealexplains, “Asanthropologistsnowunderstand,thegiftentailsathreefoldobligationtogive,receiveandrepay,andtheexchange ofgiftsestablishesrelationsamonggiver,receiverandgift. Thegiftiscomprisedofobjects,servicesandsymbolicemblemsthatincludegoods,property,money,work,persons, food,hospitality,names,titles,andothersignsofhonorand status”(2002:3)Anthropologistsconceiveofgiftsinafashionthatdoesnotneatlycorrespondtoideasofphilanthropy, giving,andvolunteering.Thegiftisdeﬁnedintermsofsystemsofobligationratherthan“voluntaryactionforthepublicgood”or“activeefforttopromotethehappinessand well-beingofone’sfellow-men,”andgift-givingcaneven beanactofhostility,designedtobankruptordishonorthe recipientwhocannotreciprocate.Theanthropologicalperspectivefostersabetterunderstandingofsomeofthepossibledarkersidesofphilanthropy.

Fourconceptscutacrossthedividinglinesofindividuals andorganizations:socialcapital,civilsociety,voluntaryaction,andthecommons.Theconceptofsocialcapitalentered contemporarysocialsciencediscoursewithcontributionsby Loury(1977),Bourdieu(1980),andColeman(1988).These writersdeﬁnedsocialcapitalasaresourceforindividuals stemmingfromfamilyrelationsandcommunitysocialorganization.Morerecently,somewriters,suchasPutnam, deﬁnesocialcapitalintermsofthenetworksthemselves:

“Whereasphysicalcapitalreferstophysicalobjectsandhumancapitalreferstopropertiesofindividuals,socialcapital referstoconnectionsamongindividuals—socialnetworks andthenormsofreciprocityandtrustworthinessthatarise fromthem”(2000:19).

Theconceptof civilsociety hasbeenaroundsince Hobbes(1651),andafterlongneglecthasreenteredtheliterature.Edwardsdiscussesthemultiplicityofcommondeﬁnitions,elaboratingonthemostrelevant:“Civilsocietyhas becomeanotoriouslyslipperyconcept....[Onepartof theliterature]seescivilsocietyasapartofsocietydistinct fromstatesandmarkets,formedforthepurposesofadvancingcommoninterestsandfacilitatingcollectiveaction.Most commonlyreferredtoasthe‘thirdsector,’civilsocietyin thissensecontainsallassociationsandnetworksbetween thefamilyandthestate,exceptﬁrms”(2004:vi–viii).

Voluntaryaction wastheoriginaldefiningconceptfor theAssociationforResearchonVoluntaryActionandNonprofitOrganizations(ARNOVA;formerlytheAssociation ofVoluntaryActionScholars,orAVAS).ARNOVAdefined voluntaryactionas“allkindsofnoncoercedhumanbehavior,collectiveorindividual,thatisengagedinbecauseof acommitmenttovaluesotherthandirect,immediateremuneration.Thus,voluntaryactionincludes ...a focus onvoluntaryassociation,socialmovements,causegroups, voluntarism,interestgroups,pluralism,citizenparticipation, consumergroups,participatorydemocracy,volunteering,altruism,helpingbehavior,philanthropy,socialclubs,leisure behavior,politicalparticipation,religioussects,etc.”(JournalofVoluntaryActionResearch 1985,insidecover).

Lohmannobjectstodefiningthesectorintermsofwhat itisnot.Instead,hepresentsthe commons, which denote “theeconomicdimensionsofalargeanddiversesetofvoluntarycollectiveactionbyserviceclubs;artistic,scientific, andamateurathleticsocieties;socialandpoliticalmovements;religiousandphilosophicalgroups;andothergroups thatformthecoreofthevoluntarysector”(1989:373).The definitionhasevolved,sothatDartreferstothecommonsas “anorganizationalspacecontainingactivityfocusedonprosocialbehaviors,mutuality,voluntarylabor,andtheproductionofcollectivegoods”(2004:292).

ORGANIZATIONOFTHEBOOK

Thechaptersareorganizedaroundsixthemes.Thefirstpart discussesthehistoryandscopeofthenonprofitsector.The nextpartconsidersnonprofitsandthemarketplace,includingthemanyandvariedwaysinwhichnonprofitsengagein economicproduction,participateinvariousoutputandinput markets,andcompeteorcollaboratewithfor-profitfirms. Thethirdpartconsidersnonprofitsandthepolity.Theauthorsconsiderpoliticaltheoriesofnonprofitorganization andissuesofcompetition,collaboration,andopposition betweenstateandprivatenonprofitorganizations.Wealso includeinthissectionthetaxtreatmentofnonprofitsand donors,governmentregulationofnonprofits,andthegovernanceroleoftransnationalnongovernmentalorganizations.

Thefourthandlargestpartfocusesonthosedomainsof modernlifewherenonprofitsplayasignificantroleinprovidinggoodsandservices.Thesechapterscoverfoundations,healthcare,socialservices,thearts,highereducation, religion,andurbancommunityorganizations.Thefifthpart examinesparticipationinthenonprofitsectorandassesses factorsthatexplaintheextentandnatureofengagementin thesector.Thesechaptersdiscussmembershipassociations, patternsofgiving,andmotivesforgiving.Theconcluding partcontainsthreechaptersonthethemesofmissionand governance.

HistoryandScopeoftheNonproﬁtSector

Thefirstchapter,byKevinRobbins,assemblesthevarious threadsofthephilanthropictraditioninWesternhistoryand illustrateshowthesediversestrandshavebecomeintertwined.Hefirsttracespatternsofspiritual,social,andmoral imperativesbehindphilanthropy.Second,hefollowsthe evolutionofcharitablepurposesandusestowardtoday’sfocusonthegeneralqualityoflifeandonthemisfortunate, marginalized,anddisfranchised.Hethenconsidersthehistoryofregulationofphilanthropy.Finally,heportraysthe beginningsofthescientificphilanthropymovement,with itsemphasisonefficientinstitutionsandmanagerialpractices.HefindsevidenceonthesethemesfromancientJewish,Greek,Roman,earlyChristian,Byzantine,latemedievalandearlymodern,andmodernEuropeancultures.

Inchapter2,PeterDobkinHallarguesthattoday’snonprofitsectoristheresultofthefederaltaxcode,which,in the1950s,organizedthecomplexdomainofeleemosynary corporations,charitabletrusts,andmutualbenefitassociationsintoonesectionofthecode.Hesurveystheevolutionoftheseorganizationsandactivitiesfromcolonialtimes tothepresent,tracingtheoriginsoftheprivatesector,the differentiationofcharitableandnoncharitablecorporations, theevolutionofphilanthropicgivingandvolunteering,and thepartnershipbetweengovernmentandnonprofitenterprisefollowingtheexpansionofthewelfarestate.Hall’saccountcoverstheroleofnonprofitsandtheirpredecessors inAmericanreligiouslife,industrialization,socialmovements,andpoliticalreform,portrayingthecapacityofthese institutionstofacilitatebothgrassrootsempowerment(asin thecivilrightsmovement)andelitehegemony(asintherecentconservativerevolution).

Therearemanymythsaboutthenonprofitsectorinthe UnitedStatesthatcanonlybeansweredwiththedatasummarizedbyElizabethBorisandEugeneSteuerle.Contrary topopularopinion,mostnonprofitorganizationsarenot concernedwithhelpingtheneedy.Inaddition,donations andvolunteerlaborprovideonlyasmallshareofnonprofit resources.About85percentofthesedonationscomefrom livingindividualdonorsratherthancorporations,foundations,andcharitablebequests.Wealsolearnthatnonprofit organizationsproduced4.2percentofgrossdomesticproductin2000,butbecauseofvolunteers,interactionswith government,andtheinfluenceofthesethingsoncivilsoci-

ety,thesector’simpactisfargreaterthanitsmeasuredproductionofgoodsandservices.Thequalityofdataonthe nonproﬁtsectorhasimprovedconsiderablysincethepublicationofthishandbook’sﬁrstedition,buttherearestillmajorgapsinourknowledgeofevensuchbasicstatisticsasthe numberoforganizations.

HelmutAnheierandLesterSalamontakeonthechallengingtopicoftheinternationalscopeofthenonprofitsector.Theyfindamarkedincreaseintheavailabilityofdata onthesizeandscopeofthesector;theyalsofindthatthe sectoritselfisgrowingrapidly.Correspondingly,thenonprofitsectorhasmovedtothecenterofmanypolicydebates aroundtheworld.Theauthors’priorresearchcontributed enormouslytothedevelopmentofaconsistentsetofcrossnationalstatistics;nevertheless,internationalcomparisons remainplaguedbydifferentdefinitions,varyinglegalstatus, anddiverseformsofrecordkeeping.Regardless,thepatternsthatareemerginghighlighttheinadequaciesofexistingtheoriesontheroleofnonprofitorganizationsandsuggestkeythemesforfuturetheorizing.

NonproﬁtsandtheMarketplace

RichardSteinbergdetailsthemostdevelopedtheoreticalapproachtononprofits,thethree-failurestheory,summarizing empiricalworkthattestsvariouspredictionsofthetheory. Thenhehighlightstwoshortcomingsoftheapproach:first, thelackofawell-integratedsupplysideand,second,theexcessivefocusoneconomicefficiencytotheexclusionofdistribution,thecultivationofconsumerpreferences,andthe expressiveandaffiliativefunctionsofmanynonprofitorganizations.Hethenoutlinesanapproachtoremedythese defects.Althoughlimitedprogresshasbeenmadetoward implementingthatapproach,severallinesofresearchare promising.Heconcludeswithillustrationsofhoweconomic theoriescancontributetothedesignofgoodpublicpolicies towardnonprofits.

EleanorBrownandAlSlivinskiexaminethemanymarketsthatnonprofitsparticipatein,competingorcollaboratingwithothernonprofits,for-profits,and(toalesserextent inthischapter)governmentagencies.Nonprofitsparticipate inoutputmarkets,wheretheirgoodsandservicesaresoldor givenaway,buttheyalsoparticipateinresourceandinput marketsforacquiringlabor,capital,andgrantsanddonations.Theauthorscarefullypointoutthewaysinwhichorganizationsthataremotivatedbyvariousmissionscompete differentlyfromthosemotivatedbyprofits,anddiscussempiricalevidencethatvalidatesthesedistinctions.

LauraLeeteprovidesacomprehensivepictureofthenatureofthenonproﬁtlaborforceintheUnitedStates,includingbothpaidworkersandvolunteers.Shesummarizes studiesthatcomparenonproﬁtworkerswiththoseinother sectorswithrespecttopay,executivecompensation,workingconditions,andcareermobility.Sheexaminesthechallengesofmanagingandmotivatingvolunteersandlooksat therelationshipbetweenvolunteerlaborandgiftsofmoney toseewhethertheysupplementorsubstituteforeachother.

Finally,sheconsidersseveralpolicyimplicationsofthese studies,includingthetaxtreatmentofdonationsofvolunteertime,employmentdiscriminationpolicy,andpolicies thatregulatethefamily-worktradeoff.

JosephGalaskiewiczandMichelleSinclairColemanofferaroadmaptothegrowingandhighlyvariedterrainof nonprofit-businesspartnerships.Thisterrainencompasses farmorethancorporatedonationstocharity,althoughthat subjectiswellcoveredinthechapter.Galaskiewiczand Colemanfindthatcorporatedonationscontinueevenduring recessionsandperiodsofmerger-maniaandthatcorporate motivesarequitecomplicated.Partnershipsalsoarisefor strategic,commercial,andpoliticalreasons,takingavariety offormsincludingproductdonations,cause-relatedmarketing,andjointventures.Collaborationacrosssectorsisnot easybecausefor-profitsandnonprofitshavesuchdifferent missionsandcultures.Eachpartnermustconsiderthecosts andbenefitsofcollaboration,includingfinancialbenefits butalsolegitimation,organizationallearning,theriskthat nonprofitswilllosesightoftheircoremission,theriskthat corporationswillalienatetheircustomers(orthatnonprofitswilllosetheirdonors)ifthepartnershipistaintedby controversy,andtheaddedcostandcomplexityofdecision making.

NonproﬁtsandthePolity

ElisabethClemenslooksatpoliticaltheoriesofnonprofitorganization.Nonprofitorganizationsandassociationsarepoliticalconstructions,buttheyoperateoutsidetheformalpoliticalsphere.Themarketmodelofdemocracyservesasa prominentpoliticaltheoryofnonprofits,butmanyothertheoriesofpoliticscolortheclaimswemakeaboutnonprofit organizationsandtheirroleincivilsociety.Clemensbegins bydiscussingthedisputedroleofnonprofitorganizations ingeneratinggreaterpoliticalparticipation.Next,shediscussesargumentsthatparticipationgeneratesincivilityand apathyandevaluateswhethernonprofit-engenderedparticipationistrulyhelpfultodemocraticprocesses.Sheconcludeswithadiscussionofthepoliticsofpartnershipbetweengovernmentagenciesandnonprofitorganizations.

StevenRathgebSmithandKirstenGrønbjergdiscussand analyzethemultifacetedandcomplexrelationshipsbetween nonprofitsandgovernments.Theybeginbydiscussingthe rolesofcollaborationinservicedeliveryandpolicyformation.Nexttheypresentthreemodelsofgovernment-nonprofitrelations.Thefirstapproach,demand/supply,isakin tothree-failurestheorybutalsoincorporatestransactions costs;SmithandGrønbjergprovidedifferentperspectives onthistheoryfromtheotherchaptersinthisvolume.Secondisthecivilsociety/socialmovementapproach,which focusesontheimpactofgovernmentandthenonprofitsectoroncivilsocietyaswellastheeffectofsocialmovements andnonprofitsongovernmentandpublicpolicy.Thethird, neo-institutionalistapproach,isexplicitlycomparative,focusingontheprofoundeffectsoninstitutionalstructuresand theprocessesbywhichsocialandorganizationalstructures

becomeinstitutionalized.Thethreeapproachesspanseveral disciplines,withtheﬁrstcloselylinkedtoeconomicmodels, thesecondtosociologicalandpoliticalmodels,andthethird tocross-disciplinaryapproachestolarge-scaleinstitutions.

EvelynBrodyexaminesthelegalfoundationofnonprofits,findingthatthelawisarelativelyweakforceconstrainingnonprofitoperations.Aslongasorganizationspursuecharitablepurposes,honordonorintent,andrefrain fromprivateinurement,nolawstelltheentityoritsmanagershowto“do”charity.Specifically,thelawendowsacharity’sboardwithfullgovernanceauthority,generallygrantingonlythestateattorneygeneralwithstandingtosuefor breachoffiduciaryduties.Thisautonomyissensible,Brody argues,becauseweprobablydonotwantthestatetorun charities,butitoftenleadstoinsufficientattentionbyboth nonprofitmanagersandcharityregulators.Withinthisbroad framework,Brodydiscussestherightofassociation,permissiblenonprofitpurposes,thechoiceoforganizational form,modificationofgiftrestrictions,fiduciaryduties,and mandatedpublicdisclosures.Sheconcludeswithabriefdiscussionofpeerandself-regulatoryeffortstoimprovecharitygovernanceandoperations.

Inourlongestchapter,JohnSimon,HarveyDale,and LauraChisolmofferacomprehensiveanalysisofthetax treatmentsofdonationsandnonprofitentities.Chiefjustice JohnMarshall,citingDanielWebster,isoftquotedforhis decisionin McCullochv.Maryland (1819):“Thatthepower totaxinvolvesthepowertodestroy... [is]nottobedenied.”Thus,theconditionsthatdeterminewhethernonprofit anddonoractivitiesareorarenottaxedhavepowerfuleffectsontheroleandhealthofthenonprofitsector.Theauthorsconsiderthewaysinwhichtaxpolicyintersectswith suchvitalissuesasfederal“subsidy”ofcharitiesanddonors,nonprofitpoliticalactivity,churchautonomy,nonprofit/for-profitjointventures,fiduciaryabuses,executive compensation,and“unfair”competitionwithfor-profit firms.Thedesignoftaxpoliciestowarddonorsandnonprofitorganizationshasbeenhamperedbyambiguousorabsentlegislativeintentandconflictingtheoriesoftheappropriatedefinitionoftaxableincome,theroleofnonprofit organizations,andtheuseoftaxpoliciestoobtainobjectives thatwecannot,orchoosenotto,regulateinmorestraightforwardways.Theauthorsorganizetheirdiscussionaround fourfunctionsoftaxpolicy:support,equity,regulation,and borderpatrol,andtherebyimposeorderonthiscomplexand fundamentalsetofissues.

CraigJenkinsnotesthetremendousgrowthinthenumberandscopeofnonprofitadvocacygroupsintheUnited States.Therearemanyreasonsforthisincrease,including themobilizationofpreviouslyexcludedandmarginalized groups,elitephilanthropy,andamorepermeablepolitical system.Hediscussesthefactorsthataccountforthesurvival andmaintenanceofnonprofitadvocacyorganizations.Finally,heconsidersevaluation:advocacycanbeevaluated assomethingthataffectstheformationofpoliciesorasan embeddedprocessfocusedonensuringbroadandinclusive access.Thenewnonprofitadvocateshavehadsuccessby

bothmeasures,butmajorinequitiesinpoliticalrepresentationandaccessremain.

JohnBoliprovidesacomprehensiveoverviewofthose voluntaryassociations,confederations,andcouncilsthat transcendnationalboundaries.Hechartsthegrowthofthese internationalnongovernmentalorganizations(INGOs)from aninitialspurtinthelatenineteenthcenturythroughaslowdownduringthetwoworldwarstoasharpacceleration thereafter.ThemostprominentINGOsaredevotedtosuch issuesashumanandwomen’srights,environmentalquality, development,anddisasterrelief,buttheseconstituteasmall proportionofthetotal.MostINGOsarelesserknownand foundintechnical,scientiﬁc,business,professional,and infrastructuredomains.MembershipinINGOsisgrowing mostquicklyamongthepoorerandmoreperipheralcountriesoftheworld.INGOsoperateintheabsenceofaworld government,havingrelationsandeffectsonnation-states, intergovernmentalorganizations,andtransnationalcorporations.

KeyActivitiesintheNonproﬁtSector

Foundationsarecriticalintermediariesinthenonprofitworld, offeringfinancialsupportandexpertise,whileexertingcontrolandguidance.KennethPrewittdiscussesthevarious waysofclassifyingfoundations:bylegalstatus,fundingpriorities,geographicscope,andchangestrategiespromoted. Hethensurveysalternativefundingstrategiesanddiscusses thehistoryoffoundationsinAmerica(and,morebriefly, Europe).Hisemphasisisontheroleofinstitutions—on whatfoundationsdobetterthanthestate,themarket,or otherkindsofnonprofitorganizations.

Healthcareisthemostresource-intensivedomainof nonprofitactivityintheUnitedStates;itisalsowheremany ofthelargestnonprofitsarelocated.Yetthisisnosecure bastionofnonprofitenterprise.Nonprofithospitals,nursing homes,mentalhealthcenters,healthinsurers,andhospices faceintensecompetitionfromfor-profitandinmanycases governmenthealthorganizations,challengingboththeirfinancialviabilityandpubliclegitimacy.MarkSchlesinger andBradfordGraysurveythisintersectoralcompetitionwith threekeyquestionsinmind.First,whatdifferencedoessectormake?Theauthorssurveyhundredsofstudiesonthe question,arguingthatinconsistentresultsacrossstudiesdo notreflectanabsenceofdifferences(assomescholarscontend).Rather,theextenttowhichnonprofitandfor-profit behaviordiffersdependsonthenatureoftheservice,the marketconditionsunderwhichorganizationsoperate,and theexternalconstraintsontheirbehavior.Second,whyare perceptionsofthenonprofitsectoramongboththepublic andacademicssooftenatvariancewiththesepatternsof performance?SchlesingerandGrayattributethesemisperceptionstoalimitedpublicunderstandingofownershipand anacademicliteraturethatisfragmentedacrossdisciplines. Third,whydononprofitmarketsharesvarysodramatically acrosshealthsubsectorsandovertime?Schlesingerand Graycontendthatthesepatternscanbebestunderstoodbya

life-cycletheoryofownershipinthecontextofchanging medicaltechnology.Theauthorsconcludebydiscussingthe policyrelevanceofthesestatisticalresultsandthecontributionofstudiesofhealth-careorganizationstononproﬁtstudiesmoregenerally.

Socialcarehaslongbeenacornerstoneofthenonproﬁt sector;beforegovernmentsprovidedsocialservices,charitablehospices,almshouses,churches,andcommunitiesofferedcaretotheneedyandindigent.Withthegrowthofthe modernstate,thepositionofnonproﬁtsindeliveringsocial carehasbecomemorecomplex.JeremyKendall,Martin Knapp,andJulienForderguideusthroughthisnewterritory,assessingtheroleofthesocialservicesectorinWesterndemocracies.Socialcareisdifferentfromothercharitablerealmsinpartbecausethequalityofongoingand personalrelationshipsbetweenthecaregiverandclientis suchaprominentdeterminantofthequalityofservice.In otherways,socialcareraisesthesamequestionscommon tomanytopicsinthissectionaboutcross-sectoraldifferencesinbehavioranddeterminantsofsectoralshares,and welearnwhatlightsocialcareorganizationscanshedon thesequestions.

Therealmoftheartscapturesthefullgamutofnonprofit enterprise,fromfamous,establishedmuseumsandtheirvast holdingsofculturaltreasurestoexperimentalorganizations pursuingavant-gardeexpressionsthatmayneverbecome partofculturalmemory.Thearts,broadlydefined,alsoincludeelementsofpopularandfolkculture,producedbyforprofitfirmsordisplayedingovernmentalmuseums.Paul DiMaggiosurveysthislandscape,fromestablishedorganizationstominimalistones,explainingwhynonprofitsare suchamajorpresenceinsomeactivitiesandwhymarket provisionismoresalientinothers.Healsoexploresthe effectofnonprofitownershiponorganizationalbehavior. Finally,heanalyzeshowtheartsandculturaldomains evolveinthefaceofdemographic,social,andtechnological change.

Manyofourreaderseitherstudyatorworkforaninstitutionofhighereducationandsomayfindthatthechapterby PatriciaGumportandStuartSnydmanspeakstotheircurrentexperiences.Highereducationprovidesanaturalexperimentwithwhichtotestthevarioustheoriesontheroles ofthesectors.TrendsintheUnitedStatesareparticularly evocative,asdifferencesinthefinance,mission,andgovernanceofpublicandprivateinstitutionsofhighereducation areblurredbyavarietyofforces.Competitionforresources hasledmanyprivateandpublicuniversitiestobehavelike commercialenterprises,andjointventureswithfor-profit firms(particularlyinthefieldofbiotechnology)havebecomeanimportantandcontroversialsourceofrevenue.Forprofitcollegesanduniversitieshaveenteredthemarketplace andaregrowingrapidly,providinganewchallengeforthe nonmarketmissionsofincumbents.Newhybridorganizationalformsareemergingthatchallengepresumeddistinctionsbetweenthesectors.

Themostactivenonproﬁtrealmwithregardtoindividual participationisreligion.WendyCadgeandRobertWuthnow

offeratourofthislandscape,notingitspowerfulhistorical rootsaswellasitsmanysurprising,contemporaryforms. Theliteraturesonreligionandnonproﬁtorganizationhave developedseparately,butscholarshaverecentlynotedthe connections.Thereisalonghistoryofsometimescontentious,sometimescooperative,sometimesindistinctrelations betweenreligiousinstitutionsandthestate.Mostrecently, thecontroversyovergovernmentfundingofexplicitlyreligioussocialserviceagenciesthrough“charitablechoice” programshasraisedconstitutionalissuesandtestedclaims regardingreligiousservicedelivery.

Thenonproﬁtsectoralsoappearsinsettingswhere marketshavefailedandthestatehasretreated,asevident indisadvantagedurbanareas.SarahDeschenes,Milbrey McLaughlin,andJenniferO’Donoghueconsidertheroleof neighborhoodorganizationsinthehealthydevelopmentof low-incomeurbanyouth.Neighborhood-basedcommunity organizationsoperatewhereschools,health-carefacilities, andsocialserviceagencieshavefailedandprovidethetools, attitudes,competencies,andconnectionsessentialtohealthy youthdevelopment.Neighborhoodorganizationsdonotjust supplementgovernment;theyprovideadifferentfocuson deinstitutionalizedmeans,individualizedproblemdeﬁnition,andprogressiveworkingrelationships.Theauthorsdiscussattributesofsuccessfulneighborhoodorganizations— organizationalstructure,funding,andinterorganizationalrelationships—thatenableorconstraintheireffectiveness.

WhoParticipatesintheNonproﬁtSectorandWhy?

Mostofourchaptersfocusonpublic-benefitnonprofits. MaryTschirhartsurveystheliteratureontherestofthenonprofitsector—thoseagenciesthatprovideservicestomembers,activeorpassive.Shenotesthatmanyoftheissuessurroundingmembershiporganizationsarecommontoall nonprofits,thenfocusesonfourissuesuniquetothis subsector.Firstshediscussesthevarioustaxonomiesappliedtothesubsector.Nextsheevaluatesclaimsaboutthe valueofassociation.Thenshesummarizesliteratureonthe determinantsofmemberentry,retention,andparticipation. Finally,sheanalyzesmembergovernance,organizational structures,andtrends.

Inthefirsteditionofthishandbook,ChristopherJencks (1987)described“WhoGivestoWhat?”Thistime,John Havens,MaryO’Herlihy,andPaulSchervishalsoask“how much”and“how.”Theydiscussgiftsfromlivingdonorsto nonprofitorganizations,charitablebequests,andseveralaspectsofinformalgivingtoindividualsoutsidethefamily.As intheearlierchapterbyJencks,theysummarizewhatis knownaboutamountsgivenbyvarioussocioeconomicand demographicgroupsandaboutthecompositionofrecipient nonprofits.Theyalsodiscussavarietyofinstitutionalforms, somenew,thatfacilitategiving,includingfamilyandprivate foundations,donor-advisedfunds,charitablegiftannuities, andcharitabletrusts.

Thenextchapter,byLiseVesterlund,summarizesmostly

economictheoriesonmotivationsforgiving.Shearguesthat byunderstandingdonormotivations,wecandesignbetter publicpoliciesandimprovenonprofitandcampaignmanagement.First,shelooksatempiricalstudiessummarizingdonorreactionstochangesintheirincomeandindonor costperdollarcontributed.Vesterlundarguesthatsuchstudieshelpinthedesignoftaxpolicytowarddonationsand inforecastingfuturedonations.Next,shesummarizesthe manytaxonomiesofmotivationthathavebeendeveloped, highlightingtheimportanceofanoverridingdistinctionbetweenmotivationskeyedontheprovisionofnonprofitoutputs (publicmotivations) andthosekeyedonpersonaland psychologicalbenefitstotheactofgiving (privatemotivations). Surprisingly,publiclymotivateddonors freeride, givingtoolittleandbenefitingfromthecontributionsofothers,whereasprivatelymotivateddonorssupplythesocially optimallevelofdonations.Shesummarizesevidenceonthe frequencyofvariousmotivationsasrevealedinstatistical studiesofnaturaldataandinlaboratorystudieswithhumansubjectsactingasdonors.Finally,shelooksatnewer andbroadertheoriesofgivingthatemphasizesocialnorms, networkinteractions,repeatedinteraction,informationrevelation,andalternativemechanismssuchasrafflesand matches.

MissionandGovernance

DebraMinkoffandWalterPowelllookathowthenonprofit missionisbesetwiththetwinpullsofdedicationtoagoal andtheopportunitiesandcontingenciesposedbytheenvironment,assessingtheforcesthatenableorganizationsto retainfidelitytotheirmissionoralteritinthefaceofexternalpressures.Theyoutlinedominantresponsesbyorganizationsinthefaceofchallengestotheirmission,andanalyze theorganizationalfactorsthatinfluencewhethernonprofits bendorbreakinresponsetowindsofchange.

Nonprofitassetsarecontrolledbyaboardofdirectors thatcannotpersonallyprofitfromtheirdecisions.Boardmembermotivationsmustthereforecomefromother sources,andthesemotivationsshapetheevolutionofnonprofitmissionandeffectiveness.FrancieOstrowerand MelissaStoneexaminenonprofitgovernance,findingthat boardsdefysweepinggeneralizations,thatcontextmatters,andthatthestudyofboardsshouldbeintegratedwith broaderstudiesofphilanthropy,nonprofitorganization,and civicparticipation.Theysurveythelegalcontextofregulatingboards,thendiscussthedeterminantsandconsequences ofboardcomposition,board-staffrelations,andboardroles andeffectiveness.Theyconcludewithamoredetaileddiscussionofnonprofitboardsinhealth-careindustries.

Inrecentyears,ahostofforcessuchasfundingcrises, declininggovernmentserviceprovision,newtechnologies, andmoreentrepreneurialmanagershavelednonproﬁtsto engageinactivitiesthatwouldhavenotbeenconsidered previously.HowardTuckmanandCyrilChangassess whetherthesevariedcommercialventuresenhanceordistort

nonprofitmission.Theybeginwithmotivationsforcommercializationandprovidealternativedefinitionsofthephenomenon.Undersomedefinitions,outsourcingisseenasa commercialactivity,bringingthesamerisksandrewardsas commercialventures.Theyfocusonthechiefasserteddisadvantageofcommercialactivity—missiondrift—butalso onwaysthatcommercialactivitycanbenefitmissionattainment.Thesefactorsareexaminedindetailinthecontextof threeexamples:distancelearning,technologytransfer,and businessincubators.

THEFIELDOFNONPROFITAND PHILANTHROPICSTUDIES

Thechaptersinthisvolumemakethecasethatprivatenondistributingorganizationsbehavedifferently,areorganized differently,andplayadifferentroleinsocietythandistributingorganizationsandgovernments.Therearecertainlyvast differencesamongthemanykindsofnonprofitssuchthat theymay,forsomepurposes,bestudiedseparately(asthey areingraduateprogramsrelatedtohealthcare,arts,orhigher educationadministrationandinschoolsofsocialwork).But commonthemesarisethroughoutthisbook,themesthatdefinethegrowthofacoherentfieldofstudy.

Nondistributionofprofitsaffectsthesourcesofrevenue, natureofpropertyrights,andconstraintsunderwhichorganizationsoperate.Becauseofthenondistributionconstraint, nondistributingorganizationsoftenreceivedonationswhile profit-distributingentitiesdonot.Publiclytradedprofitdistributingorganizationscansecurecapitalbysellingownershiprightsassharesofdividend-yieldingstock;nondistributingorganizationscannot,fordividendsconstitutea distributionofprofit.Thisaffectsnonprofitcapitalstructures butalsofreesnonprofitsfromtheconstrainingthreatoftakeoverbids.Thus,nonprofitscansafelybehaveinwaysnot opentodistributingentities,eitherbypursuingsociallybeneficialactivitiesnotrewardedbymarketsorbysquandering

resourcesthroughindolence,inattention,andincompetence. Nondistributingorganizationsaretreateddifferentlyunder ourtaxandregulatorylaws,amplifyingtheirtendenciesto departfromprofitmaximization.Finally,nonprofitentrepreneursandworkersdifferfromtheirfor-profitcounterpartsin motivation;self-selectingintothesectorsonthebasisofthe differingconstraintsandregulations.Thistooamplifiesthe differencesinbehavioracrossthesectors.

Whilethisvolumeconsciouslyexcludeschaptersonthe managementofnonprofitorganizations,nondistributionof profitsdoesaffectmostaspectsofmanagement(seealso Young2004).Financetheoriesappropriatetofor-profitorganizationsneedtoaccountforthedifferencesincapital structureresultingfromnondistributionandregulatorydifferences.Nonprofitsuccessisevaluatedintermsofmission, ratherthanasimplebottomline.Hence,rulesforcapital budgetingandbenchmarkingneedtobeadjusted.Nonprofitsreceiverestrictedandtemporarilyrestrictedfunds, andaccountingpracticesmustreflectthat.Nonprofitrevenuescomefromdonors,customers,andbondholders;consequently,stakeholderconflictsmustbemanagedcarefully. Nonprofitmarketingincludesfundraisingandsocialmarketingaswellasimpressionmanagement.Thelawsofnonprofitcorporationsandtrustsdivergeinmanyparticulars frombusinesslaw.Humanresourcemanagementnecessarilyincludesrecruitmentandretentionofvolunteers.Finally, althoughtheexpressed,orinstrumental,missionoftheorganizationisparamount,theexpressiveandaffiliativedimensionsofmanagementarealsocritical(Mason1996; Frumkin2002).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

TheauthorsthankDwightBurlingame,JeannetteColyvas, DeniseGammal,JulieHatcher,HokyuHwang,Leslie Lenkowsky,CarolineSimard,KathrynSteinberg,andDavid Suarezforcommentsonearlierdraftsofthisintroduction.

REFERENCES

BareaTejeiro,J.1990.“Conceptoyagentesdelaeconomíasocial.” RevistaCIRIEC-España 8:109–117.Astranslatedby J.L.MonzónCamposin“ContributionsoftheSocialEconomytotheGeneralInterest.” AnnalsofPublicandCooperativeEconomics 68(1997):397–408.

Ben-Ner,Avner.1986.“NonproﬁtOrganizations:WhyDo

TheyExistinMarketEconomies?”In TheEconomicsof NonproﬁtInstitutions:StudiesinStructureandPolicy, ed. SusanRose-Ackerman.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. Ben-Ner,Avner,andDerekJones.1995.“EmployeeParticipation,Ownership,andProductivity:ATheoreticalFramework.” IndustrialRelations 34(4):532–554.

Bilodeau,Marc,andRichardSteinberg.2006.“DonativeNonproﬁtOrganizations.”In HandbookoftheEconomicsof Giving,Altruism,andReciprocity, ed.J.Mercier-Ythierand S.C.Kolm.Amsterdam:Elsevier/North-Holland. Bourdieu,P.1980.“Lecapitalsocial:Notesprovisaires.” Actes delaRechercheenSciencesSociales 3:2–3. Coase,RonaldH.1937.“TheNatureoftheFirm.” Economica 4 (16):386–405.

Coleman,James.1988.“SocialCapitalintheCreationofHumanCapital.” AmericanJournalofSociology 94:S95–S121. Dart,Raymond.2004.“Being‘Business-Like’inaNonproﬁt Organization:AGroundedandInductiveTypology.” NonproﬁtandVoluntarySectorQuarterly 33:90–310. Edwards,Michael.2004. CivilSociety. Cambridge,UK:Polity. Eisenberg,Nancy,andPaulH.Mussen.1989. TheRootsof ProsocialBehaviorinChildren. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Frumkin,Peter.2002. OnBeingNonproﬁt. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.

Hall,PeterDobkin.1987.“AHistoricalOverviewofthePrivateNonproﬁtSector.”In TheNonproﬁtSector:AResearch Handbook, ed.WalterW.Powell.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

Hansmann,Henry.1980.“TheRoleofNonproﬁtEnterprise.” YaleLawJournal 89:835–901.

Hobbes,T.1651. Leviathan. Repr.,Oxford:Blackwell,1651. Jencks,Christopher.1987.“WhoGivestoWhat?”In TheNonproﬁtSector:AResearchHandbook, ed.WalterW.Powell. NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

Lohmann,RogerA.1989.“AndLettuceIsNonanimal:TowardsaPositiveEconomicsofVoluntaryAction.” Nonproﬁt andVoluntarySectorQuarterly 18:367–383.

Loury,Glenn.1977.“ADynamicTheoryofRacialIncomeDifferences.”In Women,Minorities,andEmploymentDiscrimination, ed.P.WallaceandA.LaMond.Lexington,MA: LexingtonBooks.

Mason,DavidE.1996. LeadingandManagingtheExpressive Dimension:HarnessingtheHiddenPowerSourceofthe NonproﬁtSector. SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

O’Neal,ColleenG.2002.“TowardaTheoryoftheModernGift (Or,Alternatively)Anthropology’sGiftandNonproﬁtSector Research”(unpublishedpaper,draftofFeb.25).

OxfordEnglishDictionary, 2nded.1989.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Payton,Robert.1984.“MajorChallengestoPhilanthropy.”PaperpresentedattheannualmeetingofIndependentSector, Washington,DC.

Putnam,RobertD.2000. BowlingAlone:TheCollapseand RevivalofAmericanCommunity. NewYork:Simonand Schuster.

Salamon,LesterM.1987.“OfMarketFailure,VoluntaryFailure,andThird-PartyGovernment:TowardsaTheoryof Government-NonproﬁtRelationsintheModernWelfare State.” JournalofVoluntaryActionResearch 16:29–49.

Salamon,LesterM.,andHelmutK.Anheier.1992.“InSearch oftheNonproﬁtSectorI:TheQuestionofDeﬁnitions.” Voluntas 3(2):125–151.

Schervish,PaulG.1993.“TheDependentVariableoftheIndependentSector:AResearchAgendaforImprovingthe DeﬁnitionandMeasurementofGivingandVolunteering.” Voluntas 4 (2):223–232.

Smith,StevenRathgeb,andMichaelLipsky.1993. Nonproﬁts forHire:TheWelfareStateintheAgeofContracting. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

VanTil,Jon.1990.“DeﬁningPhilanthropy.”In CriticalIssues inAmericanPhilanthropy, ed.JonVanTilandAssociates. SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Walzer,Michael.1991.“TheConceptofCivilSociety.” Dissent (Spring):393–404.

Weisbrod,BurtonA.1975.“TowardaTheoryoftheVoluntary NonproﬁtSectorinaThree-SectorEconomy.”In Altruism, Morality,andEconomicTheory, ed.EdmundS.Phelps.New York:RussellSageFoundation.

———.1988. TheNonproﬁtEconomy. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Young,DennisR.,ed.2004. EffectiveEconomicDecisionMakingbyNonproﬁtOrganizations. NewYork:TheFoundationCenter.

I HISTORYANDSCOPE OFTHENONPROFITSECTOR

TheNonproﬁtSectorin HistoricalPerspective: TraditionsofPhilanthropy intheWest

KEVINC.ROBBINS

Althoughitcanbeclaimedthattheformationof adistinctnonprofitsectorisacomparatively recentachievementinthepoliticaleconomyof modernWesternstates,theactors,values,and institutionsdrivingthatprocessforwardhave alongandneglectedhistory.Itisthepurposeofthischaptertosurveythathistoryselectively,interconnectingthose keyagentsofchangeovertimethathavecontributedto formingmajorpartsofthenonprofitsectorasitnowexists intheUnitedStatesandabroad.Thischapteralsoexplores howancientandinnovativeformsofWesternphilanthropy haveshapedandcontinuetoinformtheoperationsofcharitableorganizationswithinthemodernnonprofitsector.Few scholarshavesubjectedhistoricformsofphilanthropyto long-termcomparativeanalysis(Moreau-Christophe1851; Lallemand1906–1912).However,thehugearchivesthat charitableactorsandinstitutionscreatedandcarefullypreservedinthepastarenowattractingmoreandmoreattentionfromhistorians(Hall1988;Himmelfarb1991).These inquiriesarefueledbynewsetsofquestionshistoriansask thatlinkpastcharitablepracticestomodernphilanthropic movements.

Moderncharitablenonproﬁtorganizationsowetheirinceptionandcontinuedsupporttothepublic-spiritedgenerosityofphilanthropistswhofeelthatcontributionstothe commonwealtharespiritualormoralimperatives.Historianswanttoknowwhatarethedeeperreligiousandethicalwellspringsofthisbenevolentbehaviorovertime.In manyWesternanddevelopedcountries,largemajoritiesof thepopulation(upto70percent)makeregularcharitable

donations(Lane,Saxon-Harrold,andWeber1994).Signiﬁcantproportionsoftheseresidents(upto25percent)also volunteertheirtimeandenergytoserveothers.Whatkey forcesovertimeimpelledsuchlargenumbersofpeopleto behavesocharitably?

Philanthropicagenciesseektosustaintheintegrityof thecommunitiestheyservebyenhancementofthegeneral qualityoflifeandprovisionforthemisfortunate,marginalized,anddisenfranchised.Howdidcharitableactionsin thepastgainthisinclusiveandspecificallyciviccharacter aimedattheexpansionofcivilrights?Organizedcharitable activityisnowverylawful,carefullyregulatedbyfederal andstategovernments.Lawmakersregularlyworkinclose partnershipwithprivatephilanthropicentitiestoachievesocioeconomicorsocioculturalreforms,oftenacrossinternationalborders.HowdidpriorstatesoverthespanofWesterncivilizationpolice,discipline,anddirectthecharitable impulsesoftheircitizens?Withtheriseofthestateinthe West,howdidprivatephilanthropistsapplytheirdonations toservewhattheyperceivedtobethegreaterandchanging needsofthenation?Whobenefitedandwhosufferedfrom historicalterationsinthedirection,legalregulation,culling, andcontrolofphilanthropicresources?Finally,theadvent ofhighlyorganizedandprofessionalized,even“scientific,” philanthropyinthenineteenthcenturymakesitimperative toask:Whowerethehistoricproponentsofthistransformation?Whatweretheirmethods?What,ultimately,didthe highlyanalyticalmanagersofexpertphilanthropyachieve?

Inquestofanswersforsuchquestions,historiansare nowconstructingamore“environmental”ormultidimen-

sionalhistoryofphilanthropyinformedbyscholars’closer attentiontothemanyartifactsamassedbycharitableorganizationsandvoluntaryassociationsovertime.Vitalevidence comesfrominstitutionalarchivesstuffedwithcharity’srevealingpaperwork.Themanyartworksandpurposefully impressivebuildingscharitiesacquirednowgetmoreattention(Markus1993).Criticalwrittensourceshereinclude newlydiscoveredreligiousdocuments,primetothecanons ofseveralfaiths;variouslawcodesgoverningcharitableacts, foundations,andassociations;notarizedrecordsofgifts madeduringthelifetimeofdonors;andposthumousbenefactors’lastwillsandtestaments,survivingingreaternumbersfromtheMiddleEastandEuropeaftertheyear1000 ce.Theselawsandlegalrecords,analyzedquantitativelyin bulk,trackshiftingflowsofphilanthropiccapital.Suchrecoverablepatternsofpastbenefitsfurtherrevealthecharitablepreoccupationsandinvestmentsofindividualorcorporatedonors.Theymeasuredonors’fidelitytoreligiousand secularcodesofgiving(Robbins1997).

Thischapterdrawsuponthenewhistoryofphilanthropy. Attentivenesstopastconstructionsandperformancesof “philanthropy”yieldskeenerandmoredistinctmeaningsof thetermtocomparewithitscurrentconnotationsandpracticeinsidethenonproﬁtsector.Cognizantofthishistory, modernactorsandanalystsofthesectorcanbettermeasure bothitsloyaltytooldertraditionsofphilanthropyandits currentlydistinctivedimensions.

CHARITYASMORALIMPERATIVEIN ANCIENTJEWISHLIFE

Inaquesttouncoverthereligiousandethicalmotorsdriving privatephilanthropyinsupportofthenonproﬁtsector,ancientJudaismisanappropriateplacetostart.Semiticreligiouscodesunequivocallyassertedcharitableactiontobe indispensableinforgingJewishidentityanddivineworship. ThisprincipleresonatedthroughoutancientHebrewsociety, makingphilanthropyincumbentuponallbelievers.Jewish conceptionsofcharityendowedtheneedywithpotentrights toassistanceandmoldedHebrewconceptionsofcommunity,place,andtime.Religiousteacherscoordinatedargumentstodescribecharitysimultaneouslyasaduty,ahuman stewardshipofGod’sgifts,anempathybetweenrichand poorpromotingsocialpeace,andadistinctivetribalvirtue. Jewsrespondedwiththecreationandreﬁnementofenduringcommunalinstitutionsforcharitableaction.

Actsofbenevolence (gemiluthasadim) takeacentral placeinJewishconceptionsofthesacred,thejust,andthe godlycommunityalwaysenactingacovenantwiththedivine(Cassel1887;Frisch1924;Lehmann1897).Among thesesimultaneouslyhumanitarianandliturgicalgood deeds,theTalmudextols tsedaqah, almsorassistancetothe needy.ConnectedsemanticallyandspirituallywithHebrew expressionsofrighteousness,integrity,andjustice (tsedeq) forall,thecharitableimperativeinspirescomplementary virtues.Charityreinforcesthestructureofsocietywhilecompensatingfordisparitiesinwealthandpoweramongthe

socialranksinearlyJudeantemple-kingdoms(Sanders 1992).

Suchgenerosityacknowledgesone’smoralobligationto worshipagenerousGodthroughsharingwiththelessfortunatethosepersonalbenefitsHealoneconfers.Thefirstfive booksoftheBible,composingtheTorah,orPentateuch,and datablefrom900to600 bce,reiterateGod’seminentdomainoverallofcreation.Thesetextslimitthestatusof thepropertiedtothatofbeneficiaryandstewardofthe worldlygoodsultimatelydonatedbyJehovah(“fortheland ismine;foryouarestrangersandsojournerswithme,”Leviticus25:23).MosesrepeatedlydescribedGodasaspecial avengeroforphans,widows,andrefugees.Thesepraises entailIsraelitestorendermaterialandspiritualassistance promptlytothebereft(“Lovethestrangertherefore;foryou werestrangersinthelandofEgypt,”Deuteronomy10:19). JewishsagesruledthatthepoorofIsraelhadthestrictright toclaimsupportfromtheirneighbors,anentitlementtoaid theyderivedfromscripture(Hamel1990).Akeyobjective herewastouseindividualandthencommunalgiftstosustaintheJewishpoorwhilehelpingthemfindworkand achievefinancialindependence.

Judaism’sstarkequationofmisanthropywithfaithlessnessrequiresbelieverstobegivers(Loewenberg2001).Certainbenefactionsareincumbentuponthepious.Ritualsof givingorganizeancientJewishcalendarsandgivedeeper ethicalmeaningtotheflowoftime.Obligatorysharedmeals andceremonialgiftexchangesmarkthedaysofcelebration andatonementthatmeasurethelunaryear.Theseevents strengthenpersonalbondsofconvivialityanddeferenceto superiorgivers.Landownershadtoreserveuntouchedfield cornersforthegleaningsofthepooratthecloseofeach growingperiod.Triennially,Israel’stownspeopleandpeasantryraisedspecialtithesforthepoor.Thepooralsoreceivedalluntendedfieldproduceduringeveryseventh,or sabbatical,year,inwhichthelandlayfallow.Lawsofthe jubileeineveryseventhandfiftiethyearordained(butdid notcompel)cancellationsofloans,forgivenessofdebts,and themanumissionofJewishslaves.Rabbinicalcourts (battei din) enforcedprovisionofthesecyclicalaidsandcould compeltherecalcitranttoparticipate.Thefirstandsecond divisionsoftheMishnah,acomprehensivecodeofregulationsforJewishcommunitiescompiledbetween200 bce and200 ce,explaintheseliberalities(Danby1933;Klein 1979).Charityhereworksasanorderingprinciplethat makesentirecosmologies,chronologies,andbodiesoflaw moreintelligibletothelivingheirsofpastpatronsand protégés.

GenerationsofrabbisemphasizedpertinentBiblepassagessuchasDeuteronomy15:7–8:“Ifthereisamongyoua poorman,oneofyourbrethren...youshallnothardenyour heartorshutyourhandagainstyourpoorbrother,butyou shallopenyourhandtohim.”Therabbinateruledthat“open yourhand”entailedcharitableassistancefromrichtopoor beyondcustomarygleaningsandtithesfortheneedy.Only themorallyoblivioussawatestofpietyinthechoicetogive ornottogive.RealtestsofJewishpietyarefoundindonors’

effortstoprovidetherightreliefandtoservetheunfortunate efficientlyandwithoutshame.LessonsinthisregardfillTalmudicliteraturefrom200to600 ce (Prockter1991).Jewish teachersconsistentlyconstruedpromisestoactcharitablyas religiousvowsthatmustbegenerouslyfulfilled.Voluntary donorswhoactanonymously,whosucceedinorganizing othersinsystemsofmutualaid,andwhosewisegiftssave beneficiariesfromtotaldestitutiongethighpraiseinthisliterature.DiscretionarycharitypersistentlyinformsthehierarchyofallJewishvirtues,asthelaterethicalwritingsof Maimonidesattest(1135–1204 ce;Twersky1980).Charity isnotonlyavirtueinitself;itisthecrucialpracticeunderlyingothervirtuesoftheJews:piety,compassionforthe weak,loveofjustice,anddevotiontocommunalsurvival.

TohonorGod,succorthemselves,andbuildcommunitiesworthyofdivineprotection,Jewsprogressivelycreated institutionsofcharitableactionbetween100 bce and200 ce (Hamel1990;Loewenberg2001).AccordingtoLoewenberg,thesedevelopmentsmarkanearlytransitionfromindividualcharitytoconcertedactioninquestofsocialjustice. AsearlyastheSecondTempleera(536 bce–70 ce),Jews accommodatedcommunalcharitableactionwithinthesacredprecinctoftheJerusalemTemple.Secretchambersfor collectionanddistributionofcharityoccupiedapartofthe mostsacredsanctuary.Donorscouldleavetheirgiftssecretlyinoneroom.Beneﬁciariescollectedtheofferingsin asecondroomunseenbycontributorsandprotectedfrom shame.

Judeanpoliticalandeconomicupheavalsofthesecond century bce greatlyincreasedthenumbersofthepoor,migrant,fugitive,anddestitute.Jewishinstitutionsofrelief expandedatthistimetoincludecommunalsoupkitchens (tamhui) wheretravelerswereespeciallywelcome.Jews alsostartedcollectivecharityfunds (kuppah) providing weeklyassistancetotheresidentpoorfromcontributions madebylocalhouseholders.Materialartifactsfromthese organizations,includingengravedcollectionboxesand homelyeatingutensils,enrichthearchaeologicalrecordof Jewishphilanthropyfromlateantiquetoearlymodern times.TheTalmudadvisedneedyandwanderingscholarsto settleonlyinlocalitieswithanoperational kuppah. Thisindicatesthatthesereliefagencieshadbroader,salutarymaterialandculturalrepercussions.

Socially,theworthymenwhobecamecharityfundmanagers (gabbaitsedaqah) accumulatedintangiblestatusadvantagesforthemselvesandtheirkin.Thedaughtersand granddaughtersofanaccomplished gabbai mightmarryinto prestigiouspriestlyfamilieswithouttheclosescrutinyof pedigreenormallyimposedonsuchaspiringbrides.The overseer’smoralauthorityinfund-raisingwasbackedby Jewishlocalcourtsthatcouldcompelanindividual’sparticipationincommunalcharitycollections.Charitableservice herecouldlegitimateboththeauthorityofcommunityeldersandthestructuresofgovernmenttheyserved.

AttheturntotheCommonEra,rabbinicaljudgmentsenshrinedinJewishreligiouslaw (halakha) beganstipulating acceptablemateriallimitstocharitablebehavior,prescribing

nullificationstothejubileesundercertainconditions,and condoningdonors’scrutinyandselectionofrecipientsfor aid(Collins1905).Fieldcornerstobelefttogleaners,for example,weresetatone-sixtiethofthesurfaceareaofeach farmer’sholding.Tithesandcharitableactsaccomplished withinthesacredboundariesofJerusalemgainedgreateracclaim.TheroleofJewishcharityinsettinggradationsof socialrankandtheprotocolsofpriestlyofficeintensified. Morepunctiliousbutalsomoredebatablephilanthropicacts invigoratedJewishsectarianismantedatingtheriseofChristianity.Thesecontroversiescatalyzedbroaderdissentamong disaffectedJewsagainstestablishedpolitical,religious,and charitableinstitutions.JewishconvertstoearlyChristianity tookinspirationfromthesecomplaintsandembarkedon aquestfortheirown“truecharity.”Thusargumentsover properphilanthropysparkedrebellionandthegenesisofa newfaith.

GREEKCLASSICALFORMSOFPHILANTHROPY ANDTHENURTUREOFINCLUSIVECIVICIDEALS

ModernrevisionsofthehistoryofancientGreeceshowphilanthropyasaculturalphenomenonthatthoroughlyshaped thesociologyandpoliticsoffractiousciviccommunities (Morris1986).SinceweowedirectlytotheGreeksthevery term philanthropy asadesignationofexceptionalgenerosity,ﬁndingsfromGreekhistoryenabledeeperappreciation ofthepractice’smanyculturalandpower-politicalimplications(DeRuiter1932).FocusedonHelleniccitiesfrom 200 bce through200 ce,thenotedresearchoftheFrench historianPaulVeynepresentsthebehaviorofGreekcivic benefactorsasacuriousamalgamofvolition,duty,and constraint—a“predicament”inwhichtheholdersofgreat wealthwerecaught(Veyne1969,1976).Sincesuchnominally“private”wealthwasusuallyappreciatedasarealtrust inwhichallmembersoftheciviccommunityheldashare, thepropertiedhadtodistributetheirsurplusresourcesgenerously.Greekpatronswereexpectedtoembellishandglorifythecityasawhole.Failuretodosocouldantagonize rivalclans,politicalfactions,andtheentirecitizenry.OrdinaryGreektownsmenservedasjurorsincitycourtsandthis madewealthylitigantsespeciallywaryofangeringthem. Miserlyrichmencourtedpopularrebuke,legalfrustrations, andpublicdishonor.Withvaryingdegreesofenthusiasm, thepropertiedsponsoredmunicipalbuildingprojects,the upkeepofwarships,civicarsenals,templesdedicatedtothe gods,andvariousfestivalsincludingsuperbdramaticcompetitions(Francotte1905;Schmitt-Pantel1992).Enduring productionsandcelebrationsofGreekdramathusconstitute oneofthemostinﬂuentialtraditionsofcompulsivephilanthropyshapingthecultureofWesterncivilization.

Greekurbanitescalledsuchcivicbenefactionsorpublic servicesincumbentontherich“liturgies” (leitourgiai). They devisedofﬁcialprotocolsgoverningtheannualorcyclical acceptanceandproperexecutionofthesebenevolentduties (Lewis1960,1963).SomeGreektowncouncilsexpected wealthycitizenstotakeupasmanyas120liturgiesperyear.

Impressedbytheubiquityofsuchbenefactionsinclassical Greekcities,Veynehascoinedtheterm euergetism todescribesuchpervasiveemploymentofprivateliberalityfor publicbeneﬁt.

CompellingGreekphilosophicalpreceptsalsorequired greatmentomakeconstantperformancesofgenerosityto thecity.Thesegiftactsshowedanelite’sdeterminedprogresstowardthehumaneidealofself-betterment(Buchanan 1962).Competitivepatronsusedconspicuouscivicdonationstodisplaytheperfectionoftheirdistinctivelyliberal souls.Thepubliccametoexpectthisgenerosity—which evenincludedtheapplicationofprivatefortunestowarddefenseandothergovernmentoperations—fromtheselfimprovementeffortsofthewealthy.Thiswasnottheexerciseofnoblesseoblige(givingasaby-productofastatus achieved),butratheranindividualquestforanoblesoul throughactsofgenerosity.Thesedonationsalsoenabled cityfatherstodisplayanendearingsolicitudeforpublic welfare,earningthempopularsympathyuponwhichthey couldlaterdrawtoadvancethemselvesincivicaffairsorin lawsuitstriedbeforefavorablecitizenjuries(Davies1965; Rhodes1986).

Undereuergetism,theeliteviewedstinginessasnonexistenceandmisanthropyasignoblesuicide.Failuretogiveon thepartofthegreatwasentirelyuncivilized,warranting mockerybypeersandplebs.Consideringthealternatives, then,Greekphilanthropywaslessachoicethananimperativeforcivicbenefactors.Actsofincumbentliberalityenabledparagonsofgenerositytodisplaytheiraccumulating superiorityoverlessgiftedranksoftheurbanpopulation. Suchphilanthropyreinforcedthesocial,political,andculturalhierarchiesofantagonisticGreekciviccommunities.

Inhisdelineationofthecomplextypesandmotives ofgivingbynotableGreekurbanites,however,Veynecautiouslyassessesthesignificanceofthesesystemicliberalitiesinsustainingtheclassicalcities.Henotesthateuergetismoftenyieldedshort-livedpresentsthatwerenot essentialtotheeffectiveoperationofcoerciveHelleniccivic governments.ThusVeynerefusestoaccordthesepresents anyflatfunctionalstatusasmerelyprimitivemeansofexchange,taxation,redistribution,orpoliticallegitimization, reinforcingoligarchieswhiledisenfranchisingmostcitizens. Thesebenefitsdidnotoriginatewithina“sector”oftheclassicalworldnordidtheyoperateassomeexternalcorrective orfixtothe“system”ofantiquepoliticaleconomy.

AccordingtoVeyne,severalconjoiningfactorsproduced theuniqueandopportuneoutgrowthofHellenicphilanthropy.First,Greeksregardedprivatewealthasapublic trust.Second,rulingelitesviedforhonorviapersonaldonationstoembellishcivicadministration.Third,aspiringcitizensemulatedelitedonors’giftbehaviortogainstatusfor themselves.Fourth,ordinaryGreekcitizensassertedtheir traditionalentitlementtonotables’benefactions.Inreturn, plebeiansskillfullyoffereddeferencetothegenerouswhile humiliatingrecalcitrantdonors.Finally,insurmountablepopularanimustowardtaxationforcivicamenitiesmadetheir provisionincumbentuponwealthydonors.Euergetismwas

morethanjustextraneousoroccasional“breadandcircuses,”then;itbecametheessential“system”ofGreekcitystates.Thiswasavitalanddynamicphilanthropicmodusvivendi,peaceablyintegratingthevariousranksofurbanpopulationsthroughtheexchangeofgifts.Investigatingthecreativeforceofeuergetismshowshowiteffectedenduring moralandsocialcontractsbetweenpotentiallyantagonistic strataofurbanites.AsVeyneinsists,thismakesitessential toregardancientphilanthropy,itsinstitutions,anditsmaterialartifactsastheformativeelementsinahistoricalsociologyofpoliticalpluralism.

InancientAthens,greatprivatepatronsunderwrotethe city’sfamousregulardramafestivals.Theyviedtocommissionnewworksfromplaywrights.Otherpatronsfurnished trainedteamsofactorstoperformtheplaysbeforeaudiencesthatuniteddifferentranksofthecitizenry.Suchprestigiousliturgiesshowclassicalphilanthropy’spersistent powersofsymbolicandsyntheticrepresentation(Wilson 2000).Thesestageworksdrewlessonsfromthebehaviorof archetypicallygoodandbadcitizensinotherimaginarycities,blendingmultipleartformstotreatthecivicaudience withmemorableenactmentsofdidacticplaysandchoruses. Perfectedincostlyrehearsalssubsidizedbyprivatepatrons, theseedifying,oftentragicspectaclesletthrongingcrowds watchtheeffectsofgoodorderandterribledisorderunfoldinginﬁctionalcommunities.Audiencesjudgedeachplay, andthepatronsofthewinningproductiongottoerect(at personalexpense)beautifulmonumentscommemorating themselvesastriumphantphilanthropists.RegularcommissionsforsuchresplendentpublicmementosgaveGreek craftsmenspecialincentivestoproduceimpressiveoriginal works.Here,artisanssynthesizedandrecombinedinnovel waysdecorativeelementsfromotherbuildingtypes.The granddramapatron’simposingoutdoortrophybecameone ofthemoststylisticallyinnovativeandexpressiveofall Greekplasticartforms.Thesemonumentstoself-interested politicalgenerosityﬁlledthestreetsandsquaresofsacred urbantheaterprecincts,powerfullyshapingtheentirebuilt environmentandculturalethosofHelleniccitiesforcenturies.

Oneseeshereconcreteevidenceofphilanthropy’sancientroleasamodulatorofcontentionforprestigewithin andamongdistinctsocialgroups.Classicalphilanthropy channeledurbanites’competitivenesstowardmorebroadly beneﬁcialjointaccomplishments—suchasdramacontests insubsidizedtheatersthatbroughtlargenumbersofthepublictogetherinonesacredspace.Suchphilanthropicevents reinforcedtheprivilegedandculturedidentitycitizens shared.Onthisscale,antiquephilanthropybecamehighly symbolic,generatingideallyinclusiveformsinart,society, andpolitics.

Sopublicanartofphilanthropycouldgenerateasmany disputesasitforestalled.GreeksrespondedwithadroitjudicialmaneuversﬁrmlyestablishinglegalregulationofostensiblycharitableactsasanintegralpartofWesterncivicculture.ThiswasespeciallytrueinclassicalAthens(500–300 bce),whereassumptionofliturgiesbythewealthywascom-

pulsorybutnolesscelebratedasamanifestationofhonorablephilanthropy.Arichmannominatedbyrulingpeersto undertakeanyliturgycouldﬁleamotion (skepsis) protestinghisexemption,ineligibility,orcomparativeinabilityfor publicservicewiththerequisitegenerosity.Outrightrefusal ofthechargewouldhavebeenself-abnegatingandunthinkableinadditiontobeingillegal.Throughaquasi-judiciallitigationprocedureknownasan antidosis, thenomineefor anyliturgyalsohadtherighttochallengeanyothercitizen hethoughtrichertotakeupthecharge.Ifthechallengeerefused,thechallengercouldtradeestateswithhisopponent sothathemightfulﬁlltheobligationwithpossiblysuperior resources.Preliminarystepstowardprivateresolutionofthe matterviaexchangeincludedpreparationofdetailedestate inventoriesbybothparties.Failuretorespondtothechallenge,calculatedderelictionindrawingupinventories,or disinclinationtopursuesettlementwouldtransformthecontestintoadelicatecaseofstateadjudication (diadikasia). In thisinstance,acitizen’stribunal,withoutassigningtheroles ofplaintiffordefendant,attemptedtodeterminewhichparty hadabetterclaimtotheliturgy(Gabrielsen1987;Goligher 1907;Todd1993).Arichmanriskedhishonor,however,by rejectingaliturgyoutrightorbyacceptingthechargeonly undercourtorder.Suchjeopardycontinuallyledtoprivate settlementofthematter.

Thegeniusofthislegislationlayintheprocessesby whichdispensationsfromliturgicalexpenditurewereduly accordedtomenclaiminginabilitytopay,replacements foundtotakeupthecharge,andshirkerspoliced.Viathe antidosisprocedure,thestateencouragedmaintenanceof thesetasksasessentiallyprivate,notpublic,endeavors.City fathersdidnotapplythebluntandpotentiallydivisiveinstrumentsofdemocraticstatutorylaw.Rather,theyreliedon elitepeerpressurestoregulatethecivicphilanthropicduty ofrichcitizens.Ancientphilanthropyfosteredandrelied uponsuchcreative,completelycalculated,andbalanced public-privatepartnershipstosustainmuniﬁcenturbanpolities.

ROMANRULESONMAJORGIFTS,FOUNDATIONS, VOLUNTARYASSOCIATIONS,ANDPUBLIC BENEVOLENCE

Asconquerors,heirs,andcautiousemulatorsoftheGreeks, theRomansassumedbetterregulationofphilanthropytobe amongtheirgreatestobligationsasacivilizedandconservativepeople.GreatLatinauthorssuchasCicero(OnDuties, composedcirca44 bce)andSeneca(OnBeneﬁts, composed circa60 ce)putforthrigorousmanualsontheartsofgiving andreceivinggifts.Theytoldprospectivedonorsandtheir beneﬁciariesaboutthebestmotives,forms,andobjectives ofcharitablepracticesnowdeemedessentialforpreserving society.Romanparalegalscribesandjuristscontributedto agrowingcorpusoflegalinstrumentsenablingpatronsto consolidateandextendtheirgiftsinperpetuity.Romanemperorsburdenedsubordinateswithcommandstosupervise andcontrolvoluntaryassociationsandfraternalormutual

aidsocietiesproliferatinginallthecitiesoftheirvastrealm. Thesameemperorsarrogatedtothemselvestheprestigious rightofmakingcertainmagnificentgiftstothepeopleof Romeincludinggreataqueducts,fountains,andenormous bathcomplexes.Thesedemonstratedtheimperialfamily’s superbpowertomanipulateprimordialelementssuchaswaterandfireforpublicbenefit.AndatRome,statesmanship itselfgainedamorebenevolentaura.ApologistsforimperialexpansioncapitalizeduponolderGreeknotionsof philanthropia toclaimthatRomanrulersextendedabeneficialrespectforinternationallawandthewelfareofthe ruledthatlegitimatedtheirimperium.Cognizanceandenforcementofinternationalhumanrightstookshapeinthis streamofphilanthropicpoliticalpropaganda.

Romaneffortstosystematizeapracticalethicsofgiving tooktheirmostcogentforminthedidacticworksofsuch stoicphilosophersasSenecain OnBenefits. Goodgiftsmust bedistinguishedfrombadgifts.Thereisarightwayand awrongwaytoacknowledgeapresent.Seneca’sphilanthropictreatisepositsdirectlinkagebetweenfaultygiving byaspiringbenefactorsandproliferationofingratitude amongbeneficiaries.Ingratitude,accordingtoSeneca,isterrible.ItthreatenstheintegrityofRomancivilization,held togetherbythe“glue”ofgratitudegiftsinspire.Thisglue bindspatronstoprotégésatalllevelsofsociety.Prospective donorsneedthoroughinstructioninhowtogiveinorderto generatemaximumgratitude.Senecacontributesahandy guidebooktoproperbenefaction,demandingallpatronsto choosetheirbeneficiariesandtheirbenefitswithexacting premeditation.

“Nogiftcanbeabenefitunlessitisgivenwithreason....Thoughtlessbenefactionisthemostshamefulsort ofloss”(Seneca1935).Allegiancetothisaxiommakes heavydemandsondonorsfromwhomSenecaexpectsthe establishmentofclearprioritiesingiving.Selectionanddistributionofnecessitiesfortheunfortunatemusttakeprecedenceoverdeliveryofmereembellishmentstolifeorfrivolous,ephemeralentertainments.IndiscriminateGreek modesofliberalityarenowcondemnedasgrosslyirresponsible.Theyneithersatisfyrealpublicneedsnorgeneratethe deepgratitudebetweenbenefactorandbeneficiaryessential tomaintaintheverticalpatronagechainsholdingentirecommunitiestogether.HighlydiscriminateRomangiversmust alsoknowandchoosetheirbeneficiariesverycarefully.Donorsshouldelecttoassistthosehonestsoulscapableofrecognizingandrepayingwithgratitudethehonorofgenerositydonetothem.WhileSenecareassertstheobligationof thefortunatetogive,hestipulatesthattheyareneverwithoutchoiceinselectingthemeansandobjectivestofulfill thatduty.Thegoalofallsuchcalculationistoimpressthe recipient’smindsopowerfullywiththemagnanimityofthe aptlytimed,appropriategiftthatanimageofthedonorwill lingerthereforever.Suchpotentmentalimagesofgenerosityshouldbringforthfromtherecipientactsofcommensurateserialbenevolence.MasteringthepsychologyofperpetualgiftexchangethusdevelopedasapeculiarlyRoman politicalartincumbentuponallgoodpatrons.Thedonor’s

Another random document with no related content on Scribd:

Pancho, ¡qué borracho estás! ¡cuánto aguardiente has bebío! Tú no vienes al bohío más que a bebé y a fumá.

Si no quieres trabajá...

El rodar de dos coches de la Peña sobre el húmedo piso de merendero la interrumpió.

—Ya empieza a venir gente.

Anda, Manolo, vamos a ver quiénes son.

Los carruajes se habían detenido y de ellos se apearon tres mujeres y cuatro hombres; ellas muy vaporosas, con sus vestidos de verano muy ligeros ellos con sus zapatos de lona y su sombrerito de paja.

—¿Los conoces? —preguntó Petrita, curiosa como siempre.

—Nada más que a uno, a aquel pálido de la camisa de seda. Es e hijo del conde de San Gil. Va mucho a Fornos. Los demás no sé quiénes son.

—¿Y ellas?

Amalia dijo que quería conocerlas.

—Estoy segura de haber visto esas caras en alguna parte, pero en este momento no caigo.

El joven pálido se acercó a Manolo y le saludó con gran familiaridad.

—¿Es usted de los invitados? ¡Hombre, me alegro! Siempre es bueno dar con amigos. ¡Caramba! Las once y media nada más. Me parece que nos hemos anticipado.

—Pues figúrese usted, nosotros, que estamos aquí desde hace hora y media.

Los demás, al ver esta familiaridad, se aproximaron también.

—¡Gracias a Dios! ¡qué ganas tenía de estirar las piernas! —dijo uno de los muchachos; un mocetón alto y fornido, completamente afeitado —: íbamos en el coche como sardinas en banasta.

Ellas se reían, recordando las apreturas, tratando de deshacer las arrugas de sus vestidos.

El joven pálido se creyó en el deber de presentar a sus amigos «Don Luis de Bernáldez, capitán de caballería; don Enrique de la Escosura, teniente de ingenieros; don Francisco Soler, abogado». De las mujeres no hizo mención alguna. Los caballeros estrecharon la

mano de Ruiz y todos se pusieron a charlar como buenos amigos de toda la vida.

—Ha sido una buena idea la de Paco.

—Magnífica. Es un hombre muy listo.

—Oh, muy listo; yo lo he dicho siempre.

—Cuando a mí me expuso la idea por primera vez —exclamó e capitán—, me pareció descabellada y así se lo dije francamente. ¿Un merendero en La Bombilla? ¡Pero tú estás loco! Mira, Paco, déjate de ilusiones y continúa en Fornos sirviendo a tu parroquia sin meterte en dibujos que te pueden salir caros. Pero ahora confieso que me equivoqué. Esto es muy hermoso agregó, paseando la mirada a su alrededor—. No cabe duda que va a hacer dinero. Es un buen negocio.

Sí, sí, hay que felicitarle, ¡Paco! ¿Pero dónde se ha metido ese hombre? ¡Paco! ¡Paco!

Paco se acercaba pausadamente, con su sombrero en la mano sonriendo con aire tranquilo de buen burgués.

—¡Oh, señor conde, señor conde!... ¡cuánto le agradezco a usted que haya venido..., y lo mismo a estos señores!... ¡cuánto honor!...

—¡No faltaba más!

—¡No faltaba otra cosa!

—¿Qué le parece esto?

—¡Magnífico, Paco, magnífico!

—Oh, no, una cosa modesta, lo que se ha podido, nada más.

—¡No, Paco, no! Está muy bien. Es el mejor merendero de La Bombilla.

Todos asintieron. Sí, indudablemente, el mejor merendero. Vas a hacer dinero, Paco.

Él lo creía también. Es decir, contando con que los amigos no le abandonarían. Si se había decidido a emprender este negocio, era contando con que sus antiguos parroquianos le ayudarían concurriendo a menudo.

—¡Oh, sí, ya lo creo!

—¡Qué duda cabe!

—¡Si esto es muy bonito!

—¡Ah! pues los señores no conocen lo mejor. Si los señores quieren acompañarme, se lo enseñaré.

—Sí, hombre, sí, tendremos mucho gusto.

Echaron a andar. Atravesaron los delgados caminos limitados po anchos macizos de boj; pasaron ante los cenadores de entrelazadas cañas, por las cuales trepaban las enredaderas con su fino encaje de verdes colores; ante los veladores de hierro pintados de blanco; ante los sillones de delgadas patas y cómodo respaldo de entretejido alambre.

—He preferido sillones ¿saben ustedes? porque como se está en ellos más a gusto, la gente permanece más tiempo y, como es natural hace mayor gasto.

Después los llevó a un amplio salón pintado de azul pálido, con una gran mesa cuadrilátera en el centro.

—Es la sala para bodas y bautizos. Aquí comerán ustedes hoy Ahora, síganme; les voy a enseñar los gabinetes reservados.

Subieron una escalera de madera encerada, con pasamanos relucientes y grandes tiestos de palmeras pegados a la pared, y desembocaron en una espaciosa rotonda alegremente decorada a estilo moderno, con anchas flores de color de rosa sobre fondo claro En medio una reproducción en escayola de la Venus de Médicis se arrodillaba, pudorosa, sobre un gran puffde terciopelo.

—Pero, ¡Paco, por Dios, te has excedido!

Paco sonreía satisfecho, dando vueltas entre sus manos al ancho sombrero cordobés.

—Pues falta todavía lo mejor; ya verán, ya verán —y abrió la puerta de uno de los gabinetes—. Eh, ¿qué tal?

—Precioso, Paco.

Era un gabinete pequeño, cuadrado; los muebles buenos, de severo gusto; mesas de roble, chiquitas pero sólidas; grandes sillas con asiento de cuero claveteado; las paredes de madera, lo mismo que e suelo.

—Está bien, está bien; solo que me parece que falta algo añadió el teniente.

Paco sonrió, y abriendo una puertecita disimulada en la pared mostró otra habitación, una alcoba completa, con su cama de Viena, su mesa de noche y su lavabo, también de madera, haciendo juego con la cama.

—¿Ven ustedes como no falta nada?

Sí, en efecto; eres un hombre práctico.

Las mujeres se habían aproximado y examinaban con gran detención la colcha y las sábanas.

—No son gran cosa, pero en fin, para lo que se quiere, buenas están.

Todos felicitaron cordialmente a Paco.

—Ya lo creo que vendremos. ¡No faltaba más!

En el jardín se encontraban ya más invitados; Ulzurrun, Boncamí Rose, Rosarito, Jaime Fort, un pintor amigo de Boncamí, y dos hombres más.

Como faltaban todavía tres cuartos de hora para la comida, Paco los obsequió con wermuthy cerveza; pero las mujeres prefirieron espera la hora bailando. Quitaron la funda del organillo, y el teniente de ingenieros se brindó solícito a mover el manubrio.

Boncamí, que no sabía bailar; el conde, que no tenía gana; una de las amigas del conde, que prefirió la cerveza; Ulzurrun y algunos más continuaron en los cenadores.

—Este Paco es hombre que sabe hacer las cosas —decía el conde.

—¡Toma! ¡Ya lo creo! agregó la muchacha—. A nosotras nos ha mandado una tarjeta preciosa de invitación, una monada; aquí está —y mostró una delgada cartulina, una fototipia del establecimiento, hecha por Laurent. En una esquina, sujeta por artístico sello de lacre, brillaba una moneda de cinco pesetas, con este letrero sugestivo: Paraelcoche —. Creo que ha repartido veinticinco.

—Pues le va a salir la fiesta por una friolera.

—Oh, no; tengo entendido que las invitaciones son para el refresco A la comida solo venimos los íntimos: unos treinta entre hombres y mujeres.

—De todos modos, le va a salir caro.

—¡Bah!, ya sabe él lo que hace.

El ingeniero tocaba el organillo bastante mal, unas veces despacio otras ligerísimo, como si de repente se hubiera vuelto loco. Todas las parejas protestaron.

—O toca usted mejor, o deja usted el manubrio.

Pero súbito retintineo de colleras les distrajo. Un coche llegaba, un gran breakcon seis caballos a la jerezana.

—¡Ya están aquí, ya están aquí!

Los seis caballos pararon en seco, haciendo campanillear sus cascabeles. El coche se detuvo y empezó a bajar de él gente conocida Lola Guzmán, Nati, Paca Rey, Isabelilla, Julia, Maruja, Carmen Arenzana, todas elegantísimas, con sus vestidos vaporosos de tonos claros y sus grandes sombreros de paja, charlando por los codos riendo a boca llena, respirando alegría y juventud. Tras ellas bajaron los hombres: Luis Gener, Cañete, Avelino Suárez, Alamares el matado de novillos, Paco Gaitán, Filiberto Pons...

—Pero ¡Jesús! ¿cómo venían ustedes? —preguntó Petrita, admirada de que en un solo coche cupiese tanta gente.

—Apretaditos, apretaditos, pero no se iba mal —contestó Gaitán sonriendo, mirando a Paca Rey.

—Claro, usted, sí. Ha ido usted todo el camino materialmente encima de mi falda.

Las mujeres se quitaron los sombreros, y algunos hombres las americanas. ¡Qué demonio! ¿no estaban en el campo? Pues en e campo debe haber confianza. Paco Gaitán se quitó incluso el cuello porque, según dijo, le ahogaba.

—Estos cuellos altos son insoportables. No sé cómo los resistimos Debíamos llevarlos todos como el de este —y señalaba la abullonada camisa de Alamares, que a su lado se erguía muy tieso y muy ufano con su traje corto y su faja de seda.

Del gran salón de bodas salía un alegre tintineo de cubiertos y cristales. Paco iba y venía de un lado para otro dictando órdenes y metiendo prisa a los camareros que atravesaban el jardín con grandes cestas de vajilla.

—¡Qué barbaridad! —dijo de pronto Petrita a Manolo—; ¿cuántos dirás que somos?

—¡Qué sé yo, hija! No los he contado.

—Pues yo sí; veintinueve justos: dieciséis hombres y trece mujeres.

—¡Huy, trece, vaya un número feo!

—¡Y tan feo! ¡Dios mío, que vengan más! —exclamó compungida verdaderamente preocupada.

Iba Manolo a contestar, burlándose de sus supersticiones, cuando e agudo sonar de una bocina arrancó a Petrita un grito de contento.

—¡Mira, mira, un automóvil... con mujeres..., y vienen aquí!

Sí, es el de Federico Guijarro.

—Y ellas, ¿quiénes son?

—Hija, espera que se quiten el velo; con ese armatoste en la cabeza, cualquiera las conoce.

El automóvil avanzaba despacio y majestuoso con antipático taf... taf... Dio una pequeña vuelta hasta llegar a los cenadores y se detuvo Las mujeres se quitaron el velo. Manolo, al reconocer a una de ellas no pudo ocultar una exclamación de disgusto.

—Luisa... ¡maldita sea!

Petrita se había puesto pálida.

—Cómo, ¿es...?

—Sí, calla.

—Pues mira, ¿sabes lo que te digo? Que para eso, mejor éramos trece.

—Bueno, déjalo; después de todo, a nosotros ¡qué nos importa!

Luisa al ver a Manolo se quedó también, al principio, un poco sorprendida; pero rehaciéndose, adelantó hacia él y le tendió la mano.

—¡Hola, Manolo!, ¿cómo estás?

—Bien, ¿y tú?

—Bien, gracias.

No pasó más. Parecía que se habían separado la víspera.

—Cuando ustedes gusten —gritó Paco desde la puerta del salón.

Todos se precipitaron en él; pero al llegar a la mesa se detuvieron indecisos. Gaitán fue el primero en romper esta indecisión.

—Nada de ceremonias; aquí cada uno se sienta donde puede y donde le da la gana. Yo, por lo pronto, me siento aquí; y usted añadió, señalando la próxima silla a Paca Rey— aquí, a mi lado.

Los demás, animados por esta franqueza, se acomodaron también a su gusto, respetando únicamente las cabeceras, que quedaron vacías.

—Y ahí, ¿quién va a sentarse?

—¡Toma, pues es verdad!

—Una de ellas le corresponde de derecho a este caballero —dijo e capitán de caballería señalando a Ulzurrun—. Sin que sea llamarle

viejo, forzoso es convenir en que es el más respetable de todos nosotros.

Ulzurrun, ante este argumento, no tuvo más remedio que inclinar la frente y aceptar, sonriendo, con gran alegría de Boncamí, que por esta coincidencia se quedó al lado de Rose.

—Bueno, ¿y la otra?

—Eso no se pregunta —gritó el conde—; esa corresponde a Paco.

Paco se acercó. Él no comía; no le era posible; tenía que da órdenes.

—¡Nada, nada; tú presides la mesa!

—¡Claro que sí!

—¡Pues no faltaba más!

Tuvo que ceder, haciendo que se resistía, pero muy halagado en e fondo, por alternar con todos aquellos caballeros a quienes hacía cuatro meses limpiaba la mesa con su paño mojado.

Manolo Ruiz, para no mirar a Luisa, se puso a leer la lista en alta voz: «Paella a la valenciana. Langostinos a la vinagreta. Solomillo con tomate. Lengua de vaca a la andaluza. Pollo en ensalada. Crema de limón. Postre. Café».

—Hombre, muy bien; he aquí una comida sana.

—He querido —dijo Paco—, hacer una comida española, una comida clásica, de la tierra. Nada de platos extranjeros...

—Eso, muy bien. ¡Viva la cocina nacional!

—¡Viva la independencia culinaria!

Servían ya los mozos la paella, cuando en la puerta del comedor se presentaron dos hombres más. Paco, que no los conocía, se levantó confuso; pero el conde se apresuró a decir:

—Este caballero es mi amigo el señor marqués de Cehegín, a quien me permití invitar anoche.

—Y yo a mi vez me he permitido traer a mi primo.

—¡Ah, muy bien, muy bien! siéntense ustedes, digo, si pueden Pero, ¡cómo! ¿todavía más gente? —añadió al oír el rodar de un carruaje sobre la arena del jardín.

Eran María Luisa y su hermana Matilde, una criatura encantadora de dieciséis años.

—¿Venís solas?

—Sí, solas. El marqués no ha podido acompañarnos. Puede que venga luego a recogernos.

—Bueno, bueno, sentaos donde podáis.

No había sitio. Los hombres, bromeando, les ofrecían sus rodillas Por fin pudieron acomodarse, una entre Filiberto Pons y Suárez, la otra entre el marqués de Cehegín y su primo.

Las conversaciones callaron. Todo el mundo tenía hambre y la paella estaba riquísima. Solo se oía el chocar de los tenedores y el golpeo de vino al caer en las copas. Los que no se conocían personalmente levantaban los ojos de cuando en cuando y se miraban a hurtadillas especialmente las mujeres. Paco Gaitán, cada vez más entusiasmado con su tocaya, la atendía cuidadosamente como a un niño goloso y mimado, ofreciéndole aceitunas, pepinillos y rajitas de salchichón que ella mordisqueaba sonriendo. Era precisamente lo que más le gustaba En cambio el arroz...

Luisa no apartaba la vista de Manolo Ruiz, que a su vez continuaba procurando esquivar la de ella. Gener, que lo notó, llamó disimuladamente por encima del hombro del Alamares a Federico Guijarro y le puso en antecedentes.

Tenga usted cuidado con su parejita, ¿eh?, no vaya a ser que a última hora meta la pata.

—¡Oh, no, qué disparate!

—Por si acaso.

—No tenga usted miedo. En todo caso, yo respondo.

Y, en efecto, inclinándose sobre ella, algo debió decirle, porque Luisa bajó los párpados muy encarnada y no volvió a mirar a Ruiz en toda la comida.

Esta era cada vez más animada. Todos hablaban al mismo tiempo Únicamente Ulzurrun permanecía indiferente a la alegría general sonriendo tan solo con su aspecto abatido de hombre cansado, cuando alguno decía un chiste o pronunciaba una frase ingeniosa. Se hablaba de todo, de modas, de toros, de teatros, de arte.

—Oiga usted, Suárez —preguntó en voz alta Filiberto Pons—, ¿qué prepara usted para este invierno?

—¡Oh, muchas cosas! Este invierno me lanzo de lleno. Por lo pronto estoy terminando un sainete con letra de Castro y Pedrosa, después

estrenaré una zarzuela grande en Parish, y si me queda tiempo terminaré una ópera que tengo empezada.

—¡Cómo! ¿Una ópera? ¿Nada menos que una ópera?

Sí, señores; una ópera en tres actos, una vieja leyenda castellana un libreto hermosísimo que me entregó, poco antes de morir, Antoñito Bedmar.

—¡Pobre Antoñito!

—¡Valía mucho!

—¡Ya lo creo!

—¡Pobre muchacho!

Y como entristecidos por el recuerdo, la conversación languideció Hacía calor. La gente, sofocada con las apreturas, se iba alejando poco a poco de la mesa, ensanchando el círculo. Algunas mujeres habían ido a buscar los abanicos y los agitaban con fuerza para que el aire llegase también a los hombres, que a su vez alargaban el cuello agradecidos A lo lejos, enfrente de la puerta, los macizos de boj resplandecían con tonos de esmeralda. Un hálito asfixiante se escapaba de la arena de jardín, que brillaba a los rayos del sol como salpicada de diamantes Nadie comía ya. Los postres quedaban intactos en los fruteros y los helados, en los platos, se deshacían liquidándose.

—¡El café!

Federico desapareció del salón y regresó en seguida con dos cajas de cigarros habanos, que entregó a los camareros.

—Me he permitido traer esto. Usted no se ofenderá, Paco. Ya sabe usted que a mí me los regalan.

La atmósfera, con el humo, se hizo más asfixiante todavía. Las mujeres, reclinadas sobre los respaldos, se abanicaban con furia. Todas estaban encarnadas, encendidas, con los ojos brillantes, los labios entreabiertos, mostrando los dientes. El champagne las animaba con su embriaguez nerviosa y alegre, y enardecidas charlaban y reían tolerando todo género de chistes y aceptando toda clase de bromas. A alguien se le ocurrió tocar el organillo, y todas salieron de pronto corriendo, dando gritos y tirando las sillas. Fue aquello una desbandada, el escape de todo un colegio.

Cuatro o cinco jóvenes penetraron en el merendero; transeúntes atraídos por el ruido de la fiesta, que se determinaban a entrar con la

libertad que concede un establecimiento público. Paco, al principio pensó echarlos, pero luego cambió de parecer. «¡Después de todo, qué más da!». Sin embargo, para que la invasión no continuara, colocó un camarero en la puerta con objeto de no dejar entrar más que a los invitados al refresco.

Estos empezaban ya a llegar. Mujeres bonitas, socios de la Gran Peña y del Casino, noticieros de los grandes periódicos, literatos y artistas. Muchos no traían invitación, pero se anunciaban y Paco los dejaba pasar.

—¡Si yo dejo pasar a todo el mundo! Lo que no quiero es golfería. El organillo no cesaba. Eran siempre los mismos bailables, los mismos valses, las mismas polcas, las mismas habaneras; pero esto ¡qué importaba! La cuestión era bailar. Y se bailaba sin descanso, con blandos movimientos, bajo la sombra de la tapia que se agrandaba cada vez más con la caída del sol.

Perico Castro, Ricardo Bermejo, Pepe Corcho, Agustín Gordinos todos los redactores de ElCombatese presentaron a última hora.

—No hemos podido venir antes. ¡Qué día! Ni una sola noticia. No hallábamos manera de cerrar el periódico. Y vosotros, ¿qué? ¿os habéis divertido mucho?

—Bastante, ya lo creo. Hemos pasado una tarde deliciosa. Y la seguís pasando, porque esto no tiene trazas de concluir.

—Yo no tengo prisa.

—Ni yo tampoco. Pero, por si acaso, voy a aprovechar. ¡Caramba Allí está sola Lolita Guzmán. Voy a bailar con ella.

El sol, próximo a hundirse en el horizonte, caía lentamente incendiando las nubes, alargando en el suelo las sombras de los árboles. El viento arrancaba de las hojas un murmullo, blando y suave a veces como un suspiro, otras largo, inacabable, como el rumor de Manzanares, que a pocos pasos deslizaba mansamente sus aguas tranquilas. Algunas cabras, indóciles a los ladridos de los perros triscaban en la ribera, mordisqueando la hierba y ahuyentando a los pájaros con el melancólico tañer de las esquilas.

Petrita había dejado el abanico en el comedor y fue a buscarle. A regresar encontró en la puerta a Luisa.