Three trends since the 1960s underscore the need for different ways of conceptualizing the new mixed economy in the human services. First, there has been an enormous increase in the number and types of nonprofit organizations, and greater dependence on governmental revenue. Second, extensive growth in privatization and commercialization in the human services. Third, this culminated in the convergence and blurring of sectoral boundaries. Numerous metaphors have been suggested to describe these new patterns, but more suitable concepts and theories are needed. Four theoretical frameworks are analyzed for an intersectoral study of organizations in the same industry: (1) political economy, (2) organizational ecology, (3) neoinstitutionalism, and (4) mixed, open systems. As analytic paradigms, these frameworks could supplement, complement, or be integrated with other research models for third sector studies, and could contribute to theory building and social policy.

This article seeks to establish whether the structural-operational definition of the sector, used by the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project (JHCNSP), is universal in its applicability. Historical case studies of primary health care and social housing provision in nineteenth-century England demonstrate that the definition cannot accommodate the institutional diversity of earlier periods and does not produce meaningful sectoral distinctions. The structural-operational definition rules out of the sector a significant proportion of nonstatutory, nonprofit maximizing providers. In particular, it excludes the mutual aid organizations, which are widely recognized as important for the development of civil society and which have historically been considered to be key components of the sector. These case studies suggest that the structural-operational definition limits the capacity of the JHCNSP to fulfil its aim of establishing “the factors that promote or retard the sector’s development” owing to potential measurement errors and the pattern of development that the project implicitly assumes for the nonprofit sector.

Our aim is to enhance the knowledge regarding how the public assess and rate volunteerism. We begin by first developing the model for understanding the potential use of the net-cost concept in eliciting the public’s subjective perceptions on the extent to which certain activities are perceived as volunteerism. Four hypotheses relevant to the use of the net-cost concept are developed. We developed a questionnaire consisting of 50 case scenarios and applied it in Canada, India, Italy, Netherlands, and Georgia and Philadelphia in the United States, each with a sample of 450 adults or more. With one exception, our net-cost hypotheses are supported, suggesting that the public perception of volunteering is strongly linked with the costs and benefits that accrue to the individual from the volunteering activity, and that this result holds true across different cultures. Finally, we suggest directions for future research that can shed further light on the relationship between net cost and public good.

This article reviews the role of third sector organizations in the field of “proximity services” from a francophone perspective. We analyze how the new wave of initiatives inside the third sector in France and francophone Belgium can be seen as providing institutional responses to state and market failures that arise from trust-dependent and quasi-collective attributes of these services. These initiatives are often called “solidarity based third sector organizations”, a concept defined in this paper. A central assumption of this analysis is that the political context in which these services are delivered is especially important, particularly as reflected in the changing regulatory role of the state. This analysis takes, therefore, an economic sociology perspective.