Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Susannah Morris (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: