Volume 11, Issue 1 -

Contemporary scholars argue that high wealth donors in the U.S. influence political decision making through generous funding of nonprofit organizations like think tanks. In response to that potential influence, some endorse curbs on implicit subsidies that favor higher-income donors more than lower-income donors. To highlight the debate, this study selects a particular topic – tax policy – that generates highly partisan viewpoints and political agendas. The article first models predicted partisan operational differences, based on donors’ ideological differences. The study then explores the financial, staffing, and board resources of think tanks and associated advocacy organizations. The data were collected in the year immediately prior to the passage of the 2017 U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, providing a snapshot view of contrasting operations of left-, centrist, and right-leaning tax policy think tanks. Given the notably more generous resources utilized by right-leaning tax policy organizations, it is possible that donor wealth differences enabled right-leaning nonprofits to contribute their influence to get the historic tax reform package passed. However, the successful passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act could have resulted as well from the more targeted messaging and narrative framing employed by right-leaning think tanks and advocacy organizations.

Trade and business associations and professional membership societies like many other political interest groups in the United States advocate and lobby their interests in the policy arena. Yet, we lack the understanding of how organizational capabilities shape different forms of political engagement in trade and professional associations. Research on the political involvement of tax-exempt organizations has been focused on charitable nonprofits. Studying the elements that underlie political action strategies and tactics of trade and professional associations would expand our understanding of political engagement in the nonprofit sector. In our sample of occupational mutual benefit associations, both resource dependence and institutional factors such as board size, affiliated foundation, tax-exempt status, business classification, and membership type explained the likelihood of political strategies including advocacy, lobbying, grassroots activity, and having a political action committee (PAC). Organizational size characteristics such as budget, staff, and membership size mattered as well.

This paper examines advocacy, agenda-setting and the public policy focus of private philanthropic foundations in Australia. While concerns have been raised regarding advocacy and public policy influence of foundations in countries such as the U.S., less is understood on this issue in other contexts. Interviews were conducted with 11 managers and trustees of 10 Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs) in late 2014. Analysis of publicly available data on the participating PAFs was then undertaken comparing PAF information available at the time of the interviews with that available approximately five years later, to consider any changes in the public communication of their agendas. Findings reveal PAFs’ agendas were largely consistent with public policy but may vary in the approaches to address social causes. Further, a preference for privacy indicates the PAF sector may be characterised as ‘quiet philanthropy’ rather than having a visible public presence. As such, PAFs’ advocacy focused on promoting philanthropy, rather than altering or influencing public policy. Our main contention is that the conceptions of advocacy in structured philanthropy are dominated by the obvious, the outliers and the noisy. Our contribution to the philanthropic literature is a more nuanced and broader discussion of how advocacy and agenda-setting occurs and is understood in the mainstream.

The impact of foreign aid reduction on local civil society organizations has gained a growing amount of scholarly attention over the past several years. However, most research has focused on the experiences of local CSOs and their adaptations to reduced donor support. In this piece, we review the extant literature to offer a comprehensive perspective on the role of donors in the aid reduction process. We highlight the ways that donor planning and management of aid reduction can enhance or undermine civil society sustainability and offer six prompts for donors, designed to improve the aid reduction process. These include inventorying donors’ original development objectives; leaving behind an appropriate legal framework; facilitating local philanthropy; developing a framework for government support of CSOs; communicating aid reduction plans transparently; and supporting local adaptions to funding withdrawal.

We examine the effects of school choice reforms implemented in the early 1990s in two different settings: Sweden and Milwaukee (WI, U.S.). We show how both the ideological and theoretical arguments for choice reform were similar in the two contexts, yet the consequences in terms of the organizational outcome and institutional sector configuration ended up strikingly dissimilar. While the new group of actors in the Swedish school system consisted primarily of large-scale for-profit schools, with only a minor share of the expansion being catered to by nonprofit actors, the Milwaukee school choice program became dominated by small-scale nonprofit schools operated by religious communities. We seek to explicate these differences by drawing on the welfare state literature and social origins theory, as well as from organizational and historical institutional theory. We argue that the resulting composition of providers is directly related to the deep-seated differences in the civil society regimes operating in the two contexts.