Download Civil Societies Compared: Germany and the

European Civil Society Annette Zimmer is Professor of Social Policy and Comparative Politics at the University of Münster
(Germany).
The series European Civil Society is edited by Taco Brandsen, Gemma Donnelly-Cox, Matthias Freise,
Michael Meyer, Filip Wijkström and Annette Zimmer.
| 13
Zimmer (ed.)
Civil society serves as the starting point to shed light on the topic of how societies cope with
risks and challenges. Unlike in Germany, pragmatism has always been a key characteristic of the
Netherlands. Today, the two countries are “most similar cases”. However, they are very different
with respect to getting along with societal heterogeneity and economic challenges.
Civil Societies Compared:
Germany and the Netherlands
Annette Zimmer (ed.)
Civil Societies Compared:
Germany and the Netherlands
13
ISBN 978-3-8329-7494-7
Nomos
BUC_Zimmer_7494-7.indd 1
24.05.13 11:22
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
European Civil Society
edited by
Taco Brandsen
Gemma Donnelly-Cox
Matthias Freise
Michael Meyer
Filip Wijkström
Annette Zimmer
Volume 13
BUT_Zimmer_7494-7.indd 2
24.05.13 11:21
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
Annette Zimmer (ed.)
Civil Societies Compared:
Germany and the Netherlands
Nomos
BUT_Zimmer_7494-7.indd 3
24.05.13 11:21
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
Funded by the North-Rhine Westphalian Ministry of Innovation, Science, Research and
Technology.
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the
Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data
is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
ISBN 978-3-8329-7494-7
1. Edition 2013
(c) Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden 2013. Printed in Germany. This work is
subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations,
broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machine or similar means, and storage
in databases. Under § 54 of the German Copyright Law, where copies are made for use
other than private use, a fee is payable to »Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort«, Munich.
BUT_Zimmer_7494-7.indd 4
24.05.13 11:21
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
Contents
Introduction. Pragmatism versus Ideology:
Civil Societies in The Netherlands and in Germany
Annette Zimmer
7
Part One: The Art of Comparing Comparison and Beyond: Approaches to Investigation of Civil Society in
Europe from an Historical and Transnational Perspective Arnd Bauerkämper
27 Political Science and History: Symbiosis or Synthesis? Hans Keman
43 Part Two: Civil Society as a Multifaceted Concept Civil society in the Netherlands around 1900. A historical analysis Remieg Aerts
69 Civic Traditions and Civil Society in Germany Rupert Graf Strachwitz
81 Social Movements in Germany Roland Roth
105 Ideology: Too much or too little? Fragmentation in the Dutch left-wing movement Marije Boekkooi
123 Dutch civil society in macro-quantitative perspectives Paul Dekker
141 5
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
Scope, Structure, and Development of Civil Society in Germany Eckhard Priller
161 The Inexorable Rise of Hybrid Organizations in The Netherlands Taco Brandsen and Philip Marcel Karré
177 Hybridisation in German public services – a contested field of innovations Adalbert Evers
197 Part Three: Changes and Challenges
(Will and) Did the Netherlands Breach its Dykes? Frans van Waarden
219
Moving away from corporatism Kathrin Loer and Helmut Voelzkow
247 The Turkish second generation in two church-state regimes: A comparative perspective on integration and religiosity Fenella Fleischmann
287 Perspectives on Europe in Germany and the Netherlands Anne-Dörte Balks
315
Contributors
343
6
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
Introduction
Pragmatism versus Ideology: Civil Societies in The Netherlands and
in Germany
Annette Zimmer
The Netherlands look back upon a long tradition of democratic governance and
successful entrepreneurship. As a small country surrounded by big neighbors, the
Low Countries have always been an open economy that takes careful into consideration how to peacefully get along with competitors. Traditionally, the Netherlands have been a “divided country” along religious and normative cleavages.
However, these dividing lines have never come into conflict with the country’s
economic aspirations and its drive towards prosperity. An attuned and down-toearth pragmatism constitutes a very important characteristic of the Netherlands.
Pragmatism has always provided the logic for the country´s open economy
(Lechner 2007; Andeweg/Irwin 2009; Lademacher 1993). It is also the reason
why in the Netherlands pillarization of the society did not lead to chaos and violent struggles and controversies, but on the contrary it served as a starting point
for a development that translated into an appeasement of the highly heterogeneous Dutch society through forceful and lasting compromises among the elites
whatever pillar – the catholic, social-democratic or protestant-calvinistic – they
belonged to (Lijphart 1999; 1975).
In other words, the Netherlands present a textbook-example for a modern society that early in the country’s history learned to cope with heterogeneity and
complexity through referring to pragmatism in the utilitarian sense of searching
for the most favorable solution for the majority of the citizenship. This qualifies
the Netherlands as an ideal benchmark for solving current problems in many policy fields. Indeed, since the late 1980s, the Netherlands have developed into a
“point of reference” for the social sciences and in particular for policy analysis
with respect to a variety of policy fields that are all affiliated with the change and
modernization of the welfare state (Visser/Hemerijck 1998; Avdagic/Visser
2011). Whoever relates to the Netherlands as a point of reference for modernizing strategies and policies that try to go beyond the status-quo, draws the attention to the specificities of Dutch society that – compared to the neighboring
countries in the south and east of Europe – has always stood out for its pluralism
and its attuned civicness.
Against this background, a volume that aims at comparing the Netherlands
with one of its big neighbors– respectively with Germany – constitutes a useful
7
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
undertaking. From a comparative perspective, Germany and the Netherlands today are two “most similar cases”. They are democracies, market economies and
liberal pluralistic societies. However, simultaneously, the countries look back
upon very different traditions of their societies, economies, and first and foremost political legacies. Germany’s path to modernity was extremely difficult and
characterized through atrocities of militarism, fascism and Soviet-type socialism.
There was no smooth and easy way to democratic rule; instead, Germany was
the first country in Europe that departed from the route to further democratization in the first quarter of the 20th century. On the contrary, the Netherlands managed to tackle the risks of modernization, industrialization and building up a
modern administration without harsh defeats and major setbacks. The reason
why Germany took such a different route towards modernity compared to its
smaller neighbor might have to do with the fact that Germany´s civil society was
not able to build up institutional settings that went along with the challenges of
the time. In sharp contrast to the Netherlands, where society has always come
first, in Germany, the State used to be the driving force, while civil activities and
the strength of civil society were more or less incorporated into state activities.
Against the background of a worldwide rollback of statehood and of a significant
change of state activities, it might be very useful to compare the civil traditions
of the two neighboring countries. In the same vein, it might also make sense for
Germany to take a new and fresh look at the Netherlands. The country might
serve as an example of best practice for Germany whenever it has to come to
grips with societal challenges that are not easy to handle. Hence, the idea of this
volume is to address the question of how and to what extent neighboring countries that are, indeed, quite similar can learn from each other? Do we see a travelling of ideas and concepts? And how are ideas and concepts modified and altered
when they move to a different context, and when they are confronted with very
different historical legacies.
Particularly because the concepts of the nation and the welfare state have lost
momentum during the last decades, civil society as a multifaceted concept that
nevertheless serves as a carrier of new ideas, reform movements and positive future-oriented initiatives constitutes the starting point for the comparison of Germany and the Netherland. But, simultaneously, civil society is a fuzzy concept
that has gained popularity in the social science not until the 1980s (Zimmer
2012). Originally, civil society was used to characterize the political community
in ancient Greece. It was not very popular thereafter, but it regained importance
in the 17th and 18th century as a concept referred to by Scottish moral philosophers, e.g. David Hume, and Adam Smith. In 19th century Germany, the concept
was closely connected to the development of a civil society or Bürgerliche Gesellschaft that asked for commercial freedom and partly also for political liberty
from the tutelage of the state. Against this background, Karl Marx introduced
8
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
into political philosophy the distinction between the bourgeois and the citoyen.
While the bourgeois strives for commercial freedom for its own sake, the citoyen
fights for political liberty and for the wellbeing of the community. Hence Bürgerliche Gesellschaft developed into a synonym for the society of the selfish
bourgeoisie. Therefore, it was discredited and not perceived as a forward-looking
concept neither for political discourse nor for political and societal analysis.
However, this changed in the 1970s, when “civil society” was discovered by dissidents and civic movements in Eastern Europe and by intellectuals in Latin
America in order to characterize those groups and organizations which were opposed to the ruling authoritarian regimes (Klein 2000; Cohen/Arato). Discussions which took place in these oppositional groups in the East and South influenced debates on democratic theory in the western democratic world. As a consequence, the concept of civil society became the centre of discourses on the
deepening and further advancement of democracy, especially in societies looking
back upon a long democratic tradition such as the U.S. or Great Britain
(Cohen/Arato 1997; Taylor 1991). In the meantime, civil society study and research have developed into well acknowledged fields of the social sciences (i.e.
Journal of Civil Society; Yearbook of Global Civil Society).
However, several distinct streams of research and publications can be distinguished. Firstly, research and theory building with a special eye on civil society
is closely linked to the fields of political theory and political philosophy. These
studies also show a close nexus to democratic theory. There is an abundance of
literature referring to the work of Habermas and his approach of the public as a
distinct realm of civil society. More recently, scholars of civil society have rediscovered the work of Gramsci and make it useful for their analysis of civil society
as a hegemonic societal sphere that tends to stabilize the status quo instead of
advancing new ideas and initiatives (Adloff 2005). Secondly, there are empirical
studies focusing on civil engagement and civic participation of citizens including
volunteering. These micro-level studies stand in the tradition of behaviorism.
They focus on the topic of how and to what extent the behavior of the individual
citizens has an impact on both society at large and on specific politics. This
stream of research was highly influenced by the work of Putnam who identified
in “How Democracy Works” a strong nexus between economic affluence, democracy and a strong civil society (Putnam 2003). Finally, there are studies that
specifically investigate voluntary or nonprofit organizations. This type of organizations does not belong to the market because its purpose is not generating profits but working on behalf of either the common weal or of a specific community.
But, as private organizations, nonprofits are also not part of the state, although in
many cases, they are pursuing public purposes such as contributing to health care
or serving the poor and the needy. Research investigating the organizational ba9
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
sis of civil society applies the methodology of organizational studies and stands
in the tradition of sociology, public or business administration (Taylor 2010).
The book takes civil society as a starting point in order to contribute to the
field of comparative studies by exclusively looking at the Netherlands and Germany. The reason why these two countries are scrutinized with a special eye on
the development, function, and specific role of civil society and nonprofit organizations are twofold: Firstly and as already mentioned, the Netherlands have
always been more successful in tackling problems caused by changing environments better than its “big neighbor” Germany. Increasingly, the Netherlands are
used for benchmarking purposes in Germany. The book asks whether the Netherlands also provide a good benchmark for the area of civil society and nonprofit
studies. Secondly, comparative studies are by and large concerned about “big
questions”. It is asked why democracy was successful in one country, but if
failed in another; why revolutions took place, and why and how capitalism developed in the way it did (see Landman 2000). Those topics, however, are far too
big to be addressed in class and to be researched in the limited framework of a
master or even PhD-thesis. Therefore, the volume wants to show that a comparative approach is also applicable for small samples and for analyzing very similar
cases. It also wants to show that familiarity with the unit of analysis can be very
helpful. Comparisons of very similar cases can enrich our understanding of the
field and specifically of path-dependency and hence slow-going processes of
change of modern societies and their polities.
The volume is organized into three major chapters. The first and introductory
part focuses on the “art of comparing” from two different perspectives, in particular from political science and from the science of history. The second part is
devoted to civil society as a multifaceted, normative, and highly complex concept
of the social sciences that in the last decades has been in the focus of the social
sciences. The third part takes a look at major political and societal changes and
challenges in Germany and the Netherlands. This chapter addresses the topic of
how Germany and the Netherlands adapt themselves to major changes that are
propelled either through societal and economic globalization or through the increasing impact of the European Union.
Part One: The Art of Comparing
For the use in class as a course book, the volume starts out with a chapter focusing on the art of comparing. Currently, political science inspired by behaviorism
and statistical analysis increasingly tends to move away from its roots in the science of history. Therefore, the contributions of Arnd Bauerkämper and Hans
Keman remind us that the comparative approach is as important for political sci10
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
ence as it is for historical analysis. Arnd Bauerkämper in his contribution “Comparison and Beyond: Approaches to investigation of Civil Society in Europe in
Historical and Transnational Perspective” challenges the widely acknowledged
assumption that the nation constitutes the most important unit of analysis for historians. By referring to the interconnectedness of societal developments, particularly in Europe, he strongly supports a comparative approach for modern historical analysis that goes beyond the boundaries of the nation state. But, Arnd Bauerkämper also warns us not to go too far. Although, the nation state does not
qualify for the one and only unit of analysis; from his point of view, the approach put forward by the concept of “histoire croisée” might result into a profound blurring of boundaries. The underlying rationale of histoire croisée is a
continuous readjustment of the unit of analysis. However, from an analytical
point of view, this is very difficult to achieve. In particular with respect to the
analysis of civil society, Arnd Bauerkämper favors an approach which starts out
with a comparison using the boundaries of the nation state as the point of departure, and simultaneously takes into account spatial and temporal variations as
well as transfers and processes of adaptation and cross-border xeroxing. His contribution makes clear that the development of civil society in the neighboring
countries Germany and the Netherlands has much in common. The gran history
is very alike. However, despite cross-border transfers and interconnectedness,
the growth and flourishing of civil society in the Netherlands and in Germany
has been very distinct.
Although in Europe political science and history has never been that far apart
as in the U.S., Hans Keman highlights in his contribution “Political Science and
History: Symbiosis or Synthesis” that currently the two disciplines are reestablishing a closer relationship with respect to methods applied and research
topics addressed. This is particularly the case for comparative historical analysis
that aims at addressing “big issues” such as the development of modern statehood, the growth and alteration of the welfare state or success and failure of democratic rule. The article provides ample evidence that the two disciplines have
more in common than normally perceived. Both the science of history as well as
political science aims at researching and explaining processes of change and
modification. Furthermore, both disciplines are interested in analyzing how
change and development are interwoven, and which role society and more precisely civil society plays with respect to change and development. However, despite these similarities the two disciplines still stand out for their uniqueness as
regards their genuine interest and hence the driving force for research. To a certain extent, historians are primarily interested in explaining when and how
change took place. Political scientists primarily address the why-question, and
they furthermore ask firstly who benefited, and secondly, what is or what was the
outcome of the specific development and change. In addition, historians tend to
11
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
emphasize the uniqueness of events and the diversity of developments. Political
scientists are concerned with tracing down specific models. Accordingly, political scientists aim at detecting the interconnectedness of developments; or to put
it differently, political scientists try to show how and to what extent specific developments enroll in accordance with an underlying pattern or “model” that is
inspired by and embedded in theory. But theory building in the sense of developing a gran design for the explanation of change and progress has always been a
key domain of historiography. A further rapprochement of the two disciplines
would therefore be of mutual benefit.
Part Two: Civil Society as a Multifaceted Concept
After the introductory chapter focusing on the art of comparing from both a historiographic and a political science perspective the following chapter addresses
traditions, current developments and recent changes of civil society and of nonprofit organizations in the Netherlands and in Germany. In order to understand
how civil society functions today, it is useful to analyze its roots and embeddedness in the historic context of the two neighboring countries. Does it make sense
to compare Dutch and German history with regard to civil society, asks Remieg
Arts in his contribution “Civil Society in the Netherlands around 1900. A historical analysis”? Despite the striking difference of the size of the countries, their
civil societies have many common features. The middle class – the Besitz- and
Bildungsbürgertum – was the driving force of civil society in Germany and in
the Netherlands in the 19th century. But, Dutch civil society, as the article of Remieg Aerts outlines, was also very distinctive. The reasons for the distinctiveness
are closely related to the size and the heterogeneity of Dutch society as well as to
the specific and limited role of the Dutch State in that era. Although the Netherlands have changed significantly since then, elements of the historically determined features of Dutch civil society are still in place. Amongst those count
most prominently the tradition of referring to the social bonds and networks of
civil society on behalf of a specific approach to policy making that is definitely
characterized by pragmatism. This very specific characteristic of the Netherlands
that makes this country very distinct from Germany will surface again and again
in the other contributions to this volume.
Rupert Graf Strachwitz also refers in his contribution “Civic Traditions and
Civil Society in Germany” to the legacy of history when it comes to the current
understanding of civil society and nonprofit organizations in the neighboring
Germany. In accordance with the Netherlands, Germany´s civil society has never
been homogenous; on the contrary, as Graf Strachwitz clearly indicated in this
contribution, there are at least three ideological frames under which nonprofit
12
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
organizations were operating in Germany. These approaches or frames of mind
are characterized by the authors as the liberal, the catholic and the socialdemocratic model of nonprofit activity. Each of these models stands out for a
very specific ideological underpinning. The liberal model perceives civil society
or nonprofit activity as a countervailing force vis-à-vis the state as an ever growing power that increasingly endangers liberty and freedom of citizens. The catholic model also perceives the state as a potential threat to the private realm of citizens. However, it is not individual liberty but the community of Catholics that
might be endangered through state authority. However, if there is a chance that
communitarian ideas, inspired by catholic moral philosophy make inroads into
modern statehood, there is a good chance that the catholic model becomes so to
speak “state friendly”. The same holds true for the social-democratic model. Indeed, a state working on behalf of the advancement of core social-democratic
values, such as social justice and equal opportunities, is perceived as the “natural
partner” of co-operation in the “social democratic model”. In other words, although by and large the same “pillars” or ideological milieus are constitutive for
Dutch and German society, the civil societies and hence the nonprofit sectors of
the two countries are nevertheless very different with respect to their attitudes
towards the state. Whereas in the Netherlands, civil society has always come
first, in Germany, civil society heavily builds on the co-operation with the state.
Indeed, the catholic as well as the social democratic milieu traditionally ask for
state support in order to make their civil society communities flourish. In addition, German civil society is related to distinctive and milieu specific social
norms and values. Hence all in all, the German nonprofit sector might be characterized as being far less pragmatic compared to its equivalent in the Netherlands.
Another facet of civil society is addressed in the contributions of Roland Roth
and Marije Boekkooi focusing on social movements as vital elements of civil societies. But, as Roland Roth in his overview of “Social Movements in Germany!” underlines the nexus between social movements and civil society is contested. Without any doubt, the majority of civil society organizations originated
in a particular social movement. On the other hand, civil society research either
focuses on civic engagement and hence on volunteering or on function and output of civil or nonprofit organizations as providers of services. Roland Roth´s
article provides ample evidence of the impact of social movements on the country´s political system and on its civil society. According to Roland Roth, there is
no doubt that social movements have been important for Germany´s civil society. Many social services as well as organizations working on behalf of the environment, run by nonprofit organizations today, were started by initiatives embedded in a social movement. Therefore, in Germany social movements are
deeply integrated into the country´s civil society. There are still strong ties and
overlapping memberships between unions and social movement initiatives. So13
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
cial movements enjoy quite a potential to mobilize. However, at the same time, it
is very important in the case of Germany not to overlook that the country also
stands out for a legacy of history where extreme right-wing social movements
hold sway. This was particularly the case in the Weimarer Republic. Nationalsocialism originally was a social movement in itself. And right-wing social movements come up time and again in Germany. Textbook examples are those outbreaks of xenophobia in East Germany after 1990; and nowadays, right-wing
movements refining a specific youth culture are again on the rise in Germany.
From a social movement perspective, Roland Roth all in all attests the country an
active movement sector that is embedded in the country´s civil society. Hence it
is not primarily a counterweighing power, instead social movements, particularly
those that are connected to environmental issues, have developed into a more or
less accepted facet of political life in Germany. This might be the reason why –
as Rupert Graf Strachwitz rightly underlines in his contribution – civil society
and in particular organized civil society with its numerous NPOs has – not unlike
in the Netherlands – turned into a rather stabilizing and not extremely innovative
segment of German society. However, the significant exception from this general
rule are the right-wing movements that are increasingly turning violent up to a
point where they become a right-wing terrorist force whose sniper do not restrain
from killing in particular members of the Turkish migrant population in Germany.
Marije Boekkooi´s contribution “Ideology: too much or too ” highlights problems and difficulties of Dutch social movements to co-operate strategically during major events such as G8 protest drives. The article provides the reader with a
hands-on impression of how Dutch pragmatism might stands in the way of protest mobilization. Based on the results of interviews with protest activists, her
contribution is a glimpse inside the movement. According to her analysis, Dutch
left-wing protest activists are exclusively concerned with their specific interest.
They are unable to promote co-operation because they lack an idea of connectedness and togetherness. Hence with respect to the social movement sector,
Dutch pragmatism hinders that movement activists are socialized into a specific
milieu that enables co-operation and co-ordination. The movement sector in the
Netherland is, according to the analysis of Marije Boekkooi, far less interwoven
and interconnected with the so-called Dutch middlefield, the terrain of nonprofit
activity. This indeed is a striking difference to the German situation where there
are still strong ties between the social movement and the organizational segment
of civil society.
In the following, the volume switches from the historical and social movement background of civil society to numbers. Or to put it differently, the civic
sphere and more precisely the nonprofit sector in the two countries is compared
by referring to a quantitative approach. Paul Dekker´s contribution “Dutch Civil
14
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
Society in Macro-quantitative Perspectives” provides an interesting and telling
picture of civil society and the strength of the nonprofit sector in the Netherlands. The paper starts with a caveat as regards the understanding of civic activities. Helping others, obeying the law, and trying to understand people with different opinions are perceived as strong indicators for civility and citizenship values. However, nonprofit organizations that are based on membership and volunteer input, but simultaneously depend on public grants and market earnings, are
not considered being part of civil society in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, as
Paul Dekker outlines through referring to international data sources, the nonprofit sector in the Netherlands is remarkably large; indeed, it is the largest sector in the world, measured in terms of its share of total employment. The reason
why this is the case is closely connected to the heterogeneity of Dutch society. In
practical terms, the nonprofit sector is an outcome of the co-operation between
the Dutch welfare state and the various associations and organizations which
used to structure the different milieus or pillars of Dutch society. Nowadays,
these organizations are just service providers without a specific normative underpinning. There is no doubt that from a comparative point of view the Netherlands score very high as regards both civic engagement of citizens – volunteering
and donations - and economic strength of the nonprofit sector. Furthermore, it
seems not to be problematic for the Dutch that nonprofit organizations that originally were based on civil society are nowadays service providers that are working on par with public as well as commercial competitors.
Exactly the very notion that nonprofits are simply service providers working
in growing but simultaneously highly competitive markets such as social services or health care, is put into question by the contribution of Eckhard Priller
“Scope, Structure, and Development of Civil Society in Germany”. The paper
starts out with a quantitative description of the German nonprofit sector in terms
of numbers of associations, foundations, and people volunteering. According to
the data, Germany stands out for a civil society and a sector of nonprofit organizations of respectable size. However, compared to the Netherlands, the sector is
less pronounced, if it is put in relation to the size of the country´s population.
The focus of the contribution of Eckhard Priller is on the topic of change. What
the data reveals are changes on the individual level of civic engagement. In accordance with the trend in the Netherlands, civic engagement is becoming more
and more individualized. Moreover, there are also significant changes at the
meso-level of the nonprofit organizations. A key concern of Eckhard Priller´s
article is the recent development of nonprofit employment. Due to economic
pressure and attuned competition, the working conditions in German nonprofit
organizations have significantly deteriorated in the last years. Safe jobs are no
longer the rule. Short-term contracts and even “odd jobs” that are poorly paid are
becoming more and more frequent in the sector. Hence, the article ends with a
15
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
rather pessimistic remark and the question whether nonprofit organizations shall
be still considered a part of German civil society, or whether they are simply
service providers looking for cheap labor because they have to cope with and
survive in highly competitive markets.
Against the portrait of the nonprofit sectors in the two countries, the following
articles specifically investigate changes and developments at the organizational
level. The focus of both contributions is on organizational hybridity in the sense
that nonprofit organizations in Germany and in the Netherlands increasingly
adapt coordination mechanism, rationalities and action logics which come from
other sectors, in particular from the market, and that those, therefore, are not
genuine for civil society. Both articles ask why this development takes place;
how hybridity plays out in nonprofits in Germany and the Netherlands, and what
the perspectives are in terms of risks and chances for nonprofits through hybridity in each country.
Based on empirical research, Taco Brandsen and Philip Marcel Karré underline in their contribution “The Inexorable Rise of Hybrid Organizations in The
Netherlands” that firstly hybridization is a widely spread phenomenon in the
Dutch nonprofit sector, and that secondly hybridization does not endanger mission, task and organizational culture of nonprofits. The topic of how nonprofits
in the Netherlands handle the challenge of hybridization provides a fine example
of Dutch pragmatism. Firstly, the article lays out in detail that Dutch nonprofits,
in particular those engaged in the provision of welfare related services, traditionally are hybrids due to the fact that these organizations look back upon an intense
co-operation with the state and its authorities. Hence hybridity translates into
serving public needs, and more precisely taking care of needs and duties that are
set by government. In addition since decades, the organizations have been publicly funded and worked almost exclusively on government grants. The article
lines out that the rise of new public management introducing the logic of the
market such as competition and management by objectives into the public realm
had a deep impact on nonprofits. In a nutshell, the organizations got used to a
significantly changed environment. They managed this challenge through hybridization and hence through the adaption of those logics and mechanism of coordination that are compatible with the market. As the article underlines – based
on case studies of hybrid Dutch nonprofits in about twenty policy fields – increased hybridity is far less risky than outlined and discussed in the literature.
Accordingly, becoming more hybrid is just an organizational answer towards
challenges that come about through a significantly changed environment. It is the
rollback of the welfare state and the significant change of public administration
that leads to hybridity. However, hybridity does not translate into the end of
nonprofits as a part of civil society.
16
http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700
For Germany, the article of Adalbert Evers “Hybridisation in German Public
Services – a Contested Field of Innovation” comes to a similar conclusion, albeit
the article looks at the phenomenon from a very different perspective. The article
starts out with a definition of a hybrid organization that tends to mix elements,
value systems and logics of various societal sectors. What is new about hybridization in the context of nonprofit organizations and civil society activity, Adalbert Evers asks provocatively? There is no doubt that the current interest of the
social sciences in hybridization is an outcome of the change or more precisely
withdrawal of the welfare state. But, there is also no doubt about the fact that
nonprofits and civil society organizations have always been affected by very different logics. Instead of perceiving hybridization primarily as a deviation, Adalbert Evers points at the chances of hybridization. According to his analysis, the
new trend towards hybrid organizational forms in the nonprofit sector might offer the opportunity to bring society back into the sector, precisely in terms of
civic engagement. Referring to selected policy fields – such as housing, education, child and elderly care – in Germany, the article makes clear that schools,
kindergartens, social housing projects or homes for the elderly might benefit
from an input of hybridity in terms of civic engagement, and volunteer input.
The institutions have the chance – due to hybridity – to become more democratic, open-minded and accessible. Instead of being “under the thump” of government control, organizations providing public services and as such being part
of civil society are re-gaining the opportunity to live up to their civicness thanks
to hybridity.
How the two contributions reflect on hybridity as a challenge for nonprofit
organizations is interesting, and it also might tell us how the Netherlands and
Germany in general cope with new issues and developments. While the perspective from the Netherlands highlights the pragmatism of the organizational behavior of Dutch nonprofits, the contribution from Germany argues normatively by
underlining that hybridity might encompass a chance for organizations providing
public services to get back to their roots.
Part Three: Changes and Challenges
The contrast between Dutch pragmatism and German normativism also provides
the overarching logic of the articles grouped together in part three of the volume.
Specifically part three addresses the topic of how the neighboring countries are
coping with changing environments and how they react confronted with new societal challenges as well as with major paradigmatic shifts or more precisely with
worldwide trends such as the boom of neo-liberalism that took sway during the
last decades. Without any doubt, the European Union also constitutes such a
17