It is held that nonprofit and voluntary organizations contribute to democratic governance by representing the interests of their constituents to the state. Yet little is known about the capacities of these organizations to represent effectively their constituents and the larger community. This study proposes a framework for understanding the varieties of representation in nonprofit and voluntary organizations. The authors argue that the nature of representation within an organization is indicated by five dimensions: substantive, symbolic, formal, descriptive, and participatory representation. Formal, descriptive, and participatory representation are different means of achieving substantive and symbolic representation; the latter being measures of the extent to which organizations “act for” and “stand for” particular constituencies. They further suggest that this conceptual framework serves as a useful first step toward examining the representational capacities of nonprofit organizations. Two illustrative cases of community-based organizations are presented to tease out the complexity of representational mixes found in nonprofits.
Abzug, R. (1996). The evolution of trusteeship in the United States: A roundup of findings from six cities. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7(1), 101-111.
2.
Abzug, R., DiMaggio, P., Grey, B.H., Useem, M., & Kang, C.H. (1993). Variations in trusteeship: Cases from Boston and Cleveland, 1925-1985. Voluntas, 4(3), 271-300.
3.
Abzug, R., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2001). Nonprofit boards: Crucibles of expertise or symbols of local identities?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(1), 51-73.
4.
Almond, G.A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
6.
Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S.M. (1985). Habits of the hearts: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Harper & Row.
7.
Ben-Ner, A., & Van Hoomissen, T.V. (1994). The governance of nonprofit organizations: Law and public policy. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 4(4), 393-414.
8.
Berger, P.L., & Neuhaus, R.J. (1977). To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
9.
Berry, J.M. (1994). An agenda for research on interest groups. In W. Crotty, M. A. Schwartz, & J. C. Green (Eds.), Representing interests & interest group representation (pp. 21-28). Lanham, MD: University Press of America .
10.
Berry, J.M., Portney, K.E., & Thomson, K. (1993). The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
11.
Bolduc, V.L. (1980). Representation and legitimacy in neighborhood organizations: A case study. Journal of Voluntary Action Research , 9, 165-178.
12.
Booth, J.A., & Richard, P.B. (1998). Civil society, political capital, and democratization in Central America. Journal of Politics, 60(3), 780-800.
13.
Box, R.C. (1992). The administrator as trustee of the public interest: Normative ideals and daily practice. Administration & Society,24(3), 323-346.
14.
Bramble, T. (2000). Leadership representativeness in the Australian union movement. Australian Bulletin of Labour, 26(4), 298-324.
15.
Brown, W.A. (2002). Inclusive governance practices in nonprofit organizations and implications for practice. Nonprofit Management and Leadership , 12(4), 369-386.
16.
Bucholtz, B.K. (1998). Reflections on the role of nonprofit associations in a representative democracy. Cornell Journal of Law andPublic Policy, 7, 555-603.
17.
Checkoway, B., & Zimmerman, M. (1992). Correlates of participation in neighborhood organizations . Administration in Social Work, 16(3/4), 45-64.
18.
Cnaan, R.A. (1991). Neighborhood-representing organizations: How democratic are they?Social Science Review, 65, 614-634.
19.
Crotty, W. (1994). Interest representation and interest groups: Promise and potentialities. In W. Crotty, M. A. Schwartz, & J. C. Green (Eds.), Representing interests and interest group representation, (pp. 1-11). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
20.
DiMaggio, P.J., & Anheier, H.K. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors . Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 137-159.
21.
Forbes, D.P. (1998). Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organization effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(2), 183-202.
22.
Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
23.
Frumkin, P. (2002). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
Gittell, M., & Covington, S. (1998). The difference gender makes: Women in neighborhood development organizations. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute, Nonprofit Sector Research Fund.
25.
Guo, C. (in press). When government becomes the principal philanthropist: The effect of public funding on patterns of nonprofit governance. Public Administration Review.
26.
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. London : Polity.
27.
Harrison, S., & Mort, M. (1998). Which champions, which people? Public and user involvement in health care as a technology of legitimation. Social Policy and Administration, 32(1), 60-70.
28.
Held, D. (1988). Models of democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
29.
Herman, R.D., & Renz, D.O. (1997). Multiple constituencies and the social construction of nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 185-206.
30.
Kanter, R., & Summers, D. (1987). Doing well while doing good: Dilemmas of performance measurement in nonprofit organizations and the need for a multiple constituency approach. In W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 154-166). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
31.
Kelly, R.M. (1998). An inclusive democratic polity, representative bureaucracies, and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 58(8), 201-208.
32.
Kissane, R.J., & Gingerich, J. (2004). Do you see what I see? Nonprofit and resident perceptions of urban neighborhood problems. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 311-333.
33.
Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34.
Lansley, J. (1996). Membership participation and ideology in large voluntary organisations: The case of the national trust. Voluntas, 7(3), 221-240.
35.
Loewenberg, G., & Kim, C.L. (1978). Comparing the representativeness of parliaments . Legislative Studies Quarterly, 3(1), 27-49.
36.
Michels, R. (1962). Political parties. New York : Free Press.
37.
Middleton, M. (1987). Nonprofit boards of directors: Beyond the governance function. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 141-153). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38.
Mitchell, J. (1997). Representation in government boards and commissions . Public Administration Review, 57(2), 160-167.
39.
Newman, W., & Wallender, H. (1978). Managing not-for-profit enterprises. Academy of Management Review, 6, 25-31.
40.
Noteboom, L.J. (2003, February 13). Good governance for challenging times . Available on the American Symphony Orchestra League Web site: www.symphony.org
41.
Peterson, P.E. (1970). Forms of representation: Participation of the poor in the Community Action Program. American Political Science Review, 64(2), 491-507.
42.
Pitkin, H.F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
43.
Piven, F.F., & Cloward, R.A. (1971). Regulating the poor: The functions of public welfare . New York: Pantheon.
44.
Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
Putnam, R.D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital . Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
46.
Regab, I.A., Blum, A., & Murphy, M.J. (1981). Representation in neighborhood organizations. Social Development Issues, 5(2/3), 62-73.
47.
Rosenblum, N.L. (1998). Membership and morals. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
Siciliano, J. (1996). The relationship of board member diversity to organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1313-1320.
49.
Smith, S.R., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50.
Spear, R. (2004). Governance in democratic member-based organisations . Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75(1), 33-59.
51.
Swindell, D. (2000). Issue representation in neighborhood organizations: Questing for democracy at the grassroots. Journal of Urban Affairs, 22(2), 123-137.
52.
Tocqueville, A. de (1956). Democracy in America. New York : New American Library.
53.
Tourigny, A.W., & Miller, J.A. (1981). Community-based human service organizations: Theory and practice. Administration in Social Work, 5(1), 79-86.
54.
Warren, M.E. (2001). Democracy and association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55.
Weisbrod, B.A. (1997). The future of the nonprofit sector: Its entwining with private enterprise and government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(4), 541-555.
56.
Widmer, C. (1989). Minority participation on boards of directors of human service agencies: Some evidence and suggestions. In R. R. Herman & J. Van Til (Eds.), Nonprofit boards of directors: Analyses and applications (pp. 139-151). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
57.
Widmer, C., & Houchin, S. (2000). The art of trusteeship: The nonprofit board member's guide to effective governance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
58.
Zimmermann, U. (1994). Exploring the nonprofit motive (or: What's in it for you?). Public Administration Review, 54(4), 398-403.
