Date post: | 22-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Government & Nonprofit |
Upload: | marcos-eduardo-villa-corrales |
View: | 279 times |
Download: | 1 times |
RegisUniversity
MNM697ProfessionalProject
Facilitator:JeffreyPryor
MarcosE.VillaSeptember30,2009
TheCivilSocietyinLatinAmericanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page2
INDEX
INTRODUCTION 3
CIVILSOCIETYHISTORICALCONTEXT 4
NONPROFIT,NONGOVERNMENTALANDCIVILSOCIETYORGANIZATIONS 6
CIVILSOCIETYORGANIZATIONSHISTORICALANDINTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENT 7
CIVILSOCIETYORGANIZATIONSINUNITEDNATIONS,ANEXAMPLEOFTHECOMPLEXREALITY 15
CIVILSOCIETYINLATINAMERICA 17
1. Chile 19
2. Peru 21
3. Mexico 24
4. Colombia 26
5. Brazil 29
6. Argentina 30
THENEEDTOPROFESSIONALIZETHECIVILSOCIETYORGANIZATIONSINLATINAMERICA 32
• Theexperienceofpublicpolicy&administrationdegrees 32
• Theexperienceofnoncredit/degree‐seekingstudies 34
• ThepossibilityofcivilsocietyorganizationgraduatestudyinLatinAmerica 35
JESUITUNIVERSITIESMISSION 37
BIBLIOGRAPHY 40
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page3
INTRODUCTION
In thispaper theauthorwilldefine“CivilSociety”andprovidean in‐depthviewof therealityof
civil societywithinsomecountries inLatinAmerica.Theobjectiveof thepaper is tounderstand
civilsocietyorganizationsandtakeacloser lookattheircontexttosee ifdevelopingaGraduate
programwithinthosecountriesmighthelptostrengthenthemindividuallyandasasectorandas
aconsequencetoimprovethesocial‐political‐economicalimpacttheyareaddressing.
TheimportanceoftheCivilSocietymakesitnecessarytounderstandandtoknowthepossibilities
that relyon it.Severalgovernment leaders,academics,universities,privatecorporations leaders
seeCivilSocietyasthekeyactorinthefuture;iscivilsocietytheanswerwehavelookbetweenthe
struggle of the welfare state and the market? Is Civil Society a strong actor in Latin American
Countries?Isitreadytoproposepossiblepathsinordertofightpoverty?IsCivilSocietyreadyto
leadsocial justicewithinLatinAmericanCountries,or inotherwords, isCivil Societydeveloping
leadersforestablishingsocialjusticeamongthosecountries?IfCivilSocietyisakeyactorforthe
future,howcanwestrengthentheiractionsandtheirorganization?
A second objective is to analyze if this graduate program as it fits to the mission of Jesuit
Universities seek in their education. It is possible that the Graduate Degrees those universities
offerdonotconsiderCivilsocietyasanimportantsocialactorforaccomplishingsocialchange.Itis
veryimportanttounderstandthelinkbetweenCivilSocietyandJesuituniversitiesinordertosee
what is the best way to collaborate to strengthen each other and finally to reach their own
missions and visions. What are the possibilities that the Jesuit universities have in order to
strengthenthem?
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page4
CIVILSOCIETYHISTORICALCONTEXT
Citizenswhoareindividuallypowerless
donotveryclearlyanticipatethestrengththattheymayacquirebyunitingtogether
AlexisdeTocqueville(1840)
Inthelastthousandsofyears,andpossiblybefore,humankindhasdevelopeditselfasthemost
complex specie on the earth. Its complexity is not only biological but also in the way it has
organizeditselfforalongtime.Betweengettingtheirneedsfulfilled‐forsurvival‐andorganizingas
a community many leaders, philosophers, politicians, writers, communities, governments have
lookedforthebestanswerandarestilllookingforthatanswer.
Along our history, in specific moments, different communities have established as a better
solutiontotheirorganizationthat“strong”governmentsshouldmakedecisionsanddictatewhat
should be done in their societies including economic decisions. Some communities tried to
establish that complete freedom of production without government intervention in the
economicalaspectsofthecommunitywouldbalancetheconcentrationofpowerthatgovernment
hadandasaconsequenceequalitywouldcometoeveryhumanbeing.Hundredsofbookshave
beenwrittenandhundredsofyearshavepassed.Millionsofpeoplehavelivedtheconsequences
oftheseideasandwestillarelookingforananswer.
We can look back to the origins of our occidental culture in the Ancient Greece with the
philosophyofPlatoandAristotleandseesomeofthecitizendefinitionswewillarrivehundredsof
yearslater.WecanreviewtheMedievalAgeandseehowmonarchiesdevelopedafirmrepulsion
of the belief that some men are semi gods and find the reasons why we have come to the
conclusion that democracy might be a good way of organizing ourselves Liberté, Égalité,
Fraternité; threewordsthat inanhistoricmomentchangedtheorganizingpatternsofacountry
andtookhistory in toadifferentpath,apaththatbroughttheestablishmentofmodernstates,
andwiththem,thebeginningofouractualwayoforganizing,thebeginningofouractualculture
(Anaya, 2007); understanding by culture what Bernard Lonergan has defined in his Theology
Method:“asetofmeaningsandvaluesthatinformacollectivestyleoflife,andthereareasmany
culturesasdifferentsetsofmeaningsandvalues”(Lonergan,2001,p.292)
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page5
Culturesallovertheworldhavebeenexperiencingthishistoryandeachofthosecountriesstarted
testing and taking decisions from their experiences until we arrived in the last century to a
confrontationof twodifferent conceptionsofhow things shouldbedone; twodifferentvisions:
socialismandcapitalismrepresentedbytheSovietUnionandtheUnitedStates.Thedifferences
weresustainedforseveralyears inthecalled“ColdWar”ascapitalismandsocialismconfronted
each other and started different actions that tried to impose ideological influence through
economical, political or military support (Kort, 2001). Those conflicts rely on the ideological
proposalofprioritizetheGovernmentovertheFreemarketorviceversaasiftheyweredifferent
sectorswithinoursociety.(Gadis,1990)
This is how we arrive to the definition of two sectors in our society; two sectors that should
complementthemselvesbutintheirstruggleformorepowerandcontroloverthedecisionsthey
endedmanytimes inconfrontation. Insome,governmentsbalancehasbeenacquired, inothers
one sector rulesover theother. The first sector isnormallyunderstoodas thegovernment: the
mostbasic agreements thatwe, inour actual context, assume sinceweareborn. It is normally
represented by the constitutions of a country and it establishes the rights and duties of the
membersofthatcommunity.Allmembersaresupposedtobeequalandareconsideredcitizens.
Theyarefreetodecideupontheirlivesaslongastheyrespectothers’lives,theconstitutionsand
laws.Indemocraticgovernmentsanyonecanassociatewithinthemselvesanddevelopgroupsthat
look forward to represent themselves and their interests and eventually they might become
political parties. Members also develop groups that are more focused to provide goods and
servicestothecommunitylookingforaprofitandtheylookforcompletefreedomontheiractions
as long as they get profit and provide goods and services developing as a consequence the
“secondsector”thatisnormallyunderstoodastheeconomicalorthe“market”.(O’Donnell,2000)
InUnitedStateshistoricalcontext,bothsectorswereclearintheirdevelopmentandpurposesas
wecan see in theFederalistPapersand specifically in JamesMadison’spaper (1787)aboutThe
UnionasaSafeguardAgainstDomesticFactionandInsurrection.Atthesametimewecanseethe
testimonyfromAlexisdeTocquevillethattalksaboutthe“immenseassemblageofassociations”
(Tocqueville,1840);hewasimpressedabouthowtheAmericanpeopleassociatenotonlytomake
commerce andmanufacture goods –for profit focused– but also to entertain, to build inns, to
diffuse books, to found hospitals, prisons and schools and to succeed in proposing a common
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page6
object and to induce themselves voluntarily to pursue it.Many analysts define this as the very
originofthenonprofitorindependentSectorintheUnitedStates.Thisisthekindoforganizations
that cannot be defined neither government or private (e.g., like business). From this historical
pointofviewandconsideringthesocietyassectorsthiscouldbedefinedthenastheThirdSector
meaningadifferenttypeoforganizationwithadifferentobjectiveornature.Inthenextlineswe
willgodeepintothedefinitionofthisterm.
NONPROFIT,NONGOVERNMENTALANDCIVILSOCIETYORGANIZATIONS
Indemocraticcountriesthescienceofassociationisthemotherofscience;
theprogressofalltherestdependsupontheprogressithasmade.
AlexisdeTocqueville
Oneof themost important thingsdeTocquevilleobserved inhisvisits to theUnitedStateswas
that in democratic nations, where citizens are independent, they “can do hardly anything by
themselves…therefore,becomepowerlessiftheydonotlearnvoluntarytohelponeanother”,they
realize that theydependoneuponanother.A secondvery importantnote is that “if theynever
acquiredthehabitofformingassociationsinordinarylife,civilizationitselfwouldbeendangered”
(Tocqueville, 1840) this will take to the conclusion that associations are the very schools of
democracyandthemotherofaction,studiedandappliedbyall.
Allovertheworldandalongthehistoryofhumankind,severalmenandwomenhaveworkedasa
community rather than only for themselves. De Tocqueville testimonies, religion books, cave
paintingsandancientGreecephilosophers,amongothers,showhowmenhistoricallyhavebeen
“invited” to go beyond the personal benefit of an action. During our history there are many
examples of people: “dedicating their lives to work for others without expecting a personal
benefit”;asanexamplewehavethedifferenthistoricalreligiousgroupsasthe“prophets”,within
theCatholicChurchwehavetheDominicans,FranciscansandtheJesuits.Eventhatsomeofthose
groupsarefaith‐related,severalofthemarenot,suchastheScouts,GreenPeace,MedicsWithout
Borders,AmnestyInternational,Oxfamandthousandsofgroupsinlocalcommunitiesalloverthe
world.Thesekindsoforganizationsmighthaveexisted for thousandsofyearsbut theyarenow
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page7
legally known in the US as Nonprofit Organizations (NPOs) and they rely on the U.S. Internal
RevenueService’s501(c)3y/taxexemptlegalstatus.
From a different stand point the sociologist Jeffrey Alexander (1994), retaking the tradition of
Locke, Ferguson, Smith and de Tocqueville has defined Civil Society as “the arenawhere social
solidarityisdefinedinuniversalisticterms.Itisthe“we”fromanationalcommunity…thefeelingof
connectiontowardseachmemberofthecommunity, thatgoesbeyondtheprivatecompromises,
nearloyaltiesandsegmentinterests”andconsidersitasacollectiveconsciousnessrecoveringthe
ideaofcommunitywithinthesocietyinacompleteoppositionofthecapitalismideathattriedto
eliminatethesocial linksandunderstoodcitizensas individualisticselfishconsumers.(Cancino&
Ortiz,1997)
Complementing Alexander’s definition, we can consider Cohen and Arato’s overview that,
following Jürgen Habermas tradition, rebuilt Civil Society with the impulse of the “new” social
movementsandthe“discursiveethic.”TheyconsiderCivilSocietyaspartofthepublicsphereand
as an autonomous arena from the liberal market and as a place that criticizes the established
orderwithinsocietyand,inthenameofinclusion,pushestowardsequaleconomicalends.(Cohen
&Arato, 1994) The supposed autonomy from government and themarketmakes one consider
CivilSocietyasa“ThirdSector.”Itshouldn’tbeforgottenthattheyalsoconsiderthesolidarityasa
keyfactorandthesocialmovementsasthegreatestexpressionofitinaccordancewiththeItalian
sociologistAlbertoMelucci.
CIVILSOCIETYORGANIZATIONSHISTORICALANDINTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENT
Inthenextpartofthepapertheresearchwillshowthedifferentperspectivesandfromdifferent
authors thehistoricaland internationaldevelopment thecivil societyhas shown in the last four
decades. In order to manage some statistics we will specifically consider these kinds of
organizationswiththefivecharacteristicsestablishedbySalamonandAnheier(1997):
1. Organized
2. Private
3. Self–Governing
4. Non–Profitdistributing
5. Voluntary
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page8
Figure 1.Growth in the number of InternationalNongovernmentalOrganizations, 1970 – 2002 (Union of
InternationalAssociations,2002)
Figure2.CompositionofNGOAid todevelopingCountries,1970–1999 (Clark,1991,2003;Lindenberg&
Bryant,2001;DevelopmentInitiatives,2000;UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme,2001)
In the Figure 1we can see the growth in International Nongovernmental Organizations (INGO)
since 1970 to 2002 that are present in at least three countries; if we would include the
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page9
organizations that are present in two countries numbers might be considerably superior. It is
impressive how they have developed during the last 40 years and the economic weight and
political importance they have achieved as a consequence. We can also see in figure 2 the
compositionofNongovernmentalOrganizations(NGOs)AidtoDevelopingCountriesandhowthe
official grants started going down in the nineties and how private donations have increased
considerablytowardsthosecountries.
Figure3.GrowthinINGOMembership,1990–2000,byRegion(UnionofInternationalAssociations,1990,
2000)
Analyzing Figures 3 and 4 we realize the growth by region and by country income group
respectively.WecanseehowtheCentralandEasternEuropehadanimportantgrowthfrom1990
to2000ofmorethan300%,followedbyEastAsiaandPacificandhavingaworldfinalgrowthof
morethan60%.ItisimportantalsotoconsiderthesameperiodbytheIncomeGroup.Weseethat
theMiddle Income groups including EastAsia, central and eastern Europe and specifically Latin
Americahadalittlelessthan100%increasefollowedbythelowincomecountriesandleavingin
thelastplacethehighincomecountries.
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page10
Figure 4. Growth in INGO Membership, 1990 – 2000 by Country Income Group (Union of International
associations1990,2000)
PeterDobkinHallrealizedthatover90percentofNPOsasweknowthemnow,werecreatedsince
1950(Hall,2005)andthatworldwidemostNGOshavecometobeingevenlaterintimebecoming
themostrapidlygrowingtypesoforganizationsglobally.Severalacademicsexplainthisas:
• ananswertothecrisisofthepoliticalpartiesinthemoderndemocraciesthatarehaving
seriousdifficultiesrepresentingsocialinterests
• a redefinition on the role of the state andmodern societieswith the emerging of new
actorsandsocialmovements
• a lack of efficiency in the government traditional procedures and the extension of
corruptionamongmostofthemallovertheworld.
Thecrisisofthewelfarestatesandthefallofthecommunistcountrieshavebeenotherimportant
factorsthathavecontributedtothisgrowth.(Gellner,1996)
HelmutK.AnheierandNunoThemudo(2005)havealsostudiedthisphenomenonandconsidering
theestablishedcharacteristicsconsideredbySalamon,theyarrivetosomeimportantconclusions
aboutthefactorsthathavebeenfavoringinternationalizationoftheseentities.Oneofthemisthe
politicalenvironmentthatconsidersthemasagentsofdevelopment.Theyareconsidered:
• moreeffective
• flexible
• moreinnovativethananygovernment
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page11
Figure 5. Total Employment in NPO as percentage of Economical Active Population, by Country in 2004
(Irarrázaval,Hairel,Sokolowski&Salamon,2004)
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page12
• acounterpartbalancingthestatepower
• bringpluralism
• democratizationactor
• promotesocialchange
• addressinequalitiesofpowereveninrelationwiththemarketandgovernment
• supportiveofsocialmovements
InthiscontextMichaelEdwardshassuggestedthesectorasthe“magicbullet”(Edwards&Hulme,
1995)oras the“big ideaoneveryone’s lips” (2004)because it seemstobring together thinkers
from left and right as a solution to any problem of the society, finding balance between an
authoritarianstateorthetyrannicalmarket.
Figure6.CivilSocietyorganizationemploymentincontext,35countries(Salamon,L.M.,Sokolowski,S.W.,&
ListR.,2003)
LesterSalamon,(2003)fromtheJohnsHopkinsUniversity,developedaveryimportantresearchof
35countriesdivided in threeeconomical levels:16advanced industrial,14developingcountries
and5transitionalcountriesfromcentralandeasternEurope.Theamazingresultsattendedonlyto
those 35 countries that lead to think Civil Society is an even broader reality. Therewere three
importantconsiderationsthatarepertinenttothisresearch:
15
• Paid vs. volunteer workforce. Of the 39.5 million FTE civil society workers,approximately 16.8 million, or 43 percent, are volunteers and 22.7 million, or57 percent, are paid workers (Figure 2).17 This demonstrates the ability of civilsociety organizations to mobilize sizable amounts of volunteer effort. In fact,the actual number of people involved in the civil society sector exceeds eventhese numbers since most volunteers work only a few hours a week and evenmany paid employees work part-time. The actual number of people volunteer-ing for civil society organizations in these 35 countries, for example, exceeds190 million. This represents over 20 percent of the adult population in these countries.
2. Great variations among countries
While the civil society sector is a sizable force in a wide range of countries, thereare considerable differences among countries.
• Overall variation. In the first place, countries vary greatly in the overall scaleof their civil society workforce. Thus, as Figure 3 makes clear, the civil societysector workforce—volunteer and paid—varies from a high of 14 percent of theeconomically active population in the Netherlands to a low of 0.4 percent inMexico.18
40
4 4
8
33
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Civil SocietyOrganizations
Utilities Textile Industry FoodManufacturing
Transportation/Communications
Nu
mb
er
of
em
plo
yees (
millio
ns)
Figure 1 Civil society organization employment in context, 35 countries
Source: Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page13
1. CivilSocietyisamajoreconomicforce
CivilSociety isa$1.3trillionindustryandmanagesagreaterGrossDomesticProduct(GDP)than
countries as Italy, Brazil, Russia, Spain or Canada. It would be considered the world’s seventh
largest economy with a total workforce of 39.5 million full‐time equivalent workers and 190
millionpeoplevolunteering
2. CivilSocietyhasgreatvariationsamongcountries
Thefigure5weanalyzedshowthedifferencebetweendevelopedcountriesanddevelopingones
wheredevelopedisthreetimesbiggerintheworkforce.Inthevolunteeringleveldifferencesare
deeperfromanunder10%inEgypttoahigh75%inSweden.
3. CivilSocietyismorethanserviceprovider
CivilSociety isnotonlyaserviceproviderbutalsoamulti functionrole;theyareawayofsocial
expression of the needs, they innovate in areas where neither government nor market does,
deliverserviceswithanextraordinaryqualityandspeciallyservethoseingreatestneed.Over40%
oftheworkforceoftheCivilSocietyisengagedwitheducationandSocialservices.
Figure7.DistributionofCivilSocietysectorworkforce,byfieldandtypeofactivity(Salamon,etal.,2003)
23
in empowerment activities along with some portion of the workers in other serv-ice fields.
• Volunteer and paid staff roles differ markedly. Volunteers and paid staff playmarkedly different roles in the operation of the civil society sector internationally.
- In the first place, although both volunteers and paid staff are primarilyengaged in service functions, paid staff are more heavily involved in thesefunctions than are the volunteers. Thus, while 72 percent of paid staffeffort, on average, is devoted to service functions, only 52 percent ofthe volunteer effort is (see Figure 7).
- By contrast, only 24 percent of the paid staff time is devoted to the expres-sive functions compared to 42 percent of the volunteer time. Particularly
Culture
19%
Development
8%Health
14%
Social Svcs
19%
Education
23%
Professional
7%
Civic /
Advocacy
4%
Environment
2%
Foundations
1%
International
1%
Other
2%
Service fields (64%)
Expressive fields (32%)
* 32-country unweighted averages.
Figure 6 Distribution of civil society sector workforce, by field and type of activity*
Source: Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page14
Figure8.DistributionofCivilSocietyOrganizationpaidandvolunteerworkforce(Salamon,etal.,2003)
Manypeoplebelievethatthemostimportantsourceof incomeisphilanthropybutit isnot.The
study showed that fees are 53% of the income and governments are the second largest
contributorswitha35%,leavingonlya12%
tophilanthropy.
Thegrowththesectorhasshowedandthe
characteristics of the socio‐cultural context
from the development make us consider
thechallengesfortheseorganizationsinthe
immediateandlongtermchallenges:
1. Professionalization
2. Internationalization
3. Remainaccountable
24 GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY: AN OVERVIEW
noticeable is the role that volunteers play in cultural and recreationalactivity, which absorbs about 25 percent of all volunteer time.
- Volunteers are also much more actively engaged than paid staff in civicand advocacy activity and environmental protection, which together absorb10 percent of all volunteer effort. Moreover, if we were to include the 10percent of all volunteer effort devoted to development organizations, whichalso often perform an empowerment role, the share of the volunteer effortgoing into such empowerment functions would rise to 20 percent.
- Even in their service functions, moreover, volunteers appear to concentratetheir efforts in different fields than do paid staff. Thus, a sizable 27 percentof all volunteer effort is devoted to organizations providing social services,and 10 percent to organizations primarily engaged in development. Thecomparable figures for paid staff are 18 percent and 7 percent, respectively.In fact, nearly half of all the work effort in these two fields is supplied byvolunteers. Volunteers thus play an especially important role not only inmaintaining the nonprofit sector’s advocacy functions, but also in helping itmaintain its long-standing commitment to social justice and development.
2%
1%
3%
42%
3%
7%
6%
25%
52%
10%
8%
27%
8%
1%
1%
2%
24%
2%
3%
7%
13%
72%
7%
17%
18%
30%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Foundations
International
Other
Total expressive
Environment
Civic / Advocacy
Professional
Culture
Total service
Development
Health
Social Svcs
Education
Percent of total
Paid staff
Volunteers
Service fields
Expressive fields
Other
* 32-country unweighted averages.
Figure 7 Distribution of civil society organization paid and volunteer workforce, by field*
Source: Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project
Figure9.DistributionofCivilSocietyOrganizationpaid
andvolunteerworkforce(Salamon,etal.,2003)
29
income is not fees and charges but public sector support. In the case ofhealth organizations, government alone provides over half of the funds.Among social service organizations, government accounts for 44 percent ofthe funding, fees for 37 percent, and private philanthropy for 19 percent.
- Private philanthropy-dominant fields. In only two fields—internationalassistance and religion—is private philanthropy the dominant sourceof income, and in one of these—international assistance—government is a veryclose second (35 percent from government vs. 36 percent from philanthropy).
• Variations among countries. As with other facets of the civil society sector, therevenue structure varies considerably among countries, as shown in Figure 11.
- Fee-dominant countries. In 22 of the 32 countries, fees are the major sourceof civil society organization revenue. Interestingly, this pattern is especial-ly marked among the developing countries, which also have the smallestcivil society sectors. Thus, the Philippines, Mexico, Kenya, Brazil,Argentina, Colombia, and Peru have the highest levels of reliance on feesand charges. Indeed, for the developing countries as a whole, fees average62 percent of civil society organization income, compared to only 45 percentfor the developed countries. By contrast, government provides only 22 per-cent of civil society revenue in the developing countries compared to 48 per-cent in the developed ones. This paradoxical result underlines the dual char-
Philanthropy
12%
Government
35%
Fees
53%
* 32-country unweighted averages.
Figure 9 Sources of civil society organization revenue*
Source: Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page15
4. Tobeeffectiveinspecificnationalframeworks
5. Keepthetensionbetweeneffectivedecisionmakinganddemocraticlifeandparticipation
(keepthesenseofschoolsofdemocracy)
6. Keepthecoremissionandsolidaritysense
7. Keeplegitimacy
8. Keepgovernmentandmarketaccountable
9. Keepgeneratingtheeconomical,socialandculturalimpact
10. Ensuretechnologyasakeytool
CIVILSOCIETYORGANIZATIONSINUNITEDNATIONS,ANEXAMPLEOFTHECOMPLEXREALITY
In trying to understand the definition of Civil Society and how it is applied in international
organizations it was important to look the United Nations (UN) as an important place where
severalinterestingideashavesurfaced.TheresearchhasshownthatinJuneof2004theSecretary
General of the United Nations Kofi A. Annan presented to the General Assembly a report that
intended to strengthen Civil Society in the United Nations system. The report1 was specifically
abouttherelationsbetweentheUnitedNationsandthe“CivilSociety”.Thisreportwasmadeby
twelve eminent persons from all over the world and tried to reflect how these organizations
participateintheUNdeliberationsandprocessesandtried“toidentifywaysofmakingiteasierfor
civilsocietyactorsfromdevelopingcountriestoparticipatefullyinUnitedNationsactivities;andto
reviewhowtheSecretariatisorganizedtofacilitate,manageandevaluatetherelationshipsofthe
United Nations with civil society and to learn from experience gained in different parts of the
system”(Annan,2004)
TheUNhasnowfourimportantinstancesandoneissuspended:
1. GeneralAssembly
2. SecurityCounsel
3. EconomicalandSocialCouncil
4. InternationalCourtofJustice
5. TrusteeshipCouncil(willmeetwhenrequired)
1Knownas“CardosoReport”forFernandoHenriqueCardoso,theformerpresidentofBrazilin2003whochairedthereport
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page16
SincetheUN’sfoundationin1945fewerthan400Non‐GovernmentalOrganizations(NGO's)have
beenimportantparticipants(Willets,2006),theyhaveaccesstointergovernmentalmeetings,are
able topresentwrittenstatements,makeopen interventionsand to lobby.Their intervention is
limitedtoconferencesandtotheEconomicandSocialCouncil(ECOSOC).Sincethen,thenumber
ofparticipantshas increased to3,187organizations and theyhave servedas “technical experts,
advisersandconsultantstogovernmentsandtheSecretariat.Sometimes,asadvocacygroups,they
espouse UN themes, implementing plans of action, programs and declarations adopted by the
UnitedNations”(UN,2009).
They seem like an active and growing actor even though there aren’t formal members of the
General Assembly, the Security Council nor the International Economic Institutions. Their
participation rightsare limiteddue to theyarenot “States”. It iswell known that there is some
resistanceamongseveralUNmembergovernmentsinextendingtheirrightssotheycouldachieve
amajor impact on the agenda. This is understood because several governments do not know,
recognize nor understand their work. InMexico for example, most state governments are still
refusingtocollaboratewiththeNGOsbecausetheyarestillconsideringthemassocialmovements
organizedtoquestionthegovernment insteadofcollaboratingwith them,even it iswellknown
thatmanyother federalgovernments recognize their jobandhavedevelopeddifferent laws for
enlargingjointventuresonsocialandeconomicaldevelopmentprojects.Someofthosecountries
areArgentina,theUnitedStates,Chile,theUnitedKingdom,FranceandSpain(Villa,2007).
Willetts’ study (2006) analyzed specifically the relation between the UN and the NGOs were
questioning their role and whether they are part of an established structural
functionalism/corporatismoraglobaldemocracy.Theresultswhereinterestingbecauseitshows
the level of intervention they have and how they are treated in the system, the importance of
definingtheirroles,theirlevelsofinterventionandtheirlevelofinternationalization.Hearrivedat
someveryimportantconclusions:
1. “For the last thirty years, it has been a system of democratic pluralism on all economic,
social,humanrights,andenvironmentalpolicyquestions.
2. The system does need extending to the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the
globaleconomicinstitutions.
3. Thereshouldbegreaterparticipationfromdevelopingcountries.
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page17
4. The system should not be subject to any fundamental restructuring through adoption of
functionalistorneocorporatistideas.
5. Itwouldbenefit fromavarietyofreformstostrengthendemocraticpluralismandincrease
thedensityofinteractionsinglobalcivilsociety”(Willetts,2006,p.16)
These conclusions agreewith someof the ideas of the present research about as a democratic
entities,theneedforsupportforamoreimportantimpact,theneededdevelopmentofthesector
in developing countries and finally how they allow to bring a deeper social, economical and
politicaldevelopment.
In thenextsectionof theresearchwewilladdresssomespecificcountries inLatinAmericaand
will consider national statistics of the sector in order to find possible pathswe need to take in
ordertoaddresstheneedsofthesector.
CIVILSOCIETYINLATINAMERICA
Whendemocracyisdeterioratedandweakeneditisdisplacedbyoligarchy
Aristotle(1997)
AfterreviewingtheglobalcontextofCivilSocietyanddiscussingitsrealityintheUN,thenextstep
intheresearchistodeeplyunderstandtheCivilSocietyanditscontextinsomeofthecountriesin
LatinAmerica inorder toknowtheir strengths,weaknessesandthepossiblepaths to followfor
strengtheningthesectorandasaconsequencestrengtheningthedemocracyineachoneofthose
countries and the region as a whole. The main source of information was the Johns Hopkins
ComparativeNonprofitProjectdevelopedbytheCenter forCivilSocietyStudies fromBaltimore,
Maryland.Threereasonswereconsideredinordertochoosethesourceofinformation:
• Itisthemostrecentsourceofinformationeventhoughitistenyearsold
• Itistheonlyresearchofthesectorwithacommongroundandmethodology
• Mostofthecountriesintheregiondonothaveanyviablesourceofinformation
Mostof thecountries in LatinAmericaareconsidered inaneconomicdeveloping situationand
consolidating their democracy systems. TheUSand theEuropeanUnion (EU), aswehave seen
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page18
before in Figure 2, have developed several projects in those countries and most of the
International NGOs (INGOs) have dramatically increased donations. Figure 3 showed how the
INGOshaveincreasedbyapproximately50%inLatinAmericaandCaribbeanandinFigure4we
realized how the countries with a middle income increased the number of associations
approaching100%growth.LatinAmericanCivilSocietyaccomplishesmostof theconditions for
havinganoticeably increase in itsdevelopment.Howcanweaddress thisexpansion?Whatare
themostimpactingactionsthatwillincreaseitseffectiveness?
We will analyze Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Peru as the most significant
examplesoftheregionandwillconsider
• theireconomicimpact
• theworkforcetheyrepresentincomparisonwithprivateorgovernmentareas
• andits’sourceofincomewithacomparisonwiththeregionandothercountries.
The reality theseorganizations function in takes into consideration that poverty reaches almost
50%of thepopulation ‐meaning211millionofpeople‐andaround20%are indigenous, (CEPAL,
2001)2Itisafactthattheseconditionshaveincreasedbutalsothecivilsocietysectorhas.
Figure10.PovertyandextremepovertypopulationinLatinAmerica(CEPAL,2001)
2ThesedataisfromthesameyearsoftheCIVILSOCIETYtablewewillanalyze.
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page19
1. CHILE
Nonprofit organizations in Chile represent an important workforce in the country. They almost
reachthe5%oftheeconomicallyactivepopulationanditistherelativelybiggerrepresentativein
Latin America. They have a largermayor force than Spain, as a sector, and it’s the first
development country on the list of the study applied to 36 countries by the Johns Hopkins
ComparativeNonprofitSectorProjectin2004(Irarrazaval,etal.,2004).
Figure11.NonprofitOrganizationsinChile(Irarrazaval,etal.,2004)
The nonprofit sector represents six times the force of Cencosud, the largest private
entrepreneurialgroupinthecountry,with304,000employeesaswecanseeinthefigures11and
12. These numbers consider the volunteers that represent 47%of the totalworkforce. It is the
majorvolunteerforceinLatinAmericathatreaches32%aswecanseeinthefigure13.Twothirds
oftheworkforce isconcentrated infourareas:education,health,socialservicesandcommunity
development.Referringtothedistributionof the income it is importanttoconsiderthat44%of
thetotal incomebelongstoEducation institutionsandreferringtothevolunteerworkthereare
three issues that depend mostly on volunteer work: culture, community development and
environmentalinstitutionsdueto75%oftheworkisdonebyvolunteers.
Figure12.TotalEmploymentinNPOsincontext(Irarrázaval,etal.,2004)
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page20
Figure13.VolunteerasshareofNPOstotalemployment(Irarrázaval,etal.,2004)
Thedevelopmentofthesectorandthesizeofitmightalsobeexplainedbecause,differencefrom
the rest of the Latin American countries, Chile reaches 46% of income from the government
sharing this statistic with the European countries (see figure 14 and 15). This income from
governmentismainlyfocusedoneducationalinstitutions.Thischaracteristichasgivenanimpulse
tothesectorbutatthesametimeisstartingtobe“captured”bythestatebecomingonlyaservice
providerandgivingthepossibilityof loosingtheirmissions.Awelldefinedlegalstatus isneeded
and a clear difference between the organizations that provide services to the state and the
independentoneswillbeakeyissuetosolveinthefuture.
An important challenge in Chile is to
find different paths to keep and
increase the volunteer force it has
achieved until now, especially
considering that volunteers currently
demand a more professional
distribution of their time, and
achievements in order to be more
effective and valuable. At the same
time the organization’s expectations
fromvolunteersareacontinuousandmoresystematicapproachthatimpliesabetterdistribution
of the functions inside the organization and a more professionalized management of those
resources.
Figure14.SourcesofCivilSocietyOrganizationrevenuein
Chile(Irarrázaval,etal.,2004)
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page21
Figure15.SourcesofCivilSocietyOrganizationrevenue(Irarrázaval,etal.,2004)
Theseorganizationsdonothaveaguaranteedwealthandasagrowingsector,accesstofundingis
becomingaverycompetitiveprocessevenifitcomesfromthegovernment,feesorphilanthropy
inthelocal,nationalorinternationallevel.Theyarebecomingmoreprofessionalanddemanding
moreprofessionalmanagerstoworkwithinthisnewcontext.
2. PERU
Nonprofit organizations in Peru represent an important social and political voice but also an
economical one. In 1995 it represented 1.2 billion dollars equivalent to the 2%of theGDP and
morethan150.000peopleasatotal
workforce,includingvolunteers.
One of the major problems of the
sector is theabilitytomeasure ina
preciseway the volunteer force. In
1998 a survey of donations and
voluntarism was applied and the
numbersconfirmedthat31%ofthepopulationwasvolunteeringdoublingtheresultsofthestudy
madebySanbornetal.(1999)
Peru has a good percentage of employment: it has the same percentages Colombia and better
thanBrazilandMexico.ItseemsthatPeru’shistorydeterminesinagoodwaythedevelopmentof
Figure16.NonprofitSectorinPerú,1995(Sanborn,
Portocarrero,List&Salamon,1999)! Contribución de los voluntarios. Aun así, estos datos no reflejan
por sí solos toda la extensión del sector no lucrativo delPerú, ya que también atrae un importante volumen de trabajovoluntario.Las 49.430 organizaciones analizadas en el presenteestudio también emplean a 26.400 voluntarios EJC, aproxima-damente. Esta cifra aumenta el número total de empleadosdel sector a más de 150.000, o casi el 3% del total de empleodel país (véase la figura XXIII.1).
Además, otra información recopilada por el equipo de inves-tigación que no es directamente comparable con los datos deámbito nacional utilizados previamente, sugiere que el núme-
538 La sociedad civil global: Las dimensiones del sector no lucrativo
CUADRO XXIII.1El sector no lucrativo en el Perú, 1995
1.200 millones de dólares en gastos— 2,0% del PIB
126.988 empleados remunerados— 2,4% del total de empleo no agrícola— 3,2% del empleo en el sector servicios— 16,5% del empleo en el sector público
FIGURA XXIII.1El sector no lucrativo peruano, con y sin voluntarios,1995, como porcentaje de...
16,5%
3,2%
2,4%
2,0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
2,0%
2,9%
3,9%
20,0%
PIB
Empleo total*
Empleo sectorservicios
Empleo sectorpúblico
* No agrario
Empleados remuneradosVoluntarios
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page22
the sectorbecause the invasionof the catholic church thatdevelopeddifferent social activities,
the mutual aid societies and especially to the “Sociedades de beneficiencia” promoted by the
upper classes during the 19th century that currently has been acquired by the formation of
corporatefoundations(Sanbornetal.,1999)
Figure17.Peruannonprofitsectorwithandwithoutvolunteersaspercentageof…(Sanborn,etal.,1995)
ThedistributionoftheemploymentisverysimilartoChile:75%ofnonprofitemploymentisonthe
educationareaandnear15%islocatedinthedevelopmentarea,followedbyhealthandculture
witha4%aswecanseeinfigure17.
It has the largest sector in
development and education in Latin
America and the rest of the studied
countries. The education number is
explained because all the primary
education institutions in the country
that had to be under the nonprofit
status and the development ones
that might be supported in an
important way by the Catholic
Churchthatlookedformanyyearsto
increase community development
andorganizing.
! Contribución de los voluntarios. Aun así, estos datos no reflejanpor sí solos toda la extensión del sector no lucrativo delPerú, ya que también atrae un importante volumen de trabajovoluntario.Las 49.430 organizaciones analizadas en el presenteestudio también emplean a 26.400 voluntarios EJC, aproxima-damente. Esta cifra aumenta el número total de empleadosdel sector a más de 150.000, o casi el 3% del total de empleodel país (véase la figura XXIII.1).
Además, otra información recopilada por el equipo de inves-tigación que no es directamente comparable con los datos deámbito nacional utilizados previamente, sugiere que el núme-
538 La sociedad civil global: Las dimensiones del sector no lucrativo
CUADRO XXIII.1El sector no lucrativo en el Perú, 1995
1.200 millones de dólares en gastos— 2,0% del PIB
126.988 empleados remunerados— 2,4% del total de empleo no agrícola— 3,2% del empleo en el sector servicios— 16,5% del empleo en el sector público
FIGURA XXIII.1El sector no lucrativo peruano, con y sin voluntarios,1995, como porcentaje de...
16,5%
3,2%
2,4%
2,0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
2,0%
2,9%
3,9%
20,0%
PIB
Empleo total*
Empleo sectorservicios
Empleo sectorpúblico
* No agrario
Empleados remuneradosVoluntarios
Figure18.NonprofitsectorcompositionincomparisonwithLatinAmericaand22othercountries(Sanborn,etal.,1999)! Notable cuota de empleo en el área de desarrollo. La siguiente
mayor cuota de empleo no lucrativo en el Perú la absorbe elárea de desarrollo, constituyendo el 14,5% del empleo delsector no lucrativo, el doble de promedio que los países lati-noamericanos (7,0%) y más del doble que en los 22 paísesaquí analizados (5,8%) 7. Esta área está ampliamente pobladapor las denominadas organizaciones no gubernamentales(ONGs), que facilitan financiación y formación a las activida-des de desarrollo de base comunitaria.
544 La sociedad civil global: Las dimensiones del sector no lucrativo
FIGURA XXIII.4Composición del sector no lucrativo, Perú,Latinoamérica, y promedio de los 22 países, 1995
30,2%
19,6%
18,3%
14,4%
6,5%
5,8%
3,1%
2,2%
44,4%
12,2%
10,3%
10,6%
12,4%
7,0%
1,2%
1,9%
74,5%
4,2%
1,2%
4,0%
14,5%
1,4%
0,1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
0,0%
Otras áreas
Medio ambiente/asesoramiento legal
Desarrollo
Asociaciones profesionales
Cultura
Servicios sociales
Sanidad
Educación
% de empleo no lucrativo
PerúPromedio LatinoaméricaPromedio de los 22 países
7 Si se incluye el empleo remunerado en las fundaciones y las asociaciones profe-sionales, la cuota correspondiente al área de desarrollo es del 13,8%. Esta cifra si-gue siendo notablemente más alta que el promedio de los países latinoamericanosy los 22 países incluidos en este estudio.
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page23
Peru’s income sources are completely different than
Chile.Aswecanseeinfigure18,Peru’smajorsourceof
income is the fee for services reaching a 67.8% of the
total income.Publicfundingisthesecondsourcewitha
19.3%andphilanthropyhasa12.9%andeventhatthese
two are lower in the country they represent a higher
percentageincomparisontoLatin‐Americancountriesor
thestudiedcountriesaswecanseeinfigure19.
It is evident that the government income all over Latin America is very low especially in
comparisontotheother22countriesthatreacha40%ofincome.
It is important to notice that the international aid reaches a total of 20% of the total income
bringingdownthenationalgovernmentandthenationalphilanthropy incometo6.2%and5.9%
respectively.Thisinternationalaidismainlyfocusedtoenvironmental,developmentandhousing
and to the defense of civil rights. These organizations depend completely of this income to
continuetheirjob.
It iswell knownthat thesector
needs recognition from
academics, politics and the
generalpublic.Itisasectorthat
needs to build bridges for
developing research and
collaborations with other
actors. A key factor to develop
is a clear law and fiscal rules
that enable the sector tomake
private philanthropy to grow
andthegovernmentsupport tobeactivated.Volunteerism isanother issue toconsiderbringing
moreprofessionalandmaterialresourcestotheorganizations.Thegrowthofthesectorwon’tbe
possibleifthesectordoesnotdevelopactorsthatmightleadthesectorintothispath.
Figure20.IncomesourcesinNonprofitsectorfromPeru,Latin
Americaand22othercountries(Sanborn,etal.,1999)bastante considerable. Así, como se indica en la figu-ra XXIII.8, aunque las cuotas y los pagos por servicios son elelemento predominante de la base financiera del sector nolucrativo en términos globales, su predominio está conside-rablemente menos acentuado que en el Perú (67,8% del to-tal de los ingresos en el Perú frente al 49,4% en términosglobales). Por el contrario, los pagos procedentes del sectorpúblico generalmente constituyen una cuota de ingresosconsiderablemente mayor en estos otros países (40,1%frente al 19,3% en el Perú).
! Importante financiación procedente de fuentes internacionales. Laayuda internacional constituye una notable fuente de financia-ción del sector no lucrativo en el Perú, contribuyendo con el20%, aproximadamente, del total de los ingresos. Es importan-te recalcar este dato, ya que el 13,1% de los ingresos procedende la financiación pública internacional: organizaciones multila-terales o bilaterales.Ello significa que el sector público nacionalsólo aporta el 6,2% de los ingresos en efectivo. Algo parecidoocurre con las donaciones privadas: las donaciones privadas in-ternacionales (como, por ejemplo, CARE) representan el 7%
550 La sociedad civil global: Las dimensiones del sector no lucrativo
FIGURA XXIII.8Fuentes de ingresos en efectivo del sector nolucrativo, Perú, Latinoamérica, y promedio de los 22países, 1995
19,3%12,9%
67,8%
15,5%10,4%
74,0%
40,1%
10,5%
49,4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Sector público Filantropía Cuotas
PerúPromedio LatinoaméricaPromedio de los 22 países
Figure19.IncomesourcesinNonprofitsectorfromPeru(Sanborn,etal.,1999)
ONGs, que emplean principalmente a profesionales de la cla-se media, pero que están dedicadas a la prestación de apoyo yal desarrollo de programas de formación en las comunidadesde rentas bajas.
5. La mayoría de los ingresos proceden de las cuotas ylos pagos por servicios, no de la filantropía o delsector público
Al igual que sus homólogos latinoamericanos, la mayor parte delos ingresos del sector no lucrativo peruano no proceden de lafilantropía privada, sino de las cuotas y los pagos por servicios.Más concretamente:
! Predominio de los ingresos obtenidos por cuenta propia. La mayo-ría de los ingresos del sector no lucrativo peruano se obtie-nen por cuenta propia, mediante las cuotas y los pagos porservicios prestados y las cuotas de afiliación. Como se indicaen la figura XXIII.6, esta fuente de financiación aporta aproxi-madamente dos terceras partes, o el 67,8%, del total de losingresos del sector no lucrativo en el Perú.
! Limitada financiación procedente de la filantropía y del sector pú-blico. Por el contrario, la financiación procedente de la filan-tropía privada y del sector público (nacional e internacional)
Perú 547
FIGURA XXIII.6Fuentes de ingresos del sector no lucrativo en elPerú, 1995
Cuotas, pagospor servicios
67,8%
Sector público19,3%
Filantropía12,9%
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page24
3. MEXICO
Historically, the nonprofit sector inMexico has had difficulties to develop itself because of the
politicalenvironment.The20thcentury,themostimportantforthesector,wasmarkedbyaone
Government party that didn’t develop laws or incentives for the sector. The research done by
Verduzco,List&Salamon(1999)affirms
that it is the least developed sector in
Latin America and all the 22 studied
countries. It does not represent an
importanteconomicalforcehavingonly
the .5% of the GDP and 93,809 paid
employees.
Mexico was below the Latin‐American
averageofemploymentnotevenreaching
onefifth.
The historic context of the sector and its
link to theCatholicChurchdetermined its
development. Mexico shares a similar
historywith Peru, Chile, Colombia and all
the Central American countries but in
Mexico in 1821 the state took all the
possessions of the church and the Church never
developed autonomous organizations giving an
important damage to the sector. Later at the
beginning of the 20th century the state had a very
importantdevelopmentandprovidedalltheservices
anddiscouragedtheattemptsofhavingautonomous
associations.Attheendofthecenturyotherpolitical
partiesstartedtogaintheloweranduppercameras
and change started to bring an important numbers
ofassociations.
Figure22.Mexicannonprofitsectorwithandwithoutvolunteersaspercentageof…(Verduzco,etal.,1999)2. El sector no lucrativo más reducido de
Latinoamérica
El sector no lucrativo mexicano no sólo es reducido en rela-ción con su economía global, sino también en comparación consus homólogos en Latinoamérica y en el resto del mundo.
! Significativamente por debajo de la media internacional.Como seobserva en la figura XXII.2, el tamaño relativo del sector nolucrativo varía ampliamente entre países, siendo la media glo-bal de los 22 países incluidos en el estudio el 4,8%. Por tanto,con una cuota de empleo del 0,4%, el sector no lucrativo me-xicano no sólo se situaba muy por debajo del promedio glo-bal, sino que en 1995 constituía el sector no lucrativo más re-ducido de los 22 países incluidos en este estudio.
! Considerablemente por debajo de la media de los países de Lati-noamérica. El empleo no lucrativo como porcentaje del totalde empleo es también considerablemente menor en Méxicoque en el resto de los países de Latinoamérica analizados enel presente estudio. Así, como se indica en la figura XXII.3, elempleo EJC en las organizaciones no lucrativas de México,con un 0,4% del total de empleo, constituye una cifra inferiora la quinta parte del promedio de los países de Latinoamérica(2,2%).
520 La sociedad civil global: Las dimensiones del sector no lucrativo
FIGURA XXII.1El sector no lucrativo mexicano, con y sin voluntarios,1995, como porcentaje de...
2,4%
1,2%
0,4%
0,5%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4%
0,5%
0,7%
1,8%
3,6%
PIB
Empleo total *
Empleo sectorservicios
Empleo sectorpúblico
* No agrario
Empleados remuneradosVoluntarios
Figure21.NonprofitSectorinMexico,1995(Verduzco,etal.,1999)
llones de dólares (8.800 millones de pesos mexicanos), o el0,5% del producto interior bruto del país, una cantidad bas-tante reducida 3.
! Una modesta fuente de empleo. Detrás de estos gastos se en-cuentra una fuerza laboral que incluye a 93.809 empleadosasalariados equivalentes a jornada completa (EJC). Esta cifraconstituye el 0,4% del total de trabajadores no agrícolas delpaís, el 1,2% del empleo en el sector servicios y el equivalenteal 2,4% del personal empleado por el Estado en todos los ám-bitos: federal, estatal y municipal (véase el cuadro XXII.1).
! Contribución de los voluntarios. Aun así, no queda reflejada todala extensión del sector no lucrativo en México, ya que tam-bién atrae un importante volumen de trabajo voluntario. Dehecho, un 10% de la población mexicana manifiesta contribuircon parte de su tiempo con las organizaciones no lucrativas.Ello se traduce en un mínimo de 47.000 empleados EJC adi-cionales 4, lo cual aumenta el número total de empleados EJCde las organizaciones no lucrativas en México a 141.000, unincremento de más del 50%,o el 0,7% del total de empleo delpaís (véase la figura XXII.1).
México 519
CUADRO XXII.1El sector no lucrativo en México, 1995
1.300 millones de dólares en gastos— 0,5% del PIB
93.809 empleados remunerados— 0,4% del total de empleo no agrícola— 1,2% del empleo en el sector servicios— 2,4% del empleo en el sector público
3 Técnicamente, la comparación más exacta es la que se establece entre la contri-bución del sector al valor añadido y el producto interior bruto. Para el sector no lu-crativo, valor añadido en términos económicos es, básicamente, igual a la suma delos salarios y al valor imputado del tiempo aportado por los voluntarios. Sobre estabase, el sector no lucrativo en México constituye el 0,3% del total del valor aña-dido.4 Dado que el equipo de investigación mexicano no ha podido realizar una encues-ta de población sobre las donaciones y las actividades del voluntariado, y ha utiliza-do el empleo no remunerado como variable sustitutiva, es muy probable que losdatos sobre el voluntariado no estén reflejados en toda su extensión.
Figure23.IncomesourcesinNonprofit
sectorfromMexico(Verduzco,etal.,1999)
lucrativas en México la constituyen las cuotas y los pagos porservicios prestados. Como se indica en la figura XXII.6, sóloesta fuente de ingresos aporta el 85,2% del total de ingresosdel sector no lucrativo en este país.
! Limitada financiación procedente de la filantropía y del sector pú-blico. Por el contrario, la financiación procedente de la filan-tropía privada y el sector público constituye unas cuotas mu-cho menores de los ingresos totales.Así, como se observa enla figura XXII.6, la filantropía privada –procedente de perso-nas físicas, empresas y fundaciones, en conjunto– sólo consti-tuye el 6,3% de los ingresos del sector no lucrativo en Méxi-co, mientras que los pagos procedentes del sector públicoaportan un mero 8,5%.
! Estructura de ingresos con los voluntarios. Este modelo de ingre-sos del sector no lucrativo cambia significativamente cuandose incluye el valor imputado de los voluntarios como un fac-tor más. En efecto, como se observa en la figura XXII.7, lacuota de ingresos procedente de la filantropía privada au-menta considerablemente del 6,3 al 17,9%, superando, portanto, a la financiación procedente del sector público, que dis-minuye del 8,5 al 7,5%. No obstante, las cuotas y los pagospor servicios siguen constituyendo, por mucho, la fuente pre-dominante de ingresos del sector.
México 527
FIGURA XXII.6Fuentes de ingresos del sector no lucrativo enMéxico, 1995
Cuotas, pagospor servicios
85,2%
Sector público8,5%
Filantropía6,3%
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page25
Itisveryimportanttoconsiderthatthereareseveralacademicsthathaverealizedthatdifferent
kindsofassociationswerealwayspresentbuttheyneverhadthelegalrecognitionfromthestate
norfromthechurchandasaconsequencetheywerealwaysoperatingwithoutalegalstructure.
Actuallyseveral legislativepeoplestill links theNonprofitassociationstoextremist, leftwingsor
social movements. This history has marked the relations between the government and the
nonprofitsector.Intherecentyearsafederal lawwaspublished;this lawtriestoencouragethe
collaboration in specific issues between
the state and the Civil Society
Associations. The proposal establishes
that the government will provide a
specific amount of money and the
associationswillhavetoprovidetherest
of themoney.Thismoneywillneverbe
used “for” the association but for the
indirect beneficiaries and even though
this affects the operation of the
organizations and, as a consequence,
thesupport isvery limited, it isthefirst
timeinhistorythatthestaterecognizes
theimportanceoftheworktheydoand
establishes a very small amount of
money for supporting their actions.
(Villa,2006)
Different actionshave alsodevelopeda
naturaldistrustofthesector:Severalimportantpoliticianshaveusedthesekindsoforganizations
toswitchmoneyfortheirpersonalpurposesandmanyofthewealthiestpeopleofthecountryare
usingthemtocapitalizetheirenterprisesbydeductingtaxestothegovernment.
Infigure22wecanseetheconsequencesofthesefacts;thesectorhasrelieduponthefeesofthe
services itprovideswithan85.2%gettingavery lowincomefromgovernmentandphilanthropy
withan8.5%and6.3%respectively.
Figure24.NonprofitsectorcompositionincomparisonwithLatinAmericaand22othercountries(Verduzco,et
al.,1999)
! Cuotas menores de empleo no lucrativo en las áreas de salud yservicios sociales. Comparado con el promedio global de los22 países analizados, las áreas de salud y servicios sociales ab-sorben una cuota mucho menor de empleo no lucrativo enMéxico. Así, mientras estas dos áreas constituyen el 38% delempleo no lucrativo en términos globales, como promedio,en México sólo representan el 17% de dicho empleo. Ello re-fleja, en gran medida, la amplia presencia del Estado en laprestación de estos servicios, especialmente desde el estable-cimiento del PRI. Por tanto, queda poco espacio para que lasorganizaciones no estatales, no partidistas, puedan desarro-llar actividades en estas áreas.
! Cierta presencia de empleo no lucrativo en la vida social. Otracuota modesta de empleo no lucrativo en México la constitu-
524 La sociedad civil global: Las dimensiones del sector no lucrativo
FIGURA XXII.4Composición del sector no lucrativo, México,Latinoamérica, y promedio de los 22 países, 1995
30,2%
19,6%
18,3%
14,4%
6,5%
5,8%
3,1%
2,2%
44,4%
12,2%
10,3%
10,6%
12,4%
7,0%
1,2%
1,9%
43,2%
8,1%
8,7%
7,7%
30,5%
0,5%
1,0%
0,3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Otras áreas
Medio ambiente/asesoramiento legal
Desarrollo
Asociaciones profesionales
Cultura
Servicios sociales
Sanidad
Educación
% de empleo no lucrativo
MéxicoPromedio LatinoaméricaPromedio de los 22 países
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page26
Themost important area of development
in the country is also education with a
43.2% followed by professional
associations with a 30.5%, the highest in
LatinAmericaand theother22countries.
It issurprisingtorealizethatonly the .5%
of the registered ones are referred to as
development and it is hard to believe it.
This is the path that didn’t fit with other
theories about the association level in
Mexicoandarestillresearched.
IncomparisonwiththerestofLatinAmerica,Mexico isthecountrywithmoredifficultiesbutat
thesametimewith themostpromised future in thegrowthof thesector:Philanthropywill get
higherandespeciallythegovernmentwillincreasethebudgettothesector;figure25willchange
considerablynowthatthelegalconditionshavestartedtochange.Allthiswillhappenifthesector
is able toprofessionalize itspracticesandbringsmoreactorsand recovers the importantmoral
capitalthatthesectorreliesupon.
4. COLOMBIA
Nonprofit organizations in Colombia are now an important economic force in the country. It
contains1.7billiondollars inexpendituresrepresenting2.1%oftheGDPaswecansee infigure
26. Colombia shares the Mexican history about the church and the development of a recent
democratic process but Colombia has had a
more accelerated process of development. In
relation to its economy, Colombian Nonprofit
sector is larger than the Latin American
Average:Chilehasa1.4,Perua1.2andMexico
a1.3billioninexpenditures.
Colombian population reaches an estimated
48%ofpeoplevolunteeringforsometypeoforganization(Villar,R.,List,R.&Salamon,L.,1999)
Figure25.IncomesourcesinNonprofitsectorfromMexico,LatinAmericaand22othercountries
(Verduzco,etal.,1999)
! Un modelo de financiación similar al de los otros países latinoameri-canos. El modelo de financiación del sector no lucrativo mexi-cano es bastante similar al observado en el resto de países deLatinoamérica. Por tanto, como se indica en la figura XXII.8, las
528 La sociedad civil global: Las dimensiones del sector no lucrativo
FIGURA XXII.7Fuentes de ingresos del sector no lucrativo enMéxico, con voluntarios, 1995
Cuotas, pagospor servicios
74,7%
Sector público7,5%
Filantropía17,9%
FIGURA XXII.8Fuentes de ingresos en efectivo del sector nolucrativo, México, Latinoamérica, y promedio de los22 países, 1995
8,5% 6,3%
85,2%
15,5%10,4%
74,0%
40,1%
10,5%
49,4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Sector público Filantropía Cuotas
MéxicoPromedio LatinoaméricaPromedio de los 22 países
Figure26.NonprofitSectorinColombia,1995
(Villar,etal.,1999)ment in the country (see Figure 21.1). This number would undoubt-edly be larger if churches and other places of religious worship wereincluded, but such data were unavailable for Colombia.
2. One of the larger nonprofit sectors in Latin America
The Colombian nonprofit sector, while modest in relation to the Colom-bian economy, is larger than the Latin American average, though it stillfalls short of the level of developed countries.
Colombia: A Diverse Nonprofit Sector 413
Table 21.1 The nonprofit sector in Colombia, 1995
$ 1.7 billion in expenditures— 2.1 percent of GDP
286,900 paid employees— 2.4 percent of total nonagricultural employment— 14.9 percent of total service employment— 30.7 percent of public employment
Figure 21.1 Nonprofit employment in Colombia, with and without volunteers,1995, as a % of . . .
2.1
2.4
14.9%
30.7%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Paid employees
Volunteers
2.4%
* Nonagricultural
GDP
TotalEmployment*
ServiceEmployment
Public SectorEmployment
3.1%
18.8%
40.4%
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page27
equalinga totalof377,617of full‐
time employees as we can see in
figure 27, but still doesn’t
represent a major workforce in
comparison to the 40% of the
public sector or the 18% of the
service employment but in
comparison to Latin America it is
abovetheaverage.
The composition of the sector in
thecountryisverydiverseanditistheonlyexampleintheregionwiththischaracteristic.Itshares
with the region the priority in educational institutions with a 26% and within that half is
distributedforelementaryandsecondaryschoolsandhalftohighereducation.Fourareassharea
common percentage: Development
area, professional, social services
and health are among 17% and
13%. Development is way bigger
thantheregionalmostdoublingthe
percentage. The only lower area,
besides education, is culture with
onlya1.2%difference.
If the volunteer factor is added to
thedifferent areas, education goes
down to 20% and social services
anddevelopment reaches18%and
healthgoesdownfrom17%to15%.
As the rest of the countries,
Colombiaisnottheexceptioninthe
incomecharacteristics:thefeeshas
Figure27.NonprofitemploymentinColombia,withandwithoutvolunteers,1995,asa%of…(Villar,etal.,1999)
ment in the country (see Figure 21.1). This number would undoubt-edly be larger if churches and other places of religious worship wereincluded, but such data were unavailable for Colombia.
2. One of the larger nonprofit sectors in Latin America
The Colombian nonprofit sector, while modest in relation to the Colom-bian economy, is larger than the Latin American average, though it stillfalls short of the level of developed countries.
Colombia: A Diverse Nonprofit Sector 413
Table 21.1 The nonprofit sector in Colombia, 1995
$ 1.7 billion in expenditures— 2.1 percent of GDP
286,900 paid employees— 2.4 percent of total nonagricultural employment— 14.9 percent of total service employment— 30.7 percent of public employment
Figure 21.1 Nonprofit employment in Colombia, with and without volunteers,1995, as a % of . . .
2.1
2.4
14.9%
30.7%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Paid employees
Volunteers
2.4%
* Nonagricultural
GDP
TotalEmployment*
ServiceEmployment
Public SectorEmployment
3.1%
18.8%
40.4%
Figure28.CompositionoftheNonprofitSector,Colombia,LatinAmericaand22‐countryaverage,1995(Villar,etal.,
1999)clearly that Colombia’s nonprofit sector is more diverse than that else-where in Latin America.
• Pattern shifts with volunteers. When volunteer inputs are factored in,the composition of the nonprofit sector in Colombia changes notably,though it remains balanced overall. In particular, as shown in Figure21.5, with volunteers included, the margin of difference among the
418 GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY: DIMENSIONS OF THE NONPROFIT SECTOR
Figure 21.4 Composition of the nonprofit sector, Colombia, Latin America, and
22-country average, 1995
30.2%
19.6%
18.3%
14.4%
6.5%
5.8%
3.1%
2.2%
44.4%
12.2%
10.3%
10.6%
12.4%
7.0%
1.2%
1.9%
26.1%
17.5%
14.6%
9.4%
15.1%
13.1%
2.1%
2.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Education
Health
Social svcs
Culture
Professional
Development
Environ/Advocacy
Other fields
% of nonprofit employment
Colombia
Latin American average
22-Country average
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page28
a 70.2% of the income and the government and
philanthropy has a low portion with 14.2% and 17.8%
respectively.EvenwiththesenumbersColombiannonprofit
incomefromfeesarebelowtheaverageby4%sharingthis
same percentage with an higher participation in
philanthropy.
As we can see in figure 30 is amazing to see how the 22
countries average in government support has a bigger
participationthanLatinAmericagoingdownfrom40.1$to
15.5%havingatotaldifferenceof25%.
Theconsultedresearchestablishedthat
the participation of the government in
Colombiahasbeenactiveasapromoter
butnotasa funderand it seems ithas
specifically focused to the social
services and development areaswhere
also the volunteers are making a
difference and are reconfiguring the
characteristics of the sector in the
country.
An important conclusionof the researchmadebyVillaretal. (1999) is that the sectorneeds to
develop capacity building through training and strengthening the infrastructure of the
organizations. Empowering new leaders tomove from providing services to advocating for the
sectormightbeakeypathtokeepstrengtheningthesector.Atthesametimeitwillbenecessary
tokeepthestrengthofthevoluntaryforce.Itwillbeimportanttokeepthecleardistanceamong
the government and the nonprofit sector in order to keep the organizations independent. An
important difference between the Mexican sector and the Colombian is that even that the
Colombianlooksinbettershape,itwillfacedifficultcircumstancesandMexicanseemstostarta
“clear”road
Figure29.SourcesofNonprofitrevenueinColombia,1995(Villar,
etal.,1999)
percent when volunteers are included. This brings these two fieldsabove health, whose share actually declines from 17.5 percent to 15.3percent. This result is not so surprising given that nearly 32 percent ofthe FTE volunteers report devoting their energies to social serviceagencies, such as Hogares, and 36 percent are involved in develop-ment-related organizations, primarily community-based ones such asJuntas de Acción Comunal. In Colombia, volunteering takes placemainly in the context of mutual help and solidarity-type activities, i.e.,poor neighbors helping each other, rather than as part of more tradi-tional charity-oriented activities with the better-off helping those inneed.
5. Most revenue from fees, not philanthropy or public sector
The Colombian nonprofit sector receives the bulk of its revenue notfrom private philanthropy or the public sector, but from fees and charges,and does so to an even greater extent than do nonprofit organizations inmost other countries. In particular:
• Fee income dominant. The overwhelmingly dominant source of in-come of nonprofit organizations in Colombia is fees and charges forthe services that these organizations provide. As reflected in Figure21.6, this source alone accounts for 70.2 percent of all nonprofit rev-enue in Colombia.
420 GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY: DIMENSIONS OF THE NONPROFIT SECTOR
Figure 21.6 Sources of nonprofit revenue in Colombia, 1995
Public Sector
Fees, Charges
Philanthropy
14.9%
14.9%
70.2%
Figure30.SourcesofNonprofitcashrevenue,Colombia,LatinAmericaand22countryaverage1995(Villar,etal.,
1999)(14.9 percent vs. 10.4 percent on average), due at least in part to the sig-nificant support provided by corporations and corporate foundations.
• Deviation from the global average. While the revenue structure of theColombian nonprofit sector generally mirrors that elsewhere in LatinAmerica, it differs considerably from that evident elsewhere in theworld. Thus, as Figure 21.8 also shows, while fees and charges are thedominant element in the financial base of the nonprofit sector glob-ally, their dominance is considerably less pronounced than it is inColombia (49.4 percent of total revenue compared to 70.2 percent inColombia). By contrast, public sector payments comprise a consider-ably larger share of nonprofit income in these other countries on aver-age (40.1 percent vs. 14.9 percent in Colombia), but private giving isweaker (10.5 percent vs. 14.9 percent in Colombia). Quite clearly, a dif-ferent pattern of cooperation has taken shape between nonprofit orga-nizations and the state in these other countries. In Colombia, govern-ment has most often played the role of promoter rather than funder.As noted previously, some of the most widespread nonprofit initiativeshave been developed as a result of government-sponsored programs.
422 GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY: DIMENSIONS OF THE NONPROFIT SECTOR
Figure 21.8 Sources of nonprofit cash revenue, Colombia, Latin America, and
22-country average, 1995
14.9% 14.9%
70.2%
15.5%
10.4%
74.0%
40.1%
10.5%
49.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Public Sector Philanthropy Fees
ColombiaLatin America22-Country average
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page29
5. BRAZIL
As with the rest of the Latin American
Countries, the Nonprofit sector in Brazil is
alsoan importanteconomic forcewith10.6
billion dollars in expenditures and
represents a1.5%of theGDPandamillion
paid employees in the country. It hasmore
employeesthanthemost importantprivate
forprofitorganizationandwith the
volunteerforce itreachesnearthe
1.2billionfulltimeemployees.
Thedistributionoftheworkforceis
concentrated in education with a
36.9%. The next three areas of
importance are health, social
services and culturewith a 17.8%,
16.4% and a 17% respectively.
Culture seems to be a distinctive
element in Brazilian Nonprofit
sector due to the Latin American
average is 10.6%. Brazilian sector
follows Peru and Colombia with
2.2%of the total workforce. As in
Mexico the role of the church has
determinedthesector’sgrowthhistorically. It isasector
growing very fast and within the next years seems to
becomeinagreaterforcethanitwasseveralyearsago.
Themainincomeofthesectorisalsothefeeswith73.8%
followed by the public sector with 15.5% and the
Figure31.NonprofitSectorinBrazil,1995(Landim,L.,Beres,N.,List,R.,&Salamon,L.M.,
1999)
twice as fast as employment in the nation’s overall economy, which ex-perienced only 20 percent growth.
• More employees than in the largest private firm. Put somewhat differ-ently, nonprofit employment in Brazil easily outdistances the employ-ment in the largest private business in the country, and does so by afactor of 16. Thus, compared to the 1 million paid workers in Brazil’snonprofit organizations, Brazil’s largest private corporation, Brade-sco, employs only 62,450 workers (see Figure 20.1).
• Volunteer inputs. Even this does not capture the full scope of the non-profit sector in Brazil, for the sector also attracts a considerableamount of volunteer effort. Indeed, an estimated 16 percent of theBrazilian population reports contributing their time to nonprofit or-ganizations. This translates into another 139,216 full-time equivalentemployees, which boosts the total number of full-time equivalent em-ployees of nonprofit organizations in Brazil to nearly 1.2 million, or2.5 percent of total employment in the country (see Figure 20.2).
• Religion. The inclusion of religion, moreover, would boost these to-tals by another 93,837 paid employees and 195,882 FTE volunteers.
Brazil 395
Table 20.1 The nonprofit sector in Brazil, 1995
$10.6 billion in expenditures— 1.5 percent of GDP
1.0 million paid employees— 2.2 percent of total nonagricultural employment— 7.8 percent of total service employment— 19.4 percent of public sector employment
Figure 20.1 Employment in nonprofits vs. largest firm in Brazil, 1995
Figure 32. Composition of the Nonprofit Sector, Brazil,
Latin‐American and 22‐country average (Landim, et al,
1999)tablished by other religious groups such as Kardecist spiritism and byimmigrants such as the Lebanese and Israelis. Notably, in the cultureand recreation field, sports organizations account for 95 percent ofemployment.
Brazil 401
Figure 20.5 Composition of the nonprofit sector, Brazil, Latin America, and 22-
country average, 1995
30.2%
19.6%
18.3%
14.4%
6.5%
5.8%
3.1%
2.2%
44.4%
12.2%
10.3%
10.6%
12.4%
7.0%
1.2%
1.9%
36.9%
17.8%
16.4%
17.0%
9.6%
1.1%
0.9%
0.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Education
Health
Social svcs
Culture
Professional
Development
Environ/Advocacy
Other fields
% of nonprofit employment
Brazil
Latin American average
22-Country average
Figure33.SourcesofNonprofitrevenueinBrazil,1995(Landim,etal,1999)
religious congregations such as churches and synagogues. With reli-gion included, the philanthropic share of total nonprofit revenue inBrazil rises from 10.7 percent to 17.0 percent. With volunteers in-cluded as well, the private giving share rises to 26.1 percent (see Fig-ure 20.9).
• Similar to other Latin American countries. The pattern of nonprofit fi-nance evident in Brazil is quite similar to that elsewhere in Latin
404 GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY: DIMENSIONS OF THE NONPROFIT SECTOR
Figure 20.7 Sources of nonprofit revenue in Brazil, 1995
Public Sector
Fees, Charges
Philanthropy
15.5%
10.7%
73.8%
Figure 20.8 Sources of nonprofit revenue in Brazil, with volunteers, 1995
Public Sector
Fees, Charges
Philanthropy
14.5%
16.3%
69.2%
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page30
philanthropywith 10.7%. The distribution of
theincomeinBrazilfitsalmostcompletelyto
the average in Latin American countries as
we can see in figure 34. The philanthropy
percentage fitswith the 22 countrieswhere
the study was applied, the difference is
marked by the fees and government
participationbya25%difference.
Theconclusionsofthestudyshowedthatthe
sectorneeded to gain visibility anddeveloping collaborationsbetween thegovernment and the
nonprofits. It is necessary to develop leaders able to lobby, this will bring a better legal
atmosphereandasaconsequencethesectorwillgrow.
6. ARGENTINA
ArgentinaNonprofitsectoristhesecondlargestin
Latin America. It has 12 billion dollars in
expenditures and represents 4.7% of the GDP of
thecountry.Itisalsoamajorworkforcewith3.7%
fulltimeemployeesofthetotalpopulation. Ifthe
volunteerforceisincludedtheGDPgrowsto5.6%
and the full time employees to 6% doubling the
averagepercentageofLatinAmerica.Themainsourceof
income is the fees with 73% of income, 19.5% from
government support and 7.5% from philanthropy. The
distribution of the sector, aswe can see in figure 36 is
lead by the education institution with a 41.3% of the
total workforce followed by culture, health and social
services with a 15.1%, 13.4% and 10.7%. Development
takes 5.7% the same that the 22 studied countries
represent.
Figure34.SourcesofNonprofitcashrevenue,Colombia,LatinAmericaand22countryaverage
1995(Landim,etal,1999)nonprofit revenues. Evidently, the public sector’s relative disinterestin the work of nonprofit institutions in Brazil has yielded a very differ-ent pattern of nonprofit finance, one that is far more dependent onprivate fees, charitable donations, and volunteering.
• Variations by subsector. Even this does not do full justice to the com-plexities of nonprofit finance in Brazil, however. This is so because im-portant differences exist in the finances of nonprofit organizations bysubsector. In fact, three quite distinct patterns of nonprofit financeare evident among Brazilian nonprofits, as shown in Figure 20.11:
Fee-dominant fields. Fee income is the dominant source of income insix of the nine fields of nonprofit action for which data were gathered(professional, international, health, culture, education, and civic andadvocacy). This is understandable enough in the case of professionalassociations and unions, as well as cultural and sports groups, wheremembership dues and fees for the services they provide are the pri-mary sources of income. Perhaps surprisingly, this is also the case forinternational-oriented and civic and advocacy groups, which organizeas membership associations. Furthermore, as might be expected, edu-cational and health institutions receive fees for the services they pro-vide, though they also receive payments from the public sector.
406 GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY: DIMENSIONS OF THE NONPROFIT SECTOR
Figure 20.10 Sources of nonprofit cash revenue in Brazil, Latin America, and
22-country average, 1995
15.5%10.7%
73.8%
15.5%
10.4%
74.0%
40.1%
10.5%
49.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Public Sector Philanthropy Fees
BrazilLatin America22-Country average
Figure35.NonprofitSectorinArgentina,1995
(Roitter,M.,ListR.,&Salamon,L.M.,1999)
lion (about 12 billion Argentine pesos) in 1995, or 4.7 percent of thecountry’s gross domestic product, a quite significant amount.3
• A major employer. Behind these expenditures lies a sizable workforcethat includes the equivalent of 395,000 full-time equivalent paid work-ers. This represents 3.7 percent of all nonagricultural workers in thecountry, 9.4 percent of service employment, and the equivalent ofnearly one-third as many people as work for government at all levels—federal, provincial, and municipal (see Table 19.1).
• More employees than in the largest private firms. Put somewhat differ-ently, nonprofit employment in Argentina easily outdistances theemployment in the largest private businesses in the country. Thus,compared to the 395,000 paid workers in Argentina’s nonprofit orga-nizations, Argentina’s 100 largest private corporations together em-ploy approximately 280,000 workers (see Figure 19.1).
• Volunteer inputs. Even this does not capture the full scope of the non-profit sector in Argentina, for this sector also attracts a considerableamount of volunteer effort. Indeed, an estimated 20 percent of the
Argentina 375
Table 19.1 The nonprofit sector in Argentina, 1995
$12.0 billion in expenditures— 4.7 percent of GDP
395,000 paid employees— 3.7 percent of total nonagricultural employment— 9.4 percent of total service employment— 30.9 percent of public sector employment
Figure 19.1 Employment in nonprofits vs. largest private firms in Argentina,1995
Figure35.SourcesofNonprofit
revenueinArgentina,1995(Roitter,etal1999)
ability of development, advocacy, and social service organizations to at-tract volunteers.
5. Most revenue from fees, not philanthropy or public sector
The Argentine nonprofit sector receives the bulk of its revenue not fromprivate philanthropy but from fees and charges, and does so to an evengreater extent than do nonprofit organizations in most other countriesoutside of Latin America. In particular:
• Fee income dominant. The overwhelmingly dominant source of in-come of nonprofit organizations in Argentina is fees and charges forthe services that these organizations provide. As reflected in Figure19.7, this source alone accounts for nearly three-quarters, or 73.1 per-cent, of all nonprofit revenue in Argentina.5
• Limited support from philanthropy and the public sector. In contrast,private philanthropy and the public sector provide much smallershares of total revenues. Thus, as Figure 19.7 shows, private philan-thropy—from individuals, corporations, and foundations combined—accounts for only 7.5 percent of nonprofit income in Argentina, whilepublic sector payments, including compulsory payments to the obrassociales which are used to finance health and related social welfarebenefits, account for 19.5 percent.
• Revenue structure with volunteers. This pattern of nonprofit revenuechanges significantly when volunteers are factored into the picture. In
Argentina 383
Figure 19.7 Sources of nonprofit revenue in Argentina, 1995
Public Sector
Fees, Charges
Philanthropy
19.5%
7.5%
73.1%
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page31
It is very important to note that with the
inclusion of volunteers, the development
workforceincreasestoa15.7%withavariation
ofa10%;socialservicesarealsoincreased3%
withthisfactorconsidered.
Intheincomesourcesthevolunteerfactoralso
modifies the statistics; philanthropy increases
considerably to a 23% and fees and
government go down; if the religious
organizations would be considered it would
increasetoa33.4%ofthetotalincome.
In comparison with the other Latin American
countries Argentina has a higher participation
fromthegovernmentwithavariationofa4%,
the rest of the factors do not have a
considerable difference just realizing that
even that the government has a better
participation in the country, the average
of the 22 studied countries is still very
high.
As a sector, the support of the state has
affected the autonomy of some of these
organizations.Itisalsoneededtoincrease
the capacity building in formation and
strengtheningtheinstitutionswithmorestructure.Aclearerlegalandfiscalframesarealsoakey
issuetosolveinordertokeepthegrowthofthesectorthatrepresentsanimportantchangefactor
intheeconomicalandsocialareasandasacitizenshippromoter.
Figure36.CompositionoftheNonprofitSector,Argentina,LatinAmericaand22‐countryaverage
(Roitter,etal1999)
• Over 40 percent of nonprofit employment in education. Of all thetypes of nonprofit activity, the one that accounts for the largest shareof nonprofit employment in Argentina is education, mostly primaryand secondary education. As shown in Figure 19.5, 41.2 percent of all
380 GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY: DIMENSIONS OF THE NONPROFIT SECTOR
Figure 19.5 Composition of the nonprofit sector, Argentina, Latin America, and
22-country average, 1995
30.2%
19.6%
18.3%
14.4%
6.5%
5.8%
3.1%
2.2%
44.4%
12.2%
10.3%
10.6%
12.4%
7.0%
1.2%
1.9%
41.2%
13.4%
10.7%
15.1%
6.8%
5.7%
0.7%
6.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Education
Health
Social svcs
Culture
Professional
Development
Environ/Advocacy
Other fields
% of nonprofit employment
Argentina
Latin American average
22-Country average
Figure37.SourcesofNonprofitcashrevenue,
Argentina,LatinAmericaand22countryaverage1995(Roitter,etal1999)nonprofit finance are evident among Argentine nonprofits, as shown
in Figure 19.11:
Fee-dominant fields. Fee income is the dominant source of income inseven fields of nonprofit action for which data were gathered. This isunderstandable enough in the cases of business and professional, aswell as social and cultural, associations where membership dues arethe primary source of income. But fee income also plays the dominantrole in financing nonprofit health and educational establishments, aswell as social service, environment, and development organizations, inArgentina. In the cases of health and education, this reliance on feesreflects in part the dominance of public sector entities in direct ser-vice provision in these fields and the relatively limited amount of statesubsidies for nonprofit providers, which derive approximately one-quarter of their income from public sector sources, well below the 22-country average. However, public sector support for primary and sec-ondary education is stronger, accounting for nearly one-third of therevenue for this subfield. In the case of social services, environment,and development, the prominence of private fees reflects the fact thatthese are organized as associations or mutual help groups that collect
386 GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY: DIMENSIONS OF THE NONPROFIT SECTOR
Figure 19.10 Sources of nonprofit cash revenue, Argentina, Latin America, and
22-country average, 1995
19.5%
7.5%
73.1%
15.5%
10.4%
74.0%
40.1%
10.5%
49.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Public Sector Philanthropy Fees
ArgentinaLatin America22-Country average
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page32
THENEEDTOPROFESSIONALIZETHECIVILSOCIETYORGANIZATIONSINLATINAMERICA
Weneedtorejectthenaïveimpositionofthelanguageofbusiness’onthesocialsectors,
andinsteadjointlyembracealanguageofgreatness
(Collins,2005,p.2.)
There are basically two ways of professionalizing the sector: through credit based degrees or
throughcertificatesandcoursesundernon‐degree/creditbasedprograms.WewillanalyzetheUS
experience in both cases in order to look for a possible path for the Latin American nonprofit
sector.
• Theexperienceofpublicpolicy&administrationdegrees
Nonprofit organizations in the United Sates have been receiving an important number of
graduates of masters degrees programs focused to Public Policy and to Public Administration
tryingtofindinthemacloserideaofhowtomanagethisorganizationsthatarenotgovernment
andarenotprivate corporations. InColumbiaUniversity, StevenCohen (2000)has realized that
35%oftheirgraduateswentintononprofitorganizations,atHarvard’sJohnFKennedySchoolof
Government 23%went to the nonprofit sector. At the University of California in Berkeley 18%
went also to this sector. It is a fact that the growth of the sector is recognized by several
researchers. The international statistics showhow the sector is increasing innumberand in the
need of professionalized people. As we saw in figure 1 the growth in 1970 from 3,000
organizationstoa30,000 in2002.TheCensusBureau intheUnitedStatesestimated4.2million
the number of people employed by largeNonprofitswith over 100 employees. The fact is that
thereisamarketthatisgrowingandisbeingattendedmostlyindevelopedcountrieswherethe
sectorhasgrowninanimpressiveway.
Thedifferencesofworkingintheprivate,governmentorinthenonprofitsectorareimportantand
theneededskillsshouldbeconsideredwhendevelopinganacademicprogram.O’NeilandYoung
wroteabookin1988calledEducatingManagersofNonprofitOrganizationsandoutlined,21year
fromnow,thatfuturemanagerswouldneeddifferentskillsetting:
• Theambiguityoftheirperformancecriteriaandthecomplexityoftheirmanagement‐related
values.
• Thelegalandfinancialconstraintsunderwhichtheyoperate.
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page33
• Someofthesourcesfromwhichtheyderiveeconomicsustenance.
• Thekindsofpersonneltheyemploy.
• Theirgovernancestructures(Cohen,2000)
TheNational Association of Schools of Public Affairs andAdministration (NASPAA) realized that
manyprograms tried to cover themarket butwithout enough elements that could provide the
basic – differenced elements. Some programs of Public Affairs offered elective courses so the
studentcouldchoosewhatmightbebetter in their coursework.Eightof the top twenty ranked
schools offered institutionally designed courses, the other twelve didn`t offer a nonprofit
concentration. In this context the NASPAA developed some guidelines including minimum
conditions to develop a concentration, it is important to consider that the majority of these
programsdidn’tmeetthem:
• 36semesterhours,withaminimumof12hoursdevotedtononprofitlearning
• Afocusonwhatmakesthenonprofitsectorunique
• Aninternshipinanonprofitagencyororganization
• Twoessentialaspectsofnonprofitlearning:
o Subjectareasuniquetothenonprofitexperience:
History
Values
Philosophiesandethicsofnonprofits
Thelegalstructureofnonprofits
Financialmanagement
Governance
o Skillsnotuniquetononprofits,butthatgenerallytakedifferentshapeinnonprofit
organizations
Budgetingandresourcemanagement
Theoriesofphilanthropy
Advocacyandexternalaffairs
Inter‐organizationalandinter‐sectorialrelations
Changingenvironment
Quantitativeanalysis
Informationtechnology
Nonprofitmanagementandpolicy
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page34
Now,eventhatmostofthealumnioftheseschoolsarenotconsideringinjoiningtoaNonprofit
organization they will actually interact with the sector in the development of their jobs in the
future and it will be very valuable to have capable leaders that are able to understand and
dialoguewithit.
It is clear that having a Public Affair or Management Degree does not bring the necessary
requirements, conditions or needs for the people that is considering joining the nonprofit
organizations and to make a specific change. It would be advisable that if a university is
considering developing the degree it should follow the considered outlines or to develop a
completedegreeofferthat,itseemstobeintheimmediatefutureaverydemandingneed.
• Theexperienceofnoncredit/degree‐seekingstudies
ThereisasecondpathtofollowinordertoprovidetoolsforthenonprofitsectorinLatinAmerica:
thenoncreditcertificatesandcoursesthatdoesnotimpliesadegreeseekingstudies.
Animportantconsiderationaboutthesekindsofprogramsisthattheprogramsareopenforany
kindofpeopleandtheydonotnecessarilyhavetohaveanundergraduatelevel.Thepercentage
ofpeopleinthesectorthatholdanundergraduatelevel
studyisundeterminedbutit isknownthattheremight
bean importantnumberof themthatdonotholdthis
levelofstudies.IntheUS,MordecaiLee(2001)madea
surveyabouttheexistenceofnoncreditcertificates.The
survey was mailed to 62 educational institutions,
registered in the Mirabella and Wish database, were
offering programming in noncredit or continuing education. The survey result showed that 33
institutionsofHighereducationinUSoffered36certificateswithacompletelydiverseclassroom
hourstoobtaincertificateaswecanseeinfigure38.
Thesurvedhelpedtorecognizethattheuniversitiesneededtodevelopcurriculumguidelinesand
standards and to acknowledge the
beneficial role of these kind of
certificates/courses and the impact
for professional development in
nonprofitmanagement.
Figure38.ClassroomHourstoObtain
certificate(Lee,2000)
Figure39.Ratioofrequiredtoelectiveclasses(Lee,2000)
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page35
“Leadersasstewardsofgreatness,
ratherthanleadersasamassersofwealth,
willbethenextgeneration’scall”
(Burlingame,2006,p.14)
• ThepossibilityofcivilsocietyorganizationgraduatestudyinLatinAmerica
DwigthBurlingame (2006)believes that thecriticaldifferencebetween the for‐businessand the
nonprofitorganizations iswhatmakesnonprofitgreat.Aswehaveseenat thebeginningof the
paperthemissioniswhatmakestheseorganizationsdifferent,thewaytheytakedecisionsorthe
waytheyproceed, the focusof theirmanagementandtheaccountability issues they faceonan
everydaybasis.
Under the question of what should be taught in order to have great leaders on the field
Burlingamedebatesamongthemeaningofleadershipandothercharacteristicsthatmightbethe
key things to considerwhendeveloping an educationprogram. Is it envisioning goals, affirming
values, motivating, managing, explaining, serving as a guide, representing the organization
externally,thedefinitionofleadership?Hethinksthat“thisworkrequiresintegrityandcharacter”
(Burlingame,2006,p.3).
Among the reflections of his paper he questions himself how hewillmake a difference as one
responsible to build those leaders. He realizes that his own curriculum should not only provide
technical preparation but to provide values and a background philosophy throughout the
curriculum.
Hebelieves, followingRobertPayton, that theundergraduate levelshavesuffered in the last30
years“thecaptureoftheintellectuallifeofthecampusbythemarketplacevalues”loosingvision
andleavingdecisionsto“managers”.Hebringsthehistoryofhowthemanagementeducationhas
become more “practical” and has stopped providing theoretical preparation with an analytical
approachandhestatesaverypertinentquestiontoourend:IsgraduateNonprofitmanagement
education making the same mistake? Are programs giving a “practical approach” instead of a
cross‐disciplinaryapproachwhichintegratesthelearningwithaculturalandmoralcontext?
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page36
The firstNonprofitmanagementprogramwascreatedat theUniversityofMissouri in1981and
according toMirabella (2006) therewere 161 university in the United States offering graduate
programs, 117 offered undergraduate courses and according to this study there were 131
universitiesprovidingnoncreditorcontinuingeducation.Thesamestudyshowedthatoutsidethe
USexist181university‐basedprogramsand138continuingeducationprograms.Hebelievesthat
manynonprofitprogramshavelostthemselvesinworkingfromtheadministrative(MBAs)orthe
government (MPAs) focus and he positions the intention of the IndianaUniversity of keeping a
“multidisciplinaryapproachwithastrongfocusonethicswithinaglobalcontext”
IntheUSin1999JohnPalmerSmithestablishedthatin2016thecountrywouldhaveavitalsector
andtherewouldbeaglobalexpansion.NowinLatinAmericawearelivingthisexpansionandwe
need to reflectupon the limitations the sectorhashad throughout the region’shistory and the
need for leaders in the future years, leaders able todialoguewith the forprofit sector and the
government in order to build bridges of collaboration and to be able to raise the important
questionsheproposessuchas:
• Whatisthe“public”good?
• How do we make philanthropic action more rational, more democratic and yes, more
creative?
• Howdowesaveourselvesfromthe“tyrannyofmajority”orthetyrannyofthefew?
• Whatistheroleofphilanthropyandnonprofitsinachievingbroadpublicaccesstoneeded
services?
• Whatistheroleofthemarket?
• Howaregovernmentalandphilanthropicinitiativesbalanced?
• Whatistheroleofphilanthropicandnonprofitstudiesresearchandscholarshipinshaping
thedebatesonthethousandsofissuesthatfaceourcontemporarysocieties?
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page37
JESUITUNIVERSITIESMISSION
Commitmentbeyondself
Commitmentbeyondthelaw
Commitmenttothepublicgood
(IndependentSector,2002)
The title of this last chapter is “Jesuit Universities Mission” instead of “conclusion” because I
believethatthethreetermsinthetitlearetheconclusionofthispaper.
JesuitEducation
In theGeneral Congregation 34, the Jesuits, in its 17th decree number 10 established that “Our
universitiesmustpromotethe interdisciplinaryworkthat impliesacapacityforcollaboratingand
dialoguingamongspecialistsinsidetheownuniversityandwithothersindifferentuniversities.In
thatway serving the faithandpromoting justice theywill beable todiscover newhorizonsand
new fields of research, teaching and university extension, contributing to the transformation of
societysearchingdeeperlevelsofjusticeandfreedom”(CG34,1995,p.349)
In the document of the Characteristics of Jesuit Education they have also established that in a
Jesuit school, the focus is on education for justice: “Adequate knowledge joined to rigorous and
criticalthinkingwillmakethecommitmenttoworkforjusticeinadultlifemoreeffective.Itshould
providestudentswiththeintellectual,moralandspiritualformationthatwillenablethemtomake
acommitmenttoservice‐thatwillmakethemagentsofchange”
Thereisacontinuedcalltopromoteanewkindofsociety,asocietywhereeachindividualhasthe
opportunity to be fully human and a society where each one accepts the responsibility of
promotingthehumandevelopmentofothers.Thishasacompleteequivalencetothecitedtexton
the Independent Sector “The obedience of the unenforceable”where everyone is invited to go
beyondself,beyondthelawandwithacompletecommitmenttothepublicgood.
Wehaveanalyzedthecivilsocietyasacomplexrealitythatinouractualcontextisinexpansionall
over theworld and especially in LatinAmerica. At least twoof the countrieswehave analyzed
present important opportunities for growth, because of the positive change in the political
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page38
atmosphere, and the other four present a continued possible growth. The sector seems to be
makingadifferenceinthe livesofmillionsofpeoplealloverthesecountriesandisgeneratinga
positiveimpactbecauseitis:
• promotingcitizenship
• strengtheningdemocraticprinciples
• supplyinggoodsandservicestothemostneededpeople
• attendingHumanRightissues
• empoweringcommunitiesinordertoachieveeconomicaldevelopment
• defendingenvironmentalissues
• askingforconsumersrights
• bringinggovernmentsintoaccount
• offeringaccesstohealth
• providingculturalpossibilities
• offeringeducationprogramsinprofessionalandlowerlevels
• developingresearch
• buildingcapacityofsocialandpoliticalincidencethroughcommunications
• improvingjustmarkets
• encouragingsocialresponsibility
• encouragingchange
• askingquestions
• constructinginternationalnetworks
• invitingphilanthropy
• reflectingonclimatechange
• refreshingthefrenchprinciplesofLiberté,Égalité,Fraternité
• supportinginclusionofminorities
• makinghumanlifepossible
• followingthe“obediencetotheunenforceable”(IndependentSector,2002)
andallthis:because“itistherightthingtodo”(IndependentSector,2004)
The Jesuit universities have defined as their mission to generate new leaders able to work for
othersandwithothers,ableto livetheequivalentproposal thatBurlingamedidreferringtothe
generationofadegreewith“ethics”.Inthissenseitseemstobethatdevelopingundergraduate
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page39
degrees and degrees in Philanthropy/Nonprofit/Non‐Government/Civil Society Organizations
wouldbea“natural”orimmediateconsequenceoftheirmission.Ithasbeenastonishingtorealize
thatnoJesuitUniversityinLatinAmericahasdevelopedasimilarprogrameventhouhistorically,
theJesuitshavebeenimportantsocialactorsintheregionandalsothatmostoftheirinstitutions
areunderthislegalstatus.
The present research analyzed all the undergraduates and graduates programs of the 31 Jesuit
universitiesmembersofAUSJAL3andnoneofthemhasprogramslikethis.Itisinterestingthatina
similar network in the US, the Associations of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU) there are
several universities that offer graduate degrees such as Georgetown, San Francisco and Regis
University.IntheanalysisofthedegreesofAUSJALtherewereseveralinstitutionsthathadoneor
twocreditcoursesfocusedonthesectoranditisalmostcertainthatmostofthemhavenoncredit
courses or certificates, better known as “Diplomados”. The present paper shows the enormous
needforresearchandanalysisofthispath.
Theresearchalsoallowedtheauthortoanalyzethedefinedmissionsoftheuniversitiesmembers
ofAUSJALandmostof themassumesocial changeand/or social justiceasa corevalueof their
identity.AretheLatin‐AmericanJesuitUniversitieslookingforchangeinthelogicofthemarket?Is
their tactic to develop leaders from the internal part of the governments? Why haven’t they
considered working with this apparent “natural ally”? Aren’t they themselves nonprofit
organizations?Whyaren’ttheyleadingtheseeffortsintheregionastheyaredoinginotherparts
oftheworld?
CivilSocietyinLatinAmericaisgrowingandwillcontinuetogrowandthesectorwillneedleaders
able tobringdifferencetothestatusquoof theircountriesandtheir region.There is important
experienceintheJesuituniversitiesoftheUSandtheymightshedsomelightonthepossiblepath
tofollowandtheymightbeinterestedindevelopingmoreinternationalnetworksthatstrengthen
theirdeepestmission.
3SpanishnameoftheLatinAmericanAssociationofJesuitUniversities
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page40
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander,Jeffrey(1994)Lasparadojasdelasociedadcivil,RevistaInternacionaldeFilosofíaPolíticaMadrid,No4,pp.73‐89.
Anaya,Gabrielsj(2007)CristianismoymundoactualPuebla,MéxicoSienaEditores
Anheier,H.(2005)Nonprofitorganizations:Theory,management,policyretrievedMay5,2008fromhttp://130.253.4.143/eres/coursepage.aspx?cid=81
Anheier,H&Themudo,Nuno(2005)TheinternationalizationoftheNonprofitSectorTheJossey‐BassHandbookofNonprofitLeadership&Management,SanFrancisco,Jossey‐Bass
Annan,Kofi(2004)StrengtheningoftheUnitedNationssystemFifty–eightsessionofUnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyA/58/817retrieved4thofJuly2009fromhttp://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/376/41/PDF/N0437641.pdf?OpenElement
Aristotle,(1997)ThePoliticsTransPeterSimpsonChapellHillUNCpress
Burlingame,Dwight(2006)NonprofitandphilanthropicstudieseducationTheCenteronPhilanthropyatIndianaUniversityretrieved15thofSeptember2009fromhttp://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/Research/WorkingPapers/Burlingame_PAR.pdf
Cancino,César&Ortiz,S.LNuevosenfoquessobrelaSociedadCivil,RevistaLatinoamericanadeEstudiosAvanzadosRELEANo3CaracasInstitutodeEstudiosPeruanos
Cohen,S.&Abbot,T(2000)IntegratingNonprofitmanagementeducationintograduateprogramsinpublicpolicyandadministrationSchoolofInternational&PublicAffairs,ColumbiaUniversityRetrieved24thofAugust2009fromhttp://www.columbia.edu/~sc32/documents/Integrating%20Nonprofit%20Management.pdf
Collins,J.(2005)GoodtogreatandtheSocialSectors,Boulder,Colorado
ComisiónEconómicaparaAméricaLatinayelCaribe(2001)SocialPanoramaofLatinAmerica2000–2001Santiago,ChileECLACDistribution
Clark,J(1991)DemocratizingDevelopment:Theroleofvoluntaryagencies.Bloomfield,Conn.:KumarianPress
Clark,J(2003)Worldsapart:Civilsocietyandthebattleforethicalglobalization.Bloomfield,Conn.:KumarianPress
Cohen,JeanL&Arato,AndrewJCivilSocietyandpoliticalTheory,Cambridge,Mass.,MITPress
DevelopmentInitiatives(2000)GlobalDevelopmentAssistance:TheroleofNGOsandothercharityflowsSomerset,EnglandDevelopmentInitiatives,July(mimeo)
Edwards,Michael(2004)CivilSocietyCambridge,PolityPress
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page41
Edwards,M.&HulmeD.(1995)Beyondthemagicbullet:NPOperformanceandAccountabilityinthePost‐ColdWarWorldLondon,Macmillan
Gaddis,JohnLewis(1990)Russia,theSovietUnionandtheUnitedStates.AnInterpretativeHistory,McGraw‐Hill,
Gellner,Ernest(1996)Condicionesdelalibertad.Lasociedadcivilysusrivales,Barcelona,Paidós
Hall,PD(2005)HistoricalPerspectivesonNonprofitOrganizationsintheUnitedStates,TheJossey‐BassHandbookofNonprofitLeadership&Management,SanFrancisco,Jossey‐Bass
IndependentSector(2002)ObediencetotheunenforceableIndependentSectorWashington,DC
IndependentSector(2004)StatementofvaluesandCodeofEthicsforNonprofitandPhilanthropicOrganizationsIndependentSectorWashington,DC
Irarrázaval,I.,HairelE.M.,SokolowskiS.W.,&Salamon,L.M.(2004)ComparativeNonprofitSectorProjectChileJohnsHopkinsUniversity,PNUDFocus
Kort,Michael(2001)TheColumbiaGuidetotheColdWar.ColumbiaUniversityPresspp.3
Landim,L.,Beres,N.,List,R.,&Salamon,L.M.(1999)BrazilinDimensionsoftheNonprofitSector,Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsCenterforCivilSocietyStudies
Lee,Mordecai(2001)NoncreditcertificatesinNonprofitManagementDevelopmentProgramAward,UniversityofWiscosin‐MilwaukeeARNOVAPaperretrieved4thofJulyfromhttp://www.spaef.com/file.php?id=283
Lindenberg,M.,&Bryant,C.(2001)GoingGlobal:transformingreliefanddevelopmentNGOs.Bloomfield,Conn.:KumarianPress
Lonergan,Bernard(2001)MétodoenTeología,SíguemeEd.Colecc.VerdadeImagenSalamancaEspaña
Madison,James(1787)TheunionasasafeguardagainstdomesticfactionandinsurrectionTheFederalistPapersNo.10retrieved4thofJulyfromhttp://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed10.htm
NonprofitAcademicCentersCouncil&theNationalAssociationofSchoolsofPublicAffairsandAdministration(1998)GuidelinesforGraduateProfessionalEducationinNonprofitOrganizations,ManagementandLeadership,Washington,D.C,
O’Donnell,Guillermo(2000)TeoríaDemocráticayPolíticaComparadaDesarrolloEconómicoNo.156,Argentina,InstitutodeDesarrolloEconómicoySocial
Roitter,M.,ListR.,&Salamon,L.M.(1999)ArgentinaGlobalCivilSociety:DimensionsoftheNonprofitSector,Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsCenterforCivilSocietyStudies
Salamon,L.M.,Sokolowski,S.W.,&ListR.(2003)GlobalCivilSocietyAnOverview,JohnsHopkinsComparativeNonprofitProject,Baltimore,USA:CenterforCivilSocietyStudies.
TheCivilSocietyinLatin‐Americanreality:apossiblepathforstrengtheningthesectorfromtheJesuitUniversities
RegisUniversity‐MasterinNonprofitManagement Page42
Salamon,L.M.,&Anheier,H.K.(1997)Definingthenonprofitsector:Across‐nationalAnalysis.JohnsHopkinsComparativeNonprofitProjectManchester,England:ManchesterUniversityPress
Sanborn,C.,Portocarrero,F.,ListR.&Salamon,L.M.(1999)PeruinGlobalCivilSociety.DimensionsoftheNonprofitSector,Baltimore:TheJohnsHopkinsCenterforCivilSocietyStudies
Sanders,JohnT(1977)ThefreemarketmodelVersusGovernment:aReplytoNozickJournalofLibertarianStudiesPergamonPress,GreatBritain,pp.35‐44
Tocqueville,Alexis(1840)DemocracyinAmericaVolumeIISection2ChapterVandVIIretrieved10thofJulyfromhttp://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html
UnionofInternationalAssociations(1990)YearbookofInternationalAssociations:GuidetoGlobalCivilSocietyNetworks.Munich,Germany:Saur
UnionofInternationalAssociations(2000)YearbookofInternationalAssociations:GuidetoGlobalCivilSocietyNetworks.Munich,Germany:Saur
UnionofInternationalAssociations(2002)YearbookofInternationalAssociations:GuidetoGlobalCivilSocietyNetworks.Munich,Germany:Saur
UnitedNations(2009)NGOConsultativeStatusDepartmentofEconomicandSocialAffairsretrieved4thofJuly2009fromhttp://esango.un.org/paperless/Web?page=static&content=faqs
UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(2001)HumanDevelopmentReport2001.NewYork,UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme
Verduzco,G.,List,R.,&Salamon,L.M.(1999)MexicoinGlobalCivilSociety.DimensionsoftheNonprofitSector,Baltimore:TheJohnsHopkinsCenterforCivilSocietyStudies
Villa,Marcos(2007)Interacciónciudadanaycongreso,NuevasformasdeejercerciudadaníaenJalisco,Ayto.deGuadalajara
Villa,Marcos(2006)Análisisdelegislacionesnacionalesenfomento;elcasodeJalisco.VISeminarioanualdeInvestigaciónsobreelTercerSectorenMéxico,MexicoCity,Septiembre2006
Villar,Rodrigo,List,Regina&Salamon,Lester(1999)Colombia:ADiverseNonprofitSectorinGlobalCivilSociety:DimensionsoftheNonprofitSector,Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsCenterforCivilSocietyStudies
Willets,Peter(2006)TheCardosoReportontheUNandCivilSociety:Functionalism,GlobalCorporativism,orGlobalDemocracy,Retrieved5thofJuly2009fromhttp://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/PUBS/GG‐2006.HTM
Zubiri,Xavier(1986)SobreelhombreAlianzaEditorial,Madrid,España