Author: Charles H. Hamilton
Date Published: 1996 Document: wp10 Hamiltonpdf.pdf  This paper is part of a larger work on Philanthropy and Citizenship: What Does Participation Really Mean?, which I began while at Yale. This paper tries to add theoretical and historical vitality to our understanding of the changing roles of voluntary associations in modern society. Current theories may read too selectively from the past, explain too little of our present, and help us too meagerly in the future. No one theory applies in all circumstances, but a recent issue of NVSQ devoted to theory and the work of scholars like Van Til, Lohmann, and Salamon attest to its importance. Important new works on voluntarism and civil society by Finlayson, Green, Putnam, and McKnight need to be integrated into our larger understanding of voluntary action and democracy.
I try to present a perspective on voluntary organizations that is more “society-centered” rather than so dependent on politics and the state. Voluntary-government relations are a given, but the nature and tensions of that relationship, the toll it can take on citizens and civil society, and its “natural” level need much more study. I look at several different issues: three are listed separately here, but they are more fully integrated in the paper.
(1) The interdependency of voluntary organizations and government has been a welcome breakthrough in recent decades. But that understanding can all to often lead, almost effortlessly, to such a politicized view of human action that voluntary organizations are viewed as necessarily dependent upon the welfare state. Views of the independence of voluntary organizations, however, can also be driven by ideology or vested interest. Both approaches ignore the “embeddedness” of all organizations in social structures and relations. While embracing the interdependency account, I question the implications of the dependency view and the benign theory of state sometimes implied. Voluntary organizations are a natural outgrowth of social action and thereby have a unique resilience and autonomy in a democratic community.
(2) The idea of voluntary failure has been used to give pre-eminence to voluntary association and to explain government action. Does this view fit historical experiences or make theoretical sense? Does it robustly explain the implicit knowledge problems, the interactions of an active (or neutral) state, and regulatory paradigms. What does it imply about the public good and public interest? Recent work on “market failure” and “public choice” theory may lend a helpful perspective here. Any theory of interdependency must look at whether there are processes of adjustment within society and the voluntary sector that might tend towards long-term institutional change and vitality and that may be interrupted by state action. I believe there are.
(3) The movement to “bring the state back in” within political science and sociology successfully explains many macro and micro aspects of voluntary-government relations. But that close focus on the state may not go far enough, when we are dealing with a “farewell state” and a “hollowing out of the state.” First, we need a better theory of the state and political decision-making. Most important, though, we need to alter our perspective, emphasis, and vision by “bringing society back in” -- what Vaclav Havel called “the independent life of society” -- to our understanding of voluntary-government relations.
|
Of Voluntary Failure and Change