Dear All
I come late (and with some trepidation) to the debate. I apologise if
(as seems likely) I have missed significant earlier contributions.
I agree whole heartedly that any attempted classificatory scheme
has got to be dynamic and capable of capturing organisational
change over time (I'm also in favour of motherhood and apple pie).
Even so, I am slightly concerned that the kind of matrix that is
being discussed may not be up to the task it is being set.
Voluntary, not-for-profit, community - these are all very broad
terms. Also, the proposed distinction between participation and
provision as a basis for differentiating organisations seems to me to
be not particularly helpful.
We struggled to maintain this kind of distinction in our own work
with HIV/AIDS organisations, but in the end gave it up as being not
particularly helpful. Successful organisations were a means of
achieving both (and operated as community organisations too),
unsuccessful ones achieved neither! We eventually adopted
Weeks' term "social movement organisation" on three grounds
1. it problematises the relationshiip between theorganisation and
the social movement it represents/purports to represent
2. it offers a developmental perspective
3. it focuses on the internal organisational impact of external
interaction with government agencies.
If anyone is interested, there is a fuller discussion and an analysis
of the divergent trajectories of HIV/AIDS SMOs in two
neighbouring cities in our paper (Social Science and Medicine
1998;471197-1208)
Best wishes
Roland
Phone: 020 7477 8796
FAX: 020 7477 8595
http://www.city.ac.uk/human/
Address: Health Management Group,
City University,
Northampton Square,
LONDON, EC1V 0HB
|