Five Questions for Peter Frumkin

Peter Frumkin discussed his big-picture view of the nonprofit sector in an e-mail interview with HBS Working Knowledge Managing Editor Carla Tishler.

Tishler: Сегодня можно найти множество книг, написанных о некоммерческих организациях, но они в основном о том, как собрать средства (фандрайзинг), или дают объяснение стратегии той или иной организации. Ваша же рассматривает философию стратегии, присущую определенной организации, а потому оперирует более сложными понятиями. Чем оправдан такой подход? Значит ли это, что их роль в обществе и экономике страны изменилась и требует более серьезного анализа?

Frumkin: I wrote this book because I believe that there is a need in the nonprofit sector for an appreciation of the big picture—the meaning and purpose of nonprofit organizations. A fair amount of the recent and growing research on nonprofits has been highly focused and specialized, either considering only a small subset of organizations in the sector or delving into a neatly circumscribed problem or issue. I wanted to try something broader, something that might help people grasp the larger context, especially now that people are waking up to the fact that the nonprofit sector is a significant piece of the national economy and a critical part of many local communities.

Q: Некоммерческие организации называют по-разному: не облагаемые налогом организации, независимый сектор, неправительственные организации, добровольные организации и т.п. Так уж ли важно прийти к соглашению о том, как их называть?

A: The names we use are not that important. But what is important is that we realize that many of our assumptions about nonprofits, which are wrapped up in the names we have used over time, may need to be reexamined.

The sector has undergone important changes in recent decades—from increased commercialization to greater politicization—and these changes are what explain the name game that we have played with nonprofits. The term independent sector, for example, seemed plausible enough until it was abundantly clear that nonprofit organizations, particularly in the health and social service fields, were anything but independent. Heightened levels of government funding in these and other critical parts of the sector made it far less independent than earlier idealizations may have led us to conclude.

We have changed the nomenclature as our understanding of nonprofits has evolved. In the end, rather than worry about names, we need to keep our eyes on the more important issue of what public benefits the sector is generating and how public policy can advance and support nonprofit initiatives in the future.

Q: В своей книге вы отмечаете, что некоммерческие и добровольные организации приветствуются (одобряются) как консерваторами так и либералами. Это отражение непонимания широкими кругами общественности собственно роли некоммерческих организаций или что-то иное?

A: It is more a reflection of the fact that nonprofits, at their best, can create common ground between those who want to enhance and improve the safety net and those who are interested in promoting private initiative and limiting the reach of the state. Nonprofits of all kinds—from large secular service providers to small faith-based agencies—can and do cross ideological boundaries in ways that few other American institutions are capable. While it may be a bit confusing to hear both sides of the political spectrum praise the work of nonprofit organizations, I think it is ultimately a clear sign that the sector is likely to continue to grow in importance and take on ever greater responsibilities, especially at a time when trust in government and the corporate world is very low.

Q: На что, по вашему мнению, читателям следует обратить особое внимание при чтении On Being Nonprofit?

A: That nonprofit organizations work best when they achieve balance across their four main roles as service delivery vehicles, promoters of civic and political engagement, vehicles for entrepreneurship, and enactors of values. Balance is important because nonprofits have gotten into trouble when they have become too one-sided. Only when nonprofit organizations achieve some kind of balance across the four critical functions I lay out in the book is it likely that the sector will be able to maximize its potential. The conceptual distinctions I make between these central functions of nonprofits will, I hope, be helpful in clarifying why we have nonprofits, what they are capable of contributing to society, and how public policy seeks to support the sector.

Q: Над какими другими проектами Вы работаете в настоящий момент?

A: Much of my time is devoted to writing a new book on philanthropy, entitled Strategic Giving. In the book, I explain how donors can go about constructing a strategy to guide their giving and I provide a set of frameworks and tools to support this task. One of the underlying arguments of the approach I sketch is that philanthropy is really most effective when it simultaneously produces significant public benefits and satisfies donors by allowing them to enact their values and commitment. The book is an extended exploration of how the public and private dimensions of giving can be brought together strategically.

Поиск по сайту: