Due to copyright restrictions, this file is not available for public download
Click here to request a copy from the OU Author.
|DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link:||http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5707-8_2|
|Google Scholar:||Look up in Google Scholar|
According to some, the third sector is unsuited to singular definitions because it is by its nature unruly. However, different definitions or theorizations can be identified. Ontologically oriented definitions of the third sector offer differing views on what it is made up of and what is excluded. Thus, an “American” view defines it as a separate sector characterized by organized, private, nonprofit, and voluntary entities. A “European” definition sees it as a hybrid phenomenon combining and connecting other sectors such as state and market (this allows social enterprises and [welfare] state bodies in). In contrast, epistemologically oriented theorizations treat the third sector more as a process or form of practice: a particular type of communication (following systems theory), a form of ordering and governing of people (following discourse theory), or a form of struggle or dialogue between social forces (following critical theory).
|Item Type:||Book Chapter|
|Copyright Holders:||2010 Springer Science + Media, LLC|
|Academic Unit/Department:||Social Sciences > Politics and International Studies|
|Interdisciplinary Research Centre:||Centre for Citizenship, Identities and Governance (CCIG)|
|Depositing User:||Olaf Corry|
|Date Deposited:||07 Mar 2012 09:30|
|Last Modified:||09 Feb 2014 06:29|
|Share this page:|