The Civil Society in Latin American reality: A possible path for strengthening the sector from the Jesuit Universities - Marcos Villa

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



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?



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)



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



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



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



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



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.



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



Figure 5. Total Employment in NPO as percentage of Economical Active Population, by Country in 2004

(Irarrázaval,Hairel,Sokolowski&Salamon,2004)



• 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



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*




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


Figure 7 Distribution of civil society organization paid and volunteer workforce, by field*


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%


Figure 9 Sources of civil society organization revenue*




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



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.



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



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.



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)



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)



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



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-


CUADRO XXIII.1El sector no lucrativo en el Perú, 1995



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*



* No agrario


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.


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.



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%


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%



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%).


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 *



* No agrario


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



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


85,2%

Sector público8,5%

Filantropía6,3%



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-


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



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


FIGURA XXII.7Fuentes de ingresos del sector no lucrativo enMéxico, con voluntarios, 1995


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%



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



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.


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.


Figure 21.8 Sources of nonprofit cash revenue, Colombia, Latin America, and


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



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


Brazil


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


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%



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.


Figure 20.10 Sources of nonprofit cash revenue in Brazil, Latin America, and


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%


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%



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


Figure 19.5 Composition of the nonprofit sector, Argentina, Latin America, and


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


Argentina


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


Figure 19.10 Sources of nonprofit cash revenue, Argentina, Latin America, and


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%


ArgentinaLatin America22-Country average



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.



• 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



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)



“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?



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?



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



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



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



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



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.



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



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

Government & Nonprofit

The Civil Society in Latin American reality: A possible path for strengthening the sector from the Jesuit Universities - Marcos Villa