European Civil Society 

Annette Zimmer is Professor of Social Policy and Comparative Politics at the University of Münster (Germany). The series European Civil Society is edited by Taco Brandsen, Gemma Donnelly-Cox, Matthias Freise, Michael Meyer, Filip Wijkström and Annette Zimmer.

| 13

Zimmer (ed.)

Civil society serves as the starting point to shed light on the topic of how societies cope with risks and challenges. Unlike in Germany, pragmatism has always been a key characteristic of the Netherlands. Today, the two countries are “most similar cases”. However, they are very different with respect to getting along with societal heterogeneity and economic challenges.

Civil Societies Compared: Germany and the Netherlands

Annette Zimmer (ed.)

Civil Societies Compared: Germany and the Netherlands

13 ISBN 978-3-8329-7494-7

Nomos BUC_Zimmer_7494-7.indd 1

24.05.13 11:22

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

European Civil Society edited by Taco Brandsen Gemma Donnelly-Cox Matthias Freise Michael Meyer Filip Wijkström Annette Zimmer Volume 13

BUT_Zimmer_7494-7.indd 2

24.05.13 11:21

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

Annette Zimmer (ed.)

Civil Societies Compared: Germany and the Netherlands

Nomos

BUT_Zimmer_7494-7.indd 3

24.05.13 11:21

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700 Funded by the North-Rhine Westphalian Ministry of Innovation, Science, Research and Technology.

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-8329-7494-7

1. Edition 2013 (c) Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden 2013. Printed in Germany. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machine or similar means, and storage in databases. Under § 54 of the German Copyright Law, where copies are made for use other than private use, a fee is payable to »Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort«, Munich.

BUT_Zimmer_7494-7.indd 4

24.05.13 11:21

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

Contents

Introduction.  Pragmatism versus Ideology: Civil Societies in The Netherlands and in Germany Annette Zimmer

7

 

Part One: The Art of Comparing   Comparison and Beyond: Approaches to Investigation of Civil Society in Europe from an Historical and Transnational Perspective   Arnd Bauerkämper

27  

Political Science and History: Symbiosis or Synthesis?   Hans Keman

43  

Part Two: Civil Society as a Multifaceted Concept   Civil society in the Netherlands around 1900. A historical analysis   Remieg Aerts

69  

Civic Traditions and Civil Society in Germany   Rupert Graf Strachwitz

81  

Social Movements in Germany   Roland Roth

105  

Ideology: Too much or too little?     Fragmentation in the Dutch left-wing movement   Marije Boekkooi

123  

Dutch civil society in macro-quantitative perspectives   Paul Dekker

141   5

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

Scope, Structure, and Development of Civil Society in Germany   Eckhard Priller

161  

The Inexorable Rise of Hybrid Organizations in The Netherlands   Taco Brandsen and Philip Marcel Karré

177  

Hybridisation in German public services – a contested field of  innovations   Adalbert Evers

197  

Part Three: Changes and Challenges (Will and) Did the Netherlands Breach its Dykes?   Frans van Waarden

219

Moving away from corporatism   Kathrin Loer and Helmut Voelzkow

247  

The Turkish second generation in two church-state regimes:   A comparative perspective on integration and religiosity   Fenella Fleischmann

287  

Perspectives on Europe in Germany and the Netherlands   Anne-Dörte Balks

315

Contributors

343

6

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

Introduction Pragmatism versus Ideology: Civil Societies in The Netherlands and in Germany Annette Zimmer

The Netherlands look back upon a long tradition of democratic governance and successful entrepreneurship. As a small country surrounded by big neighbors, the Low Countries have always been an open economy that takes careful into consideration how to peacefully get along with competitors. Traditionally, the Netherlands have been a “divided country” along religious and normative cleavages. However, these dividing lines have never come into conflict with the country’s economic aspirations and its drive towards prosperity. An attuned and down-toearth pragmatism constitutes a very important characteristic of the Netherlands. Pragmatism has always provided the logic for the country´s open economy (Lechner 2007; Andeweg/Irwin 2009; Lademacher 1993). It is also the reason why in the Netherlands pillarization of the society did not lead to chaos and violent struggles and controversies, but on the contrary it served as a starting point for a development that translated into an appeasement of the highly heterogeneous Dutch society through forceful and lasting compromises among the elites whatever pillar – the catholic, social-democratic or protestant-calvinistic – they belonged to (Lijphart 1999; 1975). In other words, the Netherlands present a textbook-example for a modern society that early in the country’s history learned to cope with heterogeneity and complexity through referring to pragmatism in the utilitarian sense of searching for the most favorable solution for the majority of the citizenship. This qualifies the Netherlands as an ideal benchmark for solving current problems in many policy fields. Indeed, since the late 1980s, the Netherlands have developed into a “point of reference” for the social sciences and in particular for policy analysis with respect to a variety of policy fields that are all affiliated with the change and modernization of the welfare state (Visser/Hemerijck 1998; Avdagic/Visser 2011). Whoever relates to the Netherlands as a point of reference for modernizing strategies and policies that try to go beyond the status-quo, draws the attention to the specificities of Dutch society that – compared to the neighboring countries in the south and east of Europe – has always stood out for its pluralism and its attuned civicness. Against this background, a volume that aims at comparing the Netherlands with one of its big neighbors– respectively with Germany – constitutes a useful 7

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

undertaking. From a comparative perspective, Germany and the Netherlands today are two “most similar cases”. They are democracies, market economies and liberal pluralistic societies. However, simultaneously, the countries look back upon very different traditions of their societies, economies, and first and foremost political legacies. Germany’s path to modernity was extremely difficult and characterized through atrocities of militarism, fascism and Soviet-type socialism. There was no smooth and easy way to democratic rule; instead, Germany was the first country in Europe that departed from the route to further democratization in the first quarter of the 20th century. On the contrary, the Netherlands managed to tackle the risks of modernization, industrialization and building up a modern administration without harsh defeats and major setbacks. The reason why Germany took such a different route towards modernity compared to its smaller neighbor might have to do with the fact that Germany´s civil society was not able to build up institutional settings that went along with the challenges of the time. In sharp contrast to the Netherlands, where society has always come first, in Germany, the State used to be the driving force, while civil activities and the strength of civil society were more or less incorporated into state activities. Against the background of a worldwide rollback of statehood and of a significant change of state activities, it might be very useful to compare the civil traditions of the two neighboring countries. In the same vein, it might also make sense for Germany to take a new and fresh look at the Netherlands. The country might serve as an example of best practice for Germany whenever it has to come to grips with societal challenges that are not easy to handle. Hence, the idea of this volume is to address the question of how and to what extent neighboring countries that are, indeed, quite similar can learn from each other? Do we see a travelling of ideas and concepts? And how are ideas and concepts modified and altered when they move to a different context, and when they are confronted with very different historical legacies. Particularly because the concepts of the nation and the welfare state have lost momentum during the last decades, civil society as a multifaceted concept that nevertheless serves as a carrier of new ideas, reform movements and positive future-oriented initiatives constitutes the starting point for the comparison of Germany and the Netherland. But, simultaneously, civil society is a fuzzy concept that has gained popularity in the social science not until the 1980s (Zimmer 2012). Originally, civil society was used to characterize the political community in ancient Greece. It was not very popular thereafter, but it regained importance in the 17th and 18th century as a concept referred to by Scottish moral philosophers, e.g. David Hume, and Adam Smith. In 19th century Germany, the concept was closely connected to the development of a civil society or Bürgerliche Gesellschaft that asked for commercial freedom and partly also for political liberty from the tutelage of the state. Against this background, Karl Marx introduced 8

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

into political philosophy the distinction between the bourgeois and the citoyen. While the bourgeois strives for commercial freedom for its own sake, the citoyen fights for political liberty and for the wellbeing of the community. Hence Bürgerliche Gesellschaft developed into a synonym for the society of the selfish bourgeoisie. Therefore, it was discredited and not perceived as a forward-looking concept neither for political discourse nor for political and societal analysis. However, this changed in the 1970s, when “civil society” was discovered by dissidents and civic movements in Eastern Europe and by intellectuals in Latin America in order to characterize those groups and organizations which were opposed to the ruling authoritarian regimes (Klein 2000; Cohen/Arato). Discussions which took place in these oppositional groups in the East and South influenced debates on democratic theory in the western democratic world. As a consequence, the concept of civil society became the centre of discourses on the deepening and further advancement of democracy, especially in societies looking back upon a long democratic tradition such as the U.S. or Great Britain (Cohen/Arato 1997; Taylor 1991). In the meantime, civil society study and research have developed into well acknowledged fields of the social sciences (i.e. Journal of Civil Society; Yearbook of Global Civil Society). However, several distinct streams of research and publications can be distinguished. Firstly, research and theory building with a special eye on civil society is closely linked to the fields of political theory and political philosophy. These studies also show a close nexus to democratic theory. There is an abundance of literature referring to the work of Habermas and his approach of the public as a distinct realm of civil society. More recently, scholars of civil society have rediscovered the work of Gramsci and make it useful for their analysis of civil society as a hegemonic societal sphere that tends to stabilize the status quo instead of advancing new ideas and initiatives (Adloff 2005). Secondly, there are empirical studies focusing on civil engagement and civic participation of citizens including volunteering. These micro-level studies stand in the tradition of behaviorism. They focus on the topic of how and to what extent the behavior of the individual citizens has an impact on both society at large and on specific politics. This stream of research was highly influenced by the work of Putnam who identified in “How Democracy Works” a strong nexus between economic affluence, democracy and a strong civil society (Putnam 2003). Finally, there are studies that specifically investigate voluntary or nonprofit organizations. This type of organizations does not belong to the market because its purpose is not generating profits but working on behalf of either the common weal or of a specific community. But, as private organizations, nonprofits are also not part of the state, although in many cases, they are pursuing public purposes such as contributing to health care or serving the poor and the needy. Research investigating the organizational ba9

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

sis of civil society applies the methodology of organizational studies and stands in the tradition of sociology, public or business administration (Taylor 2010). The book takes civil society as a starting point in order to contribute to the field of comparative studies by exclusively looking at the Netherlands and Germany. The reason why these two countries are scrutinized with a special eye on the development, function, and specific role of civil society and nonprofit organizations are twofold: Firstly and as already mentioned, the Netherlands have always been more successful in tackling problems caused by changing environments better than its “big neighbor” Germany. Increasingly, the Netherlands are used for benchmarking purposes in Germany. The book asks whether the Netherlands also provide a good benchmark for the area of civil society and nonprofit studies. Secondly, comparative studies are by and large concerned about “big questions”. It is asked why democracy was successful in one country, but if failed in another; why revolutions took place, and why and how capitalism developed in the way it did (see Landman 2000). Those topics, however, are far too big to be addressed in class and to be researched in the limited framework of a master or even PhD-thesis. Therefore, the volume wants to show that a comparative approach is also applicable for small samples and for analyzing very similar cases. It also wants to show that familiarity with the unit of analysis can be very helpful. Comparisons of very similar cases can enrich our understanding of the field and specifically of path-dependency and hence slow-going processes of change of modern societies and their polities. The volume is organized into three major chapters. The first and introductory part focuses on the “art of comparing” from two different perspectives, in particular from political science and from the science of history. The second part is devoted to civil society as a multifaceted, normative, and highly complex concept of the social sciences that in the last decades has been in the focus of the social sciences. The third part takes a look at major political and societal changes and challenges in Germany and the Netherlands. This chapter addresses the topic of how Germany and the Netherlands adapt themselves to major changes that are propelled either through societal and economic globalization or through the increasing impact of the European Union.

Part One: The Art of Comparing For the use in class as a course book, the volume starts out with a chapter focusing on the art of comparing. Currently, political science inspired by behaviorism and statistical analysis increasingly tends to move away from its roots in the science of history. Therefore, the contributions of Arnd Bauerkämper and Hans Keman remind us that the comparative approach is as important for political sci10

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

ence as it is for historical analysis. Arnd Bauerkämper in his contribution “Comparison and Beyond: Approaches to investigation of Civil Society in Europe in Historical and Transnational Perspective” challenges the widely acknowledged assumption that the nation constitutes the most important unit of analysis for historians. By referring to the interconnectedness of societal developments, particularly in Europe, he strongly supports a comparative approach for modern historical analysis that goes beyond the boundaries of the nation state. But, Arnd Bauerkämper also warns us not to go too far. Although, the nation state does not qualify for the one and only unit of analysis; from his point of view, the approach put forward by the concept of “histoire croisée” might result into a profound blurring of boundaries. The underlying rationale of histoire croisée is a continuous readjustment of the unit of analysis. However, from an analytical point of view, this is very difficult to achieve. In particular with respect to the analysis of civil society, Arnd Bauerkämper favors an approach which starts out with a comparison using the boundaries of the nation state as the point of departure, and simultaneously takes into account spatial and temporal variations as well as transfers and processes of adaptation and cross-border xeroxing. His contribution makes clear that the development of civil society in the neighboring countries Germany and the Netherlands has much in common. The gran history is very alike. However, despite cross-border transfers and interconnectedness, the growth and flourishing of civil society in the Netherlands and in Germany has been very distinct. Although in Europe political science and history has never been that far apart as in the U.S., Hans Keman highlights in his contribution “Political Science and History: Symbiosis or Synthesis” that currently the two disciplines are reestablishing a closer relationship with respect to methods applied and research topics addressed. This is particularly the case for comparative historical analysis that aims at addressing “big issues” such as the development of modern statehood, the growth and alteration of the welfare state or success and failure of democratic rule. The article provides ample evidence that the two disciplines have more in common than normally perceived. Both the science of history as well as political science aims at researching and explaining processes of change and modification. Furthermore, both disciplines are interested in analyzing how change and development are interwoven, and which role society and more precisely civil society plays with respect to change and development. However, despite these similarities the two disciplines still stand out for their uniqueness as regards their genuine interest and hence the driving force for research. To a certain extent, historians are primarily interested in explaining when and how change took place. Political scientists primarily address the why-question, and they furthermore ask firstly who benefited, and secondly, what is or what was the outcome of the specific development and change. In addition, historians tend to 11

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

emphasize the uniqueness of events and the diversity of developments. Political scientists are concerned with tracing down specific models. Accordingly, political scientists aim at detecting the interconnectedness of developments; or to put it differently, political scientists try to show how and to what extent specific developments enroll in accordance with an underlying pattern or “model” that is inspired by and embedded in theory. But theory building in the sense of developing a gran design for the explanation of change and progress has always been a key domain of historiography. A further rapprochement of the two disciplines would therefore be of mutual benefit.

Part Two: Civil Society as a Multifaceted Concept After the introductory chapter focusing on the art of comparing from both a historiographic and a political science perspective the following chapter addresses traditions, current developments and recent changes of civil society and of nonprofit organizations in the Netherlands and in Germany. In order to understand how civil society functions today, it is useful to analyze its roots and embeddedness in the historic context of the two neighboring countries. Does it make sense to compare Dutch and German history with regard to civil society, asks Remieg Arts in his contribution “Civil Society in the Netherlands around 1900. A historical analysis”? Despite the striking difference of the size of the countries, their civil societies have many common features. The middle class – the Besitz- and Bildungsbürgertum – was the driving force of civil society in Germany and in the Netherlands in the 19th century. But, Dutch civil society, as the article of Remieg Aerts outlines, was also very distinctive. The reasons for the distinctiveness are closely related to the size and the heterogeneity of Dutch society as well as to the specific and limited role of the Dutch State in that era. Although the Netherlands have changed significantly since then, elements of the historically determined features of Dutch civil society are still in place. Amongst those count most prominently the tradition of referring to the social bonds and networks of civil society on behalf of a specific approach to policy making that is definitely characterized by pragmatism. This very specific characteristic of the Netherlands that makes this country very distinct from Germany will surface again and again in the other contributions to this volume. Rupert Graf Strachwitz also refers in his contribution “Civic Traditions and Civil Society in Germany” to the legacy of history when it comes to the current understanding of civil society and nonprofit organizations in the neighboring Germany. In accordance with the Netherlands, Germany´s civil society has never been homogenous; on the contrary, as Graf Strachwitz clearly indicated in this contribution, there are at least three ideological frames under which nonprofit 12

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

organizations were operating in Germany. These approaches or frames of mind are characterized by the authors as the liberal, the catholic and the socialdemocratic model of nonprofit activity. Each of these models stands out for a very specific ideological underpinning. The liberal model perceives civil society or nonprofit activity as a countervailing force vis-à-vis the state as an ever growing power that increasingly endangers liberty and freedom of citizens. The catholic model also perceives the state as a potential threat to the private realm of citizens. However, it is not individual liberty but the community of Catholics that might be endangered through state authority. However, if there is a chance that communitarian ideas, inspired by catholic moral philosophy make inroads into modern statehood, there is a good chance that the catholic model becomes so to speak “state friendly”. The same holds true for the social-democratic model. Indeed, a state working on behalf of the advancement of core social-democratic values, such as social justice and equal opportunities, is perceived as the “natural partner” of co-operation in the “social democratic model”. In other words, although by and large the same “pillars” or ideological milieus are constitutive for Dutch and German society, the civil societies and hence the nonprofit sectors of the two countries are nevertheless very different with respect to their attitudes towards the state. Whereas in the Netherlands, civil society has always come first, in Germany, civil society heavily builds on the co-operation with the state. Indeed, the catholic as well as the social democratic milieu traditionally ask for state support in order to make their civil society communities flourish. In addition, German civil society is related to distinctive and milieu specific social norms and values. Hence all in all, the German nonprofit sector might be characterized as being far less pragmatic compared to its equivalent in the Netherlands. Another facet of civil society is addressed in the contributions of Roland Roth and Marije Boekkooi focusing on social movements as vital elements of civil societies. But, as Roland Roth in his overview of “Social Movements in Germany!” underlines the nexus between social movements and civil society is contested. Without any doubt, the majority of civil society organizations originated in a particular social movement. On the other hand, civil society research either focuses on civic engagement and hence on volunteering or on function and output of civil or nonprofit organizations as providers of services. Roland Roth´s article provides ample evidence of the impact of social movements on the country´s political system and on its civil society. According to Roland Roth, there is no doubt that social movements have been important for Germany´s civil society. Many social services as well as organizations working on behalf of the environment, run by nonprofit organizations today, were started by initiatives embedded in a social movement. Therefore, in Germany social movements are deeply integrated into the country´s civil society. There are still strong ties and overlapping memberships between unions and social movement initiatives. So13

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

cial movements enjoy quite a potential to mobilize. However, at the same time, it is very important in the case of Germany not to overlook that the country also stands out for a legacy of history where extreme right-wing social movements hold sway. This was particularly the case in the Weimarer Republic. Nationalsocialism originally was a social movement in itself. And right-wing social movements come up time and again in Germany. Textbook examples are those outbreaks of xenophobia in East Germany after 1990; and nowadays, right-wing movements refining a specific youth culture are again on the rise in Germany. From a social movement perspective, Roland Roth all in all attests the country an active movement sector that is embedded in the country´s civil society. Hence it is not primarily a counterweighing power, instead social movements, particularly those that are connected to environmental issues, have developed into a more or less accepted facet of political life in Germany. This might be the reason why – as Rupert Graf Strachwitz rightly underlines in his contribution – civil society and in particular organized civil society with its numerous NPOs has – not unlike in the Netherlands – turned into a rather stabilizing and not extremely innovative segment of German society. However, the significant exception from this general rule are the right-wing movements that are increasingly turning violent up to a point where they become a right-wing terrorist force whose sniper do not restrain from killing in particular members of the Turkish migrant population in Germany. Marije Boekkooi´s contribution “Ideology: too much or too ” highlights problems and difficulties of Dutch social movements to co-operate strategically during major events such as G8 protest drives. The article provides the reader with a hands-on impression of how Dutch pragmatism might stands in the way of protest mobilization. Based on the results of interviews with protest activists, her contribution is a glimpse inside the movement. According to her analysis, Dutch left-wing protest activists are exclusively concerned with their specific interest. They are unable to promote co-operation because they lack an idea of connectedness and togetherness. Hence with respect to the social movement sector, Dutch pragmatism hinders that movement activists are socialized into a specific milieu that enables co-operation and co-ordination. The movement sector in the Netherland is, according to the analysis of Marije Boekkooi, far less interwoven and interconnected with the so-called Dutch middlefield, the terrain of nonprofit activity. This indeed is a striking difference to the German situation where there are still strong ties between the social movement and the organizational segment of civil society. In the following, the volume switches from the historical and social movement background of civil society to numbers. Or to put it differently, the civic sphere and more precisely the nonprofit sector in the two countries is compared by referring to a quantitative approach. Paul Dekker´s contribution “Dutch Civil 14

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

Society in Macro-quantitative Perspectives” provides an interesting and telling picture of civil society and the strength of the nonprofit sector in the Netherlands. The paper starts with a caveat as regards the understanding of civic activities. Helping others, obeying the law, and trying to understand people with different opinions are perceived as strong indicators for civility and citizenship values. However, nonprofit organizations that are based on membership and volunteer input, but simultaneously depend on public grants and market earnings, are not considered being part of civil society in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, as Paul Dekker outlines through referring to international data sources, the nonprofit sector in the Netherlands is remarkably large; indeed, it is the largest sector in the world, measured in terms of its share of total employment. The reason why this is the case is closely connected to the heterogeneity of Dutch society. In practical terms, the nonprofit sector is an outcome of the co-operation between the Dutch welfare state and the various associations and organizations which used to structure the different milieus or pillars of Dutch society. Nowadays, these organizations are just service providers without a specific normative underpinning. There is no doubt that from a comparative point of view the Netherlands score very high as regards both civic engagement of citizens – volunteering and donations - and economic strength of the nonprofit sector. Furthermore, it seems not to be problematic for the Dutch that nonprofit organizations that originally were based on civil society are nowadays service providers that are working on par with public as well as commercial competitors. Exactly the very notion that nonprofits are simply service providers working in growing but simultaneously highly competitive markets such as social services or health care, is put into question by the contribution of Eckhard Priller “Scope, Structure, and Development of Civil Society in Germany”. The paper starts out with a quantitative description of the German nonprofit sector in terms of numbers of associations, foundations, and people volunteering. According to the data, Germany stands out for a civil society and a sector of nonprofit organizations of respectable size. However, compared to the Netherlands, the sector is less pronounced, if it is put in relation to the size of the country´s population. The focus of the contribution of Eckhard Priller is on the topic of change. What the data reveals are changes on the individual level of civic engagement. In accordance with the trend in the Netherlands, civic engagement is becoming more and more individualized. Moreover, there are also significant changes at the meso-level of the nonprofit organizations. A key concern of Eckhard Priller´s article is the recent development of nonprofit employment. Due to economic pressure and attuned competition, the working conditions in German nonprofit organizations have significantly deteriorated in the last years. Safe jobs are no longer the rule. Short-term contracts and even “odd jobs” that are poorly paid are becoming more and more frequent in the sector. Hence, the article ends with a 15

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

rather pessimistic remark and the question whether nonprofit organizations shall be still considered a part of German civil society, or whether they are simply service providers looking for cheap labor because they have to cope with and survive in highly competitive markets. Against the portrait of the nonprofit sectors in the two countries, the following articles specifically investigate changes and developments at the organizational level. The focus of both contributions is on organizational hybridity in the sense that nonprofit organizations in Germany and in the Netherlands increasingly adapt coordination mechanism, rationalities and action logics which come from other sectors, in particular from the market, and that those, therefore, are not genuine for civil society. Both articles ask why this development takes place; how hybridity plays out in nonprofits in Germany and the Netherlands, and what the perspectives are in terms of risks and chances for nonprofits through hybridity in each country. Based on empirical research, Taco Brandsen and Philip Marcel Karré underline in their contribution “The Inexorable Rise of Hybrid Organizations in The Netherlands” that firstly hybridization is a widely spread phenomenon in the Dutch nonprofit sector, and that secondly hybridization does not endanger mission, task and organizational culture of nonprofits. The topic of how nonprofits in the Netherlands handle the challenge of hybridization provides a fine example of Dutch pragmatism. Firstly, the article lays out in detail that Dutch nonprofits, in particular those engaged in the provision of welfare related services, traditionally are hybrids due to the fact that these organizations look back upon an intense co-operation with the state and its authorities. Hence hybridity translates into serving public needs, and more precisely taking care of needs and duties that are set by government. In addition since decades, the organizations have been publicly funded and worked almost exclusively on government grants. The article lines out that the rise of new public management introducing the logic of the market such as competition and management by objectives into the public realm had a deep impact on nonprofits. In a nutshell, the organizations got used to a significantly changed environment. They managed this challenge through hybridization and hence through the adaption of those logics and mechanism of coordination that are compatible with the market. As the article underlines – based on case studies of hybrid Dutch nonprofits in about twenty policy fields – increased hybridity is far less risky than outlined and discussed in the literature. Accordingly, becoming more hybrid is just an organizational answer towards challenges that come about through a significantly changed environment. It is the rollback of the welfare state and the significant change of public administration that leads to hybridity. However, hybridity does not translate into the end of nonprofits as a part of civil society. 16

http://www.nomos-shop.de/14700

For Germany, the article of Adalbert Evers “Hybridisation in German Public Services – a Contested Field of Innovation” comes to a similar conclusion, albeit the article looks at the phenomenon from a very different perspective. The article starts out with a definition of a hybrid organization that tends to mix elements, value systems and logics of various societal sectors. What is new about hybridization in the context of nonprofit organizations and civil society activity, Adalbert Evers asks provocatively? There is no doubt that the current interest of the social sciences in hybridization is an outcome of the change or more precisely withdrawal of the welfare state. But, there is also no doubt about the fact that nonprofits and civil society organizations have always been affected by very different logics. Instead of perceiving hybridization primarily as a deviation, Adalbert Evers points at the chances of hybridization. According to his analysis, the new trend towards hybrid organizational forms in the nonprofit sector might offer the opportunity to bring society back into the sector, precisely in terms of civic engagement. Referring to selected policy fields – such as housing, education, child and elderly care – in Germany, the article makes clear that schools, kindergartens, social housing projects or homes for the elderly might benefit from an input of hybridity in terms of civic engagement, and volunteer input. The institutions have the chance – due to hybridity – to become more democratic, open-minded and accessible. Instead of being “under the thump” of government control, organizations providing public services and as such being part of civil society are re-gaining the opportunity to live up to their civicness thanks to hybridity. How the two contributions reflect on hybridity as a challenge for nonprofit organizations is interesting, and it also might tell us how the Netherlands and Germany in general cope with new issues and developments. While the perspective from the Netherlands highlights the pragmatism of the organizational behavior of Dutch nonprofits, the contribution from Germany argues normatively by underlining that hybridity might encompass a chance for organizations providing public services to get back to their roots.

Part Three: Changes and Challenges The contrast between Dutch pragmatism and German normativism also provides the overarching logic of the articles grouped together in part three of the volume. Specifically part three addresses the topic of how the neighboring countries are coping with changing environments and how they react confronted with new societal challenges as well as with major paradigmatic shifts or more precisely with worldwide trends such as the boom of neo-liberalism that took sway during the last decades. Without any doubt, the European Union also constitutes such a 17