Hybrid Organizations: No Cause for Concern?

Hybrid organizations mix the characteristics of state, market, and civil society. Critics have suggested that such organizations pose severe risks to the public sector, both financially and culturally. However, these assertions are based mostly on theoretical claims or single case studies. No systematic evidence has been collected to support them. The findings of a large research program in The Netherlands in several policy fields show that the concerns over hybrid organizations appear to be overstated, since theoretically defined risks have not materialized. Conditions such as the presence of active regulators and a high degree of professionalism appear to dampen the risks.

[1]  V. Pestoff.  Third sector and co-operative services — An alternative to privatization , 1992 .

[2]  A. Evers.  Mixed Welfare Systems and Hybrid Organizations: Changes in the Governance and Provision of Social Services , 2005 .

[3]  M. Noordegraaf.  From “Pure” to “Hybrid” Professionalism , 2007 .

[4]  Taco Brandsen,et al.  The third sector and the policy process in The Netherlands: a study in invisible ink , 2005 .

[5]  James L. Perry,et al.  The Public-Private Distinction in Organization Theory: A Critique and Research Strategy , 1988 .

[6]  Sylwia Męcfal.  Recenzja książki. Robert K. yin, Case Study Research. Design and Methods (fourth Edition), thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2009 , 2012 .

[7]  R. Thomson.  Consuming Health – The Commodification of Health Care , 2002 .

[8]  S. Karsten,et al.  Marketization in the Dutch vocational education and training sector , 2007 .

[9]  J. Lane.  Will Public Management Drive out Public Administration , 1994 .

[10]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Case study research , 2004 .

[11]  J. Jacobs.  Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics , 1992 .

[12]  T. Brandsen,et al.  Griffins or Chameleons? Hybridity as a Permanent and Inevitable Characteristic of the Third Sector , 2005 .

[13]  R. Rhodes.  Understanding governance : policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability , 1997 .

[14]  D. Billis.  Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector: Challenges for Practice, Theory and Policy , 2010 .

[15]  C. Pollitt,et al.  Unbundled Government:A critical analysis of the global trend to agencies, quangos & contractualisation , 2003 .

[16]  John Clarke,et al.  The Managerial State: Power, Politics and Ideology in the Remaking of Social Welfare , 1999 .

[17]  H. Rainey,et al.  Public and Private Management Compared , 2007 .

[18]  Jane Broadbent,et al.  Professionals and the New Managerialism in the Public Sector , 2000 .

[19]  J. Whitney.  Case Study Research , 1999 .

[20]  W. Kickert.  Public management of hybrid organizations: governance of quasi-autonomous executive agencies , 2001 .

[21]  B. Peters,et al.  Governance, Politics and the State , 2000 .

[22]  Michael M. Crow,et al.  Public, Private and Hybrid Organizations , 1988 .

[23]  A. Evers,et al.  Social services by social enterprises: on the possible contributions of hybrid organizations and a civil society , 2004 .

[24]  Toon Kerkhoff.  Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism , 2009 .

[25]  S. Thiel.  Quangocratization: trends, causes and consequences , 2000 .

[26]  Taco Brandsen,et al.  Co-management in public service networks , 2006 .

[27]  E. Ferlie,et al.  The Oxford Handbook of Public Management , 2007 .

[28]  Eran Vigoda.  New Public Management , 2007 .

[29]  Z. Wal,et al.  Is Public Value Pluralism Paramount? The Intrinsic Multiplicity and Hybridity of Public Values , 2009 .

[30]  S. Ackroyd,et al.  The New Managerialism and Public Service Professions: Change in Health, Social Services and Housing , 2004 .

[31]  Z. Wal,et al.  Value Solidity. Differences, Similarities and Conflicts between the Organizational Values of Government and Business , 2006 .

[32]  C. Hood.  A PUBLIC MANAGEMENT FOR ALL SEASONS , 1991 .