The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nonprofit Sector Growth and Density: Testing Theories of Government Support
Open accessAbstract
Theories of nonprofit density have assumed a variety of dispositions toward the state, including opposition, suspicion, indifference, and mutual dependence. In this article, we conduct the first large-scale simultaneous empirical test of the two most prominent nonprofit theories: government failure theory and interdependence theory. The former characterizes nonprofit activities as substitute or oppositional to state programs, accounting for the limitations and failures of government-provided services and more reflective of the heterogeneity of demand for services. The latter emphasizes the more complementary and collaborative nature of nonprofit activities, focusing on the overlapping agendas of nonprofits and the state and the mutual dependency that arises from partnership. The theories are difficult to test empirically because both predict the same relationship between state capacity and the size of the nonprofit sector, albeit for theoretically distinct reasons. A true joint test requires the separation of government support from private support for nonprofits. Using a newly constructed panel dataset in which we separate out nonprofit revenue sources normally agglomerated in the Internal Revenue Service 990 data, we examine the empirical merits of both theories to answer the question of whether human service nonprofit organizations thrive when government fails or when government collaborates. Our findings suggest that government funding has a more favorable effect on nonprofit density than private donations. The findings raise several policy and management implications that need evaluation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-2454 · Cited by 28,789
Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital
Coleman, J. S. (1988) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/228943 · Cited by 26,975
Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital
COLEMAN, J. (2000) · Knowledge and Social Capital · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-7222-1.50005-2 · Cited by 21,666
Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education.
O'Shea, D. W., & Richardson, J. G. (1987) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2069964 · Cited by 15,142
Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032 · Cited by 8,256
An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mur011 · Cited by 3,637
The Nonprofit sector: a research handbook
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-4553 · Cited by 2,630
On the private provision of public goods
Bergstrom, T., Blume, L., & Varian, H. (1986) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/0047-2727(86)90024-1 · Cited by 2,267
Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393698 · Cited by 1,903
The Tools of government: a guide to the new governance
(2002) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-2422 · Cited by 1,827
Cited by
Liu, Z., & Jia, H. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14095139 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Lecy, J. D., & Van Slyke, D. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-05-10
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 189-214
- ISSN
- 1053-1858 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-9803
- OpenAlex
- W2168036651
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 60
- FWCI
- 39.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nonprofit Sector Growth and Density: Testing Theories of Government Support. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jopart/mus010
- The paper
- Lecy, J. D., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2013). Nonprofit Sector Growth and Density: Testing Theories of Government Support. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus010
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.