----- Original Message ---- From: Steven L. Robinson <srobin21 at comcast.net> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 12:23:48 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Nonprofits brace for 2010 Armageddon
The question is how well it worked.
Interestingly, at least in the San Francisco Bay Area, boom times actually hit the non profit sector very, very hard. Many had to relocate out of San Francisco to Oakland, or points east, or go out of business because of skyrocketing rents.
In terms of funding, imo the most objectionable part of the rise of non profits is the extent to which they provide services the government should be providing itself. Governmental agencies are, at least in theory, much more amenable to popular will than non profits governed as, they often are, by all powerful executive directors and self selecting boards of directors. SR
[WS:] Nonprofits are a big part of the welfare system in EU as well. In most cases, nonprofits that receive public funds are accountable, or otherwise they would not be getting public funding. Nonprofits that refuse such funding are usually of the conservative variety and do it precisely to avoid public accountability or "government intervnetion."
The arguments for and agianst such government - nonprofit collaboration go both ways. The main con is that government farms out services to nonporfits to avoid more decisive policy initiatives (like providing services themselves), the main pros are that nonprofits are more sensitive to specific needs of populations they serve and also can engage in advocacy on thier behalf, which government agencies cannot do.
As usually, the devil is in the details. Personally, I think that the mode of service delivery (government or nonprofits) is of secondary significance, what really matters is the funding of such services. In EU, service providing nonporfits receive most of their funding from government - they are basically extensions of the public welfare system. The big difference is how much the respective governments spend on public welfare - 16% of the GDP in the US and other champions of neoliberalism, and about 26-29% of the GDP in "old" Europe.
As to your observation about the SF Bay area - I understand that this the effect of reas estate bubble and surreal real estate pricing in that area. A lot of professional people cannot afford living in that area and are forced to long-distance commute instead. AFAIK, this situation has been in place there for at least 10-15 years. The culprit here is not an economic downturn but idiotic land use policies (mostly of the past) favoring low density housing and inhibiting mass transit development.
Wojtek