Structuring Neoliberal Governance: The Nonprofit Sector, Emerging New Modes of Control and the Marketisation of Service Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Governments in the Anglo-American democracies have restructured their relationships with nonprofit organisations (NPOs). New modes of control have emerged which represent the paradox of centralised decentralisation. We examine the impacts on NPO financing, accountability and human resources. While the experience of Canadian NPOs is used to illustrate the impact of neoliberal induced restructuring, comparative evidence suggests that the Canadian experience is broadly representative. The imposition of neoliberal governance structures on nonprofit service providers serves to compromise their autonomy and advocacy function, while commercialising nonprofit operations and imposing burdens that have strained organisational capacity. The neoliberal model of market-based regulation has moved many nonprofit service organisations away from their community oriented focus and towards a “business model”. In various forms, the state has introduced quasi-markets or, at a minimum, required NPO’s to engage in more competitive practices with negative consequences for nonprofit mission, culture and labour-management practices. The result is a growing level of instability within the sector.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".