IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rug/rugwps/10-686.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The implementation of businesslike reporting in subsidized nonprofit arts organizations: an empirical evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • E. DEMEULENAERE
  • J. CHRISTIAENS
  • I. DE BEELDE

Abstract

Nonprofit arts organizations in continental Europe are generally to a large extent dependent on governments for their funding. Based on the new institutional theory, coercive pressures exerted by these funding governments are expected to drive the implementation of institutional models and, as such, enhance institutional isomorphism. However, in case of competing logics, institutionalized models are said to be implemented only to a moderate extent and to drive practice variation. This paper attempts to test these contrary assertions on the implementation of institutionalized models by analyzing the implementation of businesslike reporting in Flemish subsidized nonprofit arts organizations. The construction of a compliance index, based on a random sample of 100 organizations, allows for a quantitative picture of this implementation and enables descriptive statistics and univariate tests to validate the hypotheses. Elaborating on the results, partially confirming the stated hypotheses, the discussion formulates some topics for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • E. Demeulenaere & J. Christiaens & I. De Beelde, 2010. "The implementation of businesslike reporting in subsidized nonprofit arts organizations: an empirical evaluation," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 10/686, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    • Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:10/686
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wps-feb.ugent.be/Papers/wp_10_686.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    new institutional theory; competing logics; reporting; nonprofit arts organizations; funding;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:10/686. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nathalie Verhaeghe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferugbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.