It is the purpose in the final part of this chapter to tentatively consider what kind of functional definition may be developed which best summarises the purpose of Third Sector Organisations. Some possible suggestions as to this have already been discussed;
in particular, there appears some attachment to the idea that Third Sector Organisations are those serving the ‘public good’. One key problem with this has already been noted;
that the public good is extremely dependent upon individual perceptions. However, inclusion of the notion of public good in a definition of the Third Sector Organisation whilst simultaneously avoiding the problem above, may be achieved by suggesting that the conception of public good that the Third Sector Organisation serves is its own. As such, the benefit that more conventional notions of public good brings are lost, in that it allows any organisation (no matter how unpleasant their aims,) to be classified as a Third Sector Organisation, so long as they are serving their own conception of public good. This will also mean the inclusion of groups with opposing functions (for instance, pro-life and pro-choice groups would both be likely to be included.) However, what is lost in terms of the convenience of identifying groups likely to be considered as bringing a positive contribution to society, is more than made up for by identifying the core function underlying all such groups. That is, the purpose they serve, and their reason for coming into being, is that they believe that there is some public good which needs serving in some way. They may fulfil this purpose by lobbying for it (for instance environmental campaign groups like Friends of the Earth), providing some forum for the discussion of it, or actually filling the gap in service provision which is perceived to exist (for instance the welfare provision of Citizens Advice Bureaux, or the provision of sporting activities by a football club).
Therefore, the functional definition of the TSO proposed here, is of an organisation
‘serving private notions of public goods’.
There are many other organisations which serve the public good. For instance, what else does the State do, (or at least what should it be doing)? A definition which categorises
36 | P a g e
organisations of the State (for example, schools and hospitals) as the same kind of entity as Third Sector Organisations is of little practical use. However, the proposal that Third Sector Organisations exist to serve their own (private) notions of the public good can help to distinguish the two. In democratic States, the State exists to serve the public’s notions of the public good. In this way one might distinguish between the Third Sector
Organisation, and an organ of the State, according to their function.
The distinction between the State and the Third Sector reflects one key point noted elsewhere; that one important purpose of Third Sector Organisations is to “form a vital feedback link between people and their Government” (Boris, Mosher-Williams, 1998, p490)- under the typology presented here Third Sector Organisations can feedback the private concerns of their members and supporters regarding the public good, which may give the Government an indication of the feelings of the population about certain issues, represented more cogently and persuasively than the individual members could achieve.
It is also necessary to distinguish between the Third Sector and the Market. The private sector organisation might be defined, according to a functional definition, as an
organisation that exists in order to make money. Without that function they would not survive in the marketplace. As such, they can be distinguished from organisations whose primary purpose is the serving of some public good.
It is also possible to distinguish between the Third Sector Organisation and what might be called the ‘Tribe’. The two sectors may be distinguished by suggesting that unlike the TSO, the good that tribes serve are not primarily for the benefit of the public, but for the members of the tribe. Neither is this ‘good’ defined by the public- tribes decide for themselves how they are best run. Nor is it the case that there is some clear individual objective that they serve (unlike the Market which exists to make money). The tribe primarily serves private notions of private goods. Under this typology one would class any organisation which serves its own interests (but the interests of which are broader than the accumulation of wealth) as being a tribal organisation. This includes classic tribal groups (such as families), but may also include organisations such as ‘gangs’, it may also be the case that dictatorial States (which are likely to primarily serve their own interest rather than the public will) are classified in this way. This classification makes the Market
37 | P a g e
a sub-sector of the ‘Tribe’, since the aim of making money is a particularly important example of a private conception of a private good.
This typology is not the first to distinguish the Third Sector from the State and the Market, Paton (2009) (cited in Alcock 2010), argues that different values and principles can be associated with the State, the Market and Civil Society. Evers (1995) discusses the position of the Third Sector in the welfare system relative to the State, the Market, and the private household (seemingly similar to what has here been called the ‘Tribe’). In the case of the definition suggested in this chapter, these different spheres are each
identified according to their function – the role they play in society. However, although it will be easy to ascribe many organisations to one of these dimensions of social space, there are also likely to be a number of cases where the organisation appears to have more than one of the functions described. For instance, a corporation may give money away to certain causes, not in order to further any goal of raising capital, but because it in some way believes in the causes themselves. Tribal groups may also support initiatives which may be better classed as public than private goods (such as participating in a voluntary recycling scheme.) For this reason, it is proposed that it is the primary function of the organisation which defines its typological classification. The difference between primary and secondary functions may be determined by seeing which the organisation would better exist without. For instance, the Tribe would still exist without its social purpose, but without the mutual support it gives its members, it would lack clear reason to exist; and whilst the Corporation would likely still exist without its donations to a charitable cause, without its profit making function it would fail to compete in the marketplace.
However, some profit making businesses may also be classed as Third Sector
Organisations, despite creating profits which are distributed to their owners. The reason for this is that they are genuinely set up for the function of serving the public good, rather than for the purpose of making a profit. The profit making function is subsidiary to the public good serving function (it is a means of delivering their primary purpose) and the organisation would not exist without serving the public good, but might exist (in another form) without making a profit. Some examples of this may include organisations such as Traidcraft, who trade fairtrade goods, which is (in part) a plc, but who exist to “fight
38 | P a g e
poverty through trade” (Traidcraft, 2010). Examples such as this indicate the complex and multifaceted nature of many private sector organisations, which may exist to serve a range of functions.
Local sports and cultural groups may well also be classed as Third Sector Organisations under our typology so long as they aim to bring some general public good, rather than represent the interests of a fixed (for instance named) set of members. This may be suggested by an open membership scheme. If they only exist in order to bring help a specific group of individuals, then they may better be classed as a ‘tribal’ group.
As can be seen from all of the examples given above, identifying the “primary” purpose of an organisation may be no simple task, and competing reasons may be given for different classifications of an individual organisation. As a result, the typology may best be seen as based on two continua of organisational types – the first being from organisations which serve their own private good, to organisations which exist only to serve the public good.
The second continuum is from organisations which serve a “public” conception of what is good to organisations which serve their own “private” conceptions of good. These two continua can form a grid (as in figure 1) on which different organisations can be placed according to their function.
The new definition of the Third Sector Organisation which is given here is economical, it is significant (identifying not only a wide range of organisations but doing so in a useful way;
one that allows an understanding of why they exist, predict their future behaviour, understand their past and perhaps make some value judgements about their role in society.) It also avoids the concerns of Salamon and Anheier (1992a, p138-139) that functional definitions are time sensitive and too dependent on the “eye of the beholder”
since it avoids presentism by rejecting a dubious fixed notion of the ‘public good’. It need not be accepted that an organisation is serving the public good in some objective sense to class it as a Third Sector Organisation- what matters is whether it serves what the
organisation itself recognises as the public good.
39 | P a g e
The diagram below represents this functional definition of the Third Sector Organisation alongside the other sectors, and attempts to place some different kinds of organisation according to the framework:
Fig 1. A typology of (typical) organisational types, according to a functional definition of the Third Sector
As can be seen, under this typology, religious organisations and campaign groups might typically be seen as Third Sector Organisations, serving private notions of the public good.
Whilst still recognised as Third Sector Organisations, Charities are seen as more towards the public sector end of the continuum, since (in order to gain charitable status,) charities serve not only their private conception of the public good, but must also meet publicly
Serving
40 | P a g e
agreed conceptions of the public good (through the ‘public benefit’ requirement on charities, enforced by the Charity Commission (Charity Commission, 2010b)). Quangos are seen (as is typical) as being in the grey area between the Public and Third Sector.
Businesses set up for some purpose of serving their own conception of the public good, are placed between the Third and Private Sectors.
It is also notable that the classification above, gives no examples of organisations serving
‘public conceptions of private goods’. Such organisations would serve goals which the public see as a promoting the good of a specific set of individuals, rather than society at large. The absence of such a set of organisations suggests that it is not seen as society’s role to dictate to individuals what is for their own good.
It is not argued here that the tentative definition of the Third Sector given above gives an evidently superior definition of the Third Sector to either a structural/operational
definition of the sector, or indeed, to other potential functional definitions of the sector.
It is simply to exemplify the possibility of producing a workable functional definition of the sector which avoids some of the potential pitfalls of such an approach, as highlighted by Salamon and Anheier.
4.2. Campaigning Third Sector Organisations and serving ‘private notions of public