Professionalization of the Civil Sector in a Multi-Actor Management Environment
https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU2070-1381-116-2026-40-49
Abstract
The article analyses professionalization of the civil sector as a factor of its inclusion in multi-actor governance. In the context of polycentric network governance, the civil sector is viewed as a structurally necessary actor in public policy, providing expertise, mediation and promotion of social innovation. The underdevelopment of this sector leads to erosion of public control mechanisms, decrease in the inclusiveness of public policy and increase in paternalistic expectations of citizens. The key mechanism for the transition from spontaneous, episodic activity of civil society organizations to sustainable forms of participation is professionalization, which is understood as the process of institutionalization of managerial and expert competencies of the organization. The aim of this work is to determine the impact of the professionalization of civil sector organizations on their positioning in public policy in various institutional settings. Within the framework of the presented research, a conceptual and theoretical analysis was conducted in the outline of the concepts of network and collaborative management, new institutionalism and the concept of the civil sector track. The article shows that the effects of professionalization depend on the specific institutional context. To analyze the mechanisms of the civil sector influence, a model of the political cycle was used, which makes it possible to consider professionalization as a set of functional resources at various stages of political decision-making. It is emphasised that professionalization is not a linear process and is accompanied by increase in risks that can complicate the activities of civil sector organizations, and pointed out that risk minimization is possible through the development of participation procedures, the implementation of conflict prevention mechanisms, the separation of strategic and operational functions, as well as through the diversification of the resource base, the transition to long-term financing and implementation financial planning tools.
About the Author
A. V. Avdalyan
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andranik V. Avdalyan, School of Public Administration, PhD applicant
Moscow
References
1. Anderson J. (2011) Public Policymaking: An Introduction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
2. Ansell C., Gash A. (2008) Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Vol. 18. Is. 4. P. 543–571. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mum032
3. Arkhipova E.B., Starshinova A.V., Borodkina O.I. (2023) Development Factors in the Non-Governmental Social Services Sector in the Russian Regions. Mir Rossii. Vol. 32. No. 4. P. 96–118. DOI: 10.17323/1811-038X-2023-32-4-96-118
4. Avila R. (2024) McMullin, C.: Non-profit Organizations and Co-production: The Logics Shaping Professional and Citizen Collaboration. Nonprofit Policy Forum. Vol. 15. Is. 3. P. 263–268. DOI: 10.1515/npf-2024-0023
5. Brusseel A., Raeymaeckers P., Verschuere B. (2025) Conceptualizing Policy Advocacy Effectiveness in NPO Research: A Scoping Review of Criteria and Indicators. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 36. Is. 1. P. 60–72. DOI: 10.1007/s11266-024-00692-1
6. DiMaggio P., Powell W. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review. Vol. 48. Is. 2. P. 147–160. DOI: 10.2307/2095101
7. Evers A., Laville J.-L. (2004) The Third Sector in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
8. Hersberger-Langloh S.E., Stuhlinger S. (2021) Institutional Isomorphism and Nonprofit Managerialism: For Better or Worse? Nonprofit Management and Leadership. Vol. 31. Is. 3. P. 461–480. DOI:10.1002/nml.21441
9. Heylen F., Willems E., Beyers J. (2020) Do Professionals Take Over? Professionalisation and Membership Influence in Civil Society Organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 31. Is. 6. P. 1226–1238. DOI: 10.1007/s11266-020-00214-9
10. Hokyu H., Walter P.W. (2009) The Rationalization of Charity: The Influences of Professionalism in the Nonprofit Sector. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 54. Is. 2. P. 268–298. DOI: 10.2189/asqu.2009.54.2.268
11. Holavins А. (2020a) Attitudes toward Tea-Drinking as an Indicator for the Professionalization of the Third Sector in Saint Petersburg. Zhurnal issledovaniy sotsial’noy politiki. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 99–114. DOI: 10.17323/727-0634-2020-18-1-99-114
12. Holavins А. (2020b) Little Red Riding Hood and a Critique of ‘Project Thinking’ among NGOs. Zhurnal issledovaniy sotsial’noy politiki. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 461–474. DOI: 10.17323/727-0634-2020-18-3-461-474
13. Howlett M., Ramesh M., Perl A. (2009) Studying Public Policy. Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press Canada.
14. Ihm J. (2024) Organizational Communication for Social Change on Social Media: NPOs’ Social Media Strategies Based on Their Perception of Three Stakeholder Networks in Collective and Connective Action. Journal of Communication. Vol. 74. Is. 5. P. 410–423. DOI: 10.1093/joc/jqae034
15. Jakobson L.I., Ivanova N.V., Telitsyna A.Yu. (2021) NGO Corporate Governance: Theories and Russian Practices. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskiye i sotsial’nyye peremeny. No. 6(166). P. 459–476. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2021.6.1835
16. Meyer R., Jancsary D., Hollerer M. (2021) Neoinstitutional Theory and Nonprofit Governance Research. In: Donnelly-Cox G., Meyer M., Wijkström F. (eds.) Research Handbook on Nonprofit Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. P. 141–164. DOI: 10.4337/9781788114912.00017
17. Michels R. (2001) Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Kitchener: Batoche Books.
18. Ostrom E. (1996) Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development. World Development. Vol. 24. Is. 6. P. 1073–1087. DOI: 10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X
19. Rakar T., Kolaric Z. (2025) Development of Civil Society Organizations — Caught Up in the Framework of Different Welfare Systems. Social Sciences. Vol. 14. Is. 3. DOI: 10.3390/socsci14030182
20. Rhodes R.A.W. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham; Philadelphia: Open University Press.
21. Salamon L.M., Anheier H.K. (1998) Social Origins of Civil Society: Explaining the Non-Profit Sector Cross-Nationally. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 9. Is. 3. P. 213–248. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022058200985
22. Santilli C., Scaramuzzino R. (2024) Professionalization and Elitisation. In: Enjolras B., Johansson H., Sivesind K.H. (eds.) Civil Society Elites in the Italian Third Sector. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. P. 81–97. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-71444-3_6
23. Seibicke H. (2020) How are Policy Knowledge and Expertise Generated in Civil Society Organizations? ARENA Working Paper 2/2020. Available at: https://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/ arena-working-papers/pdf/2011-2020/wp-02-20.pdf
24. Sørensen E., Torfing J. (eds.) (2008) Theories of Democratic Network Governance. New York: Palgrave.
25. Starshinova A.V., Borodkina O.I. (2022). Sustainability Strategies of Socially Oriented NPOs: Grant Support Mechanism. Ekonomicheskiye i sotsial’nyye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz. Vol. 15. No. 5. С. 221–236. DOI: 10.15838/esc.2022.5.83.12
Review
For citations:
Avdalyan A.V. Professionalization of the Civil Sector in a Multi-Actor Management Environment. Public Administration. E-journal (Russia). 2026;(116):40-49. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU2070-1381-116-2026-40-49
Views:
16
JATS XML
Email this article 