Ce n t e r f o r Ci v i l So c i e t y St u d i e s at the Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies Co m p a r a t i v e No n p r o f i t Se c t o r Pr o j e c t
Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
by
Prof. Dr. Michael Nollert Prof. Dr. Monica Budowski
WORKING PAPERS
The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project
Lester M. Salamon, Director
GOVERNMENT POLICY AND THE NONPROFIT SECTOR:
SWITZERLAND
by
Prof. Dr. Michael Nollert and Prof. Dr. Monica Budowski
Working Paper Number 48 September 2009
The CNP Project in Switzerland
Research team: Prof. Dr. Bernd Helmig, VMI – University of Fribourg, University of Mannheim (Germany) lic. rer. pol. Christoph Bärlocher, VMI – University of Fribourg Prof. Dr. Markus Gmür, VMI – University of Fribourg Dr. Hans Lichtsteiner, VMI – University of Fribourg Prof. Dr. Robert Purtschert, VMI – University of Fribourg Ass.‐Prof. Dr. Georg von Schnurbein, University of Basel lic. rer. pol. Martin Blickenstorfer, VMI – University of Fribourg BA in soc. sc. Stefan Bächtold, VMI – University of Fribourg Prof. Dr. Monica Budowski, University of Fribourg Prof. Dr. Michael Nollert, University of Fribourg Prof. Dr. Dominique Jakob, University of Zurich Dr. Bernard Degen, University of Basel Prof. Dr. Josef Mooser, University of Basel
Switzerland Advisory Committee: Dr. Martina Ziegerer, ZEWO Foundation, CEO Dr. h.c. Franz Marty, Raiffeisen group, President of the advisory board Prof. Dr. Ernst Buschor, Bertelsmann Foundation, Chairman of the board of trustees lic. sc. écon. Philippe Küttel, Swiss Federal Statistic Office, Director of the Section National Accounts Prof. h.c. Marco Blatter, Swiss Olympic Association, Former CEO Dr. Herbert Ammann, Schweizerische Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft, CEO Dr. Beat von Wartburg, SwissFoundations, President Dr. h.c. Jürg Krummenacher, Caritas Switzerland , Former Director
The CNP Project in Switzerland was funded by: GEBERT RÜF STIFTUNG, Basel Ecoscientia Stiftung, Vaduz
ISBN 1‐886333‐62‐9
© The Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society Studies, 2009 All rights reserved.
Center for Civil Society Studies Verbandsmanagement Institut (VMI) Institute for Policy Studies Universität Fribourg The Johns Hopkins University Postfach 1559 3400 N. Charles Street 1701 Fribourg Baltimore, Maryland 21218‐2688 0041(0)26 – 300 84 00 USA 0041(0)26 – 300 97 55
This publication is available for download at www.ccss.jhu.edu.
Suggested form of citation
Michael Nollert and Monica Budowski. “Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland.” Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, No. 48. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, 2009.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE i ABBREVIATIONS ii
I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. THE SWISS POLITICAL CONTEXT 2 a) Overall Posture of the Government 2 1. General attitude of the government towards nonprofit organizations 2 2. Specific Government Policy Towards Nonprofit Organizations 3 3. The Philosophy and Principles Behind Swiss Policy 4 4. Differences Among Parties in Their Attitudes Toward the NPO Sector 5 b) Type and Extent of Governmental Support 6 1. Type of Governmental Support of the Sector 6 2. Extent of Governmental Support 7 3. Ideas Behind Governmental Funding 8 c) Changes in Position of the Federal Government 9 1. Shifts in Philosophy 9 2. Changes in Level and Type of Support 9 3. Incentives for the Formation and Operation of Organizations 10 4. New Restrictions 10 d) Overall Position of Local Governing Bodies 12 e) Local Attitudes Towards Supra‐National Organizations 12
III. CHARACTERISTICS OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR POLITICAL IMPORTANCE 13 a) Role of Nonprofit Organizations for Politics and Policies 14 b) The Role of Umbrella Groups on Policy Issues 17 c) Involvement of Swiss Nonprofit Organizations in International or Regional Umbrella Groups 18
III. CURRENT ISSUES 19 a) Restructuring of Swiss Politics 20 b) Cooperation with Commercial Organizations 21 c) State Financial Support 22 d) Professionalization 22 e) Legal Framework 23
V. SUMMARY 24
VII. REFERENCES 25 APPENDIX 1: Consulted Experts 27 APPENDIX 1: Interview Questions 28
i
Institute for Policy Studies Wyman Park Building / 3400 North Charles Street / Baltimore, MD 21218‐2688 410‐516‐5463 / FAX 410‐516‐7818 / E‐mail: [email protected]
Center for Civil Society Studies
Lester M. Salamon Director Preface
This is one in a series of working papers produced under the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project (CNP), a collaborative effort by scholars around the world to understand the scope, structure, financing, and role of the nonprofit sector using a common framework and approach. Begun in 1991 in 13 countries, the project continues to expand, currently encompassing more than 40 countries.
The working papers provide a vehicle for the initial dissemination of the CNP work to an international audience of scholars, practitioners, and policy analysts interested in the social and economic role played by nonprofit organizations in different countries, and in the comparative analysis of these important, but often neglected, institutions.
Working papers are intermediary products, and they are released in the interest of timely distribution of project results to stimulate scholarly discussion and inform policy debates. A full list of these papers is provided inside the back cover.
The production of these Working Papers owes much to the devoted efforts of our project staff. The present paper benefited greatly from the contributions of Senior Research Associate Wojciech Sokolowski and the editorial work of CNP Project Coordinator Megan Haddock and Project Assistant Chelsea Newhouse. On behalf of the project’s core staff, I also want to express our deep gratitude to our project colleagues around the world and to the many sponsors of the project listed at the end of this paper.
The views and opinions expressed in these papers are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the institutions with which they are affiliated, the Johns Hopkins University, its Institute for Policy Studies and Center for Civil Society Studies, or any of their officers or supporters, or the series’ editors.
We are delighted to be able to make the early results of this project available in this form and welcome comments and inquiries either about this paper or the project as a whole.
Lester M. Salamon Project Director
ii
ABBREVIATIONS ASM: Arbeitgeberverband schweizerischer Metall‐ und Maschinenindustrieller BFS: Bundesamt für Statistik BV: Bundesverfassung CVP: Christlichdemokratische Volkspartei EFD: Eidgenössisches Finanzdepartement E.U.: European Union FDHA: Federal Department of Home Affairs FDP: Freisinnig‐Demokratische Partei FIFA: Fédération Internationale de Football Association KPGH: Konferenz der Präsidentinnen und Präsidenten der grossen Hilfswerke der Schweiz NPO: Nonprofit Organization SGF: Dachverband Schweizerischer Gemeinnütziger Frauen SGG: Schweizerische Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft SMUV: Schweizerischer Metall‐ und Uhrenarbeiterverband SPS: Sozialdemokratische Partei der Schweiz SVP: Schweizerische Volkspartei UEFA: Union of European Football Associations VAT: Value‐added Tax ZEWO: Schweizerische Fachstelle für gemeinnützige, Spenden sammelnde Organisationen
iii
Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
Dr. Michael Nollert1 Dr. Monica Budowski2
I. INTRODUCTION
This paper addresses the political context for nonprofit organizations (NPOs) in Switzerland. The term “NPO” as used in this article refers to trusteeship organizations that exist alongside state and commercially run organizations. The term “civil society organization” is used more commonly in other countries than in Switzerland where the term NPO is more frequently used.3 These NPOs provide goods and/or services to their members or to third parties, and according to surveys by the Swiss Federal Statistical Office and the Swiss Society of Public Utility,4 engage approximately one quarter of Switzerland’s 7.7 million inhabitants (2009), who voluntarily participate in NPOs (Nollert and Huser 2007, Ammann et al. 2007).
In the Swiss nonprofit sector three legal entities have been established: associations, co‐operatives, and foundations. The following offers a brief description of their importance and function in Switzerland.
Associations are by far the most important legal entities, numbering more than 100,000. Their primary function is to serve their members, and they most commonly operate in the sporting, cultural and political arenas.
Foundations come second in importance, counting more than 25,000. In contrast to associations, they do not take direct action themselves, but rather provide financing for public welfare groups (Egger et al. 2006). Nearly half are unregistered personal foundations. There are also approximately 12,000 charitable foundations (NPOs in the narrowest sense) and each year a further 200‐300 new foundations are established.
There are nearly 15,000 co‐operatives in Switzerland. Agricultural co‐operatives, wholesale co‐operatives (e.g. Migros, Coop), and mutual savings banks and loan societies (e.g. Raiffeisen) have played an important role in Swiss economic history and politics (Purtschert 2005). However, according to Helmig, Bärlocher and von Schnurbein (2009) they are not a part of the Swiss nonprofit sector as defined by the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project because they distribute profit to their members.
Of slightly less importance are incorporated companies with charitable status, and religious organizations. Among these, publicly and legally recognized churches need to be distinguished from free churches. The former
1 Dr. Michael Nollert is Associate Professor at the Section of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work in the Department of Social Sciences at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland). 2 Dr. Monica Budowski is Full Professor at the Section of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work in the Department of Social Sciences at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland). 3 The term gemeinnützige Gesellschaft i.e. “society of public utility” covers a wide spectrum, primarily because the activities of and the contributions to these organizations are subject to tax privileges. 4 Schweizerische Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft, SGG
1 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
are characterized by a strong link to the state through a long list of rights and responsibilities (Cattacin et al. 2003). As a result of this relationship with the state, legally recognized churches are not considered to be NPOs according to the Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project (CNP), whereas free churches are included.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section II addresses the Swiss political context with its particularities of a confederation and of direct democratic instruments that impinge upon the socio‐political environment for nonprofit organizations. Section III discusses the characteristics of nonprofit organizations and their influence on politics and policies. Current issues relevant for nonprofit organizations according to interviews with experts in the field are presented in Section IV. Finally, a brief summary of nonprofit organizations is offered in Section V.
II. THE SWISS POLITICAL CONTEXT
In this section we discuss the overall posture of the Swiss Government towards the nonprofit sector. We specify where this has led to specific policy changes. We further present and discuss the extent and the form of the governmental support for nonprofit organizations in general, on the local level and with respect to supra‐ national organizations, depict ideas underpinning the history of this specific relationship between the government and the NPOs, and look at the attitudes various political parties have towards the NPO sector. a) Overall Posture of the Government
1. General attitude of the government towards nonprofit organizations Switzerland has been described as a “Confederation” (Confoederatio Helvetica) since the end of its first attempt to found a unitary state, the Helvetic Republic in 1802, which shows that the government has adopted a generally positive stance toward the nonprofit sector. This is so because the old Swiss confederation was originally created as an alliance among the sovereign valley communities of the central Alps, and after its constitution in 1848 the Swiss state continued to assume that all social problems with the exception of defense, foreign affairs and the common currency should be managed by sovereign actors such as municipalities, cantons, families and commercial or nonprofit companies. Indeed, co‐operative associations played an important role even before the Federal state was founded in 1848. Organizations such as the Forest and Alp Co‐ operatives5 recall traditions that are centuries old in organizing social relationships and their shared environments.
The idea of “self‐help” developed during the industrial revolution, particularly in agricultural and wholesale co‐ operatives and in mutual savings banks and loan societies. NPOs later gained national importance by organizing in umbrella groups, unions and political parties, and the state began to rely on the many public services provided by these NPOs. This mutual dependency became institutionalized as NPOs and the government collectively engaged in the process of drafting and implementing political measures and coordinating economic processes (Wagner 1999, 2002).
5 Wald‐ und Alpenkorporationen
2 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
Despite the state’s reliance on NPOs, the Swiss state’s resources for social spending are limited (as measured by the public spending ratio), which is undoubtedly the result of the powerful influence exerted by private interest associations (other than charitable) and by the Liberal‐Democratic Party (FDP)6. This might also explain why the government looks kindly upon nonprofit organizations that carry out charitable or relief tasks without or with scant state support. The strong network of varied relationships between politics and the nonprofit sector is further encouraged by the fact that many members of Swiss Parliament and former executive committee members hold mandates on boards of nonprofit organizations.
Although the Swiss Government looks favorably on the NPO sector and relies on it to provide many services, it takes a hands‐off approach and does not pursue explicit policies in favor of nonprofit organizations. The June 2000 parliamentary stance on volunteer organizations that led to a request to the Federal Council for a comprehensive study of voluntary and honorary activity in Switzerland provides a good example of this approach. In its response, the Federal Council acknowledged the functions of volunteer work and welcomed the commission of a report. But when asked about the report on July 18, 2001 during the Federal Council’s question time by the National councilor from Tessin, Chiara Simoneschi, the Federal Council responded it did not have resources available to commission such a report. The Swiss Federal Statistical Office later funded and completed the requested report in the end with its own means (BFS 2004).
2. Specific Government Policy Towards Nonprofit Organizations As described above, though the Swiss government’s relationship towards NPOs has been more implicit and incoherent than explicit, it appreciates the programs and services that NPOs deliver and it has always been interested in good relations with the NPO sector. The state has been reluctant to regulate this sector because it considers the nonprofit sector an important component of society with a high level of activity that is anchored explicitly in independence from the state. Hence, unlike countries such as France or Germany, the autonomy of the nonprofit sector has generally not been questioned and therefore appears to require no special protection (Ermatinger 1936).
This does vary somewhat as each department of the government takes its own approach towards NPOs. Consequently, various relationships between government and NPOs exist within and among fields. Overall, however, the nonprofit sector is considered by the state to be a resource and source of knowledge and expertise that can be drawn upon when governmental agencies are overcharged or lack resources. The relationship has led the “small state” Swiss government to entrust many public services to private social actors from the outset. This is evidenced by the role professional federations play in vocational training, the presence of public relief organizations in dealing with social problems, and the militia institution7 requiring citizens to get involved in public services (e.g. school janitorial service, fire brigade) on an honorary basis (Beobachter 2000b). In recent years, however, some critical voices have challenged this partnership between government and NPOs by arguing that many NPOs function as quasi‐public agencies and are subsidized by the state (see section II.c).
6 Freisinnig‐Demokratische Partei (FDP) 7 Milizwesen
3 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
The importance and political influence of the NPO sector in Swiss politics is tied to the general weakness of the state bureaucracy. One indication of the weakness of the state bureaucracy is that most members of Parliament are strongly affiliated with interest groups (supervisory boards of enterprises, employers’ organizations, trade unions). A second indication is that public servants and members of the Parliament often depend on external expertise provided by interest groups. A further indication is that the comparatively few strikes, high protectoral tariffs, and large agricultural subsidies are due in particular to special interest politics of associations and not to activities of public authorities.
The low level of conflict amongst the workforce can be traced back to the so‐called “peace agreement” of 1937 in the Swiss metalwork and machine industry. Against the background of threatening fascist Axis powers, the National Council and the president of the Swiss Metalwork and Watch Industry Workers Federation (SMUV)8, Konrad Ilg, proposed to the president of the Federation of Swiss Metalwork and Machine Industrialists (ASM)9 abstention from militant action under certain conditions. One condition was that central disputes be evaluated and resolved by a neutral arbitration board according to a “good faith” effort (Humbel 1987). This model of social partnership became the collective labor agreement10, a sector‐by‐sector agreement between trade unions and employers regarding working conditions, pay and hours. This agreement continued after the war and became codified in the 1974 collective labor agreement (Armingeon et al., 2000, Fluder et al., 1991, 1996).
The NPOs’ strong influence is further institutionalized in some of the instruments of direct democracy: the referendum, the initiative, as well as the consultation process (see section III.a and Linder 1999). If a qualified number of citizens disagree with proposed legislation, Swiss law requires it to be subject to a referendum. Consequently legislators try to incorporate as many NPOs as possible at the consultation stage of policy‐making in order to avoid this happening too frequently (see section III.a). NPOs can also force votes on extra‐ parliamentary proposals via initiatives.
3. The Philosophy and Principles Behind Swiss Policy The Swiss government’s policy with regard to nonprofit organizations is fundamentally based on the subsidiarity principle (Latin: subsidum = assistance). Article 5a of the Federal Constitution explicitly states: “The principle of subsidiarity is to be observed in the allocation and implementation of public functions.” According to this principle the state should only carry out activities and resolve problems when no other social actor subordinate to the Swiss Government can be found to take responsibility, such as municipalities, cantons, families and commercial or nonprofit companies.
In Switzerland the subsidiarity principle has two philosophical origins; these are evident in the differences between the manifestos of the Liberal and Catholic parties. The liberal subsidiarity principle supports the assumption that individuals are responsible for their own lives and their own protection against risk. The state therefore interferes only when the individual’s resources and those of its primary social networks are insufficient.
8 Schweizerischer Metall‐ und Uhrenarbeiterverband 9 Arbeitgeberverband schweizerischer Maschinen‐ und Metallindustrieller 10 Der Gesamtarbeitsvertrag, GAV
4 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
The Catholic subsidiarity principle developed in Switzerland in the second half of the 19th century; its origins date back to the search for solutions to the “social question”. The 19th century Papal Social Encyclicals11 advocated a third way forward between capitalism and state socialism that built on the potential of families and workers to help and organize themselves and on the activities of charities (Caritas 2002) to solve the problem of social integration.
Unlike the liberal approach which limits governmental support to that of last resort (the ultimate social safety net), the Catholic view emphasizes State support of its citizens in their efforts to organize themselves, and to protect their social and employment rights.
4. Differences Among Parties in Their Attitudes Toward the NPO Sector In general, four political parties have influenced Swiss politics for many years: the Liberal‐Democratic Party (FDP)12, the Christian Democratic People’s Party (CVP)13, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP)14, and the Social Democratic Party (SPS)15. The political stances of these four parties vary widely, but most political parties have positive attitudes towards the nonprofit sector. The Liberal‐Democratic Party (FDP) considers the nonprofit sector to be an important antithesis to the state and consequently supports it in theory. Their position has become extreme when it comes to social issues: many of the party’s representatives hope that NPOs and their volunteers will assume responsibility for the traditional social services provided by the state. The Christian Democratic People’s Party (CVP), on the other hand, views it as an area of common public interest, solidarity, and charity.
The moderate‐left Social Democratic Party (SPS) does not share or appreciate the FDP’s posture. They fear that the delegation of traditional public services carried out with governmental support to NPOs and other actors without governmental support will erode professionalism in the nonprofit and social sectors. Although the Social Democratic Party in general advocates state‐run or state‐led problem‐solving, it nonetheless considers the nonprofit sector a bastion of practiced solidarity and accordingly supports the sector in the political arena.
The only party with a critical attitude towards the nonprofit sector is the conservative Swiss People’s Party (SVP). Many party representatives consider several nonprofit organizations unnecessary. They are particularly critical of the environmental associations, which they believe misuse the Federation Complaint Right16 (see section III.a) to block economically sound construction projects. In the last few years the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) has received support from the Liberal‐Democratic Party (FDP) to start an initiative to cancel the Federation Complaint Right. Targeting environmental associations and development agencies, the SVP members of Parliament requested that the Federal Council obliges NPOs receiving substantial financing from public institutions to disclose the sources and the amount of contributions received from the state or from major
11 Sozialenzyklika 12 Freisinnig‐Demokratische Partei (FDP) 13 Christlichdemokratische Volkspartei (CVP) 14 Schweizerische Volkspartei (SVP) 15 Sozialdemokratische Partei der Schweiz (SPS) 16 Verbandsbeschwerderecht
5 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
contributors in their balance sheet and to present a statement of account on how these contributions were used.
As a result of such debates over the past decade, many representatives of relief organizations have associated the rise of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) with a decreased willingness of the state to support NPOs financially (Kriesi 2005).
There are, however, a few exceptions to the Swiss People’s Party’s (SVP) posture, such as NPOs in the sports or the agricultural sector. Since many SVP members are actively engaged in sport clubs and associations, they argue that it is primarily the state that should finance the security measures of events like the UEFA European football championship 2008. The Swiss People’s Party’s is also strongly represented in rural NPOs. b) Type and Extent of Governmental Support
This section presents the specific type and extent of governmental support as well as the basic ideas behind governmental funding.
1. Type of Governmental Support of the Sector Because the subsidiarity principle is interpreted basically as a request to NPOs to assume their share of responsibility in Swiss society, the government eschews provision of extensive symbolic or regulatory support for NPOs at the federal, cantonal, and municipal levels. The Swiss government’s main methods of supporting NPOs are the creation of a incentivizing tax policy, discussed below in section II.c, and material support when entrusting NPOs with public services, such as care of the elderly and asylum seekers. When compared with private organizations (such as incorporated companies and limited liability companies), relief NPOs (most notably, associations, foundations, and co‐operatives) receive substantial tax benefits. In addition, ordinary taxpayers may deduct part of their donations to NPOs from their taxes.
Many Swiss NPOs are supported financially by public funds. There are three types of such state support: (i) direct contributions that are not linked to provision of services, (ii) the provision of capital, and (iii) so‐called service agreements. The service agreement consists of a contract between the state and one or more NPOs, comparable to contracts with private companies in the service sector. Because direct contributions and the provision of capital are of minor importance in Switzerland we will focus on service agreements.
Service agreements entrust NPOs with the provision of a defined public service. Examples of such agreements are contracts between the Central Office for Family Issues of the Federal Social Insurance Office (BSV)17 and umbrella organizations in the care sector18 to provide services to the elderly and handicapped or for matters of family policy19, contracts between the Federal Office of Culture20 and NPOs in the arts sector, between the
17 Zentralstelle für Familienfragen im Bundesamt für Sozialversicherungen (BSV) 18 Dachverbände im Bereich der Alters‐ und Invalidenhilfe 19 Dachverbände im Bereich der Familienpolitik 20 Bundesamt für Kultur (BAK)
6 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
Federal Office of Sports21 and sport associations, or contracts by the Federal Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)22 for missions abroad and international assignments. A good example of the willingness of the state to support NPOs by injection of capital is the NPO‐certifying foundation ZEWO (see section III.b); its start‐up capital was largely provided by the cantons.
Another source of state support is the subsidizing of voluntary work by contributing funds to NPOs for investment in recruitment, initial training and further education, and providing partial compensation for volunteers. These subsidies are, however, rare and concentrate mainly on providing funds to finance training programs for leaders of Youth and Sports associations23 and for sports for the elderly.
The state’s positive stance on NPOs was apparent in its tacit (symbolic) support of the commission of a report on voluntary work in Switzerland in 2004. The report was financed and coordinated by an office subsidiary to the Swiss Federal Government: the Swiss Federal Statistical Office24. It provides a summary of volunteer work and includes a list of measures designed to promote volunteer work. The foreword of the report mentions that no new measures are presently to be expected as a result of state financial constraints.
2. Extent of Governmental Support The increased recognition and importance of service agreements over the past few years has highlighted the relationship of support between the state and NPOs. Contracts between the government, cantons or municipalities and NPOs (or indeed commercial organizations) consist of the organization’s commitment to provide a public service remunerated by the public purse. A further form of such mutual support is the public‐ private partnership. This form of collaboration differs from a service agreement in that the exchange of services is not contractual.
Until the 1990s the lack of data precluded a precise estimate of the level of monetary contribution assigned to these service agreements. In order to provide such evidence the first Subsidy Report was published in 1997 allowing for the conclusion that the Swiss State is actually a transfer state regarding subsidies. This conclusion is supported by the Swiss Statistics for Subsidies25 that confirms the allocation of considerable sums to such service agreements and that such subsidies account for more than half of the Federal budget.
According to the 1997 Subsidy Report26 (EFD 1997), social welfare, transport, agriculture, and nutrition each account for more than 10 percent of the subsidies in their fields and are therefore the largest beneficiaries. If the development of these various sectors is extrapolated over the period 1970‐1997, social welfare, an area where many NPOs are actively involved, may be receiving more than 50 percent (15 billion CHF) of all subsidies. However, it is worth noting that in 1997, 85 percent of all subsidies went to federally‐owned institutions (e.g. social insurances, railways, national roads) and only 8.2 percent to private organizations (6.8 percent went to
21 Bundesamt für Sport (BASPO) 22 Direktion für Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit (DEZA) 23 Jugend und Sport 24 Bundesamt für Statistik 25 Schweizerische Subventionsstatistik 26 Subventionsbericht
7 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
other actors). According to the 2008 Subsidy Report (EFD 2008) the subsidies’ share of the Federal government’s spending rose from 40 to 58 percent (about 30 billion CHF) from 1970 to 2005. In 2006 most of the subsidies were spent for social welfare (45 percent), traffic (18 percent), research and education (15 percent), and agriculture and nutrition (12 percent).
The Federal subsidy database provides information about the recipients, purpose, type, and amount of support given. For example, more than 50 million CHF was given to training programs that the Youth and Sport association provides to other associations each year. More than 3 million CHF was allocated to professional arts organizations and social actors with national responsibilities in this sector and to other national umbrella organizations. Approximately 1.5 million CHF went to family associations whose functions were coordination, information on and development of quality standards etc.; charity and relief organizations received more than 1.5 million CHF as lump‐sum payments for their assistance in hearing asylum claims; more than 1.5 million was contributed to support coverage of the administrative costs of Swiss Refugee Support27; nearly 14 million CHF was directed to programs implemented to assist and improve the social integration of foreign nationals as well as to the creation of structures promoting social integration; more than 18 million CHF was invested in cantonal advisory services providing advice to farmers.
3. Ideas Behind Governmental Funding Although there is no explicit policy of the Swiss government towards the NPOs, the previous sections nonetheless document the close and constructive cooperation between the state and NPOs. In many areas, NPOs assume responsibility for certain services on behalf of the state that in other countries government agencies would normally be responsible for and secure provision. It can therefore be maintained that the Swiss government – at least implicitly – considers the nonprofit sector to be an essential link within society between the people and government. It is also clear therefore that in the past the public authorities expressed their interest in and support for a healthy nonprofit sector by developing regulations that strengthen these organizations such as providing tax exemptions for NPOs or offering tax deductions for contributions to NPOs. However, as the next section shows, this interest and support for a healthy nonprofit sector has diminished substantially due to the philosophy of New Public Management.
c) Changes in Position of the Federal Government
The following section discusses the various changes that have taken place over time in Switzerland. The philosophy of New Public Management and harsh criticisms regarding efficiency and efficacy require NPOs to react, in particular, if they want to continue to receive public subsidies for the public services they deliver. Such changes have their repercussions on legislation. Despite claims to advantage organizations in terms of tax reductions, there are presently no explicit governmental encouragements for NPOs with the exception of international organizations and foundations.
27 Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe
8 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
1. Shifts in Philosophy As stated in the introduction, liberal attitudes are at the core of the Swiss constitution, and therefore the Swiss government attributes a major role to NPOs in terms of policy formulation and implementation, as well as in regulating economic processes and tackling social problems. Since the late 1990s, however, the partnership between the state and NPOs has been challenged by the economic climate. One challenge comes from the neoliberal economists, who argue that extensive market regulation in combination with raised levels of participation options for associations have resulted in “distribution coalitions” that were responsible for the lack of innovation in the post‐war period (Borner, Brunetti and Straubhaar 1990).
Another challenge has come from the philosophy of New Public Management, which calls for a more efficient public‐private partnership. At the same time the partnership is challenged by questions as to whether subsidies for NPOs in the social sector and sector of development cooperation are necessary. Although radical suggestions, such as abolishing plebiscitary devices (initiatives or referendums, the Federation Complaint Right), or canceling subsidies for well‐known welfare and relief organizations are not acceptable to the majority, they point to an increasingly skeptical judgment promoted primarily by the Swiss People’s Party of the social and economic functionality of associations and environmental organizations.
2. Changes in Level and Type of Support Over the past few years, the government’s position has changed in two respects: (i) state institutions are acting with increased caution when meting out financial support; (ii) NPOs are receiving greater regulatory support. Since Switzerland is federally organized it is important to stress that taxation in particular, can vary widely at the federal, cantonal, and municipal levels. The impact of this is that the Federal government, the cantons, and municipalities raise taxes in independent ways and thereby all have a certain amount of control over specific devices acknowledging or supporting the work of NPOs by means of tax deductions or acknowledgement of their contributions to society.
In 2006 the Foundation and Fiscal Law for Nonprofit Organizations28 in the Civil Code was revised and ensured that differences between cantons and municipalities were minimized in the medium‐term, and allowable deductions for donations from direct Federal taxes was increased from 10 percent to 20 percent as of January 2006. The point of departure for this revision dates back to a parliamentary initiative. It assumed that revising the Foundations legislation would increase the propensity to provide nonprofit foundations with greater financial means.
At the cantonal level the deductions have been continually revised, which increased and harmonized the overall level of tax deduction for natural persons. As of January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2007 respectively, twelve cantons increased their tax deductions in respect to donations to welfare and relief organizations to 20 percent (Solothurn, Obwalden, Appenzell Innerrhoden, Glarus, Nidwalden, St. Gallen, Schwyz, Uri, Vaud, Zug, and Luzern). Tax deductions of this sort have already been at this level for many years in three additional cantons (Aargau, Schaffhausen, and Zurich). The front‐runner is Basel‐Land with a 100 percent tax deduction in respect
28 Stiftungs‐ und steuerliches Gemeinnützigkeitsrecht
9 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
to donations made. The cantons of Berne and Grison (Graubünden) are currently revising their tax laws, both aiming at a 20 percent tax deduction for donations to welfare organizations.
Presently, there are efforts to harmonize the level of deductible contributions to political parties across Switzerland to 10,000 CHF because, unlike in countries such as Germany, they do not receive any financial support from the state. The reason for the proposal is that in contrast to the Federal government, 15 cantons allow deductions for membership fees and donations. The state political commission of the Council of States,29 supported by the majority of cantons and all political parties, submitted such a proposal for consultation. Although Federal councilor Eveline Widmer‐Schlumpf argued that the proposal would undermine the objective of a more simple tax system, the Council of States eventually supported the proposal with 36 to 4 votes in September 2008. In their spring session in 2009 the National Council also approved of the proposal.
In contrast to tax deductions regarding donations, all previous attempts to provide other tax advantages to volunteers have failed. This is due to the opposition of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), the Liberal‐Democratic Party (FDP), and elements of the Christian Democratic People’s Party (CVP) (e.g. as in 2004 in Zurich). Nonetheless, some cantons plan to allow volunteers to also deduct out‐of‐pocket expenses. In Zurich, a deduction of 1000 CHF from taxable income is legal since 2007.
3. Incentives for the Formation and Operation of Organizations At the moment, the Swiss government does not offer any explicit encouragements for most NPOs similar to those offered to donors and volunteers, though there are some tax incentives offered to international organizations and foundations. Both categories profit from low taxation in Switzerland in all cantons; in addition foundations also profit from the inter‐cantonal tax competition. Indeed, despite political attempts to advantage organizations in terms of tax deductions, many NPOs are facing new restrictions as outlined in the next section.
4. New Restrictions The state’s predominantly positive appraisal of NPOs has to date prevented any major legislative intervention. However, as mentioned above, there are political forces that would like to see the influence of associations limited. It is therefore quite possible that sooner or later restrictive proposals will come into force. The plan to abolish the Federation Complaint Right has been the subject of lively debate, for example. Some proponents in liberal circles (in particular from the Liberal Democratic Party (FDP)) have gone so far as to suggest constraining the constitutional rights provided by an initiative and referendum, which would considerably weaken the influence of associations. They claim that many associations misuse their influence in order to hinder economic progress, especially where the private sector is concerned.
Interactions between public authorities and NPOs have been restricted in new ways recently, although none of these restrictions threaten the future existence of NPOs. For example, some political actors have called for subsidies to NPOs in the social sector to be subject to service agreements or that NPOs should be subject to a binding recommendation to rely heavily on donations and sponsors. The introduction of new management
29 Staatspolitische Kommission des Ständerats
10 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
techniques – New Public Management – focused on public finances, as well as continual criticism of government subsidy policy, underpins such demands. In 1997, as a result of its financial plight, the Federal government produced a report scrutinizing subsidy policy. The report was enthusiastically received and fed conservative criticism of NPOs subsidy without substantial service obligations.
Foundations and associations consider the 2004 revision, initiated by the Federal Council, of the Stock Corporation and Financial‐Accounting Law30, a part of the Swiss Code of Obligations, to represent a further restriction, particularly because it places them on a par with incorporated companies and thereby subject them to the Code of Obligations in terms of financial and management accounting. Complaints about the law center largely on the fact that measures are too complex for the many of the small and middle‐size foundations and associations run by volunteers and also on the structural differences between foundations, associations and other legal entities.
The planned reform of value‐added tax (VAT) appears even more restrictive. The incumbent Federal Minister of Finance has proposed that the current VAT exemption available to many NPOs should be abolished. In January 2008, the Federal Council redrafted this proposal by adding the suggestion that NPOs and well‐managed voluntary associations with a revenue maximum of 250,000 CHF should be exempt from paying VAT.
The Swiss Olympic Association still considers this threshold to be too low and has voiced concerns that approximately 700 voluntary organizations are at risk of closure. For example, the umbrella organization ProFonds (see section III.b) analyzed the Swiss Foundations and Associations sector and considers it to be over‐ regulated and bureaucratized; at the same time it acknowledges the increase in tax deductions in respect of donations as a positive development.
One reason for such new restrictions – according to proFonds – was the finding that many NPOs financed by public contributions do not respect legislator’s decisions. In this vein, the government’s Business Audit Commission31 announced on January 28, 2008 that it planned to examine and shed light on the role of nongovernmental organizations engaged in migration policy and development cooperation. Relief organizations are often accused of living off state funds and disregarding the wishes of Federal government. Relief organizations working with asylum seekers are, for example, accused of having a financial interest in prolonging the process and encouraging them to appeal. d) Overall Position of Local Governing Bodies
Switzerland is a Federal state providing its sub‐entities (and more than 2500 municipalities of widely varied size and population) with a huge range of possible policies and strategies, such as whether and how NPOs receive tax incentives. It also expects – in line with the principle of subsidiarity – that NPOs will generally be supported at local level by sub‐entities.
30 Aktien‐ und Rechnungslegungsrecht 31 Geschäftsprüfungskommission
11 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
It is the smaller rather than the larger municipalities that tend to work closely with local NPOs and tend to have more of an impact on local politics. As the size of municipalities increases, the probability that politicians are simultaneously involved with NPOs decreases, e.g. in sport clubs, welfare or relief organizations. Thus, politicians in small towns absolutely need to engage in and affiliate with local NPOs in order to acquire support at the polls. In contrast, in large towns party affiliation is more important than personal reputation for politicians. In other words: political competition is more personalized in small towns; therefore politicians in large towns can focus more strongly on their political objectives.
Similar differences can also be seen with regard to voluntary work. In rural regions, the population displays a proportionally higher level of readiness for volunteer work as compared to urban agglomerations, though this varies by region.
A comparison of the various regions in Switzerland reveals that the population in the French‐speaking sector more readily accepts the Government as an agent for the resolution of social and public problems than German‐ speaking Switzerland. Furthermore, the former is less willing to participate in NPOs than the latter, less likely to donate, and the public authorities in this region are less willing to give NPOs permission for public advertising (for more details see the Volunteer Survey of the Swiss Society of Public Utility (SGG), Ammann et al. 2007). High levels of economic and cultural prosperity observed in most large cities, but also in some small cities (such as Zug or Neuchâtel), correlate with involvement in voluntary activities. The high concentration of NPO headquarters in the capital, Berne, also shows that it makes sense, particularly for interest groups, to be located at the centre of political power.
In contrast to other policy areas, the effective differences in tax benefits between the regions and cantons are comparatively small regarding donations and volunteering. Exceptions to this are the canton of Neuchâtel that has very low tax deductions, and Basel‐Land with very high deductions. In addition, Zurich has allowed volunteers to deduct up to 1000 CHF of their out‐of‐pocket expenses from their gross income since 2007. However, the canton of Zug has become particularly attractive for foundations in recent years thanks to its unusually low rates of taxation.
Marked differences exist in the degree of tacit (symbolic) support for NPOs in the social sector. Some cantons, Vaud and Neuchâtel for example, and some municipalities, such as Berne and Zurich, have established coordination centers for potential volunteers and government institutions, where institutions like hospitals call upon the local population to become active as volunteers. The linguistic regions vary in their approach to volunteer work: in the French‐ and Italian‐speaking cantons the approach is rather “top‐down”; in the German‐ speaking cantons it is rather “bottom‐up”. In French‐speaking Switzerland the population expects the state – and not the associations – to mobilize volunteers. Their participation as volunteers in formal organizations is generally lower than in the German‐speaking part. The differences between the three linguistic regions ultimately manifest themselves in the quantity of new service agreements: more service agreements exist between the state and NPOs in the French‐ and Italian‐speaking than in the German‐speaking cantons. Still, given the different levels of potential support (municipal, cantonal, and federal), it is worth noting that the predisposition to support NPOs can vary widely even within single cantons.
12 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
e) Local Attitudes Towards Supra‐National Organizations
Supra‐national organizations shy away from making explicit statements about civil society. The number of international organizations with headquarters in Switzerland (e.g. the Red Cross, the International Labor Organization (ILO), the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)) testifies to the favorable political climate for NPOs in the country. A good example of this climate was Zurich’s offer of a 1.8 million CHF subsidy to the Club of Rome if it moved its headquarters from Hamburg to Zurich. However, in recent years an increasing number of public actors have questioned the benefit to be gained from the creation of global football associations, and additionally why financially secure NPOs should in fact receive any additional state support or indeed tax incentives. It is not surprising therefore, that a referendum revealed a marginal vote against the relocation of the Club of Rome’s headquarters to Zurich in February in 2008. The Club of Rome moved to Winterthur in the canton of Zurich in April 2008, financed by a private Foundation, the “Robert und Ruth Heuberger Stiftung”.
Having given an overview of the position of NPOs in Switzerland, the following section focuses on its characteristics and political influence.
III. CHARACTERISTICS OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR POLITICAL IMPORTANCE
The Swiss nonprofit sector is extremely fragmented and faces various themes and contentious issues. In the social sector, a key topic is the decrease in the level of state financial aid and the fact that its provision is contingent upon a service agreement. Established regional churches face the same problem. In the health sector the NPOs (mainly mandatory health insurances) are challenged by rising costs in hospitals and opposing claims of clients and medicines (Hplus 2008). Moreover, the relationship between the health insurances is very competitive due to the fact that they can charge different levels of premiums. In contrast to many Anglo‐ American countries, NPOs in the education sector have been comparatively marginal. However, due to increasing shares of scholars with immigrant background, more and more Swiss parents are looking for alternatives to the public schools. Hence, representatives of religion‐affiliated and other nonprofit elementary and secondary schools argue that they should get more public support for their engagement.
In the field of political interest intermediation it is worth noting that the state does not subsidize political parties. Therefore, they depend on money donated by enterprises or individuals like relief organizations. In contrast to the Liberal‐Democratic Party (FDP), Christian Democratic People’s Party (CVP), and the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), the Social Democratic Party (SPS) has always argued for governmental support for parties, as is the case, for example, in Germany, as well as for transparence, as is the case in the USA. As a result of the current financial crisis, however, even the rightist parties are now confronted with financial shortages. The United Bank of Switzerland (UBS), one of the major sponsors of political parties, required public money in late 2008. This led to harsh criticism that members of the Parliament were backed and received subsidies from the United Bank of Switzerland (UBS), and led to rising claims on parties to disclose their financial sources. Consequently, UBS decided to stop supporting rightist parties.
13 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
The sports sector also differs from the same sector in other countries. The main reason is that in Switzerland this sector is clearly stratified with elite sports sponsored and operated by for‐profit organizations and mainstream sports are in the domain of NPOs.
Regarding religious communities there is a continuous debate regarding whether the government should collect the members contributions on behalf of the Church. In many cantons in Switzerland, as in many European countries, the contributions to the state‐affiliated Churches (Landeskirchen)32 are included in the income taxes. Thus, the level of the contributions is linked to the level of income. This tax collection arrangement is challenged by two opposing views. On the one hand, secular and libertarian voices argue that Churches should be independent from state and therefore should levy voluntary contributions. On the other hand, some free Christian Churches and even Jewish and Islamic communities call for tax status’ similar to that of the state‐ affiliated Churches (Landeskirchen).
Also, the constructive and strong relationships between the state and international development and cooperation (relief agencies) and the environmental associations are harshly criticized by the SVP (see section II.a), where as the NPOs active in the arts’ sector have experienced an improvement in their relationship with the state. In this sector professionalization is becoming increasingly important (also see section IV.d), but is a double‐edged sword because emphasizing professional qualifications for management has led to a decline in artistic content.
Regarding structure, foundations in particular have profited from an improvement in the legal framework.33 As in other countries, a comparison of various types of NPOs over the last decade has shown that some NPOs have been able to increase their resources (such as the Swiss People’s Party (SVP)), whilst others (such as the Swiss Workers Aid Association34 and certain unions) have experienced more difficulty. However, the key factors for the success or failure of an NPO are not only business criteria, such as management and marketing, but also the timing of a given issue (e.g. the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami,) and what the characteristics of the NPO beneficiaries are.
a) Role of Nonprofit Organizations for Politics and Policies
In this section we address the role of nonprofit organizations for politics and policies over the past ten to fifteen years. An important point to be mentioned is the huge potential for interest groups to wield political influence within the Swiss political system. Associations are therefore just as heavily involved and influential in political decision making as political parties (Tschäni 1986). This is due to the fact that members of Parliament only pursue their mandates on a part‐time basis and most of the political parties have fewer financial and human resources than interest groups or large companies. Comparative political research shows that Switzerland can be classified as “corporatist” (Armingeon 1997).
32 According to Helmig, Bärlocher and von Schnurbein (2009), Landeskirchen are not likely to be part of Swiss nonprofit sector. 33 Worthy of note is also that the foundation Pro Helvetia that promotes cultural activities is a well‐known example of a Swiss foundation operated by the Federal government under public law. 34 Schweizerisches Arbeiterhilfswerk (SAH)
14 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
The strong influence of NPOs is grounded in four institutions; the democratic device of referenda and initiatives, the consultation process, and the Federation Complaint Right. Institutions allow NPOs to disband (by means of referendum), to advance (through initiatives), and to participate in the creation of legislation (consultation process). The Federation Complaint Right also allows NPOs to hinder planned construction. These devices are effective – as mentioned above – because large associations and many committees that organize initiatives or referenda have greater financial and human resources at their disposal than political parties. Furthermore, many interest groups are better able to put forward their views (e.g. against cuts in social welfare, tax increases, flight paths, or sexual predators) by means of collective protest than political parties specifically oriented towards general public welfare.
A referendum (since 1874) is usually called for when a significant portion of the population does not agree with a law proposed by the Swiss Parliament. If a party, association, or private person is able to collect 50,000 signatures within 100 days, the decision is submitted to popular vote. This vote is called a facultative referendum. A simple majority is needed for the decision to be accepted.
In the case of changes to the constitution, or to participation in any organization of collective security or in supranational associations, a referendum is compulsory. This means that a popular vote is necessary in every case. However, a double majority must accept such a proposal; i.e. it must be accepted both by the majority of voters, as well as the majority of cantons.
Since 1891 citizens and NPOs have been able to demand a referendum on changes to the constitution by means of initiatives. If an initiative committee is able to collect the required 100,000 signatures within 18 months, a popular vote takes place. The Swiss population has rejected the majority of similar initiatives, such as the 1989 initiative to abolish the Swiss army. Citizens’ initiatives may also deal with cantonal and municipal issues.
In order to diminish the probability of losing a popular vote (always a potential threat for legislators), all political parties with the power to call for a referendum are included during the formulation stage of a proposal. This happens by means of the consultation process, the preliminary phase of legal proceedings. This stage checks whether governmental proposals are politically, financially, economically, ecologically, socially, or culturally significant with regard to accuracy of contents, possibility of successful implementation and social acceptance. The draft proposal is thus submitted to the cantons, to the parties represented in Parliament, to the governing bodies of municipalities, cities, and mountain regions, to umbrella organizations of economic bodies, as well to other possible interested groups or associations according to the matter concerned.
The consultation process is mandated by the Federal Council, and is organized and carried out by the relevant government department. Even individuals that are not invited to the consultation process may offer their input. All opinions connected with the consultation process are evaluated before the Federal Council marks out the conditions for the proposal. If the proposal is sent to Parliament, the Federal councilors discuss the proposal in the knowledge of the results of the consultation process.
15 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
The Swiss Parliament itself may also recommend an administrative consultation35. In this case it is either the government department or the parliamentary commission responsible for the issue that is in charge of seeing the process through to its conclusion.
If accuracy regarding contents, possibility of successful implementation and social acceptance on a rather unimportant issue need to be verified, a hearing takes place. A government department, office or administrative commission is the party responsible for opening the consultation procedure. If the consequences of such an issue are considered minor, fewer people are addressed and the procedural formalities are more limited. A further peculiarity of the Swiss political system is the so‐called Federation Complaint Right, which was incorporated into Federal Nature and Homeland Protection Law36 in 1966, into the Environmental Protection Law37 of 1983, and into the Federal Law on Walking and Hiking Trails Act38 of 1985. The law allows national environmental associations that are at least ten years old to instigate investigations by the authorities into projects that have an environmental impact, such as applications for deforestation or for construction outside zoned areas, for rural land improvements, as well as other governmental tasks.
Despite the weight of direct democratic devices in the Swiss political agenda, it is worth noting that these devices, particularly the initiative, have little chance of success at popular vote. So far, both Swiss citizens and cantons have voted against nine out of ten Swiss citizens’ initiatives. In short, since the initiative has existed (as a device in the constitution since 1891), only 15 out of 162 have been accepted. Referenda by contrast are much more successful. Of the 161 facultative referenda to date, 88 have been accepted. The poor success rate of initiatives is often due to settlement between the legislator and the originator or even the result of a counter‐ proposal. In addition, it is much more costly to create a legislation requiring 100,000 signatures than to organize 50,000 signatures rejecting the introduction of new law. Hence, affluent NPOs or even entrepreneurs launch initiatives most often. In contrast, even small NPOs can realize a successful referendum. Since 1987, the possibility of a “double yes” vote exists; this means that there can be a vote for both the initiative and the counter‐proposal. In such cases a tie‐break question is used to decide which of the two texts will go forward. In the past ten years only the following five “public initiatives”39 have been accepted: • Initiative for “genetically modified free crops”40 Effective on 27/11/2005 • Initiative for “lifelong incarceration of untreatable and extremely dangerous sexual and violent criminals”41 Effective on 8/2/2004 • Initiative for “membership of Switzerland in the United Nations (UN)”42 Effective on 3/3/2002
35 Vernehmlassung 36 Bundesgesetz über den Natur‐ und Heimatschutz 37 Umweltschutzgesetz 38 Bundesgesetz über Fuss‐ und Wanderwege 39 Volksinitiative 40 Initiative für Nahrungsmittel aus gentechnikfreier Landwirtschaft 41 Initiative für die lebenslange Verwahrung für nicht therapierbare, extrem gefährliche Sexual‐ und Gewaltstraftäter 42 Initiative für den Beitritt der Schweiz zur Organisation der Vereinten Nationen (UNO)
16 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
• Initiative for a “work‐free Federal holiday (August 1st Initiative)”43 Effective on 1/7/1994 • Initiative for the “protection of the Alps against transit traffic”44 Effective on 20/04/1994
b) The Role of Umbrella Groups on Policy Issues
There is no single nonprofit umbrella organization that is trans‐sectoral in Switzerland. However, most NPOs belong to one of many umbrella organizations. Apart from national political parties that are predominantly involved with parliamentary issues and voting campaigns, other professional bodies such as the umbrella organizations of employers and employees (which is sector specific and trans‐sectoral) as in other Western countries play important roles; however, this is so to a much lesser degree than in Scandinavia.
In the social sector, the ZEWO Foundation (Schweizerische Fachstelle für gemeinnützige, Spenden sammelnde Organisationen), originally created in 1934 as an information office, now has approx. 500 organizations that it inspects and certifies regarding reception and use of donations.
The large relief organizations have arranged themselves into politically influential umbrella organizations, such as the development‐oriented Alliance Sud (Swiss Alliance of Development Organizations), as well as the informal Swiss Relief Organizations Presidents’ Conference45.
Noteworthy among umbrella organizations are the foundations proFonds and SwissFoundations. The Swiss umbrella organization proFonds (formerly the Working Group for Foundations for Common Welfare46 with approximately 300 members) considers itself to represent the interests of all the Swiss foundations; in particular, it supported the creation of a Swiss NPO Code (Swiss NPO Code 2006). SwissFoundations was founded in 2001 as a union of eleven existing foundations (for sponsoring). In 2005, SwissFoundations published the first European Good Governance Code for Foundations (for sponsoring). This Code is based upon three main principles: (i) effective implementation of the foundation’s goals, (ii) a balance of management and supervision and, (iii) high transparency of goals, activities, and structure. These are spelt out in 22 recommendations concerning education, management, development, and finances.
Another important organization is the Swiss Society of Public Utility (SGG)47 founded in 1810. It follows the liberal principle that common welfare48 is necessary when fellow citizens find themselves in difficulty. The Swiss Society of Public Utility is involved in cantonal, regional, and local associations and has played an active role in establishing the Swiss Women’s Association for Purposes of Common Welfare (SGF)49 that to‐date has over 300
43 Initiative für einen arbeitsfreien Bundesfeiertag (1. August‐Initiative) 44 Initiative zum Schutze des Alpengebietes vor dem Transitverkehr 45 Konferenz der Präsidentinnen und Präsidenten der grossen Hilfswerke der Schweiz (KPGH) 46 Arbeitsgemeinschaft für gemeinnützige Stiftungen 47 Schweizerische Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft (SGG) 48 Gemeinnutz 49 Dachverband Schweizerischer Gemeinnütziger Frauen (SGF)
17 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
subdivisions (SGG 2005). The Swiss Society of Public Utility was also a founder of Pro Juventute (1912), Pro Senectute (1917), Swiss Mountains Relief50 (1942), Pro Mente Sana (1977) and was the driving force behind the ZEWO foundation by providing more than 400,000 CHF as start‐up capital. One of the current projects of the Swiss Society of Public Utility is the Volunteer Survey that complements the survey results provided by the Swiss Federal Statistical Office (Ammann et al. 2007).
Finally, the website, freiwilligenarbeit.ch, should be mentioned. This platform was created in 1999 to promote volunteer work in Switzerland and Swiss volunteer work overseas (Markwalder 2005). It counts on the support of 85 organizations. In the past few years this forum has campaigned to institutionalize the social time card to document an individuals’ volunteer work.
All of these umbrella organizations and national coalitions work together on many levels, such as in consultation processes, election campaigns, or, as in 2006, the creation of the Swiss NPO Code at the Large Swiss Relief Organizations Presidents’ Conference (KPGH). The Swiss NPO Code should guarantee responsible, transparent and timely good governance in NPOs for common welfare that rely on donations (Swiss NPO Code 2006). c) Involvement of Swiss Nonprofit Organizations in International or Regional Umbrella Groups
Many NPOs, national umbrella organizations, and political parties are members of international umbrella organizations. In light of both the European integration process and the associated shift in political decision‐ making authority from national capitals to Brussels and the large dependence of the Swiss economy on the European markets, it is obvious that NPOs, even without membership in the European Union (E.U.), are increasing their commitment to umbrella organizations (Nollert 1996). On the one hand, Swiss associations transmit the meaning of decisions made by the E.U. to their members. Hence, enterprises exporting to the E.U. can, for example, adapt their production to new regulations and technical standards. On the other hand, despite lacking membership in the E.U., Swiss associations can still influence E.U. legislation by lobbying for their interests within the umbrella organizations. Furthermore, Swiss associations can ally with associations in countries with E.U. membership to fight against an objective of the E.U. Thus, in accordance with the initiative for the “Protection of the Alps Against Transit Traffic” Swiss and European environmentalist and public transport associations together are attempting to prohibit transit by trucks with a 60‐tons load on roads in the Alps.
As this section has shown, the devices of Swiss direct democracy provide NPOs (as well as its citizens) considerable opportunities to intervene in public policy making and legislation (though networks with politicians or money considerably helps to support interests in the political arena). Umbrella groups have proven to be important players in politics and for policy issues. NPOs have gained interest in international or regional Umbrella groups, as international or regional (European) legislation are impinging on their situation in Switzerland and abroad.
50 Schweizer Berghilfe
18 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
The following section will deal with current issues that NPOs and umbrella organizations are faced with presently. Apart from publications we draw the information from, we refer to a survey with Swiss experts for the NPO sector in section IV.
IV. CURRENT ISSUES
Looking at the publications of NPO umbrella organizations and large NPOs, the dominant topic is the government’s drive to economize. This has resulted in reduced or cancelled subsidies, more stringent conditions within service agreements, and increased competition between NPOs.
An ongoing area of debate of considerable importance is the revision of the Foundation and Fiscal Law for Nonprofit Organizations in the Civil Code that has been in effect since 2006. This revision contains among other things the introduction of compulsory auditing, and the increase in Federal tax relief in respect of donations from 10 percent to 20 percent. The revision of the Stock Corporation and Financial‐Accounting Law (a part of the Swiss Code of Obligations)51 has also prompted discussion, particularly as right of review52 regardless of an association’s legal structure is also planned. In other words, foundations and associations are being put on a par with incorporated companies in terms of book‐keeping and financial accounting law. According to proFonds, this would make accounting unnecessarily complicated for the majority of small and medium‐sized foundations and associations.
Many concerns have also been voiced with regard to the reform of value‐added tax (VAT), since – among other things – the Federal Council is proposing that revenue and membership fees of organizations concerned with common welfare should no longer be exempt (see section II.c). ProFonds considers this to greatly weaken Switzerland’s position as a hub for nonprofit organizations.
The Swiss Council of States is also currently discussing a motion adopted on the 25th of September 2006 that it would like to move the Federal Ombudsman for Foundations from the Federal Department of Home Affairs (FDHA) to another department. The motion was put forward because the Federal Ombudsman was criticized for having divided loyalties between the government’s political will and the right to autonomy of foundations and their donors, particularly because the FDHA is itself involved in so many foundations.
The contentious Federation Complaint Right remains a controversial topic. Since 1990, more than 15 attempts have been made in Parliament to abolish this device that was originally introduced by environmental groups in 1966. Furthermore, development aid organizations such as Alliance Sud have demanded the implementation of the 1970 U.N. resolution requiring 0.7 percent of the Gross National Product to be invested in development aid. One final issue for consideration is the recently introduced social time card, which allows NPOs to certify the number of hours worked by volunteers.
51 Aktien‐ und Rechnungslegungsrecht im Obligationenrecht 52 Revisionsrecht
19 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
The following sections are based on information from leading experts in the field of nonprofit organizations. In the first instance, approx. 100 people in German‐speaking Switzerland53 were surveyed online (50 percent response rate)54. At first glance, the survey showed no dominant issues. The respondents’ opinions differed widely on many issues in terms of their level of importance. In addition, most respondents focused in their answers on the situation of their organization’s work area. On the basis of these findings, a sample was selected and included in a second qualitative interview55 (see Appendix 1 and 2). Even when respondents indicated that they could not comment on NPO activity in general, they were nonetheless able to express views on a restricted number of areas. In order to reduce redundancy, we will present only those aspects that were not already mentioned in previous sections.
These experts considered the following five issues to be particularly important: • Restructuring of Swiss politics • Cooperation with commercial organizations • State financial support • Professionalism • Legal frameworks
These five issues will be separately commented on in the next sections. a) Restructuring of Swiss Politics
Since the 1990’s political restructuring in Switzerland has been a key issue for the Swiss nonprofit sector because of the increasing political power of the rather NPO‐skeptical Swiss People’s Party (when compared with other parties). The Swiss People’s Party has held two Federal Council seats since 2004, whereas the other two explicitly NPO‐friendly parties (liberal in European terms), the Liberal Democratic Party and Christian Democratic People’s Party, have lost ground in the Federal Council.
This restructuring appears to go hand in hand with a general movement towards reducing solidarity, individualization and economization. This trend has now gained a foothold in the relationship between the state and nonprofit sector. In this vein, there appears to be a direct connection between the rise of the Swiss People’s Party and a decreased willingness on the part of the public institutions to finance NPOs. Many deplore the fact that the Swiss People’s Party discredits many of the NPOs’ beneficiaries, such as the poor, disabled or those of foreign origin, since the implication is that they are not worthy of support. In addition, many criticize the Swiss People’s Party’s desire to reduce development aid and concentrate on bilateral and sectoral supporting measures.
53 The German‐speaking region was selected because this region has a greater affinity for the nonprofit sector, whereas a greater affinity for state‐led problem‐solving strategies is found in the French‐ and Italian‐speaking parts of Switzerland. 54 We thank Lic. phil. Nils Wyssbrod for designing the online survey. 55 The qualitative interviews by telephone were carried out by Michael Nollert, Nicole Shephard, Chris Young, and Nils Wyssbrod in December 2007, and January and February 2008 with representatives of NPOs from the German‐speaking part of Switzerland.
20 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
The results of the survey reveal that the reluctance of public institutions to fund NPOs increases the competition between organizations to obtain financing. In addition, national NPOs in the social sector are confronted with increased competition from abroad. Some of the foreign NPOs are uncertified by ZEWO and thus do not conform to Swiss Standards in the donor market.
World Vision is a key example of such an organization that has not as yet received ZEWO certification but that is prominent in the media and competes aggressively for donors in the Swiss market. Ultimately, many aid organizations, in particular in the field of asylum and refugee work, are no longer competitive (or do not want to be) and are often replaced by for‐profit organizations. A notable example of this is the Red Cross, whose presence in Fribourg was replaced for financial reasons by a Zurich based business in spite of a long history of assisting and helping asylum seekers in Fribourg itself. This increased competition does, however, necessitate a critical review of antiquated processes in organizations. b) Cooperation with Commercial Organizations
Unfortunately economically oriented associations and political parties that have close ties to the private sector maintain the view that NPOs should carry out services for which the state had hitherto been responsible thereby delegating the role (“stopgaps”) to NPOs. Although the nonprofit sector is still very much supported in material terms, the results of the qualitative interviews highlight the increasing competition between autonomous NPOs and commercial organizations for the provision of services previously furnished by NPOs. Commercial organizations compete for such services by means of political lobby in key areas of decision‐making, sponsorship in sporting arenas or by the creation of competing foundations and NPOs such as the Novartis or Jacobs Foundation, or Avenir Suisse.
NPOs are also facing growing competition from private service organizations in many areas such as the social and health care sector. As mentioned above, the transfer of services from the local Red Cross in Fribourg to a private organization in Zurich is a good example of this type of development. In the arts sector, many private organizations link their sponsorship to an expectation of receiving something in return. However, according to the donation‐monitoring agency (ZEWO Donation Market Report 2006), this trend has had a positive effect, at least in the arts sector, in that the level of donations from private organizations has increased slightly over the past two years.
Furthermore, new forms of cooperation between the nonprofit and commercial sectors may be observed, such as the creation of socially and ecologically conscious long‐term mutual funds. Overall, an increasing willingness to support NPOs is anticipated, particularly from the Swiss economic elite, as a result of rising executive salaries and their erstwhile image problem.
Even from the perspective of tacit (symbolic) support the economy appears to be developing a skeptical view of certain parts of the nonprofit sector. Whilst some perceive associations as pillars of social well‐being, they are also seen to be weakening the Swiss economy. Criticism is most overtly aimed at the nonprofit activities of environmental associations that are considered to be “economically hostile”. This economic hostility is detected when such associations appear to make use of the Federation Complaint Right to simply block economically
21 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
sensible construction projects. Development aid and the activities of welfare organizations generally are also coming under increasing scrutiny in the business‐friendly media, e.g. Neue Zürcher Zeitung or the Weltwoche. At the same time aid organizations lament the promotion of such economization in the social sector as it leads to the erosion of existing solidarity in the medium‐term. c) State Financial Support
Many NPOs point out that the state has been less willing to support NPOs financially without restriction since the 1990’s. Indeed the state has been increasingly interested in output in form of service agreements rather than input. Furthermore, public bodies (e.g. the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, SDC) have continually reduced the proportion of costs that they are prepared to cover in different projects. The most recent ZEWO Report on the Donation Market (2006), based on data obtained from the donation‐monitoring agency, provides evidence of the state’s reduced enthusiasm for such financial support. NPOs face this pressure by restricting costs, locating new sources of finance and/or reactivating existing ones.
This state of affairs also indicates a trend towards commercializing the stagnating donation market, leading to strong competition between domestic and international NPOs, and from private organizations as well. Unfortunately for Swiss NPOs, the government has recently been considering offers from foreign NPOs as well as from private companies. According to experts not all NPOs in Switzerland have yet adapted to this new situation and are therefore being discriminated against when it comes to cost structure comparisons with foreign NPOs (such as World Vision), private organizations and NPOs with specific activities in certain regional areas.
Finally, NPOs today appear to have the choice between two strategies with respect to the state: (i) they can seek proximity toward the state and thereby risk losing a certain degree of autonomy, or (ii) they can explicitly seek distance from the state, which implies complete reliance on private funding. d) Professionalization
A key issue for NPOs is professionalization. This refers specifically to the efforts of NPOs to improve the management skills of their staff. Professional marketing devices are becoming necessary in order to raise funds and to motivate potential donors. Furthermore, the interviewees have identified a trend towards monetarizing volunteer work, i.e. documenting volunteer work in order to calculate its economic value and to make it comparable with other types of work (Farago et al. 2005).
In order for NPOs to be certified by organizations such as ZEWO, their practices need to be professionalized. The increase both in efficiency and effectiveness of such professionalization however leads to higher costs, which has led to public criticism. The Swiss Cancer League experienced this when it chose a private company to produce a television advertisement for its 2007 donation campaign but had to utilize 400,000 CHF of donation funding to do so. Business practices in Pro Facile, serious (legal) conflicts between the interests of the Swiss Paraplegic Foundation and the personal interests of its founder and former president leading to conviction of
22 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
the latter as well as discussions about misappropriation of donations to Swiss Solidarity56, have provided further reasons for public criticism.
Expanding professional requirements for NPO positions also increases salary levels. Many organizations realize that when it comes to management positions the lack of financial incentive makes it difficult to compete with private organizations. It must be acknowledged, however, that intrinsic motivation in NPOs is still high and that this prevents mass migration to the private sector.
The tendency towards professionalization becomes problematic when volunteers realize that they are performing the work of professionals, but are not being compensated financially for it. Due to this problem greater efforts are required to find volunteers to serve in positions of responsibility for longer periods of time, such as on supervisory committees.
The controversy over the remuneration of strategic volunteer work on foundation boards and supervisory committees is moving in a similar direction. ProFonds among others, suggests, that work on such committees should become more professional following the trend at management level. This would justify a higher level of remuneration. For relief organizations in particular, periodic catastrophes such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami are a problem due to lack of qualified personnel. This problem, however, is periodic and is part of the everyday work of an NPO.
e) Legal Framework
Another important change over the past 10‐15 years has been the development of the legal framework. First of all, it is important to recall that the Foundation and Fiscal Law for Nonprofit Organizations57 in the Civil Code Book58 has been revised. Although the revision was simple, it has been widely supported, especially since the state supports private volunteer work. The fiscal framework has therefore been substantially improved as the proportion of tax‐deductible donations has increased. The new Association’s Law59 has also been well received, as it will no longer hold association members accountable for the association’s debts (in so far as the respective statute does not contain special regulations).
V. SUMMARY
Due to a long a tradition of co‐operative and voluntary associations and the importance of the principle of subsidiarity, the Swiss Federal government, the cantons and the municipalities have a generally positive stance toward the nonprofit sector. However, there exists a lack of explicit policies regarding NPOs. In addition, although the political parties emphasize different functions of NPOs, most of them support them. Even the Swiss People’s Party that criticizes the financial support of NPOs is itself well represented in the supervisory boards of NPOs in the sports and agricultural sector. The major areas where the Swiss government supports the
56 Die Glückskette 57 Stiftungs‐ und steuerliches Gemeinnützigkeitsrecht 58 Zivilgesetzbuch 59 Vereinsrecht
23 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland nonprofit sector are tax policies and financial support; thus, NPOs profit both from low taxes in comparison with for‐profit organizations and from subsidies if they provide a public service.
Since the 1990s, the nonprofit sector is, however, confronted with new legal restrictions due to the critique of neoliberal economists that the significant constitutional influence of Swiss NPOs (consultation process, initiative, referendum, complaint right), prevent economic growth. Also, the process of European integration has entailed a shift in political decision‐making authority from national capitals to Brussels. For this reason, Swiss NPOs have recently become more committed to their European umbrella organizations. According to an online survey and interviews with nonprofit sector experts, the following five issues are most important at the moment: restructuring of Swiss politics, cooperation with commercial organizations, state financial support, professionalization, and legal framework.
Despite a lack of explicit policies towards the nonprofit sector, the Swiss government is aware of the importance of NPOs and supports them with legal privileges and financial subsidies. However, since the 1990s, the nonprofit sector is continuously challenged by the neoliberal view that strong constitutional influence from Swiss NPOs is responsible for the low economic growth rate. Therefore, among others challenges NPOs are currently faced with attempts from the government at different levels to constrain their political influence and decrease their state financial support. Furthermore, competition from private organizations is growing.
24 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
VI. REFERENCES
Ammann, Herbert. ed. 2004. Freiwilligkeit zwischen liberaler und sozialer Demokratie. Zürich: Seismo.
Ammann, Herbert and Peter Farago. ed. 2007. Freiwilligen‐Monitor der Schweiz. Zürich: Seismo.
Armingeon, Klaus. 1997. Swiss Corporatism in Comparative Perspective. West European Politics 20: 164‐179.
Armingeon, Klaus and Simon Geissbühler. ed. 2000. Gewerkschaften in der Schweiz: Herausforderungen und Optionen. Zürich: Seismo.
Beobachter. 2000a. Freiwilligenarbeit. Ein Handbuch. Zürich: Jean Frey.
Beobachter. 2000b. Die «Ich AG» feiert Hochkonjunktur. Nr. 20: 20‐29.
BFS. 2004. Studie zum Bericht zur Freiwilligenarbeit in der Schweiz. Expertenbericht im Auftrag des Bundesamts für Statistik. Bern: Bundesamt für Statistik.
Borner, Silvio, Aymo Brunetti, and Thomas Straubhaar. 1990. Schweiz AG. Vom Sonderfall zum Sanierungsfall. Zürich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
Caritas. ed. 2002. Von der katholischen Milieuorganisation zum sozialen Hilfswerk. Luzern: Caritas.
Cattacin, Sandro, Cla Reto Famos, Michael Duttwiler, and Hans Mahnig. 2003. Staat und Religion in der Schweiz. Anerkennungskämpfe, Anerkennungsformen. Bern: Eidgenössische Kommission gegen Rassismus.
Egger, Philipp, Bernd Helmig, and Robert Purtschert. ed. 2006. Stiftung und Gesellschaft. Eine komparative Analyse des Stiftungsstandortes Schweiz. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn.
EFD. 1997. Subventionsbericht 1997 des Bundesrats. Bern: Eidgenössisches Finanzdepartement.
EFD. 2008. Subventionsbericht 2008 des Bundesrats. Bern: Eidgenössisches Finanzdepartement.
Ermatinger, Gerold. 1936. Kapital und Ethos. Die sozialen und kulturellen Taten des schweizerischen Privatkapitals im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Erlenbach‐Zürich und Leipzig: Rotapfel‐Verlag.
Farago, Peter and Herbert Ammann, ed. 2005. Monetarisierung der Freiwilligkeit. Zürich: Seismo.
Fluder, Robert, Heinz Ruf, Walter Schöni, and Martin Wicki. ed. 1991. Gewerkschaften und Angestelltenverbände in der schweizerischen Privatwirtschaft. Zürich: Seismo.
Fluder, Robert. 1996. Interessenorganisationen und kollektive Arbeitsbeziehungen im öffentlichen Dienst der Schweiz. Zürich: Seismo.
Helmig, Bernd, Christoph Bärlocher, and Georg von Schnurbein, ed. 2009. Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland. Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project Working Paper Number 46, March 2009.
Humbel, Kurt. ed. 1987. Treu und Glauben. Entstehung und Geschichte des Friedensabkommens in der schweizerischen Maschinen‐ und Metallindustrie. Partnerschaftsfonds der schweizerischen Maschinen‐ und Metallindustrie (Festschrift zum 50. Jubiläum). Bern: Peter Lang.
Hplus. Die Spitäler der Schweiz., ed. 2008. Festschrift zum 75‐Jahr‐Jubiläum von H+, die Spitäler der Schweiz, Data retrieved in August 2008 from the Web site: http://files.hplus.ch/pages/HPlusDocument6217.pdf.
Kriesi, Hanspeter. ed. 2005. Der Aufstieg der SVP. Acht Kantone im Vergleich. Zürich: NZZ‐Verlag.
Linder, Wolf. 1999. Schweizerische Demokratie. Institutionen, Prozesse, Perspektiven. Bern: Haupt.
25 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
Markwalder, Christa. 2005. Freiwilligenarbeit kennt andere Marktgesetze: Trends der gesellschaftlichen Förderung der Freiwilligenarbeit. Data retrieved in January 2007 from the Web site: http://www.christa‐ markwalder.ch/uploads/media/2005‐05‐31_Europ_ische_Freiwilligenuniversit_t.pdf
Nadai, Eva. 1996. Gemeinsinn und Eigennutz: freiwilliges Engagement im Sozialbereich. Bern: Haupt.
Nollert, Michael. 1996. Verbandliche Interessenvertretung in der Europäischen Union: Einflussressourcen und faktische Einflussnahme. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 6: 647‐667.
Nollert, Michael and Christian Huser. 2007. Freiwillige Aktive in der Schweiz: Einflussfaktoren und typische Profile. In Freiwilliges Engagement in der Schweiz. ed. Peter Farago. Zürich: Seismo.
Purtschert, Robert. ed. 2005. Das Genossenschaftswesen in der Schweiz. Bern: Haupt.
SGG. 2005. Die Schweizerische Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft und ihre Geschichte. Zürich: SGG.
Swiss NPO Code. 2006. Swiss NPO Code. Corporate Governance Richtlinien für Nonprofit‐Organisationen in der Schweiz. Date retrieved in January 2007 from the Web site: http://www.swiss‐ npocode.ch/download/Swiss_NPO_Code%2020060410_ber.pdf
Tschäni, Hans. 1986. Wer regiert die Schweiz? Eine kritische Untersuchung über den Einfluss von Lobby und Verbänden in der schweizerischen Demokratie. Zürich: Orell Füssli.
Wagner, Antonin. 1999. Teilen statt umverteilen: Sozialpolitik im kommunitarischen Wohlfahrtsstaat. Bern: Haupt.
Wagner, Antonin. 2002. Der Nonprofit‐Sektor in der Schweiz. In Handbuch der Nonprofit Organisation. Strukturen und Management. ed. Christoph Badelt. Stuttgart: Schäfer‐Poeschel.
Weng, Tanja Vanessa. 2002. Werte und Wertwandel bei Ehrenamtlichen und Freiwilligen in Hilfswerken. Zürich: Books on Demand. ZEWO. 2006. ZEWO Bericht zum Spendenmarkt 06. Zürich: ZEWO.
26 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
APPENDIX 1: CONSULTED EXPERTS
The following people (positions in brackets) were qualitatively consulted:
Ammann, Herbert. General secretary of the Swiss Society of Public Utility (Schweizerische Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft, SGG); manager; member of the Pro Juventute Foundations Convention
Bühlmann, Cecile. President of the Swiss Greenpeace Foundation; management at the Christian Peace Service (Christlicher Friedensdienst); former National councilor of the Green Party (Grüne Partei der Schweiz, GPS)
Daum, Thomas. Director of the Swiss Employers Union; member of SUVA board of directors
Degen, Christoph. Chief executive of proFonds, umbrella organization of Swiss Foundations; member of the synode of the Protestant Church60 of the city of Basel
Escher, Barbara von. President of Benevol; Free Green List (Grüne Freie Liste) in the canton of Berne
Ferrari‐Visca, Bruno. Director and Federal Ombudsman for Foundations
Graber, Hedy. Director of the social and cultural office, Migros Cooperative Alliance
Gurtner, Bruno. Senior economist at the Swiss Alliance of Development) Organisations ‐ Alliance Sud; chair of the Tax Justice Network´s Global Board of Directors
Haller, Ursula. Municipal councilor in Thun; National councilor of the Swiss Peoples’ Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei, SVP), member of numerous NPOs
Knöpfel, Carlo. Director of the Department of Basics (Bereich Grundlagen) at Caritas Schweiz
Kosch, Daniel. General secretary of the Swiss Roman Catholic Central Conference
Levrat, Christian. Director of the Union of Swiss Communication (Syndiat de la communication Suisse Syndicom), president and National councilor of the Swiss Social‐Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei der Schweiz, SPS)
Markwalder‐Bär, Christa. President of forum freiwilligenarbeit.ch; president of the New European Movement (Neue Europäische Bewegung); National councilor of the Liberal‐Democratic Party (Freisinnig‐Demokratische Partei, FDP)
Marty, Franz. Chairman of the board of the Swiss Raiffeisen Banks; former president of the Conference of Cantonal Finance Directors; president of the Mountain Relief Organisation (Schweizer Berghilfe); Christian‐Democratic Peoples’ Party (Christlichdemokratische Volkspartei, CVP)
Roos‐Niedermann, Rita. Director of Pro Infirmis; former Cantonal governing councilor of St. Gallen; Christian‐Democratic Peoples’ Party (Christlichdemokratische Volkspartei, CVP)
Schärer, Werner. Director of Pro Senectute
Ziegerer, Martina. Chief executive of the Zewo Foundation
60 Evangelisch‐reformierte Kirche
27 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Qualitative interview questions:
• What were the most important topics and issues in the nonprofit sector over the last 10‐15 years? • Which issues did you have to deal with in your specific area? • Which issues will you have to deal with the coming few years? • How different are the issues in the various areas? • To what extent can differences between cantons be identified? • How would you rate the relationship between the state and the nonprofit sector? • How would you rate political system’s (government & political parties) willingness to support the nonprofit sector? • How would you rate the economic system’s (unions & for‐profit organizations) willingness to support the nonprofit sector?
28 Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
THE JOHNS HOPKINS COMPARATIVE NONPROFIT SECTOR PROJECT
Project Director: Lester M. Salamon Senior Research Associate: S. Wojciech Sokolowski Project Coordinator: Megan Haddock Communications Associate: Mimi Bilzor
PROJECT FUNDERS
Academy of Finland Körber Foundation (Germany) Aga Khan Foundation Luso-American Development Foundation (Portugal) Arab Gulf Fund (AGFUND) Ministry of Church and Education (Norway) The Atlantic Philanthropies Ministry of Culture and Sports (Norway) Australian Bureau of Statistics Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (Netherlands) Australian Research Council Ministry of Environment (Norway) Austrian Science Foundation Ministry of Family and Children (Norway) Canadian Fund (Slovakia) Ministry of Family/World Bank (Venezuela) Charities Aid Foundation (United Kingdom) Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Norway) Civil Society Development Foundation (Czech Republic) Ministry of Health, Sports and Welfare (Netherlands) Civil Society Development Foundation (Romania) Ministry of Social Affairs (Denmark) Civil Society Development Foundation (Slovakia) Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (Finland) Colombian Center on Philanthropy Ministry of Social Development (New Zealand) The Combined Community Trusts (New Zealand) C.S. Mott Foundation Department of Welfare (South Africa) National Department of Planning (Colombia) Deutsche Bank Foundation (Germany) National Research Fund (Hungary) FIN (Netherlands) Norwegian Research Council Fondation de France OPEC Fondation Roi Baudouin (Belgium) Open Society Foundation (Slovakia) Ford Foundation David and Lucile Packard Foundation Foundation for an Open Society (Hungary) Ilídio Pinho Foundation (Portugal) Fundación Andes (Chile) Productivity Commission (Australia) Fundación Antonio Restrepo Barco (Colombia) Research Council of Norway Fundación Banco Bilbao Vizcaya (Spain) Rockefeller Brothers Fund Fundación FES (Colombia) Joseph Rowntree Foundation (United Kingdom) Fundación Minera Escondida (Chile) Sasakawa Peace Foundation (Japan) Gerbert Rüf Stiftung (Switzerland) SENAC (National Commercial Training Service – Brazil) Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (Portugal) Servicio de Cooperación Técnica (Chile) Humboldt Foundation/Transcoop (Germany) The Skoll Foundation Imagine Canada Telefonica CTC Chile Industry Commission (Australia) The Tindall Foundation (New Zealand) Institute for Human Sciences (Austria) United Nations Development Program (Chile) Instituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario (Chile) United States Agency for International Development Inter-American Development Bank United States Information Service Inter-American Foundation University of Witwatersrand (South Africa) Juliana Welzijn Fonds (Netherlands) Yad Hadaniv Foundation (Israel) Kahanoff Foundation (Canada) W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Center for Civil Society Studies website: www.ccss.jhu.edu Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland
OUNTRY OVERAGE C C Argentina France Mexico Slovakia Australia Germany Morocco South Africa Austria Ghana Netherlands Spain Belgium Hungary New Zealand Sweden Brazil India Norway Switzerland Canada Ireland Pakistan Tanzania Chile Israel Peru Thailand Colombia Italy Philippines Uganda Czech Republic Japan Poland United Kingdom Denmark Kenya Portugal United States Egypt Korea, Rep. of Romania Venezuela Finland Lebanon Russia
THE COMPARATIVE NONPROFIT SECTOR PROJECT WORKING PAPERS Please visit our Web site to view the full text of these papers and other reports from the Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project.
Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland Defining the Nonprofit Sector: The Czech Republic Defining the Nonprofit Sector: New Zealand Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Israel Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Chile The Third World’s Third Sector in Comparative Perspective Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Portugal Defining the Nonprofit Sector: The Netherlands Defining the Nonprofit Sector: South Korea Social Origins of Civil Society: Explaining the Nonprofit Volunteering in Cross-National Perspective: Evidence Sector Cross-Nationally From 24 Countries The Nonprofit Sector: A New Global Force Defining the Nonprofit Sector: The Philippines Nonprofit Law: Ten Issues in Search of Resolution Social Origins of Civil Society: An Overview The International Classification of Nonprofit The Nonprofit Sector: For What and for Whom? Organizations - ICNPO. Revision 1.0 Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Poland Caring Sector or Caring Society? Discovering the History of the Nonprofit Sector in the Netherlands Nonprofit Sector Cross-Nationally Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Finland Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Sweden Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Argentina Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Hungary Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Romania The Nonprofit Sector in the United Nations System of National Accounts: Definition, Treatment, and Practice Philanthropy, Nationalism, and the Growth of Civil Society in Romania Toward an Understanding of the International Nonprofit Sector: The Johns Hopkins Comparative Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Australia Nonprofit Sector Project Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Colombia The Emerging Sector: A Statistical Supplement Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Ireland (1990 data)
Center for Civil Society Studies website: www.ccss.jhu.edu The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project is a systematic effort to analyze the scope, structure, financing, and role of the private nonprofit sector in a cross-section of countries around the world in order to improve our knowledge and enrich our theoretical understanding of this sector, and to provide a sounder basis for both public and private action towards it.
The Project utilizes a comparative empirical approach that features heavy reliance on a team of Local Associates in the target countries, a common framework, set of definitions, and information-gathering strategies; and a network of national and international advisory committees to oversee progress and help disseminate results. Project work began in 1990 in 13 countries and now extends to more than 40 countries spanning all the regions of the world.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies
The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies seeks to improve understanding and the effective functioning of not-for-profit, philanthropic, or “civil society” organizations in the United States and throughout the world in order to enhance the contribution these organizations can make to democracy and the quality of human life. The Center is part of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies and carries out its work through a combination of research, training, and information-sharing both domestically and internationally.
Center for Civil Society Studies Institute for Policy Studies 3400 North Charles Street, Wyman Building Baltimore, MD 21211, USA Phone: +1.410.516.5463 Fax: +1.410.516.7818 www.ccss.jhu.edu