Historical Contexts and Social Welfare Logics: A Comparative Analysis of Nonprofit Service Providers in Russia and the United States

Background

Institutional logics, as defined by Thornton and Ocasio (2008), are the “socially constructed,

historical patterns of cultural symbols and material practices, assumptions, values, and beliefs

by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and

space, and provide meaning to their daily activity” (p. 101). The logics of service providers in nonprofit social welfare organizations are embedded in their political, social, and economic contexts. Their logics around how social welfare should be provided in a society will impact the missions their organizations adopt, what programs they offer, and how they imagine their future. This paper compares the social welfare logics of service providers in organizations from two quite different contexts: Chicago, U.S.A. and Nizhny Novgorod, Russia. Specifically, the paper examines 1). What are the logics of service providers in each city, and do they differ between the U.S. and Russian contexts? 2). How do service providers connect their logics to their historical contexts? 3). How are the logics of leaders related to the way that they interact with government entities, collaborate for policy change, and conceptualize the “best” way to structure society and provide social services to citizens in need?

Methods

In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with nineteen leaders and social service providers (ages 19-68) in Chicago, IL and fifty-one in Nizhny Novgorod, Russia. To reveal interview subjects’ institutional logics around social welfare provision, I used a strategy described by Gamson in his 1992 book, Talking Politics, asking participants to reflect on a scenario of a social problem and possible solutions. Other questions asked directly about their opinion of service providers’ roles in creating policy and what they see as the role of the government and/or nonprofits in solving social problems. The analytic process uses methods of grounded theory. The interviews were digitally recorded and then transcribed. Interviews remain in their original language to preserve their integrity. Nvivo software was used to analyze the data in an iterative process of coding, writing memos, and analysis.

Results

Russian service providers’ logics saw the national government as responsible for social welfare and viewed nonprofits as arising out of government failure. Their views were connected to belief in collective responsibility lingering from their Soviet past. They interact with government entities cautiously, work towards policy change using insider tactics (Mosley, 2011) and describe that the ideal situation would be the disappearance of nonprofits because the government was doing its job properly. Paradoxically, they also cited the benefits of nonprofits in providing flexible, targeted services. U.S. providers believed that the government was responsible for social welfare, but were clear about the key role that nonprofits play in program and policy creation and community change. Moreover, they believed that nonprofits, as part of civil society, strengthened democracy and helped hold policymakers accountable.

Implications

The findings from this study should be of interest to practitioners working both internationally and locally, as understanding logics will enable stronger collaboration and alignment with local providers’ approach to organizational goals and government.