Advertisement

Objectives and approach

Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)

Keywords

Business Ethic Corporate Governance Case Study Research Oxford English Dictionary Governance Board 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    The terms nonprofit organizations (NPO) and non-governmental organization (NGO) are often used synonymously. There is no consistent distinction between them in literature or practice. See Renz & Pucetaite (2005: 3f) for a description of this phenomenon. Schwarz (2005: 29) presents a comprehensive overview of the broad usage of the term NPO, without, however, referencing the term NGO. Also, Nonprofit Governance refers to the governance of NPOs as well as NGOs, and there is no such thing as “Non-governmental Governance”. This book therefore uses NGO and NPO synonymously.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Enhanced from Erfurt 2004: 47, Wunderer 1995: 20 and Tricker 1984: 175. See also Schedler’s description of “two rationalities” in the context of public management needing ‘translation,’ between a “political rationality” and a “management rationality” (2003).Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    Scandura & Williams 2000: 1252.Google Scholar
  4. 8.
    Terms in bold letters from Langley 1999: 708.Google Scholar
  5. 9.
    Bernard 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 10.
    Yin, 2003: 109.Google Scholar
  7. 11.
    The complexity arises from the following concerns among others: (1) The logic of the goal hierarchy is complex, theoretically and practically. The approaches are young and disputed. (2) Causality: Is there a proven causality between the layers? (3) Attribution: How can economics in a market be attributed to the activities of the project? These are also typical questions discussed at the level of development policies, or as part of the fundamental ethical debate on ‘good’ development (See, for instance, Ulrich P. 2004, Kesselring 2003, Stiglitz 2002, Sen 1999, Goulet 1995, Rawls 1971).Google Scholar
  8. 12.
    As per original project appraisal document and project document (DRIVER 2002, 2004).Google Scholar
  9. 14.
    Gomez et al. 2002: 32 (translation and emphasis Renz).Google Scholar
  10. 15.
  11. 16.
    SDC 2004: 4.Google Scholar
  12. 18.
  13. 21.
    Haberer 2003: 3 (emphasis Renz).Google Scholar
  14. 22.
    Davies 1999: 3.Google Scholar
  15. 24.
    See Ulrich H. & Probst 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 25.
    With Ulrich H. & Probst, this book adopts a broad and inclusive understanding of management, where for instance corporate governance bodies are (substantial) part of the upper management.Google Scholar
  17. 28.
    See Ulrich H. & Probst 1995: 277, 283 and Steinle 2005: 18.Google Scholar
  18. 31.
    Bruch, Vogel & Krummaker 2006: 304 (translation Renz).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2007

Personalised recommendations