Modified Concept of Non-Profit Marketing
Although the concept of non-profit sector marketing has been widely embraced by marketing academics, many scholars and managers in the non-profit field remain skeptical. Skeptics of the appropriateness of the marketing concept in the non-profit field argued that its application distorted a non-profit organization's objectives, antithetical to its social service ethic, and invited inappropriate commercialization of non-profit services P. Kotler and his associates modified existing political communication and public advertising theories to formulate the marketing approach comprised of the «4 Ps» model, voluntary exchange, and the marketing philosophy of meeting customers’ needs. This explanation of the notion of marketing resulted in the term «social marketing». In 1972, Kotler formulated his broadened, generic, and axiomatic concept of marketing that was conceptualized as being universal for any type of product or organization including non-profit organizations. Three major principles underling the school's conceptualization of non-profit marketing: An open-system model of formal organizations, borrowed from organizational theory and the concept of social exchange, adapted from individualistic sociology. An alternative explanation can be based on: A closed-system model of formal organizations. The closed-system perspective is older stemming from Weber's classical analysis of bureaucracy. «Coercion mutually agreed upon « motivation. Self-interest motivation has limited usefulness in context of non-profit organizations. In many contexts it is antithetical to the philosophy of non-profit services and, hence, is inconsistent with a legitimate conceptualization of non-profit marketing. The application of self-interest motivation is integral to the social exchange school of marketing, but in the context of non-profit agencies it is inappropriate. Reciprocity and Redistribution. The relationship of formal organizations with their environments can be explained not only from an exchange perspective but also from reciprocity and redistribution perspectives.
The article is a reply to M. Dodlova and M. Yudkevich. In their recent paper they undertake an attempt to use the notion of gift in the analysis of principal–agent relationship and to generalize the idea of gift in order to obtain a theory of gift exchange in the workplace. However, the analysis suggested lacks conceptual clarity and rests upon false presuppositions regarding the nature of gift. As a result, authors draw erroneous conclusions and fall victims of the magic of the gift. This short reply points to these deficiencies and suggests some ideas for alternative approaches to the analysis of certain phenomena observed in the workplace.
Concept of nonprofit marketing has emerged from discussions of applying the philosophy and techniques of marketing to the public and nonprofit sectors in the marketing literature. However, many of these marketing ideas emerged originally from social science disciplines. Almost all social science can be classified into the two general categories of «individualistic" and "collectivistic" perspectives (Collins, 1994; Olsen, 1992; Parsons, 1961). This study attempts to accommodate a pluralistic stance toward diversity of social science perspectives in context of nonprofit marketing theory. Thus, it is not limited to discussion of individualistic or collectivist references. The study attempts to consider different social science perspectives to validate nonprofit marketing theory.
The article discusses the controversial concept of marketing for non-profit organizations. The existing theory of marketing for non-profit organizations developed with borrowing some concepts from the social sciences. From sociology, organizational behavior and anthropology were borrowed the concept of the organization as an open system, motivation, self-interest, bilateral voluntary exchange. Alternative concepts of organization, motivation and relationships with the environment created within the social sciences, allow to formulate an alternative approach to the study of non-profit marketing organizations. Recommendations for future research are offered.
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.
We address the external effects on public sector efficiency measures acquired using Data Envelopment Analysis. We use the health care system in Russian regions in 2011 to evaluate modern approaches to accounting for external effects. We propose a promising method of correcting DEA efficiency measures. Despite the multiple advantages DEA offers, the usage of this approach carries with it a number of methodological difficulties. Accounting for multiple factors of efficiency calls for more complex methods, among which the most promising are DMU clustering and calculating local production possibility frontiers. Using regression models for estimate correction requires further study due to possible systematic errors during estimation. A mixture of data correction and DMU clustering together with multi-stage DEA seems most promising at the moment. Analyzing several stages of transforming society’s resources into social welfare will allow for picking out the weak points in a state agency’s work.