arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Advocacy on a Tightrope: Effects of Government Funding and Perceived Support for Advocacy on Nonprofit Cooperative and Confrontational Advocacy Tactics

Björn Carré et al.

Nonprofit Management and Leadership2025https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21647article
AJG 1ABDC B
Weight
0.48

What the paper says

ABSTRACT In nonprofit literature, there is evidence that a more relative dependence on public funding tends to result in nonprofits relying more heavily on insider/cooperative rather than outsider/confrontational advocacy. This led some researchers to believe that there is a resource imbalance between nonprofits and governments while others were convinced of a balance. However, there is hardly any empirical evidence that tests these assumptions. In this paper, we aim to address this research gap by examining the moderating effect of public funding and public service delivery on the relationship between nonprofit perceptions of government support for advocacy and advocacy tactics. Based on a survey of Flemish nonprofits, we find that these nonprofit organizations more frequently use cooperative insider rather than confrontational outsider tactics. Moreover, public funding and public service delivery are important explanatory and moderating variables.

5 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21647

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{björn2025,
  title        = {{Advocacy on a Tightrope: Effects of Government Funding and Perceived Support for Advocacy on Nonprofit Cooperative and Confrontational Advocacy Tactics}},
  author       = {Björn Carré et al.},
  journal      = {Nonprofit Management and Leadership},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21647},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Advocacy on a Tightrope: Effects of Government Funding and Perceived Support for Advocacy on Nonprofit Cooperative and Confrontational Advocacy Tactics

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.48

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.41 × 0.4 = 0.16
M · momentum0.63 × 0.15 = 0.09
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.