10
2. The Voluntary Welfare Associations in Germany
2.1 General Information14
The voluntary welfare associations belong to a specific subsector of the Third Sector15
which strongly depends on the welfare state and public resources. With regard to their
economic performance and their labor force and the social services dominance in the
nonprofit scene 16 these associations form the „lion's share of intermediaries^7 in Ger-
many, similar to other western European countries, but unlike the all-country average.18
The voluntary welfare associations mainly cover the categories health and social ser-
vices of the twelve macro-categories of the International Classification of Non-Profit-
Organizations (ICNPO). 19
The organizations of the voluntary welfare associations are multi-functional20 and rep-
resent diverse worldviews or religious motivation and objectives. They regard them-
selves as the voice of the underprivileged, representing their interests within society as
the following excerpt from an information brochure of the central voluntary welfare
21
associations shows:
The voluntary welfare associations usually choose the organizational form of a regis-
Nonrtatutory Welfare
Sees itself as an advocate forthose people
who are poor, ill, disabled, unemployed,
homeless, need nursing care, seek asylum,
or are socially excluded;
Demands reasonable and social conditions in
our society by appealing to the general
publiς the legislator, the government and
administration;
Contributes towards the qualification of
Stsworkers by offering initial and further
training;
Promotes an active exchange between the
sciences and general practice. Its own practical
research furthers the development of social
work methods.
14 See BAGFW 2002: 8-10.
15 BAGFW 2002: 91-93.
16 Priller/Zimmer/Anheier/Toepler/Salamon 1999: 106.
17 Betzelt 2001: 37.
18 Priller/Zimmer/Anheier/Toepler/Salamon 1999: 106; to the research of voluntary welfare associations
in Germany see: Schmidt 1996: 39-57, and to a comparison of voluntary welfare configurations in
Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Sweden: Schmidt 1996: 105-151.
19 Anheier/Salamon 1993: 10-15; Anheier/Priller/Seidel/Zimmer 1997: 17; Salamon/Anheier 1999: 3.
20 Backer/Naegele/Bispinck/Hofemann/Neubauer 2007, Bd. 2: 535-536.
More intriguing information
1. The problem of anglophone squint2. Public-private sector pay differentials in a devolved Scotland
3. Rent-Seeking in Noxious Weed Regulations: Evidence from US States
4. The Making of Cultural Policy: A European Perspective
5. The name is absent
6. Fiscal Reform and Monetary Union in West Africa
7. Cancer-related electronic support groups as navigation-aids: Overcoming geographic barriers
8. Modelling the health related benefits of environmental policies - a CGE analysis for the eu countries with gem-e3
9. An Interview with Thomas J. Sargent
10. Federal Tax-Transfer Policy and Intergovernmental Pre-Commitment