The Role of Governmental Decision Makers in Hybridization

REFERENCES

• Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE). 2011. Proof of Delivery? A Review of the Role of Co-Operatives and Mutuals in Local Public Service Provision. Manchester, UK: APSE.
   Google Scholar
• Billis, D. ed. 2010. Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector: Challenges for Practice, Theory and Policy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Brandsen, T.; W. Van de Donk; and K. Putters. 2005. “Griffins or Chameleons? Hybridity as a Permanent and Inevitable Characteristic of the Third Sector.” International Journal of Public Administration 28(9–10): 749–765.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, T. 2005. “Accounting for Enron: Shareholder Value and Shareholder Interests.” Corporate Governance 13(5): 598–612.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornforth, C. 2004. “The Governance of Cooperatives and Mutual Associations: A Paradox Perspective.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 75(1): 11–32.
   Google Scholar
• Crane, A. 2010. “From Governance to Governance: On Blurring Boundaries.” Journal of Business Ethics 94(1): 17–19.
   Google Scholar
• Dart, R. 2004. “The Legitimacy of Social Enterprise.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 14(4): 411–424.
   Google Scholar
• Darzi, L. 2008. High Quality Care for All: NHS Next Stage Review. Department of Health. London, UK: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health. 2010. Transforming Community Services: The Assurance and Approvals Process for PCT-Provided Community Services. Bradford, UK: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Diochon, M. 2010. “Governance, Entrepreneurship and Effectiveness: Exploring the Link.” Social Enterprise Journal 6(2): 93–109.
   Google Scholar
• Donaldson, L., and M. Preston. 1995. “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications.” Academy of Management Review 20(1): 85–91.
   Google Scholar
• Evers, A. 2005. “Mixed Welfare Systems and Hybrid Organizations: Changes in the Governance and Provision of Social Services.” International Journal of Public Administration 28(9/10): 737–748.
   Google Scholar
• Huybrechts, B. 2010. “The Governance of Fair Trade Social Enterprises in Belgium.” Social Enterprise Journal 6(2): 110–124.
   Google Scholar
• Iecovich, E. 2005. “The Profile of Board Membership in Israeli Voluntary Organizations.” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 16(2): 161–180.
   Google Scholar
• Joldersma, C., and V. Winter. 2002. “Strategic Management in Hybrid Organizations.” Public Management Review 4(1): 83–99.
   Google Scholar
• Letza, S.; X. Sun; and J. Kirkbride. 2004. “Shareholding versus Stakeholding: A Critical Review of Corporate Governance.” Corporate Governance 12(3): 242–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loughlin, J. 2009. “The ‘Hybrid’ State: Reconfiguring Territorial Governance in Western Europe.” Perspectives on European Politics and Society 10(1): 51–68.
   Google Scholar
• Low, C. 2006. “A Framework for the Governance of Social Enterprise.” International Journal of Social Economics 33(5/6): 376–385.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, C.; J. Kirkbride; and D. Bryde. 2007. “From Stakeholders to Institutions: The Changing Face of Social Enterprise Governance Theory.” Management Decision 45(2): 284–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLellan, A. 2010. “Elected PCT Boards—We’re Not Ready.” Health Service Journal. Available at http://www.hsj.co.uk/comment/leader/elected-pct-boards-were-not-ready/5014104.article#.VRrhZ44mvyE.
   Google Scholar
• Miller-Millesen, J.L. 2003. “Understanding the Behavior of Nonprofit Boards of Directors: A Theory-based Approach.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 32(4): 521–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monks, R., and N. Minow. 1995. Corporate Governance. Blackwell, UK: Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Mullins, D.; D. Czischke; and G. van Bortel. 2012. “Exploring the Meaning of Hybridity and Social Enterprise in Housing Organizations.” Housing Studies 27(4): 405–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muth, M., and L. Donaldson. 1998. “Stewardship Theory and Board Structure: A Contingency Approach.” Corporate Governance 6(1): 5–28.
   Google Scholar
• NHS Institute for Innovation, and Improvement. 2011. “ Introduction to Board Development.” Available at http://www.institute.nhs.uk/building_capability/general/introduction_to_board_level_development.html.
   Google Scholar
• Office for Public Management (OPM). 2010. Shared Ownership in Practice: Findings from Case Studies of Employee and Community Ownership of Public Services. London, UK: OPM.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, L. 2007. “Internal Governance in the Nonprofit Boardroom: A Participant Observer Study.” Corporate Governance 15(5): 923–934.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, P., and I. Lyne. 2008. “Social Enterprise and the Measurement of Social Value: Methodological Issues with the Calculation and Application of the Social Return on Investment.” Education, Knowledge and Economy 2(3): 223–238.
   Google Scholar
• Samra-Fredericks, D. 2000. “Doing Boards-in-Action-Research: An Ethnographic Approach for the Capture and Analysis of Directors’ and Senior Managers’ Interactive Routines.” Corporate Governance 8(3): 244–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverman, D. 2000. “Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook.” London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Skelcher, C. 2004. Hybrids: Implications of New Corporate Forms for Public Service Performance. Edinburgh: British Academy of Management Conference.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, S.R. 2010. “Hybridization and Nonprofit Organizations: The Governance Challenge.” Policy and Society 29(3): 219–229.
   Google Scholar
• Spear, R.; C. Cornforth; and M. Aiken. 2009. “The Governance Challenges of Social Enterprises: Evidence from a UK Empirical Study.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 80(2): 247–273.
   Google Scholar
• Teasdale, S. 2012. “Negotiating Tensions: How Do Social Enterprises in the Homelessness Field Balance Social and Commercial Considerations?” Housing Studies 27(4): 514–532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar