Name of student: Eduardo E. VillaStudent number: 2011-82417

Question: How does the author- Dr. Carino classify the voluntary sector and what justification has been made in the article to do so?

The Nonprofit sector, or the space between the state and the market (Carino 2001), along with its counterpart nomenclatures: civil society, nongovernmental organizations, independent peoples organizations and non-stock corporations, though may differ in its purpose of existence, goals and visions, types of membership, the people they represent as well as their advocacies, be it an agent of change and/or as communication channels to the state, share only one quintessential quality that unites them altogether: serving the public and societal interests at its core. The exponential and phenomenal growth of the sector, though its presence can be traced back in as early as the 16th century during the Spanish regime and continue to grow and survive even during the tumultuous period of the Marcos regime, where some had to go underground to prevent scrutiny and censorship, its presence and remarkable growth as mentioned, began to sprout during the democratization period in the 1980s. As per the article of Dr. Carino (2001), as of October 1996, the SEC has registered as many as 95,000 registered non-stock corporation which obviously should have a significant increment by now. From a small but recognizable community organizations, i.e village homeowner associations and organizations of tricycle drivers in the communities, to a more complex organizations that are national in scope, have shaped not only the course of the growth of the sector itself, but the nations history as well. Thus both the state and the market have recognized its contributions not only on its philanthropic and humanitarian purposes but more importantly, in its role in the democratization processes that is achieved through offering of oneself or volunteering on others behalf for a public cause. The author, Dr. Carino, in her paper, classify the Voluntary Sector into three: first, according to its Historical-Ideological classification; second, Structural Classification and lastly, Functional Classification (ibid). Since the sector, as mentioned earlier, is growing and continue to grow in numbers, the need to classify, organize, typify as to what genus it belongs to (at least with respect to the scope and limitations of the study presented), the author, effectively limits its jurisdiction into classifying the voluntary sector only in the aforementioned categories. To effectively come out with these classifications, Dr. Carino tries to elucidate and shed light on the definition of the sector itself first. This is very crucial because the sectors qualities, scope, reach, and composition is already eclectic and multi-dimensional by nature to begin with. As stated, based on the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Projects structural-operational definition, an organization has to meet the five criteria to be considered part of the nonprofit sector (ibid) and these are: organized, private, self-governing, nonprofit-distributing, and voluntary. From the criteria presented, two issues may be identified in relation to the characteristic as private and nonprofit distributing. While the term private as clearly defined in the paper as institutionally separate from government (ibid) makes the separation of the two societal spheres between the state and the voluntary sector blurred and overlapping as there are nonprofit organizations that are either heavily funded by the government or created by the government itself as if its survival solely depends on the presence or absence of the state intervention. Secondly, the nonprofit distributing as another criteria is somehow contradicting with those belonging to Nongovernmental and Peoples Organizations such as the cooperatives wherein some of the profits are shared and go toward its members as well. Also, some of the lead advocacy representatives of some NGOs are receiving high stipend or honorarium in response to the services rendered that mixed up with the motivation as purely psyche or philanthropic as should be and not pecuniary as a drive to represent the voiceless and powerless amidst perceived rights that are ignored and bypassed. While there are accepted limitations and acceptable weaknesses in putting the demarcation line on what constitute an organization belonging to the NPO sector, the focus should be more on the impact to its members and the societys goals and visions as a whole: sustainable and equitable human development for all.Elaborating the three aforementioned classifications, the first type would be the sectors Historical-Ideological classification. Institutional origins include the three domains of the society state, market and civil society (ibid). From the state, NGO is classified as authentic, as created by persons or bodies other than the government and the auxiliary as formed by the government itself (Ibid). As mentioned prior, this formation has caused some controversy in the proper delineation of what constitute a nonprofit classification should the John Hopkins working papers be used as the sole basis. However, three points must be considered to accept this fusion. First, historical data showed that even during the American period, these nonprofit organizations, most especially those focusing on charitable and welfare advocacies were highly subsidized by the government (ibid) as if their survival is state-dependent. Second, the performance of those in the auxiliary type have as well managed to perform both as effective delivery system or even as agents of change (Legaspi 1990 and Gaffud 1995 as cite in Carino 2001) and lastly it has been asserted that civil society covers all institutions and group and even include the bureaucracy, the legislature and politicians. (Doronila in Ferrer 1997 as cited in Carino 2001). From the market-domain origin include business-initiated organizations, i.e Makati Business Club, that serve its members specific goals and missions that may cover spiritual, financial, physical, and even emotional aspects of their lives. And lastly, from the civil society domain which include church organizations and traditional welfare associations of the Roman Catholic Church such as orphanages, Knights of Columbus, UST and San Juan de Dios Hospital (ibid).On the other hand, the Ideological classification of the Nonprofit Sector defines not only their alternative vision but also their responses to issues (Ferrer 1997, cited in Carino 2001 p.20). Thus, from the different historical epoch our country has set in, organizations have been formed either as anti-governmental or as critics of the state whenever abuse of power or suppression of human rights are perceived to dominate, and on the lighter side, organizations that are built for developmental, philanthropic and welfare purposes. Thus, the author provided the three Classifications of NGOs based on institutional origin and ideological orientation:

LEANING TOWARDS THE LEFT(SOCDEMS/NATDEMS)NEUTRALLEANING TOWARDS THE RIGHT

NATDEMS: 1.Katiputan ng mga Anak ng Pawis (1930)2. Communist Party of the Philippines (1930)3. Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO)3. Phillippine Reconstruction Movement (PRRM)4. 19th Century Propaganda Movement.5. Militant Katipunan

SOCDEMS:

1.Catholic Action2. Society of Jesus4.NASSA (Catholic)5. Commission on Development Social Concerns (Protestant)6. Philippine Business for Social Progress.7. Makati Business Club

Combined as DJANGOS (NATDEMS + SOCDEMS)

1. Traditional welfare organizations ie. Orphanages, Knights of Columbus, UST, San Juan De Dios Jospital)

2. Those involved in the disaster management and the promotion of information and other innovation

3. Most socio-civic organizations

1.Second Propaganda Movement

2. Philippine Business for Social Progress Foundation (FBSP) *could also be on the left

3. Groups responsible for the threats of coups d etat

4. Economic society of Friends of the Country (1781)

The Structural Classification on the other hand are also distinguished by the way they are organized which range from bureaucracies to associations (ibid). The bureaucracy include the traditional nonprofit institutions such as schools, hospitals, corporate foundations and large traditional welfare organizations like the Philippine National Red Cross. On the other hand, the associations are run voluntarily by the members themselves which include peoples organizations and primary-level cooperatives (ibid).Lastly, the Functional Classification (ibid) by which the government has used sectoral concerns as a means of classifying NPOS which are as follows:1. The Corporation Code of 1905 2. The BIR3. NEDA4. The International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC)5. International Classification of Non-Profit Organizations (ICNPO)

In my personal assessment, the role of the Voluntary sector, whether it is studied in reference to the state, market and the civil society is very much alive and empowering since the time immemorial, (from pre and post colonization to post-independence, to the current democratization epoch we are in) bringing the best in people and the society in the achievement of a just, equitable, sustainable, inclusive and more developed society that is governed by the people, of the people and for the people. The classifications, segmentation and the organization of the voluntary sector made by the author can be an aid in the policy making bodies to have its focus on those organizations promoting transparency and accountability that is in synched with the government platforms re-awakened sense of right and wrong, through the living examples of our highest leaders (http://rcm.i.ph). On the other hand, for the market and business groups that responsibly provide products and services that are of highest quality at a very competitive price broadening its market reach, thus being able to share its profits not only with the employees themselves but to those whom they are responsible with- the consumers, the government and the environment all together. And lastly, the civil society that is not bounded by structures and conventions, scope and limitations, but that is, all-inclusive. For us, as human beings, are created and inclined to do and choose what is good- for ourselves, our society and the nation as a whole. And that is the essence of the Filipino core value as pakikipagkapwa (ibid) which is the essence of the Civil Society.

References:

Carino, Ledivina V. and the PNSP Project Staff. Volunteering in Cross-National Perspective: Evidence From 24 Countries. Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit sector Project, no. 39. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, 2001.

http://rcm.i.ph/blogs/rcm/?p=10