Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland - VMI

Ce n t e r f o r Civil So C i e t y St u d i e S 

at the Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies 

Co m pa r at i v e No N p r o f i t Se C t o r pr o j e C t 

Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: 

Switzerland 

by 

Prof. Dr. Michael Nollert 

Prof. Dr. Monica Budowski

WORKING PAPERS 

The Johns Hopkins Comparative 

Nonprofit Sector Project 

Lester M. Salamon, Director 

GOVERNMENT POLICY AND THE 

NONPROFIT SECTOR: 

SWITZERLAND 

by 

Prof. Dr. Michael Nollert 

and 

Prof. Dr. Monica Budowski 

Working Paper Number 48 

September 2009

The CNP Project in Switzerland 

Research team: 

Prof. Dr. Bernd Helmig, VMI – University of Fribourg, University of Mannheim (Germany) 

lic. rer. pol. Christoph Bärlocher, VMI – University of Fribourg 

Prof. Dr. Markus Gmür, VMI – University of Fribourg 

Dr. Hans Lichtsteiner, VMI – University of Fribourg 

Prof. Dr. Robert Purtschert, VMI – University of Fribourg 

Ass.‐Prof. Dr. Georg von Schnurbein, University of Basel 

lic. rer. pol. Martin Blickenstorfer, VMI – University of Fribourg 

BA in soc. sc. Stefan Bächtold, VMI – University of Fribourg 

Prof. Dr. Monica Budowski, University of Fribourg 

Prof. Dr. Michael Nollert, University of Fribourg 

Prof. Dr. Dominique Jakob, University of Zurich 

Dr. Bernard Degen, University of Basel 

Prof. Dr. Josef Mooser, University of Basel 

Switzerland Advisory Committee: 

Dr. Martina Ziegerer, ZEWO Foundation, CEO 

Dr. h.c. Franz Marty, Raiffeisen group, President of the advisory board 

Prof. Dr. Ernst Buschor, Bertelsmann Foundation, Chairman of the board of trustees 

lic. sc. écon. Philippe Küttel, Swiss Federal Statistic Office, Director of the Section National Accounts 

Prof. h.c. Marco Blatter, Swiss Olympic Association, Former CEO 

Dr. Herbert Ammann, Schweizerische Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft, CEO 

Dr. Beat von Wartburg, SwissFoundations, President 

Dr. h.c. Jürg Krummenacher, Caritas Switzerland , Former Director 

The CNP Project in Switzerland was funded by: 

GEBERT RÜF STIFTUNG, Basel 

Ecoscientia Stiftung, Vaduz 

ISBN 1‐886333‐62‐9 

© The Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society Studies, 2009 

All rights reserved. 

Center for Civil Society Studies 

Institute for Policy Studies 

The Johns Hopkins University 

3400 N. Charles Street 

Baltimore, Maryland 21218‐2688 

USA 

Verbandsmanagement Institut (VMI) 

Universität Fribourg 

Postfach 1559 

1701 Fribourg 

0041(0)26 – 300 84 00 

0041(0)26 – 300 97 55 

This publication is available for download at www.ccss.jhu.edu. 

Suggested form of citation 

Michael Nollert and Monica Budowski. “Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland.” Working Papers of the 

Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, No. 48. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, 

2009.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PREFACE i 

ABBREVIATIONS ii 

I. INTRODUCTION 1 

II. THE SWISS POLITICAL CONTEXT 2 

a) Overall Posture of the Government 2 

1. General attitude of the government towards nonprofit organizations 2 

2. Specific Government Policy Towards Nonprofit Organizations 3 

3. The Philosophy and Principles Behind Swiss Policy 4 

4. Differences Among Parties in Their Attitudes Toward the NPO Sector 5 

b) Type and Extent of Governmental Support 6 

1. Type of Governmental Support of the Sector 6 

2. Extent of Governmental Support 7 

3. Ideas Behind Governmental Funding 8 

c) Changes in Position of the Federal Government 9 

1. Shifts in Philosophy 9 

2. Changes in Level and Type of Support 9 

3. Incentives for the Formation and Operation of Organizations 10 

4. New Restrictions 10 

d) Overall Position of Local Governing Bodies 12 

e) Local Attitudes Towards Supra‐National Organizations 12 

III. CHARACTERISTICS OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR POLITICAL IMPORTANCE 13 

a) Role of Nonprofit Organizations for Politics and Policies 14 

b) The Role of Umbrella Groups on Policy Issues 17 

c) Involvement of Swiss Nonprofit Organizations in International or Regional Umbrella Groups 18 

III. CURRENT ISSUES 19 

a) Restructuring of Swiss Politics 20 

b) Cooperation with Commercial Organizations 21 

c) State Financial Support 22 

d) Professionalization 22 

e) Legal Framework 23 

V. SUMMARY 24 

VII. REFERENCES 25 

APPENDIX 1: Consulted Experts 27 

APPENDIX 1: Interview Questions 28 

i


Wyman Park Building / 3400 North Charles Street / Baltimore, MD 21218‐2688 

410‐516‐5463 / FAX 410‐516‐7818 / E‐mail: ccss@jhu.edu 


Lester M. Salamon 

Director 

Preface 

This is one in a series of working papers produced under the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit 

Sector Project (CNP), a collaborative effort by scholars around the world to understand the scope, structure, 

financing, and role of the nonprofit sector using a common framework and approach. Begun in 1991 in 13 

countries, the project continues to expand, currently encompassing more than 40 countries. 

The working papers provide a vehicle for the initial dissemination of the CNP work to an international 

audience of scholars, practitioners, and policy analysts interested in the social and economic role played by 

nonprofit organizations in different countries, and in the comparative analysis of these important, but often 

neglected, institutions. 

Working papers are intermediary products, and they are released in the interest of timely distribution of 

project results to stimulate scholarly discussion and inform policy debates. A full list of these papers is provided 

inside the back cover. 

The production of these Working Papers owes much to the devoted efforts of our project staff. The 

present paper benefited greatly from the contributions of Senior Research Associate Wojciech Sokolowski and the 

editorial work of CNP Project Coordinator Megan Haddock and Project Assistant Chelsea Newhouse. On behalf 

of the project’s core staff, I also want to express our deep gratitude to our project colleagues around the world and 

to the many sponsors of the project listed at the end of this paper. 

The views and opinions expressed in these papers are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

represent the views or opinions of the institutions with which they are affiliated, the Johns Hopkins University, its 

Institute for Policy Studies and Center for Civil Society Studies, or any of their officers or supporters, or the 

series’ editors. 

We are delighted to be able to make the early results of this project available in this form and welcome 

comments and inquiries either about this paper or the project as a whole. 

ii 

Lester M. Salamon 

Project Director

ABBREVIATIONS 

ASM: Arbeitgeberverband schweizerischer Metall‐ und Maschinenindustrieller 

BFS: Bundesamt für Statistik 

BV: Bundesverfassung 

CVP: Christlichdemokratische Volkspartei 

EFD: Eidgenössisches Finanzdepartement 

E.U.: European Union 

FDHA: Federal Department of Home Affairs 

FDP: Freisinnig‐Demokratische Partei 

FIFA: Fédération Internationale de Football Association 

KPGH: Konferenz der Präsidentinnen und Präsidenten der grossen Hilfswerke der Schweiz 

NPO: Nonprofit Organization 

SGF: Dachverband Schweizerischer Gemeinnütziger Frauen 

SGG: Schweizerische Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft 

SMUV: Schweizerischer Metall‐ und Uhrenarbeiterverband 

SPS: Sozialdemokratische Partei der Schweiz 

SVP: Schweizerische Volkspartei 

UEFA: Union of European Football Associations 

VAT: Value‐added Tax 

ZEWO: Schweizerische Fachstelle für gemeinnützige, Spenden sammelnde Organisationen 

iii

I. INTRODUCTION 

Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland 

Dr. Michael Nollert 1 

Dr. Monica Budowski 2 

This paper addresses the political context for nonprofit organizations (NPOs) in Switzerland. The term “NPO” as 

used in this article refers to trusteeship organizations that exist alongside state and commercially run 

organizations. The term “civil society organization” is used more commonly in other countries than in 

Switzerland where the term NPO is more frequently used. 3 These NPOs provide goods and/or services to their 

members or to third parties, and according to surveys by the Swiss Federal Statistical Office and the Swiss 

Society of Public Utility, 4 engage approximately one quarter of Switzerland’s 7.7 million inhabitants (2009), who 

voluntarily participate in NPOs (Nollert and Huser 2007, Ammann et al. 2007). 

In the Swiss nonprofit sector three legal entities have been established: associations, co‐operatives, and 

foundations. The following offers a brief description of their importance and function in Switzerland. 

Associations are by far the most important legal entities, numbering more than 100,000. Their primary function 

is to serve their members, and they most commonly operate in the sporting, cultural and political arenas. 

Foundations come second in importance, counting more than 25,000. In contrast to associations, they do not 

take direct action themselves, but rather provide financing for public welfare groups (Egger et al. 2006). Nearly 

half are unregistered personal foundations. There are also approximately 12,000 charitable foundations (NPOs 

in the narrowest sense) and each year a further 200‐300 new foundations are established. 

There are nearly 15,000 co‐operatives in Switzerland. Agricultural co‐operatives, wholesale co‐operatives (e.g. 

Migros, Coop), and mutual savings banks and loan societies (e.g. Raiffeisen) have played an important role in 

Swiss economic history and politics (Purtschert 2005). However, according to Helmig, Bärlocher and von 

Schnurbein (2009) they are not a part of the Swiss nonprofit sector as defined by the Johns Hopkins Comparative 

Nonprofit Sector Project because they distribute profit to their members. 

Of slightly less importance are incorporated companies with charitable status, and religious organizations. 

Among these, publicly and legally recognized churches need to be distinguished from free churches. The former 

1 

Dr. Michael Nollert is Associate Professor at the Section of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work in the Department of Social Sciences 

at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland). 

2 

Dr. Monica Budowski is Full Professor at the Section of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work in the Department of Social Sciences at 

the University of Fribourg (Switzerland). 

3 

The term gemeinnützige Gesellschaft i.e. “society of public utility” covers a wide spectrum, primarily because the activities of and the 

contributions to these organizations are subject to tax privileges. 

4 

Schweizerische Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft, SGG 

1

Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland 

are characterized by a strong link to the state through a long list of rights and responsibilities (Cattacin et al. 

2003). As a result of this relationship with the state, legally recognized churches are not considered to be NPOs 

according to the Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project (CNP), whereas free churches are included. 

The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section II addresses the Swiss political context with its 

particularities of a confederation and of direct democratic instruments that impinge upon the socio‐political 

environment for nonprofit organizations. Section III discusses the characteristics of nonprofit organizations and 

their influence on politics and policies. Current issues relevant for nonprofit organizations according to 

interviews with experts in the field are presented in Section IV. Finally, a brief summary of nonprofit 

organizations is offered in Section V. 

II. THE SWISS POLITICAL CONTEXT 

In this section we discuss the overall posture of the Swiss Government towards the nonprofit sector. We specify 

where this has led to specific policy changes. We further present and discuss the extent and the form of the 

governmental support for nonprofit organizations in general, on the local level and with respect to supra‐ 

national organizations, depict ideas underpinning the history of this specific relationship between the 

government and the NPOs, and look at the attitudes various political parties have towards the NPO sector. 

a) Overall Posture of the Government 

1. General attitude of the government towards nonprofit organizations 

Switzerland has been described as a “Confederation” (Confoederatio Helvetica) since the end of its first attempt 

to found a unitary state, the Helvetic Republic in 1802, which shows that the government has adopted a 

generally positive stance toward the nonprofit sector. This is so because the old Swiss confederation was 

originally created as an alliance among the sovereign valley communities of the central Alps, and after its 

constitution in 1848 the Swiss state continued to assume that all social problems with the exception of defense, 

foreign affairs and the common currency should be managed by sovereign actors such as municipalities, 

cantons, families and commercial or nonprofit companies. Indeed, co‐operative associations played an 

important role even before the Federal state was founded in 1848. Organizations such as the Forest and Alp Co‐ 

operatives 5 recall traditions that are centuries old in organizing social relationships and their shared 

environments. 

The idea of “self‐help” developed during the industrial revolution, particularly in agricultural and wholesale co‐ 

operatives and in mutual savings banks and loan societies. NPOs later gained national importance by organizing 

in umbrella groups, unions and political parties, and the state began to rely on the many public services provided 

by these NPOs. This mutual dependency became institutionalized as NPOs and the government collectively 

engaged in the process of drafting and implementing political measures and coordinating economic processes 

(Wagner 1999, 2002). 

5 Wald‐ und Alpenkorporationen 

2


Despite the state’s reliance on NPOs, the Swiss state’s resources for social spending are limited (as measured by 

the public spending ratio), which is undoubtedly the result of the powerful influence exerted by private interest 

associations (other than charitable) and by the Liberal‐Democratic Party (FDP) 6 . This might also explain why the 

government looks kindly upon nonprofit organizations that carry out charitable or relief tasks without or with 

scant state support. The strong network of varied relationships between politics and the nonprofit sector is 

further encouraged by the fact that many members of Swiss Parliament and former executive committee 

members hold mandates on boards of nonprofit organizations. 

Although the Swiss Government looks favorably on the NPO sector and relies on it to provide many services, it 

takes a hands‐off approach and does not pursue explicit policies in favor of nonprofit organizations. The June 

2000 parliamentary stance on volunteer organizations that led to a request to the Federal Council for a 

comprehensive study of voluntary and honorary activity in Switzerland provides a good example of this 

approach. In its response, the Federal Council acknowledged the functions of volunteer work and welcomed the 

commission of a report. But when asked about the report on July 18, 2001 during the Federal Council’s question 

time by the National councilor from Tessin, Chiara Simoneschi, the Federal Council responded it did not have 

resources available to commission such a report. The Swiss Federal Statistical Office later funded and completed 

the requested report in the end with its own means (BFS 2004). 

2. Specific Government Policy Towards Nonprofit Organizations 

As described above, though the Swiss government’s relationship towards NPOs has been more implicit and 

incoherent than explicit, it appreciates the programs and services that NPOs deliver and it has always been 

interested in good relations with the NPO sector. The state has been reluctant to regulate this sector because it 

considers the nonprofit sector an important component of society with a high level of activity that is anchored 

explicitly in independence from the state. Hence, unlike countries such as France or Germany, the autonomy of 

the nonprofit sector has generally not been questioned and therefore appears to require no special protection 

(Ermatinger 1936). 

This does vary somewhat as each department of the government takes its own approach towards NPOs. 

Consequently, various relationships between government and NPOs exist within and among fields. Overall, 

however, the nonprofit sector is considered by the state to be a resource and source of knowledge and 

expertise that can be drawn upon when governmental agencies are overcharged or lack resources. The 

relationship has led the “small state” Swiss government to entrust many public services to private social actors 

from the outset. This is evidenced by the role professional federations play in vocational training, the presence 

of public relief organizations in dealing with social problems, and the militia institution 7 requiring citizens to get 

involved in public services (e.g. school janitorial service, fire brigade) on an honorary basis (Beobachter 2000b). 

In recent years, however, some critical voices have challenged this partnership between government and NPOs 

by arguing that many NPOs function as quasi‐public agencies and are subsidized by the state (see section II.c). 

6 Freisinnig‐Demokratische Partei (FDP) 

7 Milizwesen 

3


The importance and political influence of the NPO sector in Swiss politics is tied to the general weakness of the 

state bureaucracy. One indication of the weakness of the state bureaucracy is that most members of Parliament 

are strongly affiliated with interest groups (supervisory boards of enterprises, employers’ organizations, trade 

unions). A second indication is that public servants and members of the Parliament often depend on external 

expertise provided by interest groups. A further indication is that the comparatively few strikes, high 

protectoral tariffs, and large agricultural subsidies are due in particular to special interest politics of associations 

and not to activities of public authorities. 

The low level of conflict amongst the workforce can be traced back to the so‐called “peace agreement” of 1937 

in the Swiss metalwork and machine industry. Against the background of threatening fascist Axis powers, the 

National Council and the president of the Swiss Metalwork and Watch Industry Workers Federation (SMUV) 8 , 

Konrad Ilg, proposed to the president of the Federation of Swiss Metalwork and Machine Industrialists (ASM) 9 

abstention from militant action under certain conditions. One condition was that central disputes be evaluated 

and resolved by a neutral arbitration board according to a “good faith” effort (Humbel 1987). This model of 

social partnership became the collective labor agreement 10 , a sector‐by‐sector agreement between trade unions 

and employers regarding working conditions, pay and hours. This agreement continued after the war and 

became codified in the 1974 collective labor agreement (Armingeon et al., 2000, Fluder et al., 1991, 1996). 

The NPOs’ strong influence is further institutionalized in some of the instruments of direct democracy: the 

referendum, the initiative, as well as the consultation process (see section III.a and Linder 1999). If a qualified 

number of citizens disagree with proposed legislation, Swiss law requires it to be subject to a referendum. 

Consequently legislators try to incorporate as many NPOs as possible at the consultation stage of policy‐making 

in order to avoid this happening too frequently (see section III.a). NPOs can also force votes on extra‐ 

parliamentary proposals via initiatives. 

3. The Philosophy and Principles Behind Swiss Policy 

The Swiss government’s policy with regard to nonprofit organizations is fundamentally based on the subsidiarity 

principle (Latin: subsidum = assistance). Article 5a of the Federal Constitution explicitly states: “The principle of 

subsidiarity is to be observed in the allocation and implementation of public functions.” According to this 

principle the state should only carry out activities and resolve problems when no other social actor subordinate 

to the Swiss Government can be found to take responsibility, such as municipalities, cantons, families and 

commercial or nonprofit companies. 

In Switzerland the subsidiarity principle has two philosophical origins; these are evident in the differences 

between the manifestos of the Liberal and Catholic parties. The liberal subsidiarity principle supports the 

assumption that individuals are responsible for their own lives and their own protection against risk. The state 

therefore interferes only when the individual’s resources and those of its primary social networks are 

insufficient. 

8 

Schweizerischer Metall‐ und Uhrenarbeiterverband 

9 

Arbeitgeberverband schweizerischer Maschinen‐ und Metallindustrieller 

10 

Der Gesamtarbeitsvertrag, GAV 

4


The Catholic subsidiarity principle developed in Switzerland in the second half of the 19 th century; its origins date 

back to the search for solutions to the “social question”. The 19 th century Papal Social Encyclicals 11 advocated a 

third way forward between capitalism and state socialism that built on the potential of families and workers to 

help and organize themselves and on the activities of charities (Caritas 2002) to solve the problem of social 

integration. 

Unlike the liberal approach which limits governmental support to that of last resort (the ultimate social safety 

net), the Catholic view emphasizes State support of its citizens in their efforts to organize themselves, and to 

protect their social and employment rights. 

4. Differences Among Parties in Their Attitudes Toward the NPO Sector 

In general, four political parties have influenced Swiss politics for many years: the Liberal‐Democratic Party 

(FDP) 12 , the Christian Democratic People’s Party (CVP) 13 , the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) 14 , and the Social 

Democratic Party (SPS) 15 . The political stances of these four parties vary widely, but most political parties have 

positive attitudes towards the nonprofit sector. The Liberal‐Democratic Party (FDP) considers the nonprofit 

sector to be an important antithesis to the state and consequently supports it in theory. Their position has 

become extreme when it comes to social issues: many of the party’s representatives hope that NPOs and their 

volunteers will assume responsibility for the traditional social services provided by the state. The Christian 

Democratic People’s Party (CVP), on the other hand, views it as an area of common public interest, solidarity, 

and charity. 

The moderate‐left Social Democratic Party (SPS) does not share or appreciate the FDP’s posture. They fear that 

the delegation of traditional public services carried out with governmental support to NPOs and other actors 

without governmental support will erode professionalism in the nonprofit and social sectors. Although the 

Social Democratic Party in general advocates state‐run or state‐led problem‐solving, it nonetheless considers the 

nonprofit sector a bastion of practiced solidarity and accordingly supports the sector in the political arena. 

The only party with a critical attitude towards the nonprofit sector is the conservative Swiss People’s Party (SVP). 

Many party representatives consider several nonprofit organizations unnecessary. They are particularly critical 

of the environmental associations, which they believe misuse the Federation Complaint Right 16 (see section III.a) 

to block economically sound construction projects. In the last few years the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) has 

received support from the Liberal‐Democratic Party (FDP) to start an initiative to cancel the Federation 

Complaint Right. Targeting environmental associations and development agencies, the SVP members of 

Parliament requested that the Federal Council obliges NPOs receiving substantial financing from public 

institutions to disclose the sources and the amount of contributions received from the state or from major 

11 Sozialenzyklika 

12 Freisinnig‐Demokratische Partei (FDP) 

13 Christlichdemokratische Volkspartei (CVP) 

14 Schweizerische Volkspartei (SVP) 

15 Sozialdemokratische Partei der Schweiz (SPS) 

16 Verbandsbeschwerderecht 

5


contributors in their balance sheet and to present a statement of account on how these contributions were 

used. 

As a result of such debates over the past decade, many representatives of relief organizations have associated 

the rise of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) with a decreased willingness of the state to support NPOs financially 

(Kriesi 2005). 

There are, however, a few exceptions to the Swiss People’s Party’s (SVP) posture, such as NPOs in the sports or 

the agricultural sector. Since many SVP members are actively engaged in sport clubs and associations, they 

argue that it is primarily the state that should finance the security measures of events like the UEFA European 

football championship 2008. The Swiss People’s Party’s is also strongly represented in rural NPOs. 

b) Type and Extent of Governmental Support 

This section presents the specific type and extent of governmental support as well as the basic ideas behind 

governmental funding. 

1. Type of Governmental Support of the Sector 

Because the subsidiarity principle is interpreted basically as a request to NPOs to assume their share of 

responsibility in Swiss society, the government eschews provision of extensive symbolic or regulatory support 

for NPOs at the federal, cantonal, and municipal levels. The Swiss government’s main methods of supporting 

NPOs are the creation of a incentivizing tax policy, discussed below in section II.c, and material support when 

entrusting NPOs with public services, such as care of the elderly and asylum seekers. When compared with 

private organizations (such as incorporated companies and limited liability companies), relief NPOs (most 

notably, associations, foundations, and co‐operatives) receive substantial tax benefits. In addition, ordinary 

taxpayers may deduct part of their donations to NPOs from their taxes. 

Many Swiss NPOs are supported financially by public funds. There are three types of such state support: (i) 

direct contributions that are not linked to provision of services, (ii) the provision of capital, and (iii) so‐called 

service agreements. The service agreement consists of a contract between the state and one or more NPOs, 

comparable to contracts with private companies in the service sector. Because direct contributions and the 

provision of capital are of minor importance in Switzerland we will focus on service agreements. 

Service agreements entrust NPOs with the provision of a defined public service. Examples of such agreements 

are contracts between the Central Office for Family Issues of the Federal Social Insurance Office (BSV) 17 and 

umbrella organizations in the care sector 18 to provide services to the elderly and handicapped or for matters of 

family policy 19 , contracts between the Federal Office of Culture 20 and NPOs in the arts sector, between the 

17 

Zentralstelle für Familienfragen im Bundesamt für Sozialversicherungen (BSV) 

18 

Dachverbände im Bereich der Alters‐ und Invalidenhilfe 

19 

Dachverbände im Bereich der Familienpolitik 

20 

Bundesamt für Kultur (BAK) 

6


Federal Office of Sports 21 and sport associations, or contracts by the Federal Agency for Development and 

Cooperation (SDC) 22 for missions abroad and international assignments. A good example of the willingness of 

the state to support NPOs by injection of capital is the NPO‐certifying foundation ZEWO (see section III.b); its 

start‐up capital was largely provided by the cantons. 

Another source of state support is the subsidizing of voluntary work by contributing funds to NPOs for 

investment in recruitment, initial training and further education, and providing partial compensation for 

volunteers. These subsidies are, however, rare and concentrate mainly on providing funds to finance training 

programs for leaders of Youth and Sports associations 23 and for sports for the elderly. 

The state’s positive stance on NPOs was apparent in its tacit (symbolic) support of the commission of a report on 

voluntary work in Switzerland in 2004. The report was financed and coordinated by an office subsidiary to the 

Swiss Federal Government: the Swiss Federal Statistical Office 24 . It provides a summary of volunteer work and 

includes a list of measures designed to promote volunteer work. The foreword of the report mentions that no 

new measures are presently to be expected as a result of state financial constraints. 

2. Extent of Governmental Support 

The increased recognition and importance of service agreements over the past few years has highlighted the 

relationship of support between the state and NPOs. Contracts between the government, cantons or 

municipalities and NPOs (or indeed commercial organizations) consist of the organization’s commitment to 

provide a public service remunerated by the public purse. A further form of such mutual support is the public‐ 

private partnership. This form of collaboration differs from a service agreement in that the exchange of services 

is not contractual. 

Until the 1990s the lack of data precluded a precise estimate of the level of monetary contribution assigned to 

these service agreements. In order to provide such evidence the first Subsidy Report was published in 1997 

allowing for the conclusion that the Swiss State is actually a transfer state regarding subsidies. This conclusion is 

supported by the Swiss Statistics for Subsidies 25 that confirms the allocation of considerable sums to such 

service agreements and that such subsidies account for more than half of the Federal budget. 

According to the 1997 Subsidy Report 26 (EFD 1997), social welfare, transport, agriculture, and nutrition each 

account for more than 10 percent of the subsidies in their fields and are therefore the largest beneficiaries. If 

the development of these various sectors is extrapolated over the period 1970‐1997, social welfare, an area 

where many NPOs are actively involved, may be receiving more than 50 percent (15 billion CHF) of all subsidies. 

However, it is worth noting that in 1997, 85 percent of all subsidies went to federally‐owned institutions (e.g. 

social insurances, railways, national roads) and only 8.2 percent to private organizations (6.8 percent went to 

21 

Bundesamt für Sport (BASPO) 

22 

Direktion für Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit (DEZA) 

23 

Jugend und Sport 

24 

Bundesamt für Statistik 

25 

Schweizerische Subventionsstatistik 

26 

Subventionsbericht 

7


other actors). According to the 2008 Subsidy Report (EFD 2008) the subsidies’ share of the Federal 

government’s spending rose from 40 to 58 percent (about 30 billion CHF) from 1970 to 2005. In 2006 most of 

the subsidies were spent for social welfare (45 percent), traffic (18 percent), research and education (15 

percent), and agriculture and nutrition (12 percent). 

The Federal subsidy database provides information about the recipients, purpose, type, and amount of support 

given. For example, more than 50 million CHF was given to training programs that the Youth and Sport 

association provides to other associations each year. More than 3 million CHF was allocated to professional arts 

organizations and social actors with national responsibilities in this sector and to other national umbrella 

organizations. Approximately 1.5 million CHF went to family associations whose functions were coordination, 

information on and development of quality standards etc.; charity and relief organizations received more than 

1.5 million CHF as lump‐sum payments for their assistance in hearing asylum claims; more than 1.5 million was 

contributed to support coverage of the administrative costs of Swiss Refugee Support 27 ; nearly 14 million CHF 

was directed to programs implemented to assist and improve the social integration of foreign nationals as well 

as to the creation of structures promoting social integration; more than 18 million CHF was invested in cantonal 

advisory services providing advice to farmers. 

3. Ideas Behind Governmental Funding 

Although there is no explicit policy of the Swiss government towards the NPOs, the previous sections 

nonetheless document the close and constructive cooperation between the state and NPOs. In many areas, 

NPOs assume responsibility for certain services on behalf of the state that in other countries government 

agencies would normally be responsible for and secure provision. It can therefore be maintained that the Swiss 

government – at least implicitly – considers the nonprofit sector to be an essential link within society between 

the people and government. It is also clear therefore that in the past the public authorities expressed their 

interest in and support for a healthy nonprofit sector by developing regulations that strengthen these 

organizations such as providing tax exemptions for NPOs or offering tax deductions for contributions to NPOs. 

However, as the next section shows, this interest and support for a healthy nonprofit sector has diminished 

substantially due to the philosophy of New Public Management. 

c) Changes in Position of the Federal Government 

The following section discusses the various changes that have taken place over time in Switzerland. The 

philosophy of New Public Management and harsh criticisms regarding efficiency and efficacy require NPOs to 

react, in particular, if they want to continue to receive public subsidies for the public services they deliver. Such 

changes have their repercussions on legislation. Despite claims to advantage organizations in terms of tax 

reductions, there are presently no explicit governmental encouragements for NPOs with the exception of 

international organizations and foundations. 

27 Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe 

8


1. Shifts in Philosophy 

As stated in the introduction, liberal attitudes are at the core of the Swiss constitution, and therefore the Swiss 

government attributes a major role to NPOs in terms of policy formulation and implementation, as well as in 

regulating economic processes and tackling social problems. Since the late 1990s, however, the partnership 

between the state and NPOs has been challenged by the economic climate. One challenge comes from the 

neoliberal economists, who argue that extensive market regulation in combination with raised levels of 

participation options for associations have resulted in “distribution coalitions” that were responsible for the lack 

of innovation in the post‐war period (Borner, Brunetti and Straubhaar 1990). 

Another challenge has come from the philosophy of New Public Management, which calls for a more efficient 

public‐private partnership. At the same time the partnership is challenged by questions as to whether subsidies 

for NPOs in the social sector and sector of development cooperation are necessary. Although radical 

suggestions, such as abolishing plebiscitary devices (initiatives or referendums, the Federation Complaint Right), 

or canceling subsidies for well‐known welfare and relief organizations are not acceptable to the majority, they 

point to an increasingly skeptical judgment promoted primarily by the Swiss People’s Party of the social and 

economic functionality of associations and environmental organizations. 

2. Changes in Level and Type of Support 

Over the past few years, the government’s position has changed in two respects: (i) state institutions are acting 

with increased caution when meting out financial support; (ii) NPOs are receiving greater regulatory support. 

Since Switzerland is federally organized it is important to stress that taxation in particular, can vary widely at the 

federal, cantonal, and municipal levels. The impact of this is that the Federal government, the cantons, and 

municipalities raise taxes in independent ways and thereby all have a certain amount of control over specific 

devices acknowledging or supporting the work of NPOs by means of tax deductions or acknowledgement of 

their contributions to society. 

In 2006 the Foundation and Fiscal Law for Nonprofit Organizations 28 in the Civil Code was revised and ensured 

that differences between cantons and municipalities were minimized in the medium‐term, and allowable 

deductions for donations from direct Federal taxes was increased from 10 percent to 20 percent as of January 

2006. The point of departure for this revision dates back to a parliamentary initiative. It assumed that revising 

the Foundations legislation would increase the propensity to provide nonprofit foundations with greater 

financial means. 

At the cantonal level the deductions have been continually revised, which increased and harmonized the overall 

level of tax deduction for natural persons. As of January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2007 respectively, twelve 

cantons increased their tax deductions in respect to donations to welfare and relief organizations to 20 percent 

(Solothurn, Obwalden, Appenzell Innerrhoden, Glarus, Nidwalden, St. Gallen, Schwyz, Uri, Vaud, Zug, and 

Luzern). Tax deductions of this sort have already been at this level for many years in three additional cantons 

(Aargau, Schaffhausen, and Zurich). The front‐runner is Basel‐Land with a 100 percent tax deduction in respect 

28 Stiftungs‐ und steuerliches Gemeinnützigkeitsrecht 

9


to donations made. The cantons of Berne and Grison (Graubünden) are currently revising their tax laws, both 

aiming at a 20 percent tax deduction for donations to welfare organizations. 

Presently, there are efforts to harmonize the level of deductible contributions to political parties across 

Switzerland to 10,000 CHF because, unlike in countries such as Germany, they do not receive any financial 

support from the state. The reason for the proposal is that in contrast to the Federal government, 15 cantons 

allow deductions for membership fees and donations. The state political commission of the Council of States, 29 

supported by the majority of cantons and all political parties, submitted such a proposal for consultation. 

Although Federal councilor Eveline Widmer‐Schlumpf argued that the proposal would undermine the objective 

of a more simple tax system, the Council of States eventually supported the proposal with 36 to 4 votes in 

September 2008. In their spring session in 2009 the National Council also approved of the proposal. 

In contrast to tax deductions regarding donations, all previous attempts to provide other tax advantages to 

volunteers have failed. This is due to the opposition of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), the Liberal‐Democratic 

Party (FDP), and elements of the Christian Democratic People’s Party (CVP) (e.g. as in 2004 in Zurich). 

Nonetheless, some cantons plan to allow volunteers to also deduct out‐of‐pocket expenses. In Zurich, a 

deduction of 1000 CHF from taxable income is legal since 2007. 

3. Incentives for the Formation and Operation of Organizations 

At the moment, the Swiss government does not offer any explicit encouragements for most NPOs similar to 

those offered to donors and volunteers, though there are some tax incentives offered to international 

organizations and foundations. Both categories profit from low taxation in Switzerland in all cantons; in addition 

foundations also profit from the inter‐cantonal tax competition. Indeed, despite political attempts to advantage 

organizations in terms of tax deductions, many NPOs are facing new restrictions as outlined in the next section. 

4. New Restrictions 

The state’s predominantly positive appraisal of NPOs has to date prevented any major legislative intervention. 

However, as mentioned above, there are political forces that would like to see the influence of associations 

limited. It is therefore quite possible that sooner or later restrictive proposals will come into force. The plan to 

abolish the Federation Complaint Right has been the subject of lively debate, for example. Some proponents in 

liberal circles (in particular from the Liberal Democratic Party (FDP)) have gone so far as to suggest constraining 

the constitutional rights provided by an initiative and referendum, which would considerably weaken the 

influence of associations. They claim that many associations misuse their influence in order to hinder economic 

progress, especially where the private sector is concerned. 

Interactions between public authorities and NPOs have been restricted in new ways recently, although none of 

these restrictions threaten the future existence of NPOs. For example, some political actors have called for 

subsidies to NPOs in the social sector to be subject to service agreements or that NPOs should be subject to a 

binding recommendation to rely heavily on donations and sponsors. The introduction of new management 

29 Staatspolitische Kommission des Ständerats 

10


techniques – New Public Management – focused on public finances, as well as continual criticism of government 

subsidy policy, underpins such demands. In 1997, as a result of its financial plight, the Federal government 

produced a report scrutinizing subsidy policy. The report was enthusiastically received and fed conservative 

criticism of NPOs subsidy without substantial service obligations. 

Foundations and associations consider the 2004 revision, initiated by the Federal Council, of the Stock 

Corporation and Financial‐Accounting Law 30 , a part of the Swiss Code of Obligations, to represent a further 

restriction, particularly because it places them on a par with incorporated companies and thereby subject them 

to the Code of Obligations in terms of financial and management accounting. Complaints about the law center 

largely on the fact that measures are too complex for the many of the small and middle‐size foundations and 

associations run by volunteers and also on the structural differences between foundations, associations and 

other legal entities. 

The planned reform of value‐added tax (VAT) appears even more restrictive. The incumbent Federal Minister of 

Finance has proposed that the current VAT exemption available to many NPOs should be abolished. In January 

2008, the Federal Council redrafted this proposal by adding the suggestion that NPOs and well‐managed 

voluntary associations with a revenue maximum of 250,000 CHF should be exempt from paying VAT. 

The Swiss Olympic Association still considers this threshold to be too low and has voiced concerns that 

approximately 700 voluntary organizations are at risk of closure. For example, the umbrella organization 

ProFonds (see section III.b) analyzed the Swiss Foundations and Associations sector and considers it to be over‐ 

regulated and bureaucratized; at the same time it acknowledges the increase in tax deductions in respect of 

donations as a positive development. 

One reason for such new restrictions – according to proFonds – was the finding that many NPOs financed by 

public contributions do not respect legislator’s decisions. In this vein, the government’s Business Audit 

Commission 31 announced on January 28, 2008 that it planned to examine and shed light on the role of 

nongovernmental organizations engaged in migration policy and development cooperation. Relief organizations 

are often accused of living off state funds and disregarding the wishes of Federal government. Relief 

organizations working with asylum seekers are, for example, accused of having a financial interest in prolonging 

the process and encouraging them to appeal. 

d) Overall Position of Local Governing Bodies 

Switzerland is a Federal state providing its sub‐entities (and more than 2500 municipalities of widely varied size 

and population) with a huge range of possible policies and strategies, such as whether and how NPOs receive tax 

incentives. It also expects – in line with the principle of subsidiarity – that NPOs will generally be supported at 

local level by sub‐entities. 

30 Aktien‐ und Rechnungslegungsrecht 

31 Geschäftsprüfungskommission 

11


It is the smaller rather than the larger municipalities that tend to work closely with local NPOs and tend to have 

more of an impact on local politics. As the size of municipalities increases, the probability that politicians are 

simultaneously involved with NPOs decreases, e.g. in sport clubs, welfare or relief organizations. Thus, 

politicians in small towns absolutely need to engage in and affiliate with local NPOs in order to acquire support 

at the polls. In contrast, in large towns party affiliation is more important than personal reputation for 

politicians. In other words: political competition is more personalized in small towns; therefore politicians in 

large towns can focus more strongly on their political objectives. 

Similar differences can also be seen with regard to voluntary work. In rural regions, the population displays a 

proportionally higher level of readiness for volunteer work as compared to urban agglomerations, though this 

varies by region. 

A comparison of the various regions in Switzerland reveals that the population in the French‐speaking sector 

more readily accepts the Government as an agent for the resolution of social and public problems than German‐ 

speaking Switzerland. Furthermore, the former is less willing to participate in NPOs than the latter, less likely to 

donate, and the public authorities in this region are less willing to give NPOs permission for public advertising 

(for more details see the Volunteer Survey of the Swiss Society of Public Utility (SGG), Ammann et al. 2007). 

High levels of economic and cultural prosperity observed in most large cities, but also in some small cities (such 

as Zug or Neuchâtel), correlate with involvement in voluntary activities. The high concentration of NPO 

headquarters in the capital, Berne, also shows that it makes sense, particularly for interest groups, to be located 

at the centre of political power. 

In contrast to other policy areas, the effective differences in tax benefits between the regions and cantons are 

comparatively small regarding donations and volunteering. Exceptions to this are the canton of Neuchâtel that 

has very low tax deductions, and Basel‐Land with very high deductions. In addition, Zurich has allowed 

volunteers to deduct up to 1000 CHF of their out‐of‐pocket expenses from their gross income since 2007. 

However, the canton of Zug has become particularly attractive for foundations in recent years thanks to its 

unusually low rates of taxation. 

Marked differences exist in the degree of tacit (symbolic) support for NPOs in the social sector. Some cantons, 

Vaud and Neuchâtel for example, and some municipalities, such as Berne and Zurich, have established 

coordination centers for potential volunteers and government institutions, where institutions like hospitals call 

upon the local population to become active as volunteers. The linguistic regions vary in their approach to 

volunteer work: in the French‐ and Italian‐speaking cantons the approach is rather “top‐down”; in the German‐ 

speaking cantons it is rather “bottom‐up”. In French‐speaking Switzerland the population expects the state – 

and not the associations – to mobilize volunteers. Their participation as volunteers in formal organizations is 

generally lower than in the German‐speaking part. The differences between the three linguistic regions 

ultimately manifest themselves in the quantity of new service agreements: more service agreements exist 

between the state and NPOs in the French‐ and Italian‐speaking than in the German‐speaking cantons. Still, 

given the different levels of potential support (municipal, cantonal, and federal), it is worth noting that the 

predisposition to support NPOs can vary widely even within single cantons. 

12


e) Local Attitudes Towards Supra‐National Organizations 

Supra‐national organizations shy away from making explicit statements about civil society. The number of 

international organizations with headquarters in Switzerland (e.g. the Red Cross, the International Labor 

Organization (ILO), the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the Union of European 

Football Associations (UEFA)) testifies to the favorable political climate for NPOs in the country. A good example 

of this climate was Zurich’s offer of a 1.8 million CHF subsidy to the Club of Rome if it moved its headquarters 

from Hamburg to Zurich. However, in recent years an increasing number of public actors have questioned the 

benefit to be gained from the creation of global football associations, and additionally why financially secure 

NPOs should in fact receive any additional state support or indeed tax incentives. It is not surprising therefore, 

that a referendum revealed a marginal vote against the relocation of the Club of Rome’s headquarters to Zurich 

in February in 2008. The Club of Rome moved to Winterthur in the canton of Zurich in April 2008, financed by a 

private Foundation, the “Robert und Ruth Heuberger Stiftung”. 

Having given an overview of the position of NPOs in Switzerland, the following section focuses on its 

characteristics and political influence. 

III. CHARACTERISTICS OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR POLITICAL IMPORTANCE 

The Swiss nonprofit sector is extremely fragmented and faces various themes and contentious issues. In the 

social sector, a key topic is the decrease in the level of state financial aid and the fact that its provision is 

contingent upon a service agreement. Established regional churches face the same problem. In the health 

sector the NPOs (mainly mandatory health insurances) are challenged by rising costs in hospitals and opposing 

claims of clients and medicines (Hplus 2008). Moreover, the relationship between the health insurances is very 

competitive due to the fact that they can charge different levels of premiums. In contrast to many Anglo‐ 

American countries, NPOs in the education sector have been comparatively marginal. However, due to 

increasing shares of scholars with immigrant background, more and more Swiss parents are looking for 

alternatives to the public schools. Hence, representatives of religion‐affiliated and other nonprofit elementary 

and secondary schools argue that they should get more public support for their engagement. 

In the field of political interest intermediation it is worth noting that the state does not subsidize political parties. 

Therefore, they depend on money donated by enterprises or individuals like relief organizations. In contrast to 

the Liberal‐Democratic Party (FDP), Christian Democratic People’s Party (CVP), and the Swiss People’s Party 

(SVP), the Social Democratic Party (SPS) has always argued for governmental support for parties, as is the case, 

for example, in Germany, as well as for transparence, as is the case in the USA. As a result of the current 

financial crisis, however, even the rightist parties are now confronted with financial shortages. The United Bank 

of Switzerland (UBS), one of the major sponsors of political parties, required public money in late 2008. This led 

to harsh criticism that members of the Parliament were backed and received subsidies from the United Bank of 

Switzerland (UBS), and led to rising claims on parties to disclose their financial sources. Consequently, UBS 

decided to stop supporting rightist parties. 

13


The sports sector also differs from the same sector in other countries. The main reason is that in Switzerland 

this sector is clearly stratified with elite sports sponsored and operated by for‐profit organizations and 

mainstream sports are in the domain of NPOs. 

Regarding religious communities there is a continuous debate regarding whether the government should collect 

the members contributions on behalf of the Church. In many cantons in Switzerland, as in many European 

countries, the contributions to the state‐affiliated Churches (Landeskirchen) 32 are included in the income taxes. 

Thus, the level of the contributions is linked to the level of income. This tax collection arrangement is challenged 

by two opposing views. On the one hand, secular and libertarian voices argue that Churches should be 

independent from state and therefore should levy voluntary contributions. On the other hand, some free 

Christian Churches and even Jewish and Islamic communities call for tax status’ similar to that of the state‐ 

affiliated Churches (Landeskirchen). 

Also, the constructive and strong relationships between the state and international development and 

cooperation (relief agencies) and the environmental associations are harshly criticized by the SVP (see section 

II.a), where as the NPOs active in the arts’ sector have experienced an improvement in their relationship with 

the state. In this sector professionalization is becoming increasingly important (also see section IV.d), but is a 

double‐edged sword because emphasizing professional qualifications for management has led to a decline in 

artistic content. 

Regarding structure, foundations in particular have profited from an improvement in the legal framework. 33 As 

in other countries, a comparison of various types of NPOs over the last decade has shown that some NPOs have 

been able to increase their resources (such as the Swiss People’s Party (SVP)), whilst others (such as the Swiss 

Workers Aid Association 34 and certain unions) have experienced more difficulty. However, the key factors for 

the success or failure of an NPO are not only business criteria, such as management and marketing, but also the 

timing of a given issue (e.g. the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami,) and what the characteristics of the NPO 

beneficiaries are. 

a) Role of Nonprofit Organizations for Politics and Policies 

In this section we address the role of nonprofit organizations for politics and policies over the past ten to fifteen 

years. An important point to be mentioned is the huge potential for interest groups to wield political influence 

within the Swiss political system. Associations are therefore just as heavily involved and influential in political 

decision making as political parties (Tschäni 1986). This is due to the fact that members of Parliament only 

pursue their mandates on a part‐time basis and most of the political parties have fewer financial and human 

resources than interest groups or large companies. Comparative political research shows that Switzerland can 

be classified as “corporatist” (Armingeon 1997). 

32 

According to Helmig, Bärlocher and von Schnurbein (2009), Landeskirchen are not likely to be part of Swiss nonprofit sector. 

33 

Worthy of note is also that the foundation Pro Helvetia that promotes cultural activities is a well‐known example of a Swiss foundation 

operated by the Federal government under public law. 

34 

Schweizerisches Arbeiterhilfswerk (SAH) 

14


The strong influence of NPOs is grounded in four institutions; the democratic device of referenda and initiatives, 

the consultation process, and the Federation Complaint Right. Institutions allow NPOs to disband (by means of 

referendum), to advance (through initiatives), and to participate in the creation of legislation (consultation 

process). The Federation Complaint Right also allows NPOs to hinder planned construction. These devices are 

effective – as mentioned above – because large associations and many committees that organize initiatives or 

referenda have greater financial and human resources at their disposal than political parties. Furthermore, 

many interest groups are better able to put forward their views (e.g. against cuts in social welfare, tax increases, 

flight paths, or sexual predators) by means of collective protest than political parties specifically oriented 

towards general public welfare. 

A referendum (since 1874) is usually called for when a significant portion of the population does not agree with a 

law proposed by the Swiss Parliament. If a party, association, or private person is able to collect 50,000 

signatures within 100 days, the decision is submitted to popular vote. This vote is called a facultative 

referendum. A simple majority is needed for the decision to be accepted. 

In the case of changes to the constitution, or to participation in any organization of collective security or in 

supranational associations, a referendum is compulsory. This means that a popular vote is necessary in every 

case. However, a double majority must accept such a proposal; i.e. it must be accepted both by the majority of 

voters, as well as the majority of cantons. 

Since 1891 citizens and NPOs have been able to demand a referendum on changes to the constitution by means 

of initiatives. If an initiative committee is able to collect the required 100,000 signatures within 18 months, a 

popular vote takes place. The Swiss population has rejected the majority of similar initiatives, such as the 1989 

initiative to abolish the Swiss army. Citizens’ initiatives may also deal with cantonal and municipal issues. 

In order to diminish the probability of losing a popular vote (always a potential threat for legislators), all political 

parties with the power to call for a referendum are included during the formulation stage of a proposal. This 

happens by means of the consultation process, the preliminary phase of legal proceedings. This stage checks 

whether governmental proposals are politically, financially, economically, ecologically, socially, or culturally 

significant with regard to accuracy of contents, possibility of successful implementation and social acceptance. 

The draft proposal is thus submitted to the cantons, to the parties represented in Parliament, to the governing 

bodies of municipalities, cities, and mountain regions, to umbrella organizations of economic bodies, as well to 

other possible interested groups or associations according to the matter concerned. 

The consultation process is mandated by the Federal Council, and is organized and carried out by the relevant 

government department. Even individuals that are not invited to the consultation process may offer their input. 

All opinions connected with the consultation process are evaluated before the Federal Council marks out the 

conditions for the proposal. If the proposal is sent to Parliament, the Federal councilors discuss the proposal in 

the knowledge of the results of the consultation process. 

15


The Swiss Parliament itself may also recommend an administrative consultation 35 . In this case it is either the 

government department or the parliamentary commission responsible for the issue that is in charge of seeing 

the process through to its conclusion. 

If accuracy regarding contents, possibility of successful implementation and social acceptance on a rather 

unimportant issue need to be verified, a hearing takes place. A government department, office or 

administrative commission is the party responsible for opening the consultation procedure. If the consequences 

of such an issue are considered minor, fewer people are addressed and the procedural formalities are more 

limited. A further peculiarity of the Swiss political system is the so‐called Federation Complaint Right, which was 

incorporated into Federal Nature and Homeland Protection Law 36 in 1966, into the Environmental Protection 

Law 37 of 1983, and into the Federal Law on Walking and Hiking Trails Act 38 of 1985. The law allows national 

environmental associations that are at least ten years old to instigate investigations by the authorities into 

projects that have an environmental impact, such as applications for deforestation or for construction outside 

zoned areas, for rural land improvements, as well as other governmental tasks. 

Despite the weight of direct democratic devices in the Swiss political agenda, it is worth noting that these 

devices, particularly the initiative, have little chance of success at popular vote. So far, both Swiss citizens and 

cantons have voted against nine out of ten Swiss citizens’ initiatives. In short, since the initiative has existed (as 

a device in the constitution since 1891), only 15 out of 162 have been accepted. Referenda by contrast are 

much more successful. Of the 161 facultative referenda to date, 88 have been accepted. The poor success rate 

of initiatives is often due to settlement between the legislator and the originator or even the result of a counter‐ 

proposal. In addition, it is much more costly to create a legislation requiring 100,000 signatures than to organize 

50,000 signatures rejecting the introduction of new law. Hence, affluent NPOs or even entrepreneurs launch 

initiatives most often. In contrast, even small NPOs can realize a successful referendum. Since 1987, the 

possibility of a “double yes” vote exists; this means that there can be a vote for both the initiative and the 

counter‐proposal. In such cases a tie‐break question is used to decide which of the two texts will go forward. 

In the past ten years only the following five “public initiatives” 39 have been accepted: 

• Initiative for “genetically modified free crops” 40 

Effective on 27/11/2005 

• Initiative for “lifelong incarceration of untreatable and extremely dangerous sexual and violent 

criminals” 41 Effective on 8/2/2004 

• Initiative for “membership of Switzerland in the United Nations (UN)” 42 


35 Vernehmlassung 

36 Bundesgesetz über den Natur‐ und Heimatschutz 

37 Umweltschutzgesetz 

38 Bundesgesetz über Fuss‐ und Wanderwege 

39 Volksinitiative 

40 Initiative für Nahrungsmittel aus gentechnikfreier Landwirtschaft 

41 Initiative für die lebenslange Verwahrung für nicht therapierbare, extrem gefährliche Sexual‐ und Gewaltstraftäter 

42 Initiative für den Beitritt der Schweiz zur Organisation der Vereinten Nationen (UNO) 

16


• Initiative for a “work‐free Federal holiday (August 1st Initiative)” 43 


• Initiative for the “protection of the Alps against transit traffic” 44 


b) The Role of Umbrella Groups on Policy Issues 

There is no single nonprofit umbrella organization that is trans‐sectoral in Switzerland. However, most NPOs 

belong to one of many umbrella organizations. Apart from national political parties that are predominantly 

involved with parliamentary issues and voting campaigns, other professional bodies such as the umbrella 

organizations of employers and employees (which is sector specific and trans‐sectoral) as in other Western 

countries play important roles; however, this is so to a much lesser degree than in Scandinavia. 

In the social sector, the ZEWO Foundation (Schweizerische Fachstelle für gemeinnützige, Spenden sammelnde 

Organisationen), originally created in 1934 as an information office, now has approx. 500 organizations that it 

inspects and certifies regarding reception and use of donations. 

The large relief organizations have arranged themselves into politically influential umbrella organizations, such 

as the development‐oriented Alliance Sud (Swiss Alliance of Development Organizations), as well as the informal 

Swiss Relief Organizations Presidents’ Conference 45 . 

Noteworthy among umbrella organizations are the foundations proFonds and SwissFoundations. The Swiss 

umbrella organization proFonds (formerly the Working Group for Foundations for Common Welfare 46 with 

approximately 300 members) considers itself to represent the interests of all the Swiss foundations; in 

particular, it supported the creation of a Swiss NPO Code (Swiss NPO Code 2006). SwissFoundations was 

founded in 2001 as a union of eleven existing foundations (for sponsoring). In 2005, SwissFoundations 

published the first European Good Governance Code for Foundations (for sponsoring). This Code is based upon 

three main principles: (i) effective implementation of the foundation’s goals, (ii) a balance of management and 

supervision and, (iii) high transparency of goals, activities, and structure. These are spelt out in 22 

recommendations concerning education, management, development, and finances. 

Another important organization is the Swiss Society of Public Utility (SGG) 47 founded in 1810. It follows the 

liberal principle that common welfare 48 is necessary when fellow citizens find themselves in difficulty. The Swiss 

Society of Public Utility is involved in cantonal, regional, and local associations and has played an active role in 

establishing the Swiss Women’s Association for Purposes of Common Welfare (SGF) 49 that to‐date has over 300 

43 

Initiative für einen arbeitsfreien Bundesfeiertag (1. August‐Initiative) 

44 

Initiative zum Schutze des Alpengebietes vor dem Transitverkehr 

45 

Konferenz der Präsidentinnen und Präsidenten der grossen Hilfswerke der Schweiz (KPGH) 

46 

Arbeitsgemeinschaft für gemeinnützige Stiftungen 

47 

Schweizerische Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft (SGG) 

48 

Gemeinnutz 

49 

Dachverband Schweizerischer Gemeinnütziger Frauen (SGF) 

17


subdivisions (SGG 2005). The Swiss Society of Public Utility was also a founder of Pro Juventute (1912), Pro 

Senectute (1917), Swiss Mountains Relief 50 (1942), Pro Mente Sana (1977) and was the driving force behind the 

ZEWO foundation by providing more than 400,000 CHF as start‐up capital. One of the current projects of the 

Swiss Society of Public Utility is the Volunteer Survey that complements the survey results provided by the Swiss 

Federal Statistical Office (Ammann et al. 2007). 

Finally, the website, freiwilligenarbeit.ch, should be mentioned. This platform was created in 1999 to promote 

volunteer work in Switzerland and Swiss volunteer work overseas (Markwalder 2005). It counts on the support 

of 85 organizations. In the past few years this forum has campaigned to institutionalize the social time card to 

document an individuals’ volunteer work. 

All of these umbrella organizations and national coalitions work together on many levels, such as in consultation 

processes, election campaigns, or, as in 2006, the creation of the Swiss NPO Code at the Large Swiss Relief 

Organizations Presidents’ Conference (KPGH). The Swiss NPO Code should guarantee responsible, transparent 

and timely good governance in NPOs for common welfare that rely on donations (Swiss NPO Code 2006). 

c) Involvement of Swiss Nonprofit Organizations in International or Regional Umbrella Groups 

Many NPOs, national umbrella organizations, and political parties are members of international umbrella 

organizations. In light of both the European integration process and the associated shift in political decision‐ 

making authority from national capitals to Brussels and the large dependence of the Swiss economy on the 

European markets, it is obvious that NPOs, even without membership in the European Union (E.U.), are 

increasing their commitment to umbrella organizations (Nollert 1996). On the one hand, Swiss associations 

transmit the meaning of decisions made by the E.U. to their members. Hence, enterprises exporting to the E.U. 

can, for example, adapt their production to new regulations and technical standards. On the other hand, 

despite lacking membership in the E.U., Swiss associations can still influence E.U. legislation by lobbying for their 

interests within the umbrella organizations. Furthermore, Swiss associations can ally with associations in 

countries with E.U. membership to fight against an objective of the E.U. Thus, in accordance with the initiative 

for the “Protection of the Alps Against Transit Traffic” Swiss and European environmentalist and public transport 

associations together are attempting to prohibit transit by trucks with a 60‐tons load on roads in the Alps. 

As this section has shown, the devices of Swiss direct democracy provide NPOs (as well as its citizens) 

considerable opportunities to intervene in public policy making and legislation (though networks with politicians 

or money considerably helps to support interests in the political arena). Umbrella groups have proven to be 

important players in politics and for policy issues. NPOs have gained interest in international or regional 

Umbrella groups, as international or regional (European) legislation are impinging on their situation in 

Switzerland and abroad. 

50 Schweizer Berghilfe 

18


The following section will deal with current issues that NPOs and umbrella organizations are faced with 

presently. Apart from publications we draw the information from, we refer to a survey with Swiss experts for 

the NPO sector in section IV. 

IV. CURRENT ISSUES 

Looking at the publications of NPO umbrella organizations and large NPOs, the dominant topic is the 

government’s drive to economize. This has resulted in reduced or cancelled subsidies, more stringent conditions 

within service agreements, and increased competition between NPOs. 

An ongoing area of debate of considerable importance is the revision of the Foundation and Fiscal Law for 

Nonprofit Organizations in the Civil Code that has been in effect since 2006. This revision contains among other 

things the introduction of compulsory auditing, and the increase in Federal tax relief in respect of donations 

from 10 percent to 20 percent. The revision of the Stock Corporation and Financial‐Accounting Law (a part of 

the Swiss Code of Obligations) 51 has also prompted discussion, particularly as right of review 52 regardless of an 

association’s legal structure is also planned. In other words, foundations and associations are being put on a par 

with incorporated companies in terms of book‐keeping and financial accounting law. According to proFonds, 

this would make accounting unnecessarily complicated for the majority of small and medium‐sized foundations 

and associations. 

Many concerns have also been voiced with regard to the reform of value‐added tax (VAT), since – among other 

things – the Federal Council is proposing that revenue and membership fees of organizations concerned with 

common welfare should no longer be exempt (see section II.c). ProFonds considers this to greatly weaken 

Switzerland’s position as a hub for nonprofit organizations. 

The Swiss Council of States is also currently discussing a motion adopted on the 25 th of September 2006 that it 

would like to move the Federal Ombudsman for Foundations from the Federal Department of Home Affairs 

(FDHA) to another department. The motion was put forward because the Federal Ombudsman was criticized for 

having divided loyalties between the government’s political will and the right to autonomy of foundations and 

their donors, particularly because the FDHA is itself involved in so many foundations. 

The contentious Federation Complaint Right remains a controversial topic. Since 1990, more than 15 attempts 

have been made in Parliament to abolish this device that was originally introduced by environmental groups in 

1966. Furthermore, development aid organizations such as Alliance Sud have demanded the implementation of 

the 1970 U.N. resolution requiring 0.7 percent of the Gross National Product to be invested in development aid. 

One final issue for consideration is the recently introduced social time card, which allows NPOs to certify the 

number of hours worked by volunteers. 

51 Aktien‐ und Rechnungslegungsrecht im Obligationenrecht 

52 Revisionsrecht 

19


The following sections are based on information from leading experts in the field of nonprofit organizations. In 

the first instance, approx. 100 people in German‐speaking Switzerland 53 were surveyed online (50 percent 

response rate) 54 . At first glance, the survey showed no dominant issues. The respondents’ opinions differed 

widely on many issues in terms of their level of importance. In addition, most respondents focused in their 

answers on the situation of their organization’s work area. On the basis of these findings, a sample was selected 

and included in a second qualitative interview 55 (see Appendix 1 and 2). Even when respondents indicated that 

they could not comment on NPO activity in general, they were nonetheless able to express views on a restricted 

number of areas. In order to reduce redundancy, we will present only those aspects that were not already 

mentioned in previous sections. 

These experts considered the following five issues to be particularly important: 

• Restructuring of Swiss politics 

• Cooperation with commercial organizations 

• State financial support 

• Professionalism 

• Legal frameworks 

These five issues will be separately commented on in the next sections. 

a) Restructuring of Swiss Politics 

Since the 1990’s political restructuring in Switzerland has been a key issue for the Swiss nonprofit sector because 

of the increasing political power of the rather NPO‐skeptical Swiss People’s Party (when compared with other 

parties). The Swiss People’s Party has held two Federal Council seats since 2004, whereas the other two 

explicitly NPO‐friendly parties (liberal in European terms), the Liberal Democratic Party and Christian Democratic 

People’s Party, have lost ground in the Federal Council. 

This restructuring appears to go hand in hand with a general movement towards reducing solidarity, 

individualization and economization. This trend has now gained a foothold in the relationship between the state 

and nonprofit sector. In this vein, there appears to be a direct connection between the rise of the Swiss 

People’s Party and a decreased willingness on the part of the public institutions to finance NPOs. Many deplore 

the fact that the Swiss People’s Party discredits many of the NPOs’ beneficiaries, such as the poor, disabled or 

those of foreign origin, since the implication is that they are not worthy of support. In addition, many criticize 

the Swiss People’s Party’s desire to reduce development aid and concentrate on bilateral and sectoral 

supporting measures. 

53 The German‐speaking region was selected because this region has a greater affinity for the nonprofit sector, whereas a greater affinity 

for state‐led problem‐solving strategies is found in the French‐ and Italian‐speaking parts of Switzerland. 

54 We thank Lic. phil. Nils Wyssbrod for designing the online survey. 

55 The qualitative interviews by telephone were carried out by Michael Nollert, Nicole Shephard, Chris Young, and Nils Wyssbrod in 

December 2007, and January and February 2008 with representatives of NPOs from the German‐speaking part of Switzerland. 

20


The results of the survey reveal that the reluctance of public institutions to fund NPOs increases the competition 

between organizations to obtain financing. In addition, national NPOs in the social sector are confronted with 

increased competition from abroad. Some of the foreign NPOs are uncertified by ZEWO and thus do not 

conform to Swiss Standards in the donor market. 

World Vision is a key example of such an organization that has not as yet received ZEWO certification but that is 

prominent in the media and competes aggressively for donors in the Swiss market. Ultimately, many aid 

organizations, in particular in the field of asylum and refugee work, are no longer competitive (or do not want to 

be) and are often replaced by for‐profit organizations. A notable example of this is the Red Cross, whose 

presence in Fribourg was replaced for financial reasons by a Zurich based business in spite of a long history of 

assisting and helping asylum seekers in Fribourg itself. This increased competition does, however, necessitate a 

critical review of antiquated processes in organizations. 

b) Cooperation with Commercial Organizations 

Unfortunately economically oriented associations and political parties that have close ties to the private sector 

maintain the view that NPOs should carry out services for which the state had hitherto been responsible thereby 

delegating the role (“stopgaps”) to NPOs. Although the nonprofit sector is still very much supported in material 

terms, the results of the qualitative interviews highlight the increasing competition between autonomous NPOs 

and commercial organizations for the provision of services previously furnished by NPOs. Commercial 

organizations compete for such services by means of political lobby in key areas of decision‐making, sponsorship 

in sporting arenas or by the creation of competing foundations and NPOs such as the Novartis or Jacobs 

Foundation, or Avenir Suisse. 

NPOs are also facing growing competition from private service organizations in many areas such as the social 

and health care sector. As mentioned above, the transfer of services from the local Red Cross in Fribourg to a 

private organization in Zurich is a good example of this type of development. In the arts sector, many private 

organizations link their sponsorship to an expectation of receiving something in return. However, according to 

the donation‐monitoring agency (ZEWO Donation Market Report 2006), this trend has had a positive effect, at 

least in the arts sector, in that the level of donations from private organizations has increased slightly over the 

past two years. 

Furthermore, new forms of cooperation between the nonprofit and commercial sectors may be observed, such 

as the creation of socially and ecologically conscious long‐term mutual funds. Overall, an increasing willingness 

to support NPOs is anticipated, particularly from the Swiss economic elite, as a result of rising executive salaries 

and their erstwhile image problem. 

Even from the perspective of tacit (symbolic) support the economy appears to be developing a skeptical view of 

certain parts of the nonprofit sector. Whilst some perceive associations as pillars of social well‐being, they are 

also seen to be weakening the Swiss economy. Criticism is most overtly aimed at the nonprofit activities of 

environmental associations that are considered to be “economically hostile”. This economic hostility is detected 

when such associations appear to make use of the Federation Complaint Right to simply block economically 

21


sensible construction projects. Development aid and the activities of welfare organizations generally are also 

coming under increasing scrutiny in the business‐friendly media, e.g. Neue Zürcher Zeitung or the Weltwoche. 

At the same time aid organizations lament the promotion of such economization in the social sector as it leads 

to the erosion of existing solidarity in the medium‐term. 

c) State Financial Support 

Many NPOs point out that the state has been less willing to support NPOs financially without restriction since 

the 1990’s. Indeed the state has been increasingly interested in output in form of service agreements rather 

than input. Furthermore, public bodies (e.g. the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, SDC) have 

continually reduced the proportion of costs that they are prepared to cover in different projects. The most 

recent ZEWO Report on the Donation Market (2006), based on data obtained from the donation‐monitoring 

agency, provides evidence of the state’s reduced enthusiasm for such financial support. NPOs face this pressure 

by restricting costs, locating new sources of finance and/or reactivating existing ones. 

This state of affairs also indicates a trend towards commercializing the stagnating donation market, leading to 

strong competition between domestic and international NPOs, and from private organizations as well. 

Unfortunately for Swiss NPOs, the government has recently been considering offers from foreign NPOs as well 

as from private companies. According to experts not all NPOs in Switzerland have yet adapted to this new 

situation and are therefore being discriminated against when it comes to cost structure comparisons with 

foreign NPOs (such as World Vision), private organizations and NPOs with specific activities in certain regional 

areas. 

Finally, NPOs today appear to have the choice between two strategies with respect to the state: (i) they can seek 

proximity toward the state and thereby risk losing a certain degree of autonomy, or (ii) they can explicitly seek 

distance from the state, which implies complete reliance on private funding. 

d) Professionalization 

A key issue for NPOs is professionalization. This refers specifically to the efforts of NPOs to improve the 

management skills of their staff. Professional marketing devices are becoming necessary in order to raise funds 

and to motivate potential donors. Furthermore, the interviewees have identified a trend towards monetarizing 

volunteer work, i.e. documenting volunteer work in order to calculate its economic value and to make it 

comparable with other types of work (Farago et al. 2005). 

In order for NPOs to be certified by organizations such as ZEWO, their practices need to be professionalized. 

The increase both in efficiency and effectiveness of such professionalization however leads to higher costs, 

which has led to public criticism. The Swiss Cancer League experienced this when it chose a private company to 

produce a television advertisement for its 2007 donation campaign but had to utilize 400,000 CHF of donation 

funding to do so. Business practices in Pro Facile, serious (legal) conflicts between the interests of the Swiss 

Paraplegic Foundation and the personal interests of its founder and former president leading to conviction of 

22


the latter as well as discussions about misappropriation of donations to Swiss Solidarity 56 , have provided further 

reasons for public criticism. 

Expanding professional requirements for NPO positions also increases salary levels. Many organizations realize 

that when it comes to management positions the lack of financial incentive makes it difficult to compete with 

private organizations. It must be acknowledged, however, that intrinsic motivation in NPOs is still high and that 

this prevents mass migration to the private sector. 

The tendency towards professionalization becomes problematic when volunteers realize that they are 

performing the work of professionals, but are not being compensated financially for it. Due to this problem 

greater efforts are required to find volunteers to serve in positions of responsibility for longer periods of time, 

such as on supervisory committees. 

The controversy over the remuneration of strategic volunteer work on foundation boards and supervisory 

committees is moving in a similar direction. ProFonds among others, suggests, that work on such committees 

should become more professional following the trend at management level. This would justify a higher level of 

remuneration. For relief organizations in particular, periodic catastrophes such as the 2004 Indian Ocean 

tsunami are a problem due to lack of qualified personnel. This problem, however, is periodic and is part of the 

everyday work of an NPO. 

e) Legal Framework 

Another important change over the past 10‐15 years has been the development of the legal framework. First of 

all, it is important to recall that the Foundation and Fiscal Law for Nonprofit Organizations 57 in the Civil Code 

Book 58 has been revised. Although the revision was simple, it has been widely supported, especially since the 

state supports private volunteer work. The fiscal framework has therefore been substantially improved as the 

proportion of tax‐deductible donations has increased. The new Association’s Law 59 has also been well received, 

as it will no longer hold association members accountable for the association’s debts (in so far as the respective 

statute does not contain special regulations). 

V. SUMMARY 

Due to a long a tradition of co‐operative and voluntary associations and the importance of the principle of 

subsidiarity, the Swiss Federal government, the cantons and the municipalities have a generally positive stance 

toward the nonprofit sector. However, there exists a lack of explicit policies regarding NPOs. In addition, 

although the political parties emphasize different functions of NPOs, most of them support them. Even the 

Swiss People’s Party that criticizes the financial support of NPOs is itself well represented in the supervisory 

boards of NPOs in the sports and agricultural sector. The major areas where the Swiss government supports the 

56 

Die Glückskette 

57 

Stiftungs‐ und steuerliches Gemeinnützigkeitsrecht 

58 

Zivilgesetzbuch 

59 

Vereinsrecht 

23


nonprofit sector are tax policies and financial support; thus, NPOs profit both from low taxes in comparison with 

for‐profit organizations and from subsidies if they provide a public service. 

Since the 1990s, the nonprofit sector is, however, confronted with new legal restrictions due to the critique of 

neoliberal economists that the significant constitutional influence of Swiss NPOs (consultation process, initiative, 

referendum, complaint right), prevent economic growth. Also, the process of European integration has entailed 

a shift in political decision‐making authority from national capitals to Brussels. For this reason, Swiss NPOs have 

recently become more committed to their European umbrella organizations. 

According to an online survey and interviews with nonprofit sector experts, the following five issues are most 

important at the moment: restructuring of Swiss politics, cooperation with commercial organizations, state 

financial support, professionalization, and legal framework. 

Despite a lack of explicit policies towards the nonprofit sector, the Swiss government is aware of the importance 

of NPOs and supports them with legal privileges and financial subsidies. However, since the 1990s, the 

nonprofit sector is continuously challenged by the neoliberal view that strong constitutional influence from 

Swiss NPOs is responsible for the low economic growth rate. Therefore, among others challenges NPOs are 

currently faced with attempts from the government at different levels to constrain their political influence and 

decrease their state financial support. Furthermore, competition from private organizations is growing. 

24


VI. REFERENCES 

Ammann, Herbert. ed. 2004. Freiwilligkeit zwischen liberaler und sozialer Demokratie. Zürich: Seismo. 

Ammann, Herbert and Peter Farago. ed. 2007. Freiwilligen‐Monitor der Schweiz. Zürich: Seismo. 

Armingeon, Klaus. 1997. Swiss Corporatism in Comparative Perspective. West European Politics 20: 164‐179. 

Armingeon, Klaus and Simon Geissbühler. ed. 2000. Gewerkschaften in der Schweiz: Herausforderungen und Optionen. 

Zürich: Seismo. 

Beobachter. 2000a. Freiwilligenarbeit. Ein Handbuch. Zürich: Jean Frey. 

Beobachter. 2000b. Die «Ich AG» feiert Hochkonjunktur. Nr. 20: 20‐29. 

BFS. 2004. Studie zum Bericht zur Freiwilligenarbeit in der Schweiz. Expertenbericht im Auftrag des Bundesamts für Statistik. 

Bern: Bundesamt für Statistik. 

Borner, Silvio, Aymo Brunetti, and Thomas Straubhaar. 1990. Schweiz AG. Vom Sonderfall zum Sanierungsfall. Zürich: Verlag 

Neue Zürcher Zeitung. 

Caritas. ed. 2002. Von der katholischen Milieuorganisation zum sozialen Hilfswerk. Luzern: Caritas. 

Cattacin, Sandro, Cla Reto Famos, Michael Duttwiler, and Hans Mahnig. 2003. Staat und Religion in der Schweiz. 

Anerkennungskämpfe, Anerkennungsformen. Bern: Eidgenössische Kommission gegen Rassismus. 

Egger, Philipp, Bernd Helmig, and Robert Purtschert. ed. 2006. Stiftung und Gesellschaft. Eine komparative Analyse des 

Stiftungsstandortes Schweiz. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn. 

EFD. 1997. Subventionsbericht 1997 des Bundesrats. Bern: Eidgenössisches Finanzdepartement. 

EFD. 2008. Subventionsbericht 2008 des Bundesrats. Bern: Eidgenössisches Finanzdepartement. 

Ermatinger, Gerold. 1936. Kapital und Ethos. Die sozialen und kulturellen Taten des schweizerischen Privatkapitals im 19. 

und 20. Jahrhundert. Erlenbach‐Zürich und Leipzig: Rotapfel‐Verlag. 

Farago, Peter and Herbert Ammann, ed. 2005. Monetarisierung der Freiwilligkeit. Zürich: Seismo. 

Fluder, Robert, Heinz Ruf, Walter Schöni, and Martin Wicki. ed. 1991. Gewerkschaften und Angestelltenverbände in der 

schweizerischen Privatwirtschaft. Zürich: Seismo. 

Fluder, Robert. 1996. Interessenorganisationen und kollektive Arbeitsbeziehungen im öffentlichen Dienst der Schweiz. 

Zürich: Seismo. 

Helmig, Bernd, Christoph Bärlocher, and Georg von Schnurbein, ed. 2009. Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland. Johns 

Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project Working Paper Number 46, March 2009. 

Humbel, Kurt. ed. 1987. Treu und Glauben. Entstehung und Geschichte des Friedensabkommens in der schweizerischen 

Maschinen‐ und Metallindustrie. Partnerschaftsfonds der schweizerischen Maschinen‐ und Metallindustrie (Festschrift zum 

50. Jubiläum). Bern: Peter Lang. 

Hplus. Die Spitäler der Schweiz., ed. 2008. Festschrift zum 75‐Jahr‐Jubiläum von H+, die Spitäler der Schweiz, Data retrieved 

in August 2008 from the Web site: http://files.hplus.ch/pages/HPlusDocument6217.pdf. 

Kriesi, Hanspeter. ed. 2005. Der Aufstieg der SVP. Acht Kantone im Vergleich. Zürich: NZZ‐Verlag. 

Linder, Wolf. 1999. Schweizerische Demokratie. Institutionen, Prozesse, Perspektiven. Bern: Haupt. 

25


Markwalder, Christa. 2005. Freiwilligenarbeit kennt andere Marktgesetze: Trends der gesellschaftlichen Förderung der 

Freiwilligenarbeit. Data retrieved in January 2007 from the Web site: http://www.christa‐ 

markwalder.ch/uploads/media/2005‐05‐31_Europ_ische_Freiwilligenuniversit_t.pdf 

Nadai, Eva. 1996. Gemeinsinn und Eigennutz: freiwilliges Engagement im Sozialbereich. Bern: Haupt. 

Nollert, Michael. 1996. Verbandliche Interessenvertretung in der Europäischen Union: Einflussressourcen und faktische 

Einflussnahme. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 6: 647‐667. 

Nollert, Michael and Christian Huser. 2007. Freiwillige Aktive in der Schweiz: Einflussfaktoren und typische Profile. In 

Freiwilliges Engagement in der Schweiz. ed. Peter Farago. Zürich: Seismo. 

Purtschert, Robert. ed. 2005. Das Genossenschaftswesen in der Schweiz. Bern: Haupt. 

SGG. 2005. Die Schweizerische Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft und ihre Geschichte. Zürich: SGG. 

Swiss NPO Code. 2006. Swiss NPO Code. Corporate Governance Richtlinien für Nonprofit‐Organisationen in der Schweiz. 

Date retrieved in January 2007 from the Web site: http://www.swiss‐ 

npocode.ch/download/Swiss_NPO_Code%2020060410_ber.pdf 

Tschäni, Hans. 1986. Wer regiert die Schweiz? Eine kritische Untersuchung über den Einfluss von Lobby und Verbänden in der 

schweizerischen Demokratie. Zürich: Orell Füssli. 

Wagner, Antonin. 1999. Teilen statt umverteilen: Sozialpolitik im kommunitarischen Wohlfahrtsstaat. Bern: Haupt. 

Wagner, Antonin. 2002. Der Nonprofit‐Sektor in der Schweiz. In Handbuch der Nonprofit Organisation. Strukturen und 

Management. ed. Christoph Badelt. Stuttgart: Schäfer‐Poeschel. 

Weng, Tanja Vanessa. 2002. Werte und Wertwandel bei Ehrenamtlichen und Freiwilligen in Hilfswerken. Zürich: Books on 

Demand. 

ZEWO. 2006. ZEWO Bericht zum Spendenmarkt 06. Zürich: ZEWO. 

26


APPENDIX 1: CONSULTED EXPERTS 

The following people (positions in brackets) were qualitatively consulted: 

Ammann, Herbert. General secretary of the Swiss Society of Public Utility (Schweizerische Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft, 

SGG); manager; member of the Pro Juventute Foundations Convention 

Bühlmann, Cecile. President of the Swiss Greenpeace Foundation; management at the Christian Peace Service (Christlicher 

Friedensdienst); former National councilor of the Green Party (Grüne Partei der Schweiz, GPS) 

Daum, Thomas. Director of the Swiss Employers Union; member of SUVA board of directors 

Degen, Christoph. Chief executive of proFonds, umbrella organization of Swiss Foundations; member of the synode of the 

Protestant Church 60 of the city of Basel 

Escher, Barbara von. President of Benevol; Free Green List (Grüne Freie Liste) in the canton of Berne 

Ferrari‐Visca, Bruno. Director and Federal Ombudsman for Foundations 

Graber, Hedy. Director of the social and cultural office, Migros Cooperative Alliance 

Gurtner, Bruno. Senior economist at the Swiss Alliance of Development) Organisations ‐ Alliance Sud; chair of the Tax 

Justice Network´s Global Board of Directors 

Haller, Ursula. Municipal councilor in Thun; National councilor of the Swiss Peoples’ Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei, SVP), 

member of numerous NPOs 

Knöpfel, Carlo. Director of the Department of Basics (Bereich Grundlagen) at Caritas Schweiz 

Kosch, Daniel. General secretary of the Swiss Roman Catholic Central Conference 

Levrat, Christian. Director of the Union of Swiss Communication (Syndiat de la communication Suisse Syndicom), president 

and National councilor of the Swiss Social‐Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei der Schweiz, SPS) 

Markwalder‐Bär, Christa. President of forum freiwilligenarbeit.ch; president of the New European Movement (Neue 

Europäische Bewegung); National councilor of the Liberal‐Democratic Party (Freisinnig‐Demokratische Partei, FDP) 

Marty, Franz. Chairman of the board of the Swiss Raiffeisen Banks; former president of the Conference of Cantonal Finance 

Directors; president of the Mountain Relief Organisation (Schweizer Berghilfe); Christian‐Democratic Peoples’ Party 

(Christlichdemokratische Volkspartei, CVP) 

Roos‐Niedermann, Rita. Director of Pro Infirmis; former Cantonal governing councilor of St. Gallen; Christian‐Democratic 

Peoples’ Party (Christlichdemokratische Volkspartei, CVP) 

Schärer, Werner. Director of Pro Senectute 

Ziegerer, Martina. Chief executive of the Zewo Foundation 

60 Evangelisch‐reformierte Kirche 

27


APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 

Qualitative interview questions: 

• What were the most important topics and issues in the nonprofit sector over the last 10‐15 years? 

• Which issues did you have to deal with in your specific area? 

• Which issues will you have to deal with the coming few years? 

• How different are the issues in the various areas? 

• To what extent can differences between cantons be identified? 

• How would you rate the relationship between the state and the nonprofit sector? 

• How would you rate political system’s (government & political parties) willingness to support the 

nonprofit sector? 

• How would you rate the economic system’s (unions & for‐profit organizations) willingness to support 

the nonprofit sector? 

28


THE JOHNS HOPKINS COMPARATIVE NONPROFIT SECTOR PROJECT 

Academy of Finland 

Aga Khan Foundation 

Arab Gulf Fund (AGFUND) 

The Atlantic Philanthropies 

Australian Bureau of Statistics 

Australian Research Council 

Austrian Science Foundation 

Canadian Fund (Slovakia) 

Charities Aid Foundation (United Kingdom) 

Civil Society Development Foundation (Czech Republic) 

Civil Society Development Foundation (Romania) 

Civil Society Development Foundation (Slovakia) 

Colombian Center on Philanthropy 

The Combined Community Trusts (New Zealand) 

Department of Welfare (South Africa) 

Deutsche Bank Foundation (Germany) 

FIN (Netherlands) 

Fondation de France 

Fondation Roi Baudouin (Belgium) 

Ford Foundation 

Foundation for an Open Society (Hungary) 

Fundación Andes (Chile) 

Fundación Antonio Restrepo Barco (Colombia) 

Fundación Banco Bilbao Vizcaya (Spain) 

Fundación FES (Colombia) 

Fundación Minera Escondida (Chile) 

Gerbert Rüf Stiftung (Switzerland) 

Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (Portugal) 

Humboldt Foundation/Transcoop (Germany) 

Imagine Canada 

Industry Commission (Australia) 

Institute for Human Sciences (Austria) 

Instituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario (Chile) 

Inter-American Development Bank 

Inter-American Foundation 

Juliana Welzijn Fonds (Netherlands) 

Kahanoff Foundation (Canada) 

W.K. Kellogg Foundation 

Project Director: Lester M. Salamon 

Senior Research Associate: S. Wojciech Sokolowski 

Project Coordinator: Megan Haddock 

Communications Associate: Mimi Bilzor 

PROJECT FUNDERS 

Körber Foundation (Germany) 

Luso-American Development Foundation (Portugal) 

Ministry of Church and Education (Norway) 

Ministry of Culture and Sports (Norway) 

Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (Netherlands) 

Ministry of Environment (Norway) 

Ministry of Family and Children (Norway) 

Ministry of Family/World Bank (Venezuela) 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Norway) 

Ministry of Health, Sports and Welfare (Netherlands) 

Ministry of Social Affairs (Denmark) 

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (Finland) 

Ministry of Social Development (New Zealand) 

C.S. Mott Foundation 

National Department of Planning (Colombia) 

National Research Fund (Hungary) 

Norwegian Research Council 

OPEC 

Open Society Foundation (Slovakia) 

David and Lucile Packard Foundation 

Ilídio Pinho Foundation (Portugal) 

Productivity Commission (Australia) 

Research Council of Norway 

Rockefeller Brothers Fund 

Joseph Rowntree Foundation (United Kingdom) 

Sasakawa Peace Foundation (Japan) 

SENAC (National Commercial Training Service – Brazil) 

Servicio de Cooperación Técnica (Chile) 

The Skoll Foundation 

Telefonica CTC Chile 

The Tindall Foundation (New Zealand) 

United Nations Development Program (Chile) 

United States Agency for International Development 

United States Information Service 

University of Witwatersrand (South Africa) 

Yad Hadaniv Foundation (Israel) 

Center for Civil Society Studies website: www.ccss.jhu.edu


Argentina 

Australia 

Austria 

Belgium 

Brazil 

Canada 

Chile 

Colombia 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Egypt 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Ghana 

Hungary 

India 

Ireland 

Israel 

Italy 

Japan 

Kenya 

Korea, Rep. of 

Lebanon 

COUNTRY COVERAGE 

Mexico 

Morocco 

Netherlands 

New Zealand 

Norway 

Pakistan 

Peru 

Philippines 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Russia 

Slovakia 

South Africa 

Spain 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

Tanzania 

Thailand 

Uganda 

United Kingdom 

United States 

Venezuela 

THE COMPARATIVE NONPROFIT SECTOR PROJECT WORKING PAPERS 

Please visit our Web site to view the full text of these papers and other reports from the Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project. 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: New Zealand 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Chile 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Portugal 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: South Korea 

Volunteering in Cross-National Perspective: Evidence 

From 24 Countries 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: The Philippines 

Social Origins of Civil Society: An Overview 

The Nonprofit Sector: For What and for Whom? 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Poland 

History of the Nonprofit Sector in the Netherlands 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Finland 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Argentina 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Romania 

Philanthropy, Nationalism, and the Growth of Civil 

Society in Romania 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Australia 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Colombia 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Ireland 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: The Czech Republic 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Israel 

The Third World’s Third Sector in Comparative 

Perspective 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: The Netherlands 

Social Origins of Civil Society: Explaining the Nonprofit 

Sector Cross-Nationally 

The Nonprofit Sector: A New Global Force 

Nonprofit Law: Ten Issues in Search of Resolution 

The International Classification of Nonprofit 

Organizations - ICNPO. Revision 1.0 

Caring Sector or Caring Society? Discovering the 

Nonprofit Sector Cross-Nationally 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Sweden 

Defining the Nonprofit Sector: Hungary 

The Nonprofit Sector in the United Nations System of 

National Accounts: Definition, Treatment, and Practice 

Toward an Understanding of the International 

Nonprofit Sector: The Johns Hopkins Comparative 

Nonprofit Sector Project 

The Emerging Sector: A Statistical Supplement 

(1990 data) 

Center for Civil Society Studies website: www.ccss.jhu.edu

The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project 

The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project is a systematic effort to analyze the scope, structure, 

financing, and role of the private nonprofit sector in a cross-section of countries around the world in order to 

improve our knowledge and enrich our theoretical understanding of this sector, and to provide a sounder basis 

for both public and private action towards it. 

The Project utilizes a comparative empirical approach that features heavy reliance on a team of Local Associates 

in the target countries, a common framework, set of definitions, and information-gathering strategies; and a 

network of national and international advisory committees to oversee progress and help disseminate results. 

Project work began in 1990 in 13 countries and now extends to more than 40 countries spanning all the regions 

of the world. 

The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies 

The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies seeks to improve understanding and the effective functioning 

of not-for-profit, philanthropic, or “civil society” organizations in the United States and throughout the world in 

order to enhance the contribution these organizations can make to democracy and the quality of human life. The 

Center is part of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies and carries out its work through a combination of 

research, training, and information-sharing both domestically and internationally. 



3400 North Charles Street, Wyman Building 

Baltimore, MD 21211, USA 

Phone: +1.410.516.5463 

Fax: +1.410.516.7818 

www.ccss.jhu.edu

Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland - VMI

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?