Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland - VMI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland 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
Nollert and Budowski Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland 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
Page 1 and 2: Ce n t e r f o r Civil So C i e t y
Page 3 and 4: The CNP Project in Switzerland Rese
Page 5 and 6: Institute for Policy Studies Wyman
Page 7 and 8: I. INTRODUCTION Government Policy a
Page 9 and 10: Nollert and Budowski Government Pol
Page 11: Nollert and Budowski Government Pol
Page 37: The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonpr

Government Policy and the Nonprofit Sector: Switzerland - VMI

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?