The Conformity of the Managerial and Democratic Imperatives of Governance in Non-Governmental Organizations (Comparison betwěeen Berlin, Cairo, and Prague)

• Název práce v češtině: Soulad manažerských a demokratických mechanismů správy v nevládních organizacích (srovnání Berlína, Káhiry a Prahy)
• Název v anglickém jazyce: The Conformity of the Managerial and Democratic Imperatives of Governance in Non-Governmental Organizations (Comparison betwěeen Berlin, Cairo, and Prague)
• Klíčová slova: Dobré řízení nevládních organizací, transparentnost, odpovědnost, odpovědnost, účinnost a efektivita, právní stát, spravedlnost a spravedlnost, účast, zastoupení, nevládní organizace, Berlín, Káhira, Praha
• Klíčová slova anglicky: Good NGOs’ Governance, Transparency, Accountability, Responsiveness, Effectiveness & Efficiency, Rule of Law, Fairness & Equity, Participation, Representation, NGOs, Berlin, Cairo, Prague
• Akademický rok vypsání: 2017/2018
• Typ práce: disertační práce
• Jazyk práce: angličtina
• Ústav: Katedra veřejné a sociální politiky (23-KVSP)
• Vedoucí / školitel: doc. PhDr. Pavol Frič, Ph.D.
• Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno a potvrzeno stud. odd.
• Datum přihlášení: 02.11.2017
• Datum zadání: 02.11.2017
• Datum potvrzení stud. oddělením: 02.11.2017
• Datum a čas obhajoby: 16.09.2021 09:30
• Místo konání obhajoby: Voršilská 1/144
• Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: 14.07.2021
• Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 16.09.2021
• Oponenti: Dr. Laila El Baradei

Seznam odborné literatury

Abbas, A. A., Hussein, A. A. A., & Khali, H. H. (2017). The Effect of Hostile Work Environment on Organizational Alienation: The Mediation Role of the Relationship between the Leader and Followers. Asian Social Science, 13(2), 140.
Abdullah, H., & Valentine, B. (2009). Fundamental and ethics theories of corporate governance. Middle Eastern Finance and Economics, 4(4), 88-96.
Abzug, R., DiMaggio, P., Gray, B. H., Useem, M., & Kang, C. H. (1993). Variations in trusteeship: cases from Boston and Cleveland, 1925–1985. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 4(3), 271-300.
Aliseda, A. (2007). Abductive reasoning: Challenges ahead. THEORIA. Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia, 22(3), 261-270.
Anheier, H. K., & Hertie School of Governance. (2016). Foundations in Germany: Summary and and Policy Recommendations.
Anheier, H. K. (2015). Positioning and Contribution of German Foundations: Erste Results of a representative survey. Hertie School of Governance & University of Heidelberg. Center for Social Investment. Briefing Paper.
Anheier, H. K., & Salamon, L. M. (2006). The nonprofit sector in comparative perspective. The nonprofit sector: A research handbook, 2, 90-114.
Anheier, H. K., & Toepler, S. (Eds.). (2009). International encyclopedia of civil society. Springer Science & Business Media.
Anheier, H. K., Priller, E., & Zimmer, A. (2000). Civil society in transition: The East German third sector ten years after unification. East European Politics and Societies, 15(1), 139-156.
Anheier, H. K., & Seibel, W. (1993). Defining the nonprofit sector: Germany. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies.
Anheier, H. K., & Seibel, W. (2001). The nonprofit sector in Germany: Between state, economy, and society (Vol. 9). Manchester University Press.
Ambert, A., Adler, P., Adler, P., & Detzner, D. (1995). Understanding and Evaluating Qualitative Research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(4), 879-893. doi:10.2307/353409
Archi, R. A. (2008). NGO Accountability; Undermines responsiveness to the Beneficiaries. Case studies from Bangladesh. Netherland: Institute of Social Science.
Austin, D. M., & Woolever, C. (1992). Voluntary association boards: A reflection of member and community characteristics? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(2), 181-193.
Babbie, E. (2008). The practice of social research. Eleventh edition. International Student Edition. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Balser, D., & McClusky, J. (2005). Managing stakeholder relationships and nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(3), 295-315.
Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., & Mabry, L. (2011). RealWorld evaluation: Working under budget, time, data, and political constraints. sage.
Barakso, M. (2005). Civic engagement and voluntary associations: Reconsidering the role of the governance structures of advocacy groups. Polity, 37(3), 315-334.
Barakso, M., & Schaffner, B. F. (2008). Exit, voice, and interest group governance. American Politics Research, 36(2), 186-209.
Barnes, M., & Walker, A. (1996). Consumerism versus empowerment: a principled approach to the involvement of older service users. Policy & Politics, 24(4), 375-393.
Beer, M. (1964). Organizational size and job satisfaction. Academy of management Journal, 7(1), 34-44.
Berry, J. M., Portney, K. E., & Thomson, K. (1993). The Rebirth of Urban Democracy (Washington DC, The Brookings Institution.
Bherer, L., Dufour, P., & Montambeault, F. (2016). The participatory democracy turn: an introduction.
Bherer, L., & Breux, S. (2012). The diversity of public participation tools: Complementing or competing with one another? Canadian Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 379–403.
Bosch, H. (2002). The changing face of corporate governance. UNSWLJ, 25, 270.
Bradshaw, P. (2009). A contingency approach to nonprofit governance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(1), 61-81.
Brown, W. A. (2005). Exploring the association between board and organizational performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit management and leadership, 15(3), 317-339.
Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public management review, 6(1), 21-53.
Bucholtz, B. K. (1997). Reflections on the role of nonprofit associations in a representative democracy. Cornell JL & Pub. Pol'y, 7, 555.
Caers, R., Bois, C. D., Jegers, M., Gieter, S. D., Schepers, C., & Pepermans, R. (2006). Principal‐agent relationships on the stewardship‐agency axis. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(1), 25-47.
Chelliah, J., Boersma, M., & Klettner, A. (2015, January). Governance challenges for not-for-profit organizations: Empirical evidence in support of a contingency approach. In Australasian Conference on Business and Social Sciences 2015, Sydney.
Clarke, T. (2004). Theories of governance–reconceptualizing corporate governance theory after the Enron experience. Theories of corporate governance. The philosophical foundations of Corporate governance, 1-30.
Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of management review, 20(1), 92-117.
Colbert, B., Wheeler, D., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Focusing on Value: Reconciling Corporate Social Responsibility, Stakeholder Theory and Sustainability in a Network World. Journal of General Management, 28(3), 1-28.
Cornforth, C., Hayes, J. P., & Vangen, S. (2015). Nonprofit–public collaborations: Understanding governance dynamics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(4), 775-795.
Cornforth, C. (2003). Contextualising and managing the paradoxes of governance. The Governance of Public and Non-Profit Organizations, 237-253.
Cornforth, C. (2004). The governance of cooperatives and mutual associations: A paradox perspective. Annals of public and cooperative economics, 75(1), 11-32.
Cornforth, C. (2003). Introduction: the changing context of governance-emerging issues and paradoxes.
Cornforth, C., & Edwards, C. (1999). Board Roles in the Strategic Management of Non‐profit Organizations: theory and practic. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 7(4), 346-362.
Cornielje, H., Velema, J. P., & Finkenflugel, H. (2008). Community based rehabilitation programmes: monitoring and evaluation in order to measure results. Leprosy review, 79(1), 36-49.
Cornwall, A., Lucas, H., & Pasteur, K. (2000). Introduction: accountability through participation: developing workable partnership models in the health sector.
Dahl, R. A. (1985). A preface to economic democracy (No. 28). Univ of California Press.
Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management review, 22(1), 20-47.
Dalton, D. R., Hitt, M. A., Certo, S. T., & Dalton, C. M. (2007). 1 The fundamental agency problem and its mitigation: independence, equity, and the market for corporate control. Academy of Management annals, 1(1), 1-64.
Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella Jr, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of management review, 28(3), 371-382.
Dina Abdelhafez. (2017). The Use of Monitoring and Evaluation tools to Enhance organizational learning and Accountability in Egyptian NGOs. Unpublished thesis.
Dina Abdelhafez. (2016). How Should Government Regulate Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in Egypt Without Restricting Their Right to Work Freely? DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.19421.67042
Dodge, J., & Ospina, S. M. (2016). Nonprofits as “Schools of Democracy” A Comparative Case Study of Two Environmental Organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), 478-499.
Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of management, 16(1), 49-64.
Drucker, P. F. (1990). Lessons for successful nonprofit governance. Nonprofit management and leadership, 1(1), 7-14.
Ebrahim, A. (2005). NGOs and organizational change: Discourse, reporting, and learning. Cambridge University Press.
Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World development, 31(5), 813-829.
Ebrahim, A., & Weisband, E. (2007). Global accountabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge.
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (Eds.). (1996). Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world.
El Agati, M. (2019). Analytical chapter: in Civil Society in the Arab Region Post-Uprising: Problems and Need. Civil Society in the Arab Region: Developments and Challenges Post-Uprisings. Mohamed El Agati (editor). Cairo, Al Maraya for Cultural production.
El Agati, M. (2006). Undermining Standards of Good Governance: Egypt's NGO Law and Its Impact on the Transparency and Accountability of CSOs. Int'l J. Not-for-Profit L., 9, 56.
El Agati. M. (2010). Egypt. The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law. Retrieved from http://www.icnl.org/research/journal/vol12iss3/special_2.htm#_ftn1
El Baradei, L., Abdelhamid, D. & Wally, N. (2014). Institutionalizing and streamlining development monitoring and evaluation in post-revolutionary Egypt: A readiness primer. African Evaluation Journal 2(1), Art. #57, 16 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/aej.v2i1.57
Eliasoph, N. (2013). Making volunteers: civic life after welfare's end (Vol. 50). Princeton University Press.
Elstad, T. A., & Eide, A. H. (2009). User participation in community mental health services: exploring the experiences of users and professionals. Scandinavian journal of caring sciences, 23(4), 674-681.
El Sharkawy, Sh. (2019) Revisiting the modern basis of civil society in the Arab region and its impact on structure and capacities. Civil Society in the Arab Region: Developments and Challenges Post-Uprisings. Mohamed El Agati (editor). Cairo, Al Maraya for Cultural production.
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The journal of law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325.
Farrar, J., & Hannigan B. (1998). Farrar’s Company Law (4th edn), Butterworths, London.
Feizizadeh, A. (2012). Corporate governance: frameworks. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 5(9), 3353-3361.
Fischer, F. (2006). Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment: The cultural politics of discursive space. The American review of public administration, 36(1), 19-40.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge university press.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business ethics quarterly, 409-421.
Frič, P., Deverová, L., Pajas, P., & Silhánová, H. (1998). Defining the Nonprofit Sector: The Czech Republic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies.
Fritsch, S., Anheier, H. K., Klose, M., Opfermann, R., Rosenski, N., Schwarz, N., & Spengler, N. (2011). Zivilgesellschaft in Zahlen: Abschlussbericht. Modul 1.
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance (Vol. 4). Verso.
García-Sánchez, I. M. (2010). The effectiveness of corporate governance: Board structure and business technical efficiency in Spain. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 18(3), 311-339.
Greenberg, E. S. (2008). Spillovers from cooperative and democratic workplaces: Have the benefits been oversold. In M. Snyder, B. Sullivan, & J. Sullivan (Eds.), Cooperation: The political psychology of effective human interaction (pp. 219-239). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Greening, D. W., & Gray, B. (1994). Testing a model of organizational response to social and political issues. Academy of Management journal, 37(3), 467-498.
Guo, C., & Musso, J. A. (2007). Representation in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A conceptual framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 308-326.
Guo, C., Metelsky, B. A., & Bradshaw, P. (2013). Out of the shadows: Nonprofit governance research from democratic and critical perspectives. In Nonprofit Governance (pp. 63-84). Routledge.
Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2010, November). Voice-in, voice-out: Constituent participation and nonprofit advocacy. In Nonprofit policy forum (Vol. 1, No. 1). De Gruyter.
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2008). Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness research and theory: Nine theses. Nonprofit management and leadership, 18(4), 399-415.
Hudock, A. C. (1995). Sustaining Southern NGOs in resource‐dependent environments. Journal of International Development, 7(4), 653-667.
Hug, N., & Jäger, U. P. (2014). Resource-based accountability: A case study on multiple accountability relations in an economic development nonprofit. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(3), 772-796.
Hult, K. M., & Walcott, C. E. (1990). Governing public organizations: Politics, structures, and institutional design. Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Ingram, R. T. (2009). Ten basic responsibilities of nonprofit boards. BoardSource, Inc..
Jegers, M. (2009). “Corporate” governance in nonprofit organizations: A nontechnical review of the economic literature. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(2), 143-164.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of financial economics, 3(4), 305-360.
Johnston, E. (2010). Governance infrastructures in 2020. Public Administration Review, 70, s122-s128.
Kandil, A. Hassan (2007). The Good Governance in the Arabic NGOs: Comparative Study between Egypt, Morocco, and Yemen.
Karpen, U. (1980). Gemeinnützige Stiftungen im pluralistischen Rechtsstaat (Vol. 101). Metzner.
Katan, J., & Prager, E. (1986). Consumer and worker participation in agency-level decision making: Some considerations of their linkages. Administration in Social Work, 10(1), 79-88.
Keane, J. (1998). Civil society: Old images, new visions. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kilby, P. (2006). Accountability for empowerment: Dilemmas facing non-governmental organizations. World Development, 34(6), 951-963.
King, D., & Griffin, M. (2019). Nonprofits as schools for democracy: The justifications for organizational democracy within nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(5), 910-930.
Kissane, R. J., & Gingerich, J. (2004). Do you see what I see? Nonprofit and resident perceptions of urban neighborhood problems. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 311-333.
Kramer, R. M. (1985). Toward a contingency model of board-executive relations. Administration in Social Work, 9(3), 15-33.
Kreindler, S. A. (2009). Patient involvement and the politics of methodology. Canadian Public Administration, 52(1), 113-124.
Kumar, S., & Roberts, J. (2010). Governance, Organizational.
Lan, L. L., & Heracleous, L. (2010). Rethinking agency theory: The view from law. Academy of management review, 35(2), 294-314.
Le Roux, K. (2009). Paternalistic or participatory governance? Examining opportunities for client participation in nonprofit social service organizations. Public Administration Review, 69(3), 504-517.
Lang, S. (2000). NGOs, local governance, and political communication processes in Germany. Political Communication, 17(4), 383-387.
McCambridge, R. (2004). Underestimating the power of nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 346-354.
Mainardes, E. W., Raposo, M., & Alves, H. (2011). Organizations with dispersed powers: Suggestion of a new management model based on the stakeholders theory. Journal of Management Research, 3(1), 1.
Malena, C. (2010). Good Governance and Civil Society. International Encyclopedia of Civil Society, 783-788.
Mandel, L. A., & Qazilbash, J. (2005). Youth voices as change agents: Moving beyond the medical model in school‐based health center practice. Journal of school health, 75(7), 239-242.
Mansfeldová, Z. (2006). Political and Administrative Accountability in the Czech Republic. In Participation of Civil Society in New Modes of Governance. The Case of the New Member States, ed. H. Pleines, pp. 22-34. Bremen: Research Centre for East European Studies.
Marquardt, J. J. (2006). Kant and Bentham on Publicity: Implications for transparency and the liberal democratic peace. Prepared for delivery at the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, p. 17.
Marschall, M. (2010). Transparency. International Encyclopedia of Civil Society, 1566-1570.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2014). Designing qualitative research. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qTByBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT8&dq=Marshall,+C.+%26+Gretchen+B.+R.+(2011).+Designing+qualitative+research.+Newbury+Park,+California.+Sage+Publications&ots=xgGbDE_69_&sig=tunsMHM4zrRi6-XDayizJC-ZdrU
Middleton, M. (1987). Nonprofit boards of directors: Beyond the governance function. The nonprofit sector: A research handbook, 141-153.
Miller-Millesen, J. L. (2003). Understanding the behavior of nonprofit boards of directors: A theory-based approach. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 32(4), 521-547.
Mulgan, Richard. Holding power to account: accountability in modern democracies. Springer, 2003.
Najam, A. (1996). NGO accountability: A conceptual framework. Development Policy Review, 14(4), 339-354.
Nelson, J. (2007). The operation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in a world of corporate and other codes of conduct. Corporate social responsibility initiative.
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Relevance of social research (Vol. 8). https://doi.org/10.2307/3211488
O’Donovan, G. (2003). Change Management-A Board Culture of Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance International, 6(3), 28-37.
O'Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2010). Enhancing the role of accountability in promoting the rights of beneficiaries of development NGOs. Accounting and Business Research, 40(5), 451-471.
Osili, U., Horvath, K. Z., Zarins, S., Kou, X., Staashelm, J., Sherrin, S., ... & Vaughan, E. (2019). An Annotated Bibliography of Recent Literature on Current Developments in Philanthropy.
Ostrower, F., & Stone, M. M. (2010). Moving governance research forward: A contingency-based framework and data application. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(5), 901-924.
Ostrower, F. (2007). Nonprofit governance in the United States: Findings on performance and accountability from the first national representative study.
Padilla, A. (2002). Can agency theory justify the regulation of insider trading? The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 5(1), 3-38.
Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative science quarterly, 218-228.
Pfeffer, J. (1973). Size, composition, and function of hospital boards of directors: A study of organization-environment linkage. Administrative science quarterly, 349-364.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation (Vol. 75). University of California Press.
Plummer, J. (1994). The Governance Gap: Quangos and Accountability. London:
LGC Communications.
Polletta, F. (2016). Participatory enthusiasms: a recent history of citizen engagement initiatives. Journal of Civil Society, 12(3), 231-246.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, USA.
Pospíšil, M. (2006). „History of the Czech Nonprofit Sector.“. NGO@-book.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (2012). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago press.
Purdy, J. M., & Lawless, J. (2012). Learning about governance through nonprofit board service. Journal of Management Education, 36(1), 33-65.
Smith, R. S. (2010). Nonprofits and public administration: Reconciling performance management and citizen engagement. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(2), 129-152.
Reiser, D. B. (2003). Dismembering civil society: The social cost of internally undemocratic nonprofits. Oregon Law Review. 82, 829–99.
Robson, P., Begum, N., & Locke, M. (2003). Developing user involvement: Working towards user-centred practice in voluntary organizations. Policy Press.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Henry, G. T. (2018). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage publications.
Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Political Science Quarterly, 110(4), 648-650.
Salipante, P. (2013). Lessons for governance research and practice. Nonprofit governance: Innovative perspectives and approaches, 272.
Samir, O. (2019). The development of the Civil Society in Egypt after 2011 revolution: between the legislative restrictions and the trails to survive. Civil Society in the Arab Region: Developments and Challenges Post-Uprisings. Mohamed El Agati (editor). Cairo, Al Maraya for Cultural production.
Saxton, G. D., Guo, S. C., & Brown, W. A. (2007). New dimensions of nonprofit responsiveness: The application and promise of Internet-based technologies. Public performance & management review, 31(2), 144-173.
Saxton, G. D. (2005). The participatory revolution in nonprofit management. The Public Manager, 34, 34-39.
Saxton, G. D., & Guo, C. (2011). Accountability online: Understanding the web-based accountability practices of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 40(2), 270-295.
Shankman, N. A. 1999. Reframing the debate between agency and stakeholder theories of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 19: 319-334.
Sharma, P. K. (2015). Conceptual framework of corporate governance. In Corporate Governance Practices in India (pp. 12-27). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Shea, C., & Sitar, S. (2004). NGO Accreditation and Certification: The Way Forward. International Centre for Non-Profit Law (http://pdf. dec. org/pdfdocs/PNAsDB766. pdf).
Seliger, B. (2003). From civic organization to NGOs in Germany: an interest group analysis. International Area Review, 6(1), 53-68.
Simon, K. (2001). The Status of Political Activities of Associations and Foundations. ICNL Senior Legal Consultant. NGOs and the Law – IJNL. 3 Issue 4
Simmons, R., & Birchall, J. (2005). A joined‐up approach to user participation in public services: strengthening the “Participation Chain”. Social Policy & Administration, 39(3), 260-283.
Soss, J. (1999). Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action. American Political Science Review, 363-380.
Sundaramurthy C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Cognition and Corporate Governance: Decades of Dialogue and Data. Academy of Management Review. 28(3) 371-383
Surmatz, H. (2018). Corporate governance regulation for philanthropic foundations. Advances in Corporate Governance. Unpublished Book.
Stivers, C. (1994). The listening bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public administration. Public Administration Review, 364-369.
Steinberg, R. (2010). Principal-agent theory and nonprofit accountability. Sivut 73-126 teoksessa KJ Hopt & T. von Hippel (toim.) Comparative Corporate Governace of Non-profit organizations.
Speckbacher, G. (2008). Nonprofit versus corporate governance: An economic approach. Nonprofit management and leadership, 18(3), 295-320.
Suárez, D. F. (2011). Collaboration and professionalization: The contours of public sector funding for nonprofit organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 307-326.
Toepler, S. (1996). Das gemeinnützige Stiftungswesen in der modernen demokratischen Gesellschaft: Ansätze zu einer ökonomischen Betrachtungsweise. Maecenata-Verlag.
Tocqueville, A. D. (1956). Democracy in America, ed. by TD Heffner. New York and Toronto: Mentor Books.
UNDP. (2002). Human Development Report 2002: Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World. http://www.hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-2002I
Vaccaro, A., & Madsen, P. (2009). ICT and an NGO: Difficulties in attempting to be extremely transparent. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(3), 221-231.
Verba, S., & Almond, G. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Verschuere, B. (2010). Effectiveness and efficiency. International Encyclopedia of Civil Society, 626-630.
Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2000). Strategic orientation and firm performance in an artistic environment. Journal of marketing, 64(1), 67-83.
Wagner & Lip. (2005). What is a hostile work environment? Legal Update, 8 (1). Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:viN9euIdguoJ:www.hwelaw.com/0305.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=iq
Warren, S., & Lloyd, R. (2009). Civil Society Self-Regulation. The Global Picture.
Wellens, L., & Jegers, M. (2014). Effective governance in nonprofit organizations: A literature based multiple stakeholder approach. European Management Journal, 32(2), 223-243.
Wellens, L., & Jegers, M. (2011). Beneficiaries' participation in nonprofit organizations: a theory-based approach. Public Money & Management, 31(3), 175-182.
World Bank. (1994). The World Bank and Participation. Washington, DC: Operations Policy
Department.
Worth, M. J. (2020). Nonprofit management: Principles and practice. CQ Press.
Wysocki, D. (2008). Readings in social research methods. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_sPG4EP0ut8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR6&dq=Wysocki,+D.+K.+(Ed.).+(2008). Readings+in+social+research+methods.+Cengage+Learning.&ots=5wFFoCy4JV&sig=yAUIlxbiHV3l0HGxAVdLeQRw1m0
Young, D. R. (2011). The prospective role of economic stakeholders in the governance of nonprofit organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(4), 566.
Young, D. R., Bania, N., & Bailey, D. (1996). Structure and accountability a study of national nonprofit associations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(4), 347-365.
Zald, M. N. (1967). Urban differentiation, characteristics of boards of directors, and organizational effectiveness. American journal of Sociology, 73(3), 261-272
Zald, M. N. (1969). The power and functions of boards of directors: A theoretical synthesis. American journal of Sociology, 75(1), 97-111.
Zald, M. N. (1970). Organizational change: The political economy of the YMCA.
Zimmer, A., and Basic, A. (2008). Governance in und mit Nonprofit-Organizationen‘, in:Schauer, R. et al. (eds): Steuerung und Kontrolle in Nonprofit-Organizationen. Linz: Trauner. 135-156
Zimmer, A., Gärtner, J., Priller, E., Rawert, P., Sachße, C., Strachwitz, R. G., & Walz, R. (2004). The legacy of subsidiarity: The nonprofit sector in Germany. In Future of civil society (pp. 681-711). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.
Zimmer, A. (1999). Corporatism revisited—The legacy of history and the German nonprofit sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 10(1), 37-49.
Zimmermann, U. (1994). Exploring the Nonprofit Motive (or: What's in it for You?).

Předběžná náplň práce

Správa věcí veřejných (Ang. governance) je odvozena z francouzského slova “gouverner”. Dalo by se tedy říct že pojem, „dobrá správa věcí veřejných“ označuje způsob, jak spravovat, řídit, vládnout a nasměrovávat organizace jednotlivci, kteří mají na starosti záležitosti řízení. Tato studie využívá teorii Alexis de Tocqueville (1956), která zdůrazňuje důležitost účasti demokratického procesu při řízení interních úkonů v dané organizaci, tak aby dále tyto organizace mohly hrát roli při podpoře demokracie v občanské společnosti. Cílem studie je zjistit imperativy řádné správy nevládních organizací propojením každodenních provozních úkolů a aplikací demokratických principů uvnitř nevládních organizací pomocí metody kvalitativního výzkumu ke shromažďování informací a porovnací implementaci imperativů „dobré správy“ nevládních organizací v organizacích nacházejících se v Berlíně, Káhiře a Praze. Studie tedy představuje dva normativní rámce; první je konceptualizace a zprovozňování imperativů řádné správy nevládních organizací integrací demokratické teorie se školami se zastoupením a účastí a druhou je zkoumat vliv EU na vnitřní a vnější faktory týkající se provádění těchto imperativů v nevládních organizacích. Práce táké kategorizuje „imperativy pro správu dobrých nevládních organizací“ a rozlišuje mezi manažerskými imperativy a imperativů demokracie. Manažerské imperativy, můžou být např. transparentnost, odpovědnost, odezva, účinnost a efektivita. Dále jsou zde také imperativy demokracie jako je účast, zastoupení, právní stát, spravedlnost a legalnost. Organizace by měly interně implementovat některé demokratické imperativy, jako je právě vláda zákonu, spravedlnost nebo legalitu tak i účast zaměstnanců na spolupráci při dosahování dobrých výsledků. Kromě toho musí organizace budovat pevné vztahy s různými zúčastněnými stranami a subjekty prostřednictvím jejich zapojení do rozhodovacího procesu, strategického plánování, návrhování programu a hodnocení, tak aby získala jejich důvěru a vlastní integritu. Studie dospěla k závěru, že velikost, délka existence a profesionalizace nevládních organizací ovlivňuje využívání těchto manažerských a demokratických imperativů v těchto organizacích. Organizace v Káhiře a Praze jsou navíc závislé na svém externím prostředí v kterém jsou provozovány.

Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce

Governance is derived from the French word "gouverner", so Good Governance refers to the way to control, steer, rule, and direct the organizations by the individuals who are in charge of the management affairs. The study uses the theory of Alexis de Tocqueville (1956), which emphasizes the importance of the presence of democracy to manage the internal tasks of the organizations, so these NGOs can play a role in fostering democracy in civil society. The study intends to find out the imperatives of good NGOs’ governance through linking the daily operational tasks and the applications of democratic principles inside NGOs by using the qualitative research method to collect information and compare the implementation of the imperatives of good NGOs’ governance in organizations in Berlin, Cairo, and Prague. Thus, the study presents two normative frameworks; the first one is to conceptualize and operationalize the imperatives of good NGOs’ governance through integrating democratic theory with the representation and participation schools, and the second one is to examine the influence of the internal and external factors on the implementation of these imperatives in NGOs. The thesis categorizes the “Good NGOs’ Governance Imperatives” into managerial imperatives and democratic imperatives. The managerial imperatives, which are transparency, accountability, responsiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency. Besides, the democratic imperatives are participation, representation, rule of law, fairness, and equity. Internally, the organizations should implement some democratic imperatives, such as the rule of law, fairness, equity, and participation for employees to work together to accomplish good NGOs’ governance. Besides, the organizations have to build strong relationships with various stakeholders through engaging them in the decision-making process, strategic planning, program design, and evaluation to gain their trust and integrity. The study concludes that the size, age, and professionalization of the NGOs affect the use of these managerial and democratic imperatives within organizations. Additionally, the organizations in Cairo and Prague are interdependent on their external environment in which they operate.