Federations, Confederations and Umbrella Organizations - Classification and Governance of Multi-Level Associations1
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Federations, Confederations and Umbrella Organizations
– Classification and Governance of Multi-Level Associations1
Torbjörn Einarsson, Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden, ate@hhs.se
Bidrag till: Företagsekonomisk ämneskonferens 2009, 11-12 nov
Draft version, please do not quote without permission of the author.
In this paper I address the issue of how to understand complex structures of interrelated associations as for
example the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) or Fédération
Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). The arguments take departure in part from Ahrne and
Brunsson’s (2005; 2008) work on meta-organizations but I also adopt a perspective where several formally
autonomous associations can be regarded as forming of a more or less coherent organization. These multi-level
associations are sometimes denominated as federations, confederations or umbrella organizations often without
any further description or definition. I show that it is neither unproblematic to delimit nor to classify these
organizational structures and therefore propose five variables that could be studied in order to shed a light on
those problems. I argue that a fruitful way of delimiting multi-level associations is by examining (A) the
correspondence of organizational identities and (B) mutual dependence across associational levels. I further
argue that classification of federations and confederations could be done by an examination of (C) the
distribution of power within a multi-level association, (D) if the individual’s membership contract primarily
connect him or her to the local association or to the whole multi-level association and (E) if the governance
system is organized to represent the individuals or the local associations. Finally I demonstrate the benefits of
such a classification by briefly discussing how some expected differences between the three identified types of
multi-level association could affect the organizations’ formal governance systems as well as the material
balance of power.
Much of contemporary organizational theory have been developed in order to describe the
function of or to handle problems in formal organizations consisting of either one single
juridical entity or a group of companies where the parent company formally owns the others
and is in charge over all activities in its subsidiaries. In such groups of companies the parent
company owns subsidiaries and by virtue of its ownership the parent company has a formal
1
This paper has been written in the context of the larger Civil Society Research Program at the Center for
Management and Organization at Stockholm School of Economics and I thank my colleagues for their comments
on this and earlier texts. I would also like to thank Professor Göran Ahrne at Stockholm University for his most
valuable comments on an early draft of this paper.
1decision power regarding activities of its subsidiaries. An implicit assumption in much of this
kind of research is that the members of the organization are individuals (Ahrne and Brunsson
2005).
Ahrne and Brunsson (2005; 2008) added to this knowledge by distinguishing between
organizations with individuals as members and organizations whose members are other
organizations (meta-organizations). Their empirical examples include amongst others
organizations as the Community of European Management Schools (CEMS), the Swedish
Association of Industry, the European Union and the Swedish Floorball Association. They
argued that differences due to the type of members an organization have will affect basic
organizational theoretical issues as the creation and sustainment of organizations, conflicts in
organizations and organizational change.
There is however also a large and influential group of organizations in society that consists
of combinations of meta-organizations and individual-based organizations (e.g. Salamon and
Anheier 1997; Wijkström and Einarsson 2006). Empirical phenomenon that in spite of the
fact that they are composed of a multitude of formal organizations in many cases is suitable to
consider as coherent organizations. Two of the organizations Ahrne and Brunsson discusses,
the Swedish Floorball Association and the European Union are by themselves examples of
meta-organizations since they have either floorball associations or states as members. But it is
also possible to see them as larger integrated entities. A citizen in a European state could be
regarded as a citizen in the European Union and an individual member in a floorball
association could be seen as a member in the Swedish Floorball Association. While Ahrne
and Brunsson (2005; 2008) used these organizations as examples of meta-organizations I will
in this paper use two other similarly structured organizations to illustrate that it often can be
meaningful to deal with a meta-organization together with its member-organizations as one
coherent organization.
One of the empirical organizations I discuss in this paper hopefully illustrates this point
more clearly. Most people would probably regard the Swedish Red Cross (SRC) as a large
integrated organization and it may in many cases be reasonable standpoint. But formally SRC
consists of more than 1 200 local associations alongside with the national association. The
question is how we could know which of all these and surrounding associations it would make
sense to bundle when we think about the SRC as a whole. One of the aspects that make this
judgment difficult in this kind of organization is the reversed power structures. In a group
company we would expect that the parent company would have all of the formal power. But
2the highest decision-making body within the SRC, the national assembly, consists of
representatives elected by the local associations (Swedish Red Cross 2009a). That is, the local
associations are formally in control of the national association.
These kinds of organizations have mainly figured in research about co-operatives and have
often been denominated as federations or to a lesser extent as confederations. Implications of
the reversed power structures have been discussed from various perspectives but the
boundaries of the organizations have in most cases been taken for granted. Since one of my
main points is that the boundaries often are unclear and depending on one’s point of view and
purposes I will use the term multi-level associations. I will however further discuss some ideal
typical characteristics of federative and confederative structures but my two case
organizations will show that empirical organizations simultaneously may present both
federative and confederative characteristics simultaneously.
In order to better understand why it could be sensible to view multi-level associations as
forming a coherent whole we can pose the question why multi-level associations appear in the
first place. Ahrne and Brunsson (2005) suggests some possible reasons for organizations to
join meta-organizations. It could be argued that it is more efficient to co-operate in common
matters and pool resources in order to achieve things that the individual organizations
themselves could not do. The membership in a meta-organization might also affect the
member’s social status at the same time as the membership is important for the member’s
identity.
Ahrne and Brunsson’s argument is however restricted to organizations’ membership in
meta-organizations. They do not discuss how and why this structure might evolve into a larger
whole. The traditional explanation often found in many multi-level associations’ jubilee
publications is that the organization emerged locally among the grass-roots and that local
associations later joined together in district and national associations in order to further their
co-operation.
This view can however be challenged, as for example by Skocpol et al (2000). They argue
that adopting a similar structure as the political system of local, regional and national levels
made it easier for the organizations to exert influence. Other non-political organizations then
adapted to this already legitimate and well understood model of organizing (cf. DiMaggio and
Powell 1983). Skocpol et al (2000) further argue that this multi-level structure also proved to
be effective in order to spread the organizations through the country. National and regional
units offered help and standards which made it easier for people to set up local units in new
3locations. Olson (1971) also argues that multi-level organizations might be more effective in
certain circumstances. Small local units could be used as an instrument for increasing
people’s involvement through social incentives which are not available in larger settings.
Both Ahrne and Brunsson’s arguments and the organizations’ own creational myths do
explain why organizations choose to co-operate with each other through a common unit but
they do not clarify under which conditions the member organizations along with the common
unit forms some kind of a whole. Skocpol et al and Olson’s does almost the opposite. They
explain that it under certain circumstances is wise to structure a larger organization in
multiple layers of semi-autonomous organizations.
I will in this paper attend to two basic problems concerning multi-level associations which
in previous literature have not been properly addressed. The first question is how to delimit a
multi-level association from other organizations which are connected through the bond of
membership and through that essentially distinguish between meta-organizations and coherent
multi-level associations. The second question is about how the great variety of organizational
structures among multi-level associations could be understood and classified.2 The last section
of the paper is dedicated to some aspects of governance in multi-level associations in order to
show that analysis of the two above questions can help us to better understand empirical
organizations.
Sjöstrand (2000) point out the importance in distinguishing between three perspectives on
organizations: organizations as theoretical constructs or ideal types, legal definitions of
organizations and empirical expressions of organization. These three perspectives are at the
same time separate and interrelated because the perspectives exert influence on each other.
Legal rules affect how real organizations are structured, while empirical organizations is the
2
The scope of this paper is limited to multi-level associations where the “local” units consist of individual based
associations. Part of the arguments in this paper should however probably also apply for other similar
organizational structures too. The discussion of how to delimit a multi-level association could for example be
applied to multi-level trade associations with firms as members. It would maybe also be interesting to assess if
the power structures in such an organization bear more or less traits of a federation or a confederation even if the
analysis must be somewhat adapted.
4basis for theoretical constructs that in turn affect legal definitions. I will in this paper adopt
two of these three perspectives.
The two above mentioned questions will be discussed on a theoretical level and I will also
make a couple of ideal typical descriptions of different forms of multi-level associations. In
this I will use two empirical organizations in order to illustrate my arguments. The legal
perspective will however be in the background.
Finding and delimiting multi level-associations
The basic organizational building block that link multi-level associations together is the
membership. An individual (among other individuals) holds a membership in a local
association which in turn (among other associations) holds a membership in a national
association possibly with one or more layers of regional associations in between.
When analyzing formal organizations the question of delimiting the organization is often a
minor problem since boundaries are quite well defined. This might also in the case of multi-
level associations at first sight be seen as a trivial question. It would for example be easy to
say that the Swedish Red Cross simply is composed of the national association and the local
associations. But the SRC in turn holds a membership in the International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). Would it then be appropriate to see the all local
Red Cross associations together with all national Red Cross societies as one gigantic
organization?
Is it then possible to identify other or better ways to delimit the organization than by
tracing formal membership-ties among associations? Would it maybe be suitable to delimit
the organization at the national level? It could possibly be argued that differences in for
example language, culture and in the legal system regarding associations makes that kind of
delimitation appropriate. We would in that case understand it as if every country has their
own national Red Cross multi level-association which join together in the international
umbrella-association IFRC.
But even if using country boundaries would be appropriate it is however not always
enough in order to make a clear distinction. The formal structures of the Swedish Football
Association (SFA) resemble the structures of the SRC. Individuals hold memberships in local
associations which in turn hold memberships in a national association. The national
5association is also a member of international associations such as the Union of European
Football Associations (UEFA) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association
(FIFA). So far we have the same type of problem as with delimiting the SRC. But the SFA
also holds a membership in the Swedish Sports Confederation which gathers all Swedish
sport federations. Since it could seem to be a little bit farfetched to bundle football players and
horseback riders with swimmers and race-car drivers it is apparent that we must find another
way to delimit the organization than just by the combination of formal membership ties and
country borders. An even more obvious example of the problem of only using the
membership connection in order to establish the scope of an organization is the SRC’s
membership in the Swedish Fundraising Council (SFC). There are probably no one that would
consider the SRC together with the SFC and its other members as the Church of Sweden and
the Swedish Guide and Scout Council to be part of a larger meaningful whole.
The two multi level-associations that I have used as examples could be illustrated as in
figure 1. Both complexes stretch over several formal associations both within Sweden and
internationally. SFA with its membership in the Swedish Sports Confederation and SRC’s
membership in the Swedish Fundraising Council makes it clear that the seemingly easy
solution to use country borders for delimiting the multi level-associations is not enough.
IFRC UEFA International
organizations
Swedish Red Cross Swedish Fundraising Swedish Football Swedish Sports
Council Association Confederation
Local association Local association Domestic
organizations
Individual Individual
member member
Figure 1: The Swedish Red Cross and the Swedish Football Association and some of their
memberships in other associations.
6Two promising alternatives for delimiting multi-level associations are to analyze
similarities of organizational identity and differences in mutual dependence among integral
associations.
(A) Does the organizational identity correspond between the organizational levels?
Associational levels that share the same organizational identity could also be seen as
belonging to the same multi level-association. One first strong indicator of shared
identities between associational levels would be a shared name. Another indicator
would be shared purposes and activities between associational levels. A third indicator
is the intra-organizational understanding of the multi level-association’s boundaries.
How far do the individual member’s identification with the multi-level association
stretch and with the reversed perspective how far away in the associational chain do the
associations acknowledge the individual members as a part of the organization?
(B) Is there a mutual dependency between associational levels? Would it be possible for a
meta-association and its member-associations to continue their activities without large
modifications if any of the associational levels would disappear? If two associational
levels are highly dependent on each other they could be regarded as belonging to the
same multi level-association.
If these two questions are answered affirmatively it should make sense to bundle the two
analyzed associational levels into a more coherent organizational structure. The following
step is to continue to make the same analysis at the next associational level.
Two additional ways of assessing where it would be appropriate to delimit a multi level-
association could be sought in analyzing the history of the associations and the power
distribution among the associational levels. How and when have different parts of the multi
level-association been created? Was it as in many of the organizational myths a number of
local associations that together created a national association to further their co-operation or
was the national association founded first and later on spread through formation of local
associations in new locations? Regarding the power distribution it would seem to be natural to
group associations that have real and not only formal possibilities of influencing each other.
I will however not use any of these two latter alternatives ways for delimiting the multi
level-associations in this paper since I think the two firstly stated is enough. I do also not have
7sufficient empirical data on history and actual power distributions for the two example
organizations. I will nonetheless return to discussing power distribution when I propose a
classification scheme for multi level-associations.
The Swedish Red Cross and the Swedish Football Association
To exemplify the criterions of identity and mutual dependence I will apply them on the
Swedish Red Cross and the Swedish Football Association. If we start by looking at the SRC
and its integral associations we can see that both the national association and all the local
associations share the same name. The national association is named “the Swedish Red
Cross” while all local associations have names indicating the local community supplemented
with “Red Cross”. Taking this one step further we also notice that the international federation,
the IFRC, have “Red Cross” in its name.
In addition to the shared name all these three levels of associations within the Red Cross
also share the same basic purpose: to “prevent and alleviate human suffering” (International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2007; Swedish Red Cross 2009a). The
organizational identity across all these associational levels consequently seems to correspond
quite well.
Would this be more nuanced if we took into account voices from within the organizations?
Wordings in an organization’s annual report ought to be seen as an official voice from the
organization. The Swedish Red Cross reported that they 2008 had 253 448 individual
members distributed among 1 235 local associations (Swedish Red Cross 2009b). This
indicates that the national association thinks that it reaches from the individual through the
local association to the Swedish Red Cross. IFRC in turn report that they in the same year had
186 Red Cross and Red Crescent societies around the world as members (International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2009). IFRC does consequently not try to
extend their reach further than to its immediate member-organizations.
The dependence between local associations and the Swedish Red Cross seem to be
relatively high. Even if it would be theoretically possible it is hard to imagine the local
associations without the Swedish Red Cross or vice versa. It is also hard to see that IFRC
could carry out activities to the same extent without the national organizations. The national
organizations would however probably be able to carry on with most of their activities
without IFRC.
8This analysis show that all the associational levels from the local associations via the
Swedish Red Cross to the IFRC are relatively tight coupled. The “Red Cross”-identity seems
to be strong at all associational levels and the individual members in Sweden think that the
IFRC are important to them. The organizational purpose is also the same on all these
associational levels. I would however anyway choose to delimit the associational complex so
that it is composed by the local associations and the Swedish Red Cross but not the IFRC. My
two main reasons for that is the IFRC’s dissociation from the individual members and that the
SRC seem to be less dependent on the IFRC than the national and local associations within
Sweden are dependent on each other. The Swedish Fundraising Council is also left out since
there is only a small shared identity as fundraising organizations, the purpose differs and the
Swedish Fundraising Council would probably not consider the SRC’s individual members as
part of the organization.
What would a similar analysis of the Swedish Football Association tell us? In Sweden it is
common that sports associations have more than one sport on their athletic program.
Consequently, many football playing associations do not have “football” in their name. A
common identity among football associations could consequently not be built on the name.
Since one of the main activities of the football associations is to compete against each other
the name of the association is instead a strong source of identification that distinguishes
associations from each other. At the national and international levels the Football Association
and UEFA share the keyword “football”. The Swedish Sports Confederation do however not
have football in its name since it gather (nearly) all national sports associations in Sweden.
The purpose of local football associations varies a lot partly because the local associations
can have more than football on their athletic program. The purpose of the Swedish Football
Association is stated as to “promote and manage the sport of football in Sweden and to
represent it internationally” (Swedish Football Association 2009a) and UEFA should ”deal
with all questions relating to European football” (Union of European Football Associations
2007). Consequently there are clear differences among these purposes ranging from playing
the game, maybe among a limited number of other sports, to manage the sports and deal with
all the questions relating to European football. But they all have football as at least one of its
main interest or activities. The Swedish Sports Confederation on its part should “manage
common concerns for the sports movement both nationally and internationally” (Swedish
Sports Confederation 2005) in which football just become one of many different sports on the
agenda.
9In their annual report the Swedish Football Association seems to dissociate somewhat from
the individual members when they report that they have 3 375 associations as members where
more than one million individuals are members (Swedish Football Association 2009b). It
could be interpreted that they consider the local associations more as their primary members
instead of the individual members. The SFA do nevertheless mention the individuals in the
same sentence whereas UEFA do not mention the individual members at all when they say
that they are comprised of 53 national football associations (Union of European Football
Associations 2009). The Swedish Sports Confederation reports that they primarily are
constituted by 68 sports associations (Swedish Sports Confederation 2009). In a later passage
of the text it is however stated that the sports movement have more than three million
members.
The dependence between local football associations and SFA seem to be considerably
high. The tournaments and series in which the local associations play in are organized by SFA
and its regional association and without local football associations SFA would not have any
sport to promote. SFA is in its turn dependent on UEFA and FIFA for international
tournaments but could probably continue all its national activities without help from the
international associations. SFA and the local association would also probably be able to
continue its activities without the Swedish Sports Confederation even if that would potentially
involve a considerable loss of state grants.
All this taken together I would draw the border around the local associations and the SFA.
SFA seems to partly want to dissociate itself from the individuals but the mutual dependence
between the associations and SFA and the similarities in their football-identity should
however compensate for that. UEFA, FIFA and the Swedish Sports Confederation are left out
due to the even lower degree of shared identity and mutual dependence.
As the two examples of multi level-associations demonstrate, these kinds of organizations
can be fairly different. The associational levels could be more tightly coupled together like the
Swedish Red Cross in relation to the Swedish Football Association. Since we could expect
that this kind of difference could result in variations in the functioning of the organizations we
cannot stop with delimiting a multi level-association. We must also find a way to classify it in
accordance to those differences.
10Classification of multi-level associations
Maybe the most interesting difference between different multi-level associations is the
formal distribution and material balance of power. The distribution of power between
different levels of a multi-level association is also in part dependent on a variable we already
have discussed – the mutual dependence between associational levels. In Emerson’s (1962)
words: “power resides implicitly in the other’s dependency”. The dependence of an actor
upon another actor is proportional to the first actor’s motivational investment in inducements
from the second actor and inversely proportional to the availability of those inducements from
outside that particular relationship.
One distinction that sometimes is made between various types of multi-level associations
or other types of multi-level organizations and often is connected to the distribution of power
is the distinction between federations and confederations. Any commonly accepted usage of
the two terms does however not seem to exist and their usage would rather be attributed to
political scientists than to organizational scientists. Most scholars seem to prefer one of the
terms and let it denote all types of multi-level organizations. Crémer and Palfrey (1999)
writes:
A confederation is an institutional arrangement in which the policies of different
districts are, at least in part, influenced by the preferences of voters from other
districts in the confederation. In practice, this is usually accomplished through a
complex array of overlapping jurisdictions, representative governments at different
levels, and a legal system that allocates decision-making authority and responsibility
across these different levels.
This quite wide definition makes it clear that the theoretical ideal type of in this case a
confederation could empirical be expressed in very different ways. Ahrne and Brunsson
(2008) also argue that the terms federation and confederation in most cases are too vague and
unclear so they chose not to use the terms at all. Despite the obvious vagueness of the terms
federation and confederation I will use them in order to avoid the inevitable confusion with
inventing new terms. I will however use the terms to denominate two ideal typical forms of
multi-level associations which resides on different end on a floating scale. Empirical
organizations will probably more or less show characteristics from both these ideal types.
One scholar that does make a distinction between confederations and federations is
Blankart (2007). He argues that a confederation is built on a two-level contract. The
individuals hold memberships in and acknowledge the local association. The local association
11in turn, as an organization, holds a membership in the central association. A federation is
instead building on a direct contract between the individual members and the central
association. The confederation is a treaty among more or less autonomous local associations
while the federation is a treaty directly among individual members (cf. Blankart 2007).
One implication of Blankart’s definition is that local associations keep their autonomy in a
confederation whereas they become more or less integrated in a federation since the
individual members are direct principals both over the local association and over the central
association. The membership-relationship in confederations and federations could thus be
illustrated as in figure 2.
Central Central
association association
Memb.
Membership
Local association Local assoc.
Memb.
Individual member Individual member
Figure 2: The membership in ideal typical confederations and federations.
It is however not as simple as analyzing the nature of the membership contract in order to
settle where in the multi-level association the power resides. Crémer and Palfrey (1999)
studied implications of different structures of federalism by separating the dimensions of
centralization and representation. Centralization indicate on what associational level the most
important decisions are made while the dimension of representation distinguish different
multi-level associations depending on if it is the individuals or the local associations that is
represented in the central association’s governance system.
If every local association would have one vote each it would clearly be the local
association that is represented. If the votes are allocated among the local associations
proportional to their numbers of individual members the system is more designed to represent
the individual members. But this is seldom drawn to the extreme. Every local association
12sends representatives that are elected by their members but the individual members do not
have the possibility to vote for representatives in other local associations.
The two questions about which associational level the individual’s membership contract is
anchored in and of the structure of the governance system is often related to the question of
but it is not necessary the same. There could also be many variants of these two ideal
governance types. It is for example quite common with governance systems where the votes
primarily are distributed according to the number of members while small local associations
are guaranteed to have a fixed minimum number of votes.
The two first variables (A and B) were used to determine boundaries for multi-level
associations. In this second step, I argue that the most important variables to have in mind
while trying to classify multi-level associations into confederations and federations are:
(C) The formal distribution of power between local and central associations.
(D) If the membership contract is between individual and local association or between
individual and central association.
(E) If it primarily are the individuals or the local associations that are represented in the
central associations governance system.
The ideal typical federation has a high degree of centralized power, an individual
membership directly connected to the central association and the individual directly connected
to the central association through the membership. In the ideal typical confederation the local
associations are autonomous, most of the power is retained at the local level and the
individual do primarily hold a membership in the local association.
The ideal type of the federation as an organization with a direct relationship to the
individual members is close to a fully integrated association. The ideal typical confederation
with autonomous local associations in turn is close to umbrella organizations or meta-
organizations with Ahrne and Brunsson’s (2005) words as already discussed. When turning to
empirical organizations it is possible to find many types of organizations with characteristics
mixed from both federations and confederations. Since the division between federations and
confederations seem to be a floating scale I propose to place them on a one-dimensional scale
that as in figure 3.
13Multi-level associations
Umbrella Integrated
Confederation Federation
organization association
Figure 3: Ideal typical umbrella organizations, confederations and federations placed on a
one-dimensional scale.
Using the five questions (A-E) that I have posed in order to delimit and classifying
different types of multi-level association it is now in table 1 possible to list some interesting
characteristics of the ideal typical umbrella organization, confederation and federation.
Umbrella organization Confederation Federation
Semi-integrated multi-level
Type of organization Meta-association Integrated multi-level association
association
Central association and local
Umbrella organization and member-
associations share at least one
association probably share one Central association and local
(A) Organizational dimension of their organizational
dimension of their organizational associations share nearly the same
identity identities but the local associations
identities but the member-associations organizational identity.
distinguish themselves from each
distinguish themselves from each other.
other.
Central association needs local
Umbrella organization may not need
associations in order for its
members for other things than funding Central and local associations need
activities to be meaningful. Local
(B) Mutual dependency and legitimacy. Member-associations each other for most of their
associations need the central
do not need the umbrella organization activities.
association for many of their
for most of their activities.
activities.
Local associations are formally
Member-associations are formally
principals of the central Local associations are formally
(C) Formal distribution principals of the umbrella organization
organization but are often in turn subordinated to the central
of power and may be bound to follow certain
bound to follow certain rules due association.
rules due to the membership contract.
to the membership contract.
Local association holds Individual member holds
Member-association holds membership
(D) Membership contract membership in the central membership in the federation as a
in the umbrella organization.
association. whole.
Delegates / votes distributed
One member-association – one One local association – one
(E) Representation primarily to represent the
delegate / vote. delegate / vote.
individual members.
Table 1: Characteristics of ideal typical umbrella organizations, confederations and
federations.
Back to our empirical organizations
Once again I will illustrate this theoretical discussion with the empirical multi-level
associations of the Swedish Red Cross and the Swedish Football Association. The statutes of
SRC state that it is the central association that decides the level of the membership fee
14(Swedish Red Cross 2009a). This indicates that the individual’s membership primarily is
connected to the central association even when the statutes further states that the member
belongs to a local association. The membership also gives the individual possibilities to
participate in activities within the whole SRC. That the membership contract is directly
between the individual and the central association is further accentuated by the conceptions of
the membership within the organization. The texts in the central association’s annual report
present the individuals as the primary members while the local associations are units that the
members are distributed over.
The representation in the general assembly is a mix between a representation of individuals
and of local associations. One delegate within each municipality is elected by the boards from
the local associations. Municipalities in which the local associations have more than 3000
members are further entitled to one more delegate for every 3000 extra members (Swedish
Red Cross 2009a). The local associations in a municipality are consequently entitled to at
least one delegate but this can be adjusted upwards depending on how many individual
members these local associations have.
In SRC’s statutes it is stated that the local associations are formally subordinated to the
national association’s board of directors notwithstanding that they are juridical entities
separated from the national association (Swedish Red Cross 2009a). It is further stated that the
national association’s board decides local associations’ name, residence, aim and the
membership fee for all members. A new local association must be approved by the national
association’s board and it cannot be dissolved without confirmation from the national
association’s board.
In the statutes of the Swedish Football Association it is clearly stated that it only is football
associations that can apply for membership (Swedish Football Association 2009a). As already
mentioned SFA also regard local associations as their primary members in official text as the
annual report even if they also take the opportunity to say that the local associations altogether
have more than one million individual members.
The representation in the general assembly is also in SFA a mix between a representation
of individuals and of local associations but even more complex than in SRC. Approximately
one third of the votes are allocated to the local associations that play in the two highest male
football series and the highest female football series. The rest of the votes are allocated to the
districts, which the local associations control. A little bit more than half of these votes are
distributed evenly to all districts while the rest are distributed according to how many licensed
15players (not necessary the same as the number of members) there are in the district (Swedish
Football Association 2009a).
The SFA does not have any direct control over the local associations more than that the
associations through the membership commit themselves to follow athletic rules stipulated by
SFA and the Swedish Sports Confederation (Swedish Football Association 2009a).
With all this in mind we could say that SRC have more federative characteristics while the
SFA have more confederative characteristics. It should however be noted that it would be
wise to conduct a more thorough empirical examination of the workings of the organizations’
governance system since the actual distribution of power could differ from what could be read
in the organization’s statutes.
This was a quick classification of our two identified multi-level associations. But what
about the other related associations as the IFRC, UEFA, FIFA and the Swedish Sports
Confederation? They would, in my terminology, be classified as umbrella organizations since
they are meta-associations but not multi-level associations. But I want to once more call
attention to the fact that the theoretical constructions of ideal typical federations,
confederations and umbrella organizations should not be confused with the classification of
empirical organizations. Real world organizations can be hard to classify in an unambiguous
way and classifications could differ depending on the perspective and purpose of the person
doing the classification. In a situation as a coordinated international disaster relief project
would it maybe be sensible to regard the Swedish Red Cross together with the IFRC and other
national Red Cross societies as one coherent multi-level association.
Governance of multi-level associations
In this last part of the paper I will shortly touch upon some governance aspects of multi-
level associations in order to show that identifying the boundaries and characteristics of these
types of organizations can help us to understand their inner workings.
Soegaard (1994) argue that it is useful to distinguish between political and material balance
of power where political power refer to the formal governance system with distribution of
power and mode of representation while the material balance of power depend on the
distribution of mutual dependence within the multi-level association. It is in practice however
not possible to completely separate the formal governance system and the material balance of
16power since they are interwoven. I will in this section start out from the formal governance
system and from there wander more and more into the material balance of power.
If we look back at the scale in figure 4 of ideal typical organizational forms ranging from
umbrella organizations over confederations and federations to integrated associations I have
up till now almost excluded the basic association from discussions. That is however not
possible or desirable any more. Since all the discussed organizational forms ultimately consist
of associations, their governance systems will also be built on the governance system of
associations.
The lack of legal regulation of non-profit associations in Sweden leads to a situation where
it to a great deal is up to the individual members themselves to decide how they should set up
their organization. Most Swedish associations have an annual meeting as their highest
decision-making body. Probably the most common way is to let all members have the same
amount of influence – one member – one vote and questions are settled with majority votes
(Hemström 2002). This suggests that all individual members have equal opportunities to
influence questions that are raised in the annual meeting including elections of representatives
to the board and other functions in the association.
In associations with large number of members it can be impractical or even impossible to
carry through annual meetings where every member has the right to attend. The statutes may
then prescribe rules for electing delegates that will represent the members on the annual
meeting (Hemström 2002). The difference between a system where all members is allowed to
attend the annual meeting and a system with delegates is illustrated in figure 4. Instead of
directly be a part of the decision-making process the members elect delegates who is
supposed to represent them at the annual meeting. The figure also indicates that the members
often are divided in groups who have their own delegates. Such grouping is often made on
geographical basis and the delegates could be assigned different numbers of votes depending
on how many members they represent.
17Decisions and Decisions and
election of the board election of the board
M M M M D D D D
M M M M M M M M M M
Figure 4: Representative system in large associations.
A governance system like the one to the right in figure 5 is to the structure similar to the
governance system of a federation. The individual members are represented by delegates in
the central association’s governance system. The structure of confederations’ and umbrella
organizations’ governance system does also present resemblances to this. There is however
important differences in what the delegates are supposed to represent. In the ideal typical
umbrella organization or confederation decision-making is a two-level process. In the first
step every local association decide which position they should have and in the second step the
local associations’ voices are aggregated in the central association (cf. Blankart 2007). In the
ideal typical federation or integrated association decision-making only require one step since
the delegates directly represents the individual members.
In associations and federations the delegates are supposed to represent the individual
members and in confederations and umbrella organizations the delegates are supposed to
represent the member-associations. This could be seen as a minor difference when the
structure nevertheless in the end gives the power to the individual members but it does have
consequences. First of all a delegate that strives for the best for an association would under
certain circumstances make other decisions than a delegate that strives for the best of the
association’s individual members. In some situations it may even be for the best of the
individual members that the association is discontinued but a delegate representing the
association itself could not take such a decision under normal circumstances.
Another difference is due to differences in the distribution of votes. When delegates in
integrated associations and federations represent individual members their votes usually are
distributed to reflect this. Delegates that represent many individual members usually have
more votes than delegates that represent few individual members. In ideal typical umbrella
18organizations and confederations the member-associations’ delegates only have one vote
each. This mean that every member-association have the same amount of influence
independent on how large they are in terms of individual members, how resourceful they are
or how much they contribute to the central association.
Both these arrangements could potentially introduce problems. Member-associations with
many individual members or that on other grounds think that they are more important could
construe a governance system where member associations have one vote each, as unfair and
illegitimate. And if the governance system would be altered to reflect this, small member-
association´s could accuse the governance system to be undemocratic since the rule of one
member – one vote is abandoned.
A situation where some of the participants deem the decision processes as illegitimate
easily lead to a situation where decisions are characterized of consensus. Controversial
questions may not come to surface at all since it is clear beforehand that the results would not
be accepted anyway (cf. Ahrne and Brunsson 2008). This problem should be less pronounced
in federations since their membership contract link the individual directly to the central
association. The local association will accordingly not be as strong power centers as in
umbrella organizations or confederations.
Another consequence of this kind of weaknesses in the formal governance system that
Ahrne and Brunsson (2005) mention is that decisions concerning the member-associations’
activities often are implemented as directives instead of binding rules. Such decisions can also
be implemented as rules a potential member-association must commit itself to in order to
become a member. An example of that is the athletic rules every associational member of the
Swedish Sports Confederation commits themselves to. Umbrella organizations’ and
confederation’s preference for consensus is however not as pronounced in federations which
are more like integrated associations in that sense. Since the delegates represent the individual
members they could also directly pass resolutions both for the central association and for the
local associations which would not be possible in umbrella organizations or confederations
where the local associations enjoys more autonomy.
One of the differences between the different type of associations and multi-level
associations discussed in this paper is how dependent different parts of the organizational
complexes are on each other. All associations of course depend on having members. But
every association is not equally dependent on who the members are. Ahrne and Brunsson
(2005) argue that individual-based associations often are not dependent on who the members
19are. The individual members are consequently relatively replaceable. They further argue that
meta-organizations or umbrella organizations in my words often are dependent on having the
strongest potential member-organizations since their presence creates much of the meta-
organization’s attraction.
An umbrella organization needs members for funding and legitimacy simultaneously as
strong members are necessary in order to recruit other members. The member-associations in
turn do however often not need the umbrella organization in order to continue with its daily
activities. They have use for the umbrella organization in certain ways but it its activities are
not crucial for them. The fact that both the member-associations and the central association
are organizations is in itself a potential source for conflict. Strong member-associations have
often the possibility to compete with the central association and go about with the same type
of activities if they are not pleased with how it is handled by the central association (cf. Ahrne
and Brunsson 2005).
Since the umbrella organization are more dependent on its member-association than the
member-associations are on the umbrella organization the power could be expected to be
located with the member-associations more than with the umbrella organization. Ahrne and
Brunsson (2005) further argue that strong members also could create uncertainty of who
really is in charge. Is it the leaders of the central associations or the leader of some strong
member-associations that really runs the show? Some of this uncertainty has been solved in
the Swedish Football Association where the associations in the highest series get more formal
voting power than other member-associations.
Member-associations consequently both have formal power over the umbrella organization
and they get power in practice through the umbrella organization’s dependence on its
member-associations. Something that could compensate for this unbalance of power is
connected to why associations join umbrella organizations. Ahrne and Brunsson (2005) argue
that that the decision for organizations to join meta-organizations sometimes are more related
to expressing an organizational identity or to a logic of appropriateness. The logic would be
that an organization as the Swedish Red Cross would become member of the umbrella
organization the Swedish Fundraising Council because it seems to be the appropriate thing for
a fundraising organization to do. If this would be the case then we could expect that the
Swedish Red Cross would not interfere very much in the daily business of the Swedish
Fundraising Council.
20The mutual dependence among associational levels are however higher in confederations
than in umbrella organizations. Local associations are more dependent of the central
association for some of their core activities. Without the Swedish Football Association the
Swedish football associations would not have any tournaments to play in or they would have
to coordinate tournaments among themselves. This dependence on the central association will
also result in more material power residing at the central association.
In federations the mutual dependence is even higher and the local associations are highly
dependent on the central association both for most of its activities and for its identity which
gives the central association even more power. The local association would be something
completely different if it would be able to leave the federation. The central association has
also often formal power over its local associations as in the Swedish Red Cross where the
statutes state that local associations are formally subordinated to the central association’s
board of directors.
Concluding remarks
Associations join together and form a central association in order to get some kind of
advantage out of the co-operation with other similar associations. This advantage often comes
from economies of scale in some area. It could for example be easier to influence the political
system if you have more individual members to support your cause (Hvenmark 2008). The
benefit with forming a central association over merging the local associations is that every
local association gets to keep some of its autonomy.
These benefits of scales of economies and preserved autonomy do however not come
without any drawbacks. Decisions in umbrella organizations can often only be made in
unanimity with following efficiency problems. This could in part be solved by changing the
distribution of power in favor for the central association as in confederations and especially
federations but that also mean that the local associations must sacrifice more of their
autonomy.
What could we say if we allowed ourselves to speculate in which conditions that favor
specific types of multi-level associations? This too is a multi-level problem. Crémer and
Palfrey (1999) argue that it from a moderate individual’s point of view would be desirable
with a higher degree of centralization as in a federation. Individual with extreme opinions in
21turn would favor more autonomy for local associations as in umbrella organizations or
confederations since it is easier to get one’s way in a smaller setting.
If we instead analyze the possibilities of having a long term stable governance system
where most individuals will accept decisions we could use the distribution of preferences in
and across local associations. A federation would according to Blankart (2007) from that
perspective be suitable if individual members’ preferences are similarly structured across
local associations and a confederation is more appropriate when individuals’ preferences vary
more between than within local associations.
On an organizational level local associations with large number of members would prefer a
governance system where the individuals are represented as in federations since that would
give the local association more influence. Small local association would be expected to prefer
a representative system where every local association gets the same amount of votes since that
in practice gives their members more power at the expense of members in larger local
associations.
It is accordingly not trivial to say under which circumstances an associational complex
would be best of in the form of autonomous member-associations in an umbrella organization,
as a confederation, as a federation or in the form of a larger fully integrated association.
Neither is it trivial to delimit and classify such associational complexes. But I have however
in this paper demonstrated that there are important differences between the four discussed
forms of associational complexes which nevertheless make it fruitful to employ such a
classification scheme.
22References
Ahrne, Göran and Nils Brunsson. 2005. "Organizations and meta-organizations."
Scandinavian Journal of Management 21:429-449.
—. 2008. Meta-organizations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Blankart, Charles B. 2007. "The European Union: confederation, federation or association of
compound states? A Hayekian approach to the theory of constitutions." Constitutional
Political Economy 18:99-106.
Crémer, Jacques and Thomas R. Palfrey. 1999. "Political Confederation." The American
Political Science Review 93:69-83.
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell. 1983. "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional
Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields." American
Sociological Review 48:147-160.
Emerson, Richard M. 1962. "Power-Dependence Relations." American Sociological Review
27:31-41.
Hemström, Carl. 2002. Bolag - föreningar - stiftelser : en introduktion. Stockholm: Norstedts
juridik.
Hvenmark, Johan. 2008. Reconsidering Membership. A Study of Individual Members' Formal
Affiliation with Democratically Governed Federations. Stockholm: Ekonomiska
Forskningsinstitutet vid Handelshögskolan i Stockholm (EFI).
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. 2007. "Statutory texts of
the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies."
—. 2009. "Independent Auditors' Report. Financial Statements 2008."
Olson, Mancur. 1971. The logic of collective action : public goods and the theory of groups.
New York: Shocken books.
Salamon, Lester M. and Helmut K. Anheier. 1997. Defining the nonprofit sector : a cross-
national analysis. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press.
Sjöstrand, Sven-Erik. 2000. "The Organization of Nonprofit Activities." Voluntas:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 11:199-216.
Skocpol, Theda, Marshall Ganz, and Ziad Munson. 2000. "A Nation of Organizers: The
Institutional Origins of Civic Voluntarism in the United States." The American
Political Science Review 94:527-546.
Soegaard, Villy. 1994. "Power-Dependence Relations in Federative Organizations." Annals of
Public and Cooperative Economics 65:103-126.
Swedish Football Association. 2009a. "Stadgar."
—. 2009b. "Årsredovisning 2008."
Swedish Red Cross. 2009a. "Stadgar för Föreningen Röda Korset gällande från 2009-01-01."
—. 2009b. "Årsredovisning 2008."
Swedish Sports Confederation. 2005. "RF:s Stadgar. I lydelse efter RF-stämman 2005."
—. 2009. "Verksamhetsberättelse med årsredovisningar 2008."
Union of European Football Associations. 2007. "Statutes Edition June 2007."
—. 2009. "About UEFA."
Wijkström, Filip and Torbjörn Einarsson. 2006. Från nationalstat till näringsliv? : det civila
samhällets organisationsliv i förändring. Stockholm: Ekonomiska Forskningsinstitutet
vid Handelshögskolan i Stockholm (EFI).
23You can also read
