e have business and we have government. For too many intents and purposes, we have nothing in between. This distinction has framed the great social debate for more than a century: capitalism versus socialism, markets versus controls, individualism versus collectivism, privatization versus nationalization, "free enterprise" versus "democracy of the proletariat." The debate features no cooperatives, no NGOs, no not-for-profits, no volunteer organizations, not because they don't exist-clearly they are present in large numbers-but because they have been forced aside by this simplistic divide.
In a sense, this is a problem of labeling.The sector that is neither business nor government is invisible because it is not clearly labeled. It is instead confounded by a plethora of inadequate labels.The two most common, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and not-for-profits, are negative, about what these organizations are not. And these labels are ambiguous as well, since government is also not-for-profit, while business is also nongovernmental.We need to understand this sector by what it is. Another label is the voluntary sector, but in many of these organizations, the only volunteers are the members of the Board of Directors.
We have, of course, the label "third sector." But that sounds third rate. We can instead call this the social sector, in contrast to the political and economic sectors, which helps somewhat, but only as a starting point. And now, of course, "civil society" is gaining currency, perhaps because, as a label, it has no serious competitors.The term has some historical significance, but is hardly enlightening. What does it mean to the general population? Why civil? In contrast to uncivil? If this sector is to come into greater prominence, as it must, then it will require a label that engages rather than excludes the population at large.