Torbjörn Einarsson

Previous research has often focused on the board of directors as the primary actor in the governance of membership-based organizations (MBOs). This chapter aims at a broader approach to MBOs’ internal democratic governance systems by casting the rank-and-file members as the main actors. Drawing on two models, one dealing with member influence and the other portraying single- and multilevel MBOs, the chapter discusses key elements in these organizations’ governance systems, including statutes, the board of directors, nomination committees, lay auditors, modes of member influence, appointment of elected representatives, annual meetings and general assemblies. The intent of the chapter is to raise awareness regarding the scope and complexity of governance in MBOs and to suggest some directions for future research. © Editors and Contributors Severally 2021.

The innovation stream that is the focus of this chapter is the new gover-nance of social services systems. By new governance of social services systems , we refer to the new ways of formulating and implementing policies and organising and controlling social services provision, which are becoming more decentralised and involve a network of interdependent, cooperative , and diverse actors from the different socioeconomic sectors (Hodges, 2005; Newman, 2004; Rhodes, 1997, 2007). These actors share goals and may, or may not, have formally prescribed responsibilities (Rosenau, 2000). Innovative governance of social services has appeared in the context of a generalised perception that the existing models of provision are unsustain-able in the long run, given the socioeconomic and demographic changes occurring across Europe for the few last decades. The ageing of the population , the integration of women in the labour market, new family models, immigration flows, new policy and regulatory frameworks and the gener-alised economic crisis starting in 2008 have affected both the demand and the supply of social services. In a context of escalating needs and shrinking public budgets, the gap between citizens' needs and expectations about the scope of social services and about the role of actors in the field, on the one hand; and the actual resources, capabilities and roles of funders, providers and beneficiaries, on the other hand, has broadened (Rey-Garcia & Felguei-ras, 2015a). This resource–needs gap is clearly patent in the case of social services needed by population segments that are the most vulnerable, because they depend on other people's care and/or on technical assistance to perform basic daily-life activities (mainly dependent elders, people with dementia, dependent people with chronic illnesses, and/or dependent people with disabilities). Hence, changes are taking place in the ways the systems of social services are governed, so that such resource–needs gap may be bridged for the most