Associative democracy and the social economy: exploring the regulatory challenge

Social enterprise is a contested concept which has become a site for policy intervention in many countries. In the UK the government has invested significant resources into social enterprise infrastructure, partly to increase the capacity of social enterprises to deliver or replace public services. Government publications show the number of social enterprises to have increased from 5,300 to 62,000 over a five-year period. This paper explores the myth of social enterprise growth in the UK through a methodological critique of the four government data sources used to construct and legitimise this myth. Particular attention is paid to how political decisions influence the construction of evidence. We find that growth is mainly attributable to political decisions to reinterpret key elements of the social enterprise definition and to include new organisational types in sampling frames.

show abstract

“…2. For an overview of the different legal forms adopted by social enterprises in the UK see Smith and Teasdale (2012).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Playing with Numbers: A Methodological Critique of the Social Enterprise Growth Myth

Teasdale

Lyon

Baldock

2013

Journal of Social Entrepreneurship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social enterprise founders and leaders also influence the choice of structures and processes to monitor and control strategic and operational activity and ensure accountability to stakeholder groups (Cornforth and Spear 2010). Social enterprise boards are reported to be highly diverse and vary in governance structure (Mason 2010;Smith and Teasdale 2012). In contrast to trustees of private enterprises, SE board members are rarely remunerated (Cornforth 2004;Stone and Ostrower 2007).…”

Section: The Business Model Of Work Integration Ses Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda

Doherty

Haugh

Lyon

2014

Int J Management Reviews

1,273

1,342

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impacts of the global economic crisis of 2008, the intractable problems of persistent poverty and environmental change have focused attention on organizations that combine enterprise with an embedded social purpose. Scholarly interest in social enterprise (SE) has progressed beyond the early focus on definitions and context to investigate their management and performance. From a review of the SE literature, the authors identify hybridity, the pursuit of the dual mission of financial sustainability and social purpose, as the defining characteristic of SEs. They assess the impact of hybridity on the management of the SE mission, financial resource acquisition and human resource mobilization, and present a framework for understanding the tensions and trade-offs resulting from hybridity. By examining the influence of dual mission and conflicting institutional logics on SE management the authors suggest future research directions for theory development for SE and hybrid organizations more generally.

show abstract

“…The social economy, and social enterprise, is recognised as a growing part of local economies and an increasingly important feature of public policy. There are two overlapping approaches to distinguishing the social economy: normative-as a set of economic activities with a social remit practicing particular values (Amin et al 2002;Laville 2009), and legalistic-as a set of organisations with particular legal frameworks (not for personal profit, value driven) (Defourny 2001;Smith and Teasdale 2012). In the UK context, Pearce (2003, p. 29) conceptualises the social economy in a legalistic sense, to include social and community enterprises, building societies, charity trading arms, consumer retail societies, credit unions, fair-trade companies, housing associations, intermediate labour market companies, local exchange trading schemes, marketing cooperatives, mutual cooperative companies, social firms, time banks, voluntary enterprises and workers' cooperatives, while excluding non-trading entities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the UK context, Pearce (2003, p. 29) conceptualises the social economy in a legalistic sense, to include social and community enterprises, building societies, charity trading arms, consumer retail societies, credit unions, fair-trade companies, housing associations, intermediate labour market companies, local exchange trading schemes, marketing cooperatives, mutual cooperative companies, social firms, time banks, voluntary enterprises and workers' cooperatives, while excluding non-trading entities. This is commonly adopted in the UK context where the normative values typically associated with the social economy do not map neatly onto the variety of legal forms these organisations may adopt (Smith and Teasdale 2012). Together, these trading entities of the social economy are commonly labelled 'social enterprises'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Difference: The Importance of ‘Place’ in the Shaping of Local Social Economies

Mazzei

2016

Voluntas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By contrasting and confronting the experiences of social enterprises in two Northern English city regions, and exploring the meaning and implications of difference between two broadly similar locations, this paper argues that what social enterprises can achieve depends as much on the context from which they emerge and operate as on the individuals involved. The findings from the research underpinning this paper reveal that each locality nurtures different relational assets, depending on the nature of the institutions and the community and its culture. These relational assets in turn provide diverse incentives and opportunities for the social economy to develop and grow. Résumé En comparant par contraste et en confrontant l'expérience des entreprises sociales de deux régions métropolitaines du nord du Royaume-Uni, et en explorant la signification et les implications des différences entre deux emplacements largement semblables, le présent article avance que ce que les entreprises sociales peuvent réaliser dépend autant du contexte duquel elles émergent et exploitent que des individus impliqués. Les résultats de la recherche sous-jacente au présent article révèlent que chaque localité favorise différents capitaux relationnels selon la nature des établissements, de la communauté et de sa culture. Ces capitaux relationnels procurent à leur tour diverses incitations et occasions de développement et de croissance de l'économie sociale. Zusammenfassung In diesem Beitrag werden die Erfahrungen von Sozialunternehmen in zwei nordenglischen Stadtgebieten einander gegenüber gestellt und die

show abstract

Associative democracy and the social economy: exploring the regulatory challenge

Cited by 49 publications

References 38 publications

Playing with Numbers: A Methodological Critique of the Social Enterprise Growth Myth

Playing with Numbers: A Methodological Critique of the Social Enterprise Growth Myth

Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda

Understanding Difference: The Importance of ‘Place’ in the Shaping of Local Social Economies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About