“…This translates into policies of encouraging non‐governmental actors, both for‐profit and non‐profit, to participate in tackling societal ills. According to Obinger et al (), this trend creates a situation whereby the welfare state is becoming more ‘with’ and ‘for’ the market as opposed to the Keynesian welfare state which was positioned ‘against the market’.…”
Section: A Social Welfare Rationale For Market‐oriented Social Enterpmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It attempts to intervene in a prevention mode so as to limit the loss of autonomy and capabilities by individuals. Finally, they suggested that: (o)nce we move from a “passive” citizenship of rights towards an active citizenship that includes both rights and responsibilities, we will require a participative and inclusive framework in which this more active social citizenship can be cultivated (Obinger et al, , p. 12).…”
Section: A Social Welfare Rationale For Market‐oriented Social Enterpmentioning
The article analyses market‐oriented social enterprises from a social welfare perspective, within the context of the innate conflict between business and welfare orientations. After defining the concept of market‐oriented social enterprises and presenting some successful examples on such entities that employ different marginalised populations, particularly people with disabilities, the article asks three interrelated questions: (i) What policy environment is needed to encourage the development of social enterprises? (ii) Given the innate tension between the social and economic objectives in social enterprises, what structural principles are needed to enable them to meet those dual objectives? Lastly, (iii) What intervention modalities are best suited to help individual participants in those frameworks? Answers to these questions are discussed within conceptual frameworks from the worlds of welfare and business that jointly provide a base for a social welfare rationale for market‐oriented social enterprises.
“…This translates into policies of encouraging non‐governmental actors, both for‐profit and non‐profit, to participate in tackling societal ills. According to Obinger et al (), this trend creates a situation whereby the welfare state is becoming more ‘with’ and ‘for’ the market as opposed to the Keynesian welfare state which was positioned ‘against the market’.…”
Section: A Social Welfare Rationale For Market‐oriented Social Enterpmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It attempts to intervene in a prevention mode so as to limit the loss of autonomy and capabilities by individuals. Finally, they suggested that: (o)nce we move from a “passive” citizenship of rights towards an active citizenship that includes both rights and responsibilities, we will require a participative and inclusive framework in which this more active social citizenship can be cultivated (Obinger et al, , p. 12).…”
Section: A Social Welfare Rationale For Market‐oriented Social Enterpmentioning
The article analyses market‐oriented social enterprises from a social welfare perspective, within the context of the innate conflict between business and welfare orientations. After defining the concept of market‐oriented social enterprises and presenting some successful examples on such entities that employ different marginalised populations, particularly people with disabilities, the article asks three interrelated questions: (i) What policy environment is needed to encourage the development of social enterprises? (ii) Given the innate tension between the social and economic objectives in social enterprises, what structural principles are needed to enable them to meet those dual objectives? Lastly, (iii) What intervention modalities are best suited to help individual participants in those frameworks? Answers to these questions are discussed within conceptual frameworks from the worlds of welfare and business that jointly provide a base for a social welfare rationale for market‐oriented social enterprises.
“…The confident trajectory of welfare state expansion in developed countries began to falter in the 1980s and 1990s. A substantial literature in political science and social policy surrounds the issue of welfare state change (for summaries, see Clayton and Pontusson 1998; Huber and Stephens 2001; Obinger et al . 2010; Pierson 2001; Powell 2004; Starke 2006, 2008; Swank 2002).…”
The 2010 Coalition has set itself the challenge of combining an unprecedentedly rapid and profound retrenchment with a fundamental restructuring of the public sector, both to be accomplished within five years. The immediate justification is a presumed need to reduce national indebtedness. The longer-term goal is to shrink the state, free up the market and set British political economy on a new course. The programme has encountered a number of set-backs and some elements appear more likely to be realized than others. This article considers the objectives of the Coalition programme and the likely outcomes, using evidence from a number of sources including comparisons with the experience of retrenchment elsewhere and analysis of previous rounds of public spending cut-backs.
“…Indeed, the construct of the nation‐state with its defined territory, people and government has been Europe's greatest export to the world – for better or worse. And while globalization is testing its resilience, churning out failed states and propping up globalized states, we can be sure that the nature of the state is undergoing major transformation (Clark, 1999; Obinger et al. , 2010).…”
Section: History Of Our Presents: Europe's Demons and Sacred Cowsmentioning
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
