We note that many writers use the terms ‘social economy, ‘social enterprise’, ‘social entrepreneur’ and ‘social innovation’ interchangeably. This can be problematic and there is a very definite vagueness inherent in much of the debate,
For many ‘social innovation’ is an activity carried out by ‘social entrepreneurs’ who have established ‘social enterprises’ that operate in the broader ‘social economy’. This perspective has the attractive characteristics of being neat, succinct and easy to comprehend.
But are things not more complex and are there not are a variety of very different and often mutually exclusive perspectives that require critical engagement with.
What is the potential and actual nature and role of social enterprise, social entrepreneurs and social innovation? How do you see the social economy and its potential contribution to social, economic and civic well-being.
Some ideas in new book below. Give us your ideas please
Perhaps of the various terms 'social innovation' comes closest to suggesting a process (i.e. of innovating) rather than a state, shifting the emphasis to that of praxis - informed practical action? 'Process' for me at least conveys a sense of open-endedness, not captured by the term 'activity', with its logframe connotations? Ray Ison (at the OU) and colleagues have written about this particular distinction. Building on a 'parallel' distinction that they draw between 'water management' and water 'managing', the suggestion is that emphasis on process moves '..the boundary of concern to include within managing a set of contested interpretations about situation, ‘problem’ and desirable actions for improvement' (Ison 2010).
We are witnessing today a new phase in the national and global development of the productive forces where intellectual property and ownership of patents has become a key component of the imperial(ist) system of dominationu nder the aegis of neoliberal capitalism. This phenomenon is taking place within the institutional and policy framework of a system set up in the 1980s to liberate the ‘forces of economic freedom’ (capital, the market, private enterprise, globalisation) from the regulatory constraints of the welfare-developmental state, a system of ‘global governance’ where the concentration and centralization of capital has reached unprecedented levels. The diverse and multifaceted dynamics of this process have been extensively studied and analysed in different regional and national contexts. However, a relatively understudied aspect of this process is the profound restructuring undergone by the system of technological innovation at the heart of the capitalist development process over the last two and a half decades, where the concentration and the private appropriation of the means of knowledge creation and technological innovation—what Marx defined as the general intellect—has reached major proportions. This trend, far from favouring a progressive or revolutionary development of the productive forces of society (in the direction of both development and socialism)—a historic mission that Marx ascribed to capitalism—has placed a number of countries on the periphery of the world system on a regressive path in the advancement of knowledge, exacerbating the propensity of the world system towards crisis, placing at risk the very material bedrock of life, work and nature—a problem that has acquired global and indeed planetary proportions.
Against this mega-trend towards private appropriation of the products of the general intellect though the appropriation and concentrations of patents by the large multinational corporations, there have been new trend is what could be conceived of as social innovation (in the sphere of the development of the productive source of society, but in a multidimensional sphere --science, technology, art and culture). Examples in this regard are the developments of open source software, the attempts by the new social movements to reorient the development of productive forces towards social needs and in harmony with nature, and many initiatives related to a ‘commons’ economy.
Dear Prof Munck.
In my country Indonesia, the concept of social enterprise has been emerging over the last decade. However, the regulation has not yet come to take a part. Most of the activities in social enterprises belong to informal sector. This seems to be different to some countries in EU, which already set the social enterprise as a legal form. I believe that the concept of social innovation is also different for country to country. I hope to see you at the EMES research network.
There are some ideas in this article - Article Discussion aspects of using the term « Social Economy » in m...
The article is devoted to the problem of not always correct use of the term «social economy» in Ukrainian economic science. It is shown that many Ukrainian researchers in their works on social economy issues are mostly applying to the approaches of Russian economists, and pay little attention to achievements of modern European researchers in this field. The article contains the attempt to recreate genesis of the term «social economy», starting with economic works of the end of XIX – beginning of the XX centuries by С. Dunoyer («Nouveau traite´ d’e´conomie sociale»; 1830), L. Walras («Etudes d’e´conomie sociale»; 1896), С. Gide («Economie Sociale. Les Institutions de Progrès Social»; 1912), G. Cassel («Theoretische Sozialökonomie»; 1918), A. Müller-Armack and modern foreign scientists. The reasons which cause terminological confusion in domestic economic science with the existing term «social economy» have been identified. It is stated that this term has been historically used with two different meanings: for macro- and micro-levels. The first meaning of the term «social economy» was associated with certain theoretical and political concepts of «improving» capitalism, and before World War II existed mainly in theory. In the second meaning, «social economy» actually existed since the mid-nineteenth century in the form of unique subjects of the capitalist economy, which had a non-capitalist nature and a clear social orientation, to which the cooperatives were primarily concerned. It is proved that the two meanings of the term «social economy» have evolved in two additional terms: «social economy» and «socially oriented market economy»; and unification of theirs is a rather serious methodological mistake. It is substantiated that today in the EU countries, the term «social economy» is used mainly to refer to set of unique socially-oriented non-profit organizations, such as cooperatives, mutual aid societies, social enterprises, associations, foundations, etc., which form special «third sector» of market economy, fundamentally different from private and public ones.- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Public Health