Inventing the Organizational Field of Work Integration Social Enterprise in Japan

The purpose of this empirical paper is to clarify the process and situation of the institutionalization of work integration social enterprises (WISEs) in Japan. WISEs have been receiving widespread attention in various... [ view full abstract ]

The purpose of this empirical paper is to clarify the process and situation of the institutionalization of work integration social enterprises (WISEs) in Japan. WISEs have been receiving widespread attention in various countries. Scholars of EMES especially emphasize that there are different varieties of models of WISEs depending on the contexts of each society and, therefore, the subject matter on institutionalization of WISEs is significant. This means that a recent important research agenda has been to explore how and which types of organizational models of WISEs have become legitimized in each society (EMES, n.d.).

WISEs in Japan have been examined in previous studies (Laratta et al., 2011), but little is known about the aspects of their institutionalization. This paper contributes to the literature by examining the institutionalization of Japanese WISEs.

[Framework and Data]

To clarify the purpose of this paper, we employ two important theoretical perspectives: the neo-institutionalism theory (Powell and DiMaggio eds., 1991) and social constructional views on the nonprofit sector (6 and Leat, 1997). Sociologists of the neo-institutionalism theory showed the constitution of the field of organization through various case studies (DiMaggio, 1991). On the other hand, some researchers studying nonprofits emphasizing constructionism explored the invention of the nonprofit sector by some relevant social actors. Both approaches are useful for understanding the constitution of the organizational field of WISEs in Japan.

The main framework or model of this analysis is grounded in DiMaggio’s (1991) study. Since DiMaggio’s study is thought to clearly indicate a structuration process of organizational field, it is reasonable to suppose that if an organizational field of WISEs is structured, the organizational form of WISEs is legitimized. DiMaggio distinguishes four phases of constituting organizational fields: (a) increases in the density of inter-organizational contacts, (b) increases in the flow of information, (c) emergence of a center-periphery structure and (d) collective definition of a field. We follow his distinctions of the structuration of the organizational fields.

This study primarily analyzes two types of qualitative data. The first comprises lists of participants in the annual conference of three representative groups of WISEs. From these data, we can capture the increasing density of the mutual relationships among WISEs (phase-a). The second comprises three government reports about WISEs in the 2010s for introducing activation policy. Based on these data, we confirm whether there is an increase in information about WISEs or not (phase-b).

[Results]

Two main analyses are conducted in this study. First, an analysis of data on participants in conferences of WISEs suggests that the number of inter-organizational participants increases. This result is interpreted as an increase in the density of inter-organizational relationships among WISEs. Moreover, data on the themes of conferences support these results, since these themes become similar to the problem of social exclusion.

Second, an analysis of data on academic government reports also suggests that the amount of information on WISEs increases. Forty-three WISEs, which include various organizational forms and activities, are listed on the three academic reports. A noteworthy point about these analyses is that various types of organizations are lumped together as WISEs.

On the other hand, signs or evidence of the two phases (phase-c and phase-d) of the constitution are not found in this study. This suggests that these phases of organizational field structuration don't take place in Japan.

[Discussion and Conclusion]

The study concludes that the organizational field of WISEs in Japan has been semi-structured. Based on the analysis, the study suggests that constituting the organizational field of WISEs in Japan is halfway complete. This conclusion was drawn from the following results: “phase-a” and “phase-b” were found in the analysis of WISEs, but “phase-c” and “phase-d” weren't found in this study.

 This study has both academic and policy implications. First, for academic implications, this study shows that the neo-institutional sociology and constructional approaches to studying WISE are useful. This means that cognitive and institutional aspects are important for the study of WISEs. Second, for policy implications, our data show the institutionalization of the field of WISEs in the context of the activation turn of social policy. Therefore, we should examine the emergence and activity of WISEs in relation to welfare state transformation.

Reference

6, P. and Leat, D., 1997, “Inventing the British Voluntary Sector by Committee: from Wolfenden to Deakin,” Non Profit Studies, 1(2): 33-45.

DiMaggio, P., 1991," Constructing an Organizational Field as a Professional Project: US Art Museums, 1920-1940," W. Powell and P. DiMaggio eds., The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, The University Chicago Press, 267-292.

EMES Research network, n.d., The International Comparative Social Enterprise Models, (ICSEM) Project.

Laratta, R., S. Nakagawa and M. Sakurai, 2011, “Japanese Social Enterprise: Major Contemporary Issues and Key Challenges,” Social Enterprise Journal, 7(1): 50-68.

Powell, W. W. and P. DiMaggio eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, The University Chicago Press.