Abstract:
Germany has a long tradition of social enterprises as already in the 19th century a variety of private charity and social service institutions came into existence. However, it can be observed that nowadays many of the new generation social enterprises emerge in the policy field of education and youth welfare. They are chiefly active in the German rust belts serving youth and children from deprived families with a migratory background. This chapter strives to give reasons for the concentration of social enterprises in the respective policy field. It argues that social enterprises are part of a vibrant ecosystem that has shifted from an emphasis on welfare to a focus on social investment. Thus, from the point of organizational theory, social enterprises follow a niche approach. They address new demands as well as market and state failure through innovative business models taping on a mix of resources.
The argument builds heavily on the field data of the EU-funded EFESEIIS project
(“Enabling the Flourishing and Evolution of Social Entrepreneurship for Innovative and Inclusive Societies“) such as literature reviews, expert interviews, focus groups and case studies of social enterprises. The methodology is based on a combination of literature on social innovation, social investment, organizational field approach and organizational ecology. To enhance the relevance to the international audience the findings will be compared to selected European states, as well.
Chapter Structure:
The chapter will be structured as follows:
- Introduction
- Terminology: Social Innovation and Social Enterprises
- Social Innovation in the Policy Field of Education and Youth Welfare
- Methodology: Organisational Field and Organisational Ecology Approach
- Analysis of Niches for Social Innovation in the Policy Field
- Comparison of the Findings to selected European States
- Recap, Conclusion and Looking Ahead
References:
Dees, J.G., and Anderson, B.B. (2006). Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship: Building on two schools of practice and thought. Research on social entrepreneurship, ARNOVA occasional paper series, 1 (3), 39–66.
Demers, C. (2008). Organizational Change Theories. Sage, Los Angeles.
Fligstein, N., and McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Greenwood, R. (2008). The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Sage: Los Angeles.
Hannan, M. T., and Freeman, J. (1993). Organizational ecology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass.
Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., and Carol, G. R. (2007). Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Jansen, S. A., Heinze, R. G., Beckmann, M., and Schües, R. (eds.). Sozialunternehmen in Deutschland. Analysen, Trends und Handlungsempfehlungen, Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
Kieser, A., and Ebers, M. (2014). Organisationstheorien, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer.
Morgan, K. J (2012). Promoting social investment through work-family policies: which nations do it and why? In N. Morel, B. Palier, and J. Palme (eds.), Towards a social investment welfare state? Ideas, policies and challenges, Policy Press, Bristol, 153-180.
Mulgan, G. (2007). Social Innovation. What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. Basingstoke Press, London.
Thornton, P. H./Ocasio, W. and, Lounsbury, M. (2013). The institutional logics perspective. A new approach to culture, structure and process, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Walgenbach, P., and Meyer, R. E. (2008). Neoinstitutionalistische Organisationstheorie, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart.
Zimmer, A., and Obuch K. (2016). Structure follows context. Social Enterprises in Changing Environments. Voluntas. Forthcoming.
2. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship
