This paper proposal fits to the thematic line on “Institutionalization, scaling up and public policies”. Drawing on the Belgian situation, it unpacks the challenges faced by social enterprises federations in their scaling up process towards an institutional recognition within cross-sectoral social concertation bodies.
As in other advanced economies, social concertation bodies in Belgium historically bring together formally recognized social partners, that is to say trade unions and employers' representatives, with the purpose of discussing socio-economic issues and of building consensus views that can influence the political decision-making process. Based on a joint model that is grounded in the capital-labour division, social concertation bodies in Belgium were set up in the post WWII period and their member organizations (social partners) are still today key figures when it comes to dialogue with governments on economic and social policies (Arcq et al. 2010). Therefore, social enterprises have to deal with this institutional framework, for instance by creating federations in charge of representing their interests. As in many countries as well as at the European Union level, one of the main challenges for social enterprises is to secure their representation, in order to enhance their recognition by governments and public authorities. As noted by Defourny & Nyssens (2010: 233), the scaling up of social enterprises in corporatist countries like Belgium was enhanced at the end of the Glorious Thirties, when the weakening of the welfare State, and high unemployment rate allow associations and social enterprises to "play a productive role" within an institutionalized "second labour market".
However, the paper argues that, regarding social concertation in Belgium - which is expected to deal with primary socio-economic topics including labour market(s) regulations -, the scaling up of social enterprises seems to face an "institutional locking". This is especially the case at the cross-sectoral level of concertation where social enterprises federations only sit in peripheral bodies with limited room for manoeuvre to influence socio-economic policies (consultative function on specific topics), while historical social partners remain the key players of social concertation bodies (with extended consultative and participatory functions to the decision-making process). Drawing from literature on interest groups (Binderkantz et al. 2016) and the insider-outsider model (Fraussen et al. 2015; Maloney et al. 1994), this contribution proposes to examine this institutional locking through actors’ interactions and their perceptions of social concertation bodies regarding their own interests.
The paper is based on empirical research carried out at a subnational level (two of the Belgian regions: Walloon Region and Brussels-Capital Region), and data are collected through semi-structured interviews with representatives from social enterprises federations, employers' federations (business enterprises), trade unions, and civil servants involved in the institutional management of social concertation bodies.
Altogether those data emphasize that social enterprises federations have no choice but to deal with social concertation if they want to push their scaling up further and to be recognized as socio-economic actors on the same foot as social partners. The research shows that, facing this challenge, social enterprises federations do not only target an enlargement of existing social concertation bodies in order to get some seats there. On the one hand, some of them defend a more radical project to move the joint model of concertation bodies beyond the capital-labour division. On the other hand, some prefer to bypass social concertation bodies and to seek influence through other channels, in order to demonstrate that social concertation is not as central as it may seem.
This analysis is expected to be of interest for an international audience because it provides insights to understand institutional configurations faced by social enterprises federations also in other countries or political levels.
Main references
Arcq, E., M. Capron, E. Léonard, P. Reman (2010). Dynamiques de la concertation sociale, Bruxelles, CRISP.
Binderkrantz, A., Pedersen, H., Beyers, J., (2016). "What is access? A discussion of the definition and measurement of interest group access", European Political Science, 1: 1-16.
Defourny, J., Nyssens, M., (2010). "Social Enterprise in Europe: At the Crossroads of Market, Public Policies and Third Sector", Policy and Society, 29(3): 231-242.
Fraussen, B., Beyers J., Donas, T., (2015). "The Expanding Core and Varying Degrees of Insiderness: Institutionalised Interest Group Access to Advisory Councils", Political Studies, 63(3): 569-588.
Maloney, W., Grant, J., McLaughlin, A., (1994). "Interest Groups and Public Policy: The Insider/Outsider Model Revisited", Journal of Public Policy, 14(1): 17-38.
Schmitter, P. (1974). "Still the century of corporatism?", The Review of Politics, 36(1): 85-131.
6. Institutionalization, scaling up and public policies
EMES_Guisset_Playing_by_the_rules__changing_the_game.pdf 