This paper explores the motivations for individual social entrepreneurs[1] to engage in hybrid and portfolio entrepreneurship as an example of interrelating private and social economy sectors, that reveal the diversity of economic actions that people engage in when provisioning for their livelihoods (Gibson-Graham 2008; Polanyi 1944). There is growing interest in hybrid entrepreneurship, defined as being in paid employment while simultaneously owning and running a business. The main focus has been on hybrid entrepreneurship as a supporting entry step into self-employment concentrating on firm entry or transition (Folta, Delmar, and Wennberg 2010). More recently it has been identified as a way of sustaining self-employment during difficult times and avoiding firm closure (Atherton, Faria, and Wheatley 2016). Similarly, portfolio entrepreneurship, defined as simultaneously owning a number of businesses, offers alternative ways of generating household income (Carter and Ram 2003). While the literature to date has concentrated on the for-profit sector, this paper explores the push and pull motivations of hybrid and portfolio entrepreneurs in the social economy.
The Polanyian influenced framework underpinning Peck’s Variegated Capitalism (Peck 2013; Peck and Theodore 2007) is taken as a theoretical starting point, adopting a substantivist approach to understand the contextual circumstances that influence the ways in which people combine social and for profit activities in provisioning for their family and household (Polanyi 1944). The combinations of social and for-profit employment are explored through reference to Polanyi’s co-existing and interrelated modes of integration – redistribution, reciprocity, market exchange, house-holding (Polanyi 1957). The approach recognises the influence of different circumstances and contexts in which the hybridity and portfolio ownership occurs, specifically the influence of place and interrelated community, social and economic contexts.
The research is focused on Liverpool, a post-industrial city located in the North of England, an area characterised by economic decline and social deprivation. The city has a dynamic social enterprise sector with local organisations frequently held up as best-practice examples. The analysis is based on ten in-depth interviews with people working in the social enterprise sector either as employees or founders, each of whom has at one point simultaneously engaged in part-time work or set up a separate business in the for-profit sector. The data is analysed to identify key themes surrounding the motivations for hybridity or portfolio entrepreneurship, and the influence of context in terms of place, and socio-cultural history explored.
Discussion considers those who engage in other paid (self) employment as both temporary and long-standing arrangements. For some social entrepreneurs it is to make a living during establishment, or get through a difficult period. This can evolve into a more permanent situation, their for-profit work earning a continued reliable income that meets household needs while allowing them to pursue social goals. Others engage in for-profit (self) employment to directly subsidise the social enterprise or develop alternative skills and income-streams as a safety net in the face of an uncertain future. Initial analysis suggests that while some social entrepreneurs engage in hybrid and portfolio arrangements to temper the precariousness of social enterprise, their actions also support their attempts to contribute to the local economy and community on more social and solidarity terms, contributing to a reframing of their local economy in a more diverse sense (Gibson-Graham, Cameron, and Healy 2013).
This research highlights the complexity and diversity of social entrepreneurship motivations and the influence of contextual factors. In drawing attention to hybrid and portfolio entrepreneurship, an understanding of interrelationships between the social and for-profit economy within a diverse economies perspective is developed, highlighting interrelating spheres of different types of economic action. In conclusion we suggest that Peck’s Variegated Capitalism can be translated into Variegated Entrepreneurship and in this case, Variegated Entrepreneurs.
References
Atherton, Andrew, João R. Faria, and Daniel Wheatley. 2016. “The Decision to Moonlight : Does Second Job Holding by the Self-Employed and Employed Differ ?” Industrial Relations Journal 47(3):279–99.
Carter, Sara and Monder Ram. 2003. “Reassessing Portfolio Entrepreneurship.” Small Business Economics 21(4):371–80.
Folta, TB, F. Delmar, and K. Wennberg. 2010. “Hybrid Entrepreneurship.” Management Science.
Gibson-Graham, J. K. 2008. “Diverse Economies: Performative Practices for ‘other Worlds.’” Progress in Human Geography 32(5):613–32.
Gibson-Graham, JK, J. Cameron, and S. Healy. 2013. Take Back the Economy. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Peck, J. and N. Theodore. 2007. “Variegated Capitalism.” Progress in Human Geography 31(6):731–72.
Peck, Jamie. 2013. “Disembedding Polanyi: Exploring Polanyian Economic Geographies.” Environment and Planning A 45:1536–44.
Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation: The Political And Economic Origins Of Our Time. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Polanyi, Karl. 1957. “Economy as Instituted Process.” Pp. 243–70 in Trade and Market in the Early Empires, edited by Karl Polanyi, Conrad Arensberg, and Harry Pearson.
[1] As distinct from existing literature concerned with models of hybridity at an organisational level - see for example Martin and Osberg (2007)
2. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship
