1 / 21

Klon/Jawor Association UNDP 25 th June 2008

Klon/Jawor Association UNDP 25 th June 2008. ‘The European Perspectives in Social Economy Research’ The Polish SE from a distance: a commentary to the presented findings. Mike Aiken & Roger Spear Visiting Research Fellow Co-operatives Research Unit, Open University United Kingdom

darena
Télécharger la présentation

Klon/Jawor Association UNDP 25 th June 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Klon/Jawor Association UNDP25th June 2008 ‘The European Perspectives in Social Economy Research’ The Polish SE from a distance: a commentary to the presented findings Mike Aiken & Roger Spear Visiting Research Fellow Co-operatives Research Unit, Open University United Kingdom m.aiken@open.ac.uk r.g.spear@open.ac.uk

  2. Overview • 1. Learning across contexts • 2. Paradox! • 3. Some issues • 4. Examples • 5. Links to Papers from Poland

  3. 1. Learning across contexts • Discussing across contexts – ‘Mind the Gap!’ • Looking at the wrong things or getting it wrong (misunderstanding) • Jumping on things that appear similar but have a different meaning, history • Convergence and divergences but maybe for very different reasons • ‘Do it this way – that’s how we do it!’ • Assumming you know your own context and setting thoroughly • Overestimating differences • Knowledge transfer can miss out on the tacit and the cultural

  4. 2. Paradox! • UK (an Anglo saxon model) BUT....W. European influences strong and US unrecognisable (in 2 ways) • UK: anglo-saxon model between USA and mainland Europe BUT...influenced by partnership ‘mit bestimmung’ & corpartism • UK ‘sector’: long tradition 1601 Charities; 1760s early co-ops BUT...sector still undiscovered in many places, not homogenous and apparent continuties hide big shifts in welfare regime contexts • UK ‘sector’: big (assets £86 billion – investments, buildings etc NCVO 2008 BUT... most of it is small • Lots of policy recognition and attention BUTSector and organisations in transition towards...? • An ‘Independent’ sector or a residual/tension field (Evers) between other sectors? BUT Highly dependent on state in work with disadvantaged people

  5. 3. Issues • Conceptual confusions/ contesting continues • (voluntary sector, community sector, social enterprise sector, social economy, Third Sector, non-govermental sector, not-for-profit sector. • ...and thus concepts/ contests behind measuring and collection of data • Third Sector as a ‘chaotic concept’ (Sayer)? – Tries to hold too many things • (volunteers/ civic engagement/ numbers of organisations. • Shifting field • (Policy, programmes, professionalism) • - Importance of theory/research AND engagement with practitioners

  6. 4. Examples from research • Advocacy role of community organisations (IVAR research) • terms not agreed – did not affect the practice • Community organisations that own assets (buildings, land...) (IVAR) • Practitioners led policy led research • Compacts/ co-operation agreements (IVAR research) • Some LA did not know that ‘voluntary organisations’ had paid staff! • Work integration organisations (OU research) • Policy neglect and conceptual argument may be very necessary for policy attention (or neglect)

  7. 5 Links to Poland – tentative reflections. • Concepts and definitions • Measuring scale, size and numbers... • ...but mainly small • Recognition by public and policy makers • Relations between sectors • Independence and finance • Capacity /training issues in the sector • Rhetoric and ‘sense making’ – finding an historical and contemporary narrative • New beginning – chances to shape the field and the research

  8. Thanks Tak!

  9. Future Research (EMES) • Roger Spear Chair Co-ops Research Unit & ICA RC 6yrs Founder member of EMES network Joint Coordinator of Third System in Europe Project • Marte Nyssens & Jacques Defourney (WP 08/01 (EMES website www.emes.net)

  10. Themes (1) • More Hybrid Legal forms • Boundary blurring: non-profit distribution, multi-stakeholders, boards • Increasing recognition of SEs as brand • But varying effectiveness of different legislations • Several overly restrictive or non-advantageous legislation • Greece, Belgium, France, Finland, Sweden • Only two clearly popular structures • Italy, UK, (Portugal) • Others – no data

  11. Themes (2) • Some structures linked to Co-ops (France, Portugal, Spain, Greece) • Some structures linked to specific policy measures: work integration, social services • Most SEs use the most flexible legal form • But national prefs: Belgium asbl, Sweden co-ops • Some new legislation gives variation on existing structures (Italy/UK) • Rationale for legislation? Sweden “firm with limited profit distribution” to stave off pressures for privatisation of public education and healthcare! • Differing emphases: UK quite commercial but asset lock.

  12. Conclusions • Legislation and numbers • Patterns of institutionalisation in the sector • Policy systems (work integration) • Work integration models • Broadening of field • Increasing marketisation in the field • Contested terrain of social economy

  13. END!

  14. Associations, Mulheim Germany

  15. Bristol, UK: co-ops and associations

  16. Tokyo, Japan: wholefood co-ops

  17. Chase Centre, Nottingham

  18. Hartcliffe & Withywood Community Partnership, Bristol

  19. Wood StoreBrighton

  20. Bulky BobsLiverpool

  21. Social Economy: an international movement Sweden: co-ops

More Related