Suchergebnisse

Purpose
This study aims to assess the alignment of South Korea's government-certified social enterprises (GCSEs) with prevailing social enterprise (SE) models, notably the entrepreneurial nonprofit, social cooperative and social business models delineated in the "Emergence of Social Enterprises in Europe" (Defourny and Nyssens, 2012, 2017a, 2017b) and the "principle of interest" frameworks (Defourny et al., 2021). Thereby, it seeks to situate these enterprises within recognized frameworks and elucidate their hybrid identities.


Design/methodology/approach
Analyzing panel data from 2016 to 2020 for 259 GCSEs, this study uses tslearn for k-means clustering with dynamic time warping to assess their developmental trajectories and alignment with established SE models, which echoes the approach of Defourny et al. (2021). We probe the "fluid" identities of semi-public sector SEs, integrating Gordon's (2013) notion that they tend to blend various SE traditions as opposed to existing in isolation.


Findings
Results indicate that GCSEs do align with prevalent SE frameworks. Furthermore, they represent a spectrum of SE models, suggesting the versatility of the public sector in fostering diverse types of SEs.


Originality/value
The concept of a semi-public sector SE model has been relatively uncharted, even though it holds significance for research on SE typologies and public sector entrepreneurship literature. This study bridges this gap by presenting empirical evidence of semi-public SEs and delineating the potential paths these enterprises might take as they amalgamate various SE traditions.

Purpose Public sector institutional entrepreneurship efforts may contribute to addressing social challenges by creating an enabling regulatory environment that promotes social enterprise formation and fosters complementarity between the public sector and social enterprises. The outcomes of such public sector institutional entrepreneurship are explored in this study. To assess the outcomes of such public sector initiatives in South Korea, the perspectives of executives (n = 40) of government-certified social enterprises are assessed.Design/methodology/approach Several research methodologies were combined, including purposive sampling with an 11-point Likert scale, hierarchical clustering and principal component analysis. The literature on government–nonprofit relations as well as public sector institutional entrepreneurship was leveraged.Findings This research results indicate that the enabling regulatory environment with entrenched funding and incubation mechanisms produces mixed-to-positive outcomes if framed with reference to public sector–social enterprise complementarity. The authors identified three perspective-based ideal types that have differential views of isomorphic regulatory pressures, the efficacy of incubation and scaling programs, participation in policymaking and other aspects of public sector patronage.Originality/value This study contributes to relating the literature on public sector institutional entrepreneurship and government–third sector relations by empirically assessing how social enterprises attracted by government demand-side signaling to become certified as social enterprises encounter and perceive an ostensibly enabling regulatory ecosystem, with its derivative policies and mechanisms, crafted by the public sector.

AbstractThis study utilizes Q‐methodology to assess the perspectives of 37 executives of government‐certified social enterprises in South Korea on their organization's relationship with the public sector in terms of the complementary‐supplementary‐adversarial conceptual frameworks of Toepler et al. and Young and the literature on co‐production. The perspectives of social enterprise executives that participate in co‐production arrangements represent an underexplored domain. Our findings contribute to the framework of Toepler et al. by empirically gauging the effects of, in particular, an enabling regulatory framework and public funding relative to the tensions represented by potentially excessive regulation. Although the focus on a single context limits the generalizability of the study, it provides insights on the nuances and complexities of public sector patronage while highlighting that such patronage is generally seen as being more complementary than adversarial. Our findings contribute to efforts to empirically gauge perceptions of co‐production arrangements.