Suchergebnisse

Rather than social innovation or the promotion of social and environmental justice, amplified by notions of "global Britain," the British state continues to propagate a series of aging public service delivery initiatives, mostly based on private funding. Although before Brexit there was strong British influence on European Union policies for social investment, this influence also extends globally. At the heart of these initiatives is the British Council's Global Social Enterprise program with its reports, mapping exercises, U.K. study tours, and resources available for social entrepreneurs. The Council supports regular articles in the online Pioneers Post, which extol the benefits of impact investment using private funds. ; L'État britannique, plutôt que de promouvoir l'innovation sociale ou la justice sociale et environnementale, amplifiées par des notions de « Grande-Bretagne mondiale », continue à propager une série d'initiatives vieillottes consistant à offrir des services publics financés principalement par le secteur privé. Avant Brexit, la Grande-Bretagne exerçait une forte influence sur les politiques en investissement social de l'Union européenne; cette influence avait aussi une portée mondiale. Au cœur de ces initiatives se trouve le programme « Global Social Enterprise » du British Council, avec ses rapports, exercices de cartographie, voyages d'étude en Grande-Bretagne, et ressources disponibles pour les entrepreneurs sociaux. En outre, le Council appuie régulièrement la publication sur le site Pioneers Post d'articles qui prônent les bénéfices d'investissements à retombées sociales au moyen de fonds privés.

Abstract
Local community organisations, many of which began life as agents of community self defence and regeneration during a Post-Fordist era of massive job losses in the 1970s and 1980s, are now being transposed into low-cost deliverers of public services in competition with the private sector. More recently, this process increasingly involves injections of "social finance" from external private sources. This article offers a brief history of how the voluntary and community sector has been corralled into a marketized and financialized role where the primacy of business management replaces community need. As in other spheres, there has been a paradigm shift from Keynesian demand management to a neoliberal perspective of community and voluntary organizations' role in society where they gradually replace the state—in many cases with their encouragement and willing participation. As third sector organizations deliver public services, private investors are rewarded on a payment per output basis. Three case studies show how financialization through external shareholder interests is becoming a force in public service delivery.

Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) entered public political discourse in the UK in 2007. Many of their original claims – that they represent a bipartisan approach, generate public sector savings, promote innovation, and transfer risk from the public sector – have little basis in evidence so far produced. These are "myths of SIBs." This contribution explores four myths about SIBs, based on claims by SIB proponents – usually financial intermediaries and potential deliverers with vested interests in their success. Recent detailed evaluations and assessments show that a more cautious approach is needed before further expansion of SIBs and their funding takes place. Against considerable previous theoretical unpinning claimed by SIB proponents for these models, this contribution seeks to rectify serious omissions of public policy discourse, including analytical and theoretical literature, as a starting point for the relocation and reclamation of previous roles and territories for public service delivery. This article also presents detailed evidence on substantial funding from Government Departments, the UK National Lottery, and dormant bank accounts to support SIBs, the total of which amounts to more in subsidies for SIBs than the actual investment attracted from private investors. The conclusion is that it may be easier and even cheaper for public administrations directly to finance social programmes.

Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) entered public political discourse in the UK in 2007. Many of their original claims – that they represent a bipartisan approach, generate public sector savings, promote innovation, and transfer risk from the public sector – have little basis in evidence so far produced. These are "myths of SIBs." This contribution explores four myths about SIBs, based on claims by SIB proponents – usually financial intermediaries and potential deliverers with vested interests in their success. Recent detailed evaluations and assessments show that a more cautious approach is needed before further expansion of SIBs and their funding takes place. Against considerable previous theoretical unpinning claimed by SIB proponents for these models, this contribution seeks to rectify serious omissions of public policy discourse, including analytical and theoretical literature, as a starting point for the relocation and reclamation of previous roles and territories for public service delivery. This article also presents detailed evidence on substantial funding from Government Departments, the UK National Lottery, and dormant bank accounts to support SIBs, the total of which amounts to more in subsidies for SIBs than the actual investment attracted from private investors. The conclusion is that it may be easier and even cheaper for public administrations directly to finance social programmes.

Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) entered public political discourse in the UK in 2007. Many of their original claims - that they represent a bipartisan approach, generate public sector savings, promote innovation, and transfer risk from the public sector - have little basis in evidence so far produced. These are "myths of SIBs." This contribution explores four myths about SIBs, based on claims by SIB proponents - usually financial intermediaries and potential deliverers with vested interests in their success. Recent detailed evaluations and assessments show that a more cautious approach is needed before further expansion of SIBs and their funding takes place. Against considerable previous theoretical unpinning claimed by SIB proponents for these models, this contribution seeks to rectify serious omissions of public policy discourse, including analytical and theoretical literature, as a starting point for the relocation and reclamation of previous roles and territories for public service delivery. This article also presents detailed evidence on substantial funding from Government Departments, the UK National Lottery, and dormant bank accounts to support SIBs, the total of which amounts to more in subsidies for SIBs than the actual investment attracted from private investors. The conclusion is that it may be easier and even cheaper for public administrations directly to finance social programmes.

This article provides a rounded critique of social impact bonds (SIBs): a newly developed and innovative financial investment model, developed in the UK and starting to spread internationally that could transform the provision of social services. Although SIBs have the potential to influence delivery by all providers, this article raises three concerns about their possible effects – in relation to their potential outcomes, unintended consequences for the UK third sector, and governance – and then reflects on SIBs as the latest manifestation of the ideological shift which the UK third sector is undergoing.

While numerous accounts of policy frameworks associated with country-level support for social enterprise activity exist, explanations for when, why and how policy interventions in support of social enterprise have been adopted have been, to date, much more thin on the ground. This paper aims to contribute to addressing this perceived gap by presenting the case of Scotland, recently hailed by First Minister Alex Salmond as "the most supportive environment in the world for social enterprise". Historical Institutionalism is used to explain how such a 'supportive environment' might have come about and, looking at, in turn, when, why and how the conditions for social enterprise in Scotland have developed, we attempt to contribute to the ongoing international debate concerning the importance of the policy environment to fostering the conditions for social enterprise activity not only to emerge, but also to thrive.

Since the 2008 economic crisis, each year has brought new challenges to welfare states. This important annual volume with contributions from an exciting mix of internationally renowned experts within the social policy community examines the economic and political challenges that have confronted governments, and highlights the diverse ways in which nations have responded. Part One explores the most pressing questions confronting British social policy, from the school-leaving age, employment, in-work benefits to taxation. Part Two examines the political and professional dilemmas involved in the delivery and financing of social policy. Part Three identifies the challenges in integrating social policy with other areas of the welfare state, including social care, health policy and labour market policy. This comprehensive discussion of the most challenging issues arising during the past year provides academics and students with an invaluable up-to-date analysis of the current state of social policy