Suchergebnisse

Lars Hulgård: Civil Society or Social Capital? An institutional critique of theories of civil society inspired by Habermas and Putnam.

There have been two main approaches to theory about the relations between civil society and democracy and the welfare state. One is the approach by Habermas that emphasizes the role of the public sphere as mediator between civil society and representative democracy. The other is an approach inspired by Putnam that emphasizes the importance of social capital. Putnam focuses on how civil involvement and voluntary associations raise the effectiveness of institutions in modern society. Both approaches have met with considerable criticism from different points of view. However the article argues that a similar criticism can be made of both approaches although they seem so different. It argues that the crucial challenge is to include an institutional perspective in whichever perspective one employs in the study the status of civil society as a democratic or welfare impulse in modern society. The article reviews the various criticisms of the two approaches and shows how an institutional perspective can be employed to both approaches.

This report integrates the main findings of SOLIDUS work package 5 "Channelling solidarity: inputs from third sector, social innovation and co-creation of public goods",looking at third sector and social economy organisations as a transit zone for solidarity actions. Furthermore, it examines social innovations and initiatives that impact social policy by means of collaboration with public institutions with special focus on the distribution of roles and tasks between public, private and third sectors that indicates social solidarity across national and local contexts, employing a solidarity economy lens that has personal autonomy, social justice and democratisation as core drivers. The report includes 1) a short conceptual overview and methodology, 2) trends of collaboration between public administration and third sector/ social economy organisations in SOLIDUS countries before and after economic and fiscal crises as well as post-crisis policies of austerity that have increased socio-economic inequality, 3) a cross-country analysis looking at the social, economic and democratic dimensions of collaboration and 4) the key drivers and barriers for collaboration towards social solidarity in different contexts. It concludes with reflections on changing patterns of collaboration and the need to incorporate personal autonomy and solidarity economy considerations in political and public logics. ; This report integrates the main findings of SOLIDUS work package 5 "Channelling solidarity: inputs from third sector, social innovation and co-creation of public goods",looking at third sector and social economy organisations as a transit zone for solidarity actions. Furthermore, it examines social innovations and initiatives that impact social policy by means of collaboration with public institutions with special focus on the distribution of roles and tasks between public, private and third sectors that indicates social solidarity across national and local contexts, employing a solidarity economy lens that has personal autonomy, social justice and democratisation as core drivers. The report includes 1) a short conceptual overview and methodology, 2) trends of collaboration between public administration and third sector/ social economy organisations in SOLIDUS countries before and after economic and fiscal crises as well as post-crisis policies of austerity that have increased socio-economic inequality, 3) a cross-country analysis looking at the social, economic and democratic dimensions of collaboration and 4) the key drivers and barriers for collaboration towards social solidarity in different contexts. It concludes with reflections on changing patterns of collaboration and the need to incorporate personal autonomy and solidarity economy considerations in political and public logics.

When looking at definitions and understandings of the social and solidarity economy, one issue stands out as particularly significant. The issue of how it links to organizational (micro and meso level dimensions) and societal specificities. Whereas social enterprise also in the EMES ideal typical version (Borzaga & Defourny, 2001) is only indirectly linked to a Polanyian framework (Gardin, 2006), the notion of solidarity economy can hardly be understood at an elaborate level without reference to the Polanyian framework of plurality. Accordingly, in this paper we will first highlight the difference between adopting a social economy and a solidarity economy approach to social enterprise and social entrepreneurship. Within the framework of a social economy perspective, social enterprise is first defined through a set of organizational criteria leaving the relation to the broader and deeper issues of economy and democracy open. As a contrast to this, solidar-ity economy links the organizational dimension of a particular social enterprise to the broader political and economic framework of the particular society (Laville, 2010: 230 ff.). Secondly, we will present and discuss two specific social enterprises that both re-flects the diversity of social enterprise and social entrepreneurial initiatives in a Danish welfare context and provide important insights for developing theories on solidarity economy. The two initiatives differ in shape, space/geography and organizational struc-ture but are important examples of pluralism in a Danish welfare context (Andersen, 2015). Roskilde Festival and Skovgård Hotel share a number of features that place them as interesting agents of solidarity economy. They both display a differentiated activity portfolio of business; public and civil character and they display a differentiated profile of reciprocity, redistribution and democracy that place them as influential in local, regional and national/international contexts. Finally, in the concluding section we discuss how an analysis based upon solidari-ty economy differ from one based solely upon a social economy perspective, and second-ly some future perspectives for the continued evolution of the Danish/Scandinavian wel-fare model.

Artiklen giver et overblik over socialt entreprenørskab (SE) på dansk grund ved at trække tråde til en dansk tradition for sociale udviklingsprocesser og ved at se på, hvordan den aktuelle diskurs er påvirket af internationale strømninger. Artiklen etablerer en analytisk ramme, som dels diskuterer en dansk tradition for social udvikling, demokrati og (velfærds) deltagelse, der baner vejen for en distinkt udgave af SE på dansk grund, og dels illustrerer, hvordan begrebet fra slutningen af 1990erne importeres både fra amerikansk forskning i den tredje sektor og frivillighed og fra europæisk forskning i socialøkonomi. Artiklen præsenterer og diskuterer en række konkrete platforme og initiativer til fremme af socialt entreprenørskab og socialøkonomisk virksomhed i Danmark. Det illustreres, hvordan begrebet etableres og udvikles som et "contested" begreb, hvor forskellige aktører kæmper om definitionsret, strategi og implikationer. Hovedsigtet er her at optegne diskussionerne eksemplificeret gennem de observerbare termer: socialøkonomiske virksomheder, socialt iværksætteri, sociale opfindelser og socialt entreprenørskab – som alle er en del af den danske offentlighed – og det diskuteres, hvordan begrebet/fænomenet på dansk grund udfordres af den internationale scene: eksempelvis det europæiske forskningsnetværk EMES versus en amerikansk definition og tradition. Afslutningsvist diskuteres de potentialer, som begrebet favner: schools of democracy, deliberativt demokrati, bottom up, socialt entreprenørskab som potente lærings- og arbejdsmarkeds- og empowermentstrategier.


ENGELSK ABSTRACT:

Lars Hulgård and Linda Lundgaard Andersen: Social Entrepreneurship: Roll Back of Welfare or Arenas for Social Solidarity?

This article presents a state of the art review on social entrepreneurship in Denmark. Social entrepreneurship in Denmark is introduced by referring to classical approaches to entrepreneurship and innovation and then analyzed in the light of a specific Danish tradition for social development and local participation in welfare production. A recent wave of social entrepreneurship in Denmark is closely related to two distinct movements: firstly an American tradition of volunteerism linked to managerial skills and procedures adopted from private enterprises, and secondly a European tradition of social economy. The article presents some of the most recent programs and initiatives of social entrepreneurship that have entered Danish policy and practice; these have created arenas for new and hybrid types of social service provision. Finally social entrepreneurship is discussed as a contested concept that caters to different strategies for welfare, democracy, learning and advocacy.

Key words: Social entrepreneurship, social enterprises, social innovation, social developments.

The concepts of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship are rapidly attracting increased attention in academic spheres and from policy-makers, as well as field workers who are setting up new initiatives or reshaping their organizations. These concepts are perceived as defining innovative and dynamic responses to major global challenges in today's societies. The debate about social enterprise is now world-wide, with lively exchanges between American and European scholars. However, the research and landscapes still differ significantly in different regions, and diversity also exists within

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to introduce the reader to the Nordic tradition of Critical Utopian Action Research (CUAR) and to demonstrate how CUAR might reinvigorate participatory democracy as an intrinsic characteristic of social enterprise. This leads us to sketch out the beginnings of how researchers might work with communities to help realise their democratic impulses through social enterprise. Design/methodology/approach This paper aims to synthesise the participatory action research literature, particularly CUAR, with literature on social enterprise and democracy to demonstrate how the two approaches might fruitfully be combined. Findings The authors show how CUAR might be utilised by researchers, to articulate new social enterprise organisational responses to local problems or to reinvigorate democracy within existing social enterprises. Originality/value This exploratory paper marks (we believe) the first attempt to bring together social enterprise and CUAR. ; Purpose The purpose of this paper is to introduce the reader to the Nordic tradition of Critical Utopian Action Research (CUAR) and to demonstrate how CUAR might reinvigorate participatory democracy as an intrinsic characteristic of social enterprise. This leads us to sketch out the beginnings of how researchers might work with communities to help realise their democratic impulses through social enterprise. Design/methodology/approach This paper aims to synthesise the participatory action research literature, particularly CUAR, with literature on social enterprise and democracy to demonstrate how the two approaches might fruitfully be combined. Findings The authors show how CUAR might be utilised by researchers, to articulate new social enterprise organisational responses to local problems or to reinvigorate democracy within existing social enterprises. Originality/value This exploratory paper marks (we believe) the first attempt to bring together social enterprise and CUAR.

The concepts of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship are rapidly attracting increased attention in academic spheres and from policy-makers, as well as field workers who are setting up new initiatives or reshaping their organizations. These concepts are perceived as defining innovative and dynamic responses to major global challenges in today's societies. The debate about social enterprise is now world-wide, with lively exchanges between American and European scholars. However, the research and landscapes still differ significantly in different regions, and diversity also exi.

This paper introduces the framework of living ecologies as a multidisciplinary approach to research and action moving beyond contemporary states of unsustainability. Our work is situated in what we see as a interconnected and inherently multidimensional crisis; ecologically, socially, economically, epistemologically. Drawing on existing literature root causes to this crisis are elaborated with particular attention to the mastery of commons drawing on the critical theoretical notion of mastery of nature (Adorno & Horkheimer 1944) and governance of Earth's commons (Shiva 2005). Arguing that qualitatively different approaches are needed we introduce the framework of Living Ecologies to acknowledge and act upon human-nature-society relations as an entirety, based on key principles of reciprocity, self-organizationand diversity. The paper exemplify how this framework enables to work across disciplines through four methodological steps, analyzingthe particular case of agroecological practices in Denmark, as an example of working with ambivalent potentials in such direction. First, it is shown how contemporary practices can be understood through sociology of absence and emergence (Santos 2007) highlighting how farmers experience-based cultural knowledge with farmlands as living ecologies, although nearly made absent through industrializedmodes of production, still remains latently present but highly marginalized. Secondly, it is shown how the use of future creation workshops can provide free spaces for social learning (Svensson & Aagaard 2007)in which lived experience and marginalizedknowledge can be shared and collectively acted upon. Thirdly, drawing on exemplary cases we discuss how marginalizedhuman-nature practices are embedded in a broader societal contexts, and how they can be organizedand strengthened by new forms of social economic collaboration. Fourth, we discuss how this work can be seen as part of broader democratic and political transformations(Haberl et al 2011) implying and building on new connections between urban and rural, food providers and consumers, and essentially new perceptions of human-nature-society relations as interconnected. On this basis we suggest that human-nature-society relations rooted in principles of reciprocity, selforganisation and diversity, although marginalized, can still be found and strengthened, by providing experience-based social learning spaces; enabling supportive modes of organization; and linking to broader paradigmatic and political changes. As such the paper suggest a Scandinavian contribution to the broader discussion of Buen Vivir highlighting how democratizingquestions on how we want to live and organizeourselves (Hansen et. al. 2016) embedded in, dependent upon and part of living ecologies, can take place in various forms in the North. ; This paper introduces the framework of living ecologies as a multidisciplinary approach to research and action moving beyond contemporary states of unsustainability. Our work is situated in what we see as a interconnected and inherently multidimensional crisis; ecologically, socially, economically, epistemologically. Drawing on existing literature root causes to this crisis are elaborated with particular attention to the mastery of commons drawing on the critical theoretical notion of mastery of nature (Adorno & Horkheimer 1944) and governance of Earth's commons (Shiva 2005). Arguing that qualitatively different approaches are needed we introduce the framework of Living Ecologies to acknowledge and act upon human-nature-society relations as an entirety, based on key principles of reciprocity, self-organizationand diversity. The paper exemplify how this framework enables to work across disciplines through four methodological steps, analyzingthe particular case of agroecological practices in Denmark, as an example of working with ambivalent potentials in such direction. First, it is shown how contemporary practices can be understood through sociology of absence and emergence (Santos 2007) highlighting how farmers experience-based cultural knowledge with farmlands as living ecologies, although nearly made absent through industrializedmodes of production, still remains latently present but highly marginalized. Secondly, it is shown how the use of future creation workshops can provide free spaces for social learning (Svensson & Aagaard 2007)in which lived experience and marginalizedknowledge can be shared and collectively acted upon. Thirdly, drawing on exemplary cases we discuss how marginalizedhuman-nature practices are embedded in a broader societal contexts, and how they can be organizedand strengthened by new forms of social economic collaboration. Fourth, we discuss how this work can be seen as part of broader democratic and political transformations(Haberl et al 2011) implying and building on new connections between urban and rural, food providers and consumers, and essentially new perceptions of human-nature-society relations as interconnected. On this basis we suggest that human-nature-society relations rooted in principles of reciprocity, selforganisation and diversity, although marginalized, can still be found and strengthened, by providing experience-based social learning spaces; enabling supportive modes of organization; and linking to broader paradigmatic and political changes. As such the paper suggest a Scandinavian contribution to the broader discussion of Buen Vivir highlighting how democratizingquestions on how we want to live and organizeourselves (Hansen et. al. 2016) embedded in, dependent upon and part of living ecologies, can take place in various forms in the North.