Social Entrepreneurship in Austria

Contents

Charts

Graphs

Boxes

Abbriviations

I. Introduction
1. The rise of Social Entrepreneurship
2. Research intention
3. Structure

II. Theoretical Foundations
1. Varying Definitions
1.1. 'Entrepreneurship' and 'Social'
1.2. Process View
1.3. Actor View
1.4. Organizational View
1.5. Working Definition
1.6. Contextualizing SE
1.7. Critical Assessment
2. Research Framework
2.1. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)
2.2. Adapting the GEM

III. Analysis of the Framework Conditions
1. Social System and Legal Framework
1.1. General Political System
1.2. Social and Economic Partnership
1.3. Social Security System
1.4. Influence of the Church
1.5. Legal Framework
1.4. Bureaucracy
2. The Third Sector
2.1. Structural Specifics
2.2. Quantitative Assessment
2.3. Recent Developments
3. Financing SE
3.1. Financing Strategies of SE ventures
3.2. Financing SE in Austria
4. Support Programs for SE
4.1. Public Support Programs
4.2. Private Support Programs
5. Entrepreneurship Education
5.1. The Role of Education for Entrepreneurial Behavior
5.2. Entrepreneurship Education in Austria
6. Cultural and Social Norms
6.1. Entrepreneurial Activity
6.2. Entrepreneurial Intentions
6.3. Social Commitment

IV. Conclusion

1. Summing Up Results

2. Conclusive Remarks

References

Charts

Chart 1: Definitions: Social Entrepreneurship/Process View

Chart 2: Definitions: Social Entrepreneur/Actor View

Chart 3: Definitions: Social Enterprise/Organizational View

Chart 4: Number of registered associations

Graphs

Graph 1: Relating the Concepts

Graph 2: The Hybrid Spectrum

Graph 3: A Model of Social Entrepreneurial Intentions

Graph 4: Giddens's Structuration Framework

Graph 5: The GEM Model

Graph 6: Country Typology

Graph 7: Legend for Internal Financing Graphs

Graph 8: Different Sources of Finance for NPOs in Austria

Graph 9: Risk Aversion Index in European countries

Graph 10: Part of population involved in voluntary work in Austria

Boxes

BOX I: The Social Enterprise Unit-fostering SE on an administrative level

BOX II: Impresa Sociale - blueprint for a SE legal framework

BOX III: Pro Mujer-an example of the entrepreneur support model

BOX IV: CONA-example of the market intermediary model

BOX V: Reperatur und Service Zentrum (R.U.S.Z.)-example of the employment model

BOX VI: The Good Tribe-example of a fee for service model

BOX VII: Venim la Voi-example for a low income client as market model

BOX VIII: Oikocredit - example of the entrepreneur support model

BOX IX: Chropster-example of a market linkage model

BOX X: Carla-example of a service subsidization model

BOXXI: Books4life-example of the service subsidization model

BOX XII: good.bee - for-profit SE financing

BOX XIII: Competing for Social Change - Social Impact Award

BOX XIV: SE Education-Becoming a Social Entrepreneur at University of Economics Vienna

Abbriviations

Illustration not visible in this excerpt

I. Introduction

1. The rise of Social Entrepreneurship

The last decades have brought profound changes in the social systems of western democracies. Administrations have always been a mirror of great societal trends. The 1960s and 1970s were marked by a great effort to establish participation processes. In the late 1970s a growing recognition of the individual followed. Since the late 1980s, market logic and management based concepts have had increasing influence (Neumayr 2010:13ff).

The budgetary, legitimacy and efficiency crisis that the social security systems undergo since the early 1990s, especially in Europe has sparked a more autonomous development of the third sector. Activities that would have been implemented by public authorities before are now increasingly allocated to private organizations (Defourny 2001:12).

The decreasing public initiative to solve social problems leaves not only the implementation, but increasingly also the development of solutions to private initiatives. In this context the concept of social entrepreneurship (SE) has emerged. Aiming for social change, activists merge methods from business, classic non-profits and social movements in their activities. The organizations that originate from this context put social impact at the center of their efforts. Established borders between non- and for-profit or social movement and company are no longer considered legitimate as they prune possibilities.

In a growing strive to tackle social problems off the beaten track a global movement has formed since the 1990s that found its latest climax in the naming of Muhammad Yunus as Nobel Peace Laureate in 2006. He was honored as one of the pioneers of microcredit, a model coming from a SE context.

In Austria public awareness of the concept has only started to built in the last two to three years. A media search in major papers for 2009 and 2010 brought a range of events promoting SE like the Social Business Tour, the Ashoka Globalizers Meeting, the Social Impact Award and others more (Lehner 2010: 59).

2. Research intention

In many other European countries the recognition of SE as a means to tackle social problems has already reached government level. Countries like Italy, the UK, or the Netherlands have realized the potential of the concept to find new solutions in the third sector and started various programs to foster it and provide an appropriate framework.

The dynamic development in other European countries and the rising awareness indicate the possibility of a growing engagement in Austria. To find out about possible developments and guide further activities research necessary. As of today research on SE in Austria has been extremely scarce. The only paper relating exclusively to Austria was published by Lehner in 2010 presenting an empirical study of some existing actors in the field. It is this shortage that this thesis aims to relive. Taking into consideration that SE research and activity are both still at a nascent stage, the central aim of this work will be to build a base from with further engagement into the concept can depart.

One of the most recogniced SE theorists Johanna Mair puts it as follows:

"...the role, nature and scale of social entrepreneurship cannot be discussed without taking into consideration the complex set of institutional, social, economic and political factors that make up this context." (Mair 2010: 26)

This will be the vantage point for the work at hand. In order to enable future research an analysis of the given national framework will be presented assessing existing pre-conditions, considering their impact on present and future SE activity.

What constitutes the relevant national framework for social entrepreneurship in Austria?

How does this framework influence present and future social entrepreneurship activities in Austria?

These questions are not only relevant for future research but its answers will also present important information for any actor in the Austrian field of SE as well as policy makers who aim at designing measures to foster the concept and its application in Austria.

3. Structure

To answer the above posed research questions a research framework consisting of six general categories based on the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor will be developed in part II. Part three will then apply the framework on Austria. In part IV the most important results will be presented with some conclusive remarks.

In part II the theoretical foundations of this thesis will be laid out. As a base, it will first be necessary to clarify on the term Social Entrepreneurship. A range of different definitions will be presented in chapter 1 to give a review of the state of the art of SE research. Based on this review the working definition will be devised. SE will then be contextualized in a broader theoretical context to underpin the relevance of researching framework conditions for SE research and activity. To finalize chapter 1 a short overview of the most resonated points of critique will be given. The 2.chapter of part II will introduce the research framework based on the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM).¹ Fist the GEM will be presented to subsequently adapt its research categories for SE research. Six out of nine categories will be found relevant for SE.

Part III will implement the research framework devised in part II for Austria. The six research categories constitute the chapters that make up the actual analysis of the framework conditions for SE in Austria.

Part IV will give summary and final assessment of the results. The thesis will close with some conclusive remarks.

Throughout the whole thesis in the BOXES best practices will be described. As far as possible examples from Austria were preferably chosen.

II. Theoretical Foundations

1. Varying Definitions

As already stated in the introduction, in academic terms SE is still a very young field of research. Mair/Robinson/Hockerts refer to it as being in the so called "phase of excitement" (cf. Mair/Robinson/Hockerts 2007: 2f). This term refers to the "Life-Cycle Model" by Hirsch/Levin, describing the initial stage of academic research, marked by the efforts of creating a field.² It was only in the 1990s that researchers started to work on SE in an academic fashion. To this day, the definition of SE is heavily disputed.

What may seem as a drawback, Mair/Marti interpret as an opportunity for researchers from different fields to contribute to the understanding of SE (cf .Mair/Marti 2006). On the contrary authors like Martin/Osberg argue for a precise and exclusive definition to prevent the concept from being watered down (cf. Martin/Osberg 2007, Santos 2009). A further opening process would, as they claim, reduce the current appeal of SE making it "... an immense tent into which all manner of socially beneficial activities fit." ((Martin/Osberg 2007:30). In the course of this chapter it will become evident that only an inclusive definition, spanning a range of views of the concept can do SE, and its inherent diversity, right.

From the beginning different matters have been understood to be SE (cf. Dees 1998, Mair/Marti 2006). Not-for-profit organizations in search of alternative funding strategies, management strategies to create social value, socially responsible practice of commercial business engaged in cross-sector partnerships, a means to alleviate social problems and catalyze social transformation, and even more.

In order to bring some clarity to the vast number of definitions, without diminishing important insight, it is here attempted to structuralise the field of definitions. There are basic conceptual differences in definitions of SE that are reflected in the different terms used (Mair/Marti 2006: 38). In the main there are three terms that are currently at the centre of attention. Each one of them basically stands for one understanding of the researched phenomenon.

- The term Social Entrepreneurship stresses activities and influences connected to the process of foundation and/or service/product delivery by a social enterprise. It thus stands for a process view ofthe phenomenon.
- By Social Entrepreneur the personality, behaviour and motivation of a single person is described. This term represents an actor view of the phenomenon.
- The use of the term Social Enterprise is mostly found in papers elaborating organizational and managerial aspects. This streak represents an organizational view.

Every approach yields different findings and is indispensible for a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. It is here assumed that although the above mentioned terms represent different points of view, they nevertheless describe the same phenomenon. Thus only a definition that encompasses definitions using those different terms, is able to grasp all facets of the phenomenon.

In order to find a definition that satisfies these requirements the passage will present an etymology of the terms entrepreneurship and social as a venture point for the following sections. In those, a range of definitions by different authors will be presented and grouped according to which of the above mentioned groups they belong, to unfold the central characteristics stressed by the respective point of view. In conclusion a working definition will be elaborated for the use throughout the remainder of this thesis

1.1. 'Entrepreneurship' and 'Social'

In order to thoroughly understand the term social entrepreneurship the starting point ought to be a clarification of entrepreneurship, as the adjective social is, in a grammatical sense, only a modifier. Thus, from a linguistic viewpoint, social entrepreneurship is a variation of (classic) entrepreneurship.

On a day to day basis "entrepreneurship" is used to describe the foundation of an enterprise. Yet the meaning of the term encloses far more. Usually it is traced back to the 19th century economist Jean Baptiste Say who defined the entrepreneur as follows: „The entrepreneur shifts resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield. " (Say cited in Faltin 2008: 28) The French meaning of entrepreneur, "one who undertakes" is enlarged to enclose the whole act of value creation.

The most influential theorist in this context is the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter. He identified the entrepreneur as innovator and driving force of any economy. Central to the understanding of his theory is the process of "creative destruction" in which the entrepreneur overcomes old structures, making him a "change agent" (cf. Martin/Osberg 2007, Faltin 2008). Dees identifies two further theorists who added important aspectss to the current understanding of the term "entrepreneur" (Dees 2001: 2). Peter Drucker's concept of "opportunity": "The entrepreneur always searches for change, responds to it and exploits it as an opportunity." (Drucker cited in Faltin 2008: 29), and a trait added by Howard Stevenson in his distinction of the entrepreneur from business administration: "The pursuit of opportunity without regard to resources currently controlled." (ibid.).

With respect to "entrepreneurship" most theorists have congruent viewpoints as they can draw on a strong academic history. Coming to the second part, namely what is understood to be "social" or "social ends" the differences are very broad as personal and cultural values have a great influence. Issues considered by different theorists go from providing basic healthcare and feeding the poor all the way to protecting animals and containing natural habitats. Cho states that "...the act of defining the domain of the social inevitably requires exclusionary and ultimately political choices about which concerns can claim to be in society's 'true' interest." (Cho 2008: 36). This presents an often neglected and sometimes even protested trait of SE.

To close in on "social" Mair/Marti refer to different motives (money, altruism) as a possible approach. Referring to case studies they conclude that "... in social entrepreneurship, the main focus is social value creation." (Mair/Marti 2006: 39) Other often cited authors stress the "social" outcome of SE using terms like: social benefit (cf. Fowler 2000), social return on investment (cf. The Institute for Social Entrepreneurs 2002), social change (cf. Prabhu 1999) or social value (cf. Dees 2001).

None of these papers elaborate further on the category of the "social" and its inherent heterogeneity³. The normative dimension of the pursued goals has to be taken seriously and conflicts between different "social ends" should always be taken into account. "... social is not only a descriptive category; rather it inevitably raises political and normative questions about whose interests are beingfurthered, and at whose expense." (Nicholls 2008b: 106)

A definitive answer to what exactly is social is not possible. The answer to this question will always have a critical impact on what SE activity will be aimed at and what means will be deployed to reach those aims.

In general areas addressed by SE, are those where traditional instruments of a society to meet social needs malfunction, or those of altogether new social opportunity creation formerly unattended. The ambiguous understanding of the term 'social', is the root of the diverse meanings of SE.

1.2. Process View

Early definitions that use the term Social Entrepreneurship, like the one put forward by Leadbetter in 1997, are still very unspecific. Newer papers still recognize this as a problem of those first attempts to define Social Entrepreneurship (eg. Nicholls 2008a, Martin/Osberg 2007).

Authors that use the term Social Entrepreneurship in more recent papers typically stress the fact that SE is a process that includes multiple stages. Therefore they are here understood to adopt a process view. Generally descriptions include the moment of identifying a problem, recognising it as an opportunity, seeing a possibility to solve the problem, putting the solution to praxis, and finally sustaining and steadily improving the impact of this solution. Apart from this general understanding as a process, different authors add varying focal points.

The definition of Martin/Osberg accentuates the possibility of systemic change using the concept of societal equilibria. Mair/Marti on the other hand write about value creation and stress the innovative character with respect to the use of available resources. They add the fact that equal to Social Entrepreneurship, which generally refers to the creation of a new venture, there is Social Intrapreneurship, corresponding to the possibility of SE occurring inside an existing organization. Nicholls sees social entrepreneurs work towards blended value in the sense put forward by Emerson (cf. Emerson 2003). In this context social value as an outcome of the process of SE is measurable by several means (SROI, Triple Bottom Line Accounting etc.). This underscores the process view adopted, since an outcome is always something that comes from a process or action as a result or consequence.

Social Entrepreneurship/Process View

Illustration not visible in this excerpt

Chart 1: Definitions: Social Entrepreneurship/Process View

1.3. Actor View

Definitions that use the term Social Entrepreneur center on the person and personality of the Social Entrepreneur, thus giving an actor view of the phenomenon. A much resonated definition in this group was put forward by Dees 2001⁴. Although Dees uses the term Social Entrepreneurship, his definition ultimately centers on the persona of the Social Entrepreneur. It was therefore included here.

Throughout SE research, papers on different personality traits of the Social Entrepreneur have played a focal role. Much research is centered on case studies, and the fascinating stories of Social Entrepreneurs have contributed greatly to the rapid rise of the concept's popularity in the public. Papers in this group occasionally mirror a certain glorification of the respective persons.

The book "How to change the world: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of new Ideas." by David Bornstein is a perfect example of this focus on single persons. The book. Published in 1998, tells the stories of successful social entrepreneurs and introduces a definition that strongly draws on the ideas of Bill Drayton. Drayton, the founder of Ashoka, the world's biggest organizations advocating Social Entrepreneurs (see chapter II.4.2.2) is attributed with inventing the term Social Entrepreneurship in the seventies. The Schwab Foundation is another support organization whose definition reflects a certain glorification when they state that a Social Entrepreneur "Combines the characteristics represented by Richard Branson and Mother Teresa." (Schwab Foundation 2011). Most definitions using the term Social Entrepreneur share this common trait. It is subject to ongoing criticism (cf. Seelos/Mair 2004).

Social Entrepreneur/Actor View

Illustration not visible in this excerpt

Chart 2: Definitions: Social Entrepreneur/Actor View

1.4. Organizational View

The third string in defining SE uses the term Social Enterprise. Basically papers utilizing this term deal with organizations implementing social entrepreneurship. A host of different organizational structures and hybrid forms between non-profit and for-profit are being described, displaying a very practical viewpoint and a understanding that is a lot wider than the preceding ones (cf. Alter 2007, Defourny 2001, Noya 2009 ).

Kerlin stresses the different perceptions of the concept in the USA and continental Europe (cf. Kerlin 2006). In U.S. American academia Social Enterprise is understood to include ventures along a continuum from profit-oriented businesses engaged in socially beneficial activities, to double bottom line activities that mediate profit goals with social objectives to non-profit organizations engaged in revenue generating activities⁵."However outside of academia and consulting firms, much of the practice of social enterprise in the United States, termed social enterprise remains focused on revenue generation by non-profit organizations." (Kerlin 2006: 248)

Whereas in the USA Social Enterprises are seen as part of the market economy, in Europe they are recognized as part of the third sector. The EMES Research Project⁶ is trying to establish the ideal attributes for a Social Enterprise based on their ongoing research. This approach is adopted by the OECD (cf. Noya 2009) and their definition builds on the findings of the EMES. In addition to its definition, the EMES stated 9 key characteristics:

To encompass the economic dimension the EMES proposes four points:

- A continuous activity producing goods and/or selling services
- A high degree of autonomy
- A significant level of economic risk
- Aminimumamountofpaidwork

The social dimension is covered by five points:

- An explicit aim to benefit the community
- An initiative launched by a group of citizens
- A decision making power not based on capital ownership
- A participatory nature, which involves the persons affected by the activity
- Limited profit distribution

(cf. Defourny 2001)

The central difference between the U.S. American understanding and the European one roots in the fact that the latter includes cooperatives and is thus not basically opposed to the distribution of profit. In this context Young and Solomon state that, "In Europe, the notion of social enterprise focuses more heavily on the way an organization is governed rather than on whether it strictly adheres to the nondistribution constraint of a formal nonprofit organization." (Young/Solomon 2002: 433)

Social Enterprise/Organizational View

Illustration not visible in this excerpt

Chart 3: Definitions: Social Enterprise/Organizational View

1.5. Working Definition

The definitions presented above were selected from an abundant field of papers dealing with the problem of defining SE. The focus of the selection process was to give a structuralized presentation of a wide range of views. In this section a working definition will be elaborated with the aim to incorporate the different approaches, drawing a picture of the phenomenon as complete as possible, grasping its different forms and shapes.

The relationship in which the concepts of social entrepreneur, social enterprise and social entrepreneurship stand is subject to discussion (cf. Brouard/Larivet 2010). As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter they are here understood to be different viewpoints of the same phenomenon. Brouard/Larivet have presented a detailed analysis of an extensive range of definitions and consequently illustrated the connections between the concepts using a graph.

Illustration not visible in this excerpt

Graph 1: Relatingthe Concepts (Brouard/Larivet 2010: 51)

Although Brouard/Larivet see the concepts as clearly distinguished the authors ascribe them a strong linkage. The illustrated links represent the following relations:

Illustration not visible in this excerpt

(Brouard/Larivet 2010: 51)

The difference between strong and weak links roots in the necessity of involvement. Even though a Social Entrepreneur's Project (small as it may be), regardless to its organizational form, is called Social Enterprise, it must not be run by a Social Entrepreneur. The Entrepreneur might, through time, have turned into a manager or left the company. 2b does not represent a necessary involvement and is thus a weak link. The same is true for 3b, as a Social Enterprise might at one point be the outcome of a Social Entrepreneurship process but must not be permanently involved in such a process.

Defourny/Nyssens simplify more than just a little writing "...simplifying a little, one could say that social entrepreneurship was seen as the process through which social entrepreneurs created social enterprises." (Defouny/Nyssens 2008: 4). But nevertheless this quote describes the basic relationship of the concepts also shown by Brouard/Larivet. This leads to the conclusion that consequently all concepts describe the same phenomenon from different viewpoints. The Social Entrepreneur is the founder and principle actor, a Social Enterprise the tangible outcome (but not the only possible). Insofar Social Entrepreneurship as the one term describing this process, encompasses the concepts of the Social Entrepreneur and the Social Enterprise as subsets, and will ultimately be used to refer to the described phenomenon. In accordance with these assumptions the following working definition was designed by the author:

SE is here understood to be a process in which the creation of social value through innovation is of central importance. Resources are combined in new ways to meet unrecognized social needs and bring about social change. This process evolves around persons or groups founding new organizations offering services and/or goods.

Given this working definition the following section will try to place SE in context with other concepts in the third sector as well as society as a whole.

1.6. Contextualizing SE

Martin/Osberg refer to "Shades of Grey" when taking their efforts of defining SE into perspective. In practice, as they concede, many hybrid models are used and many actors use different approaches similarly and without any regard to definitional boundaries (Martin/Osberg 2007: 38).

Before going deeper into the different contexts of SE, one often used term will have to be clarified: the third sector. This term is often used similarly to the terms social economy or non-profit sector.

According to Defourny "The third sector is involved in the allocation of resources through production of quasi public goods and services." (Defourny 2001:1)

The EMES explicates: "... the main criterion for deciding whether an organization belongs to the third sector is the fact that the organization is governed in a way that ensures that the potential surplus is used and reinvested alongside social criteria. This is ensured through having the organization governed by stakeholders with a multi-goal agenda, or by a set of different stakeholders, who have to agree on a balanced set of material goals or other purposes; such organzsations would then not have to be non-profit, but they would have to be not-for-profit." (EMES 2011b)

This acknowledges the economic dimension that many third sector organizations undeniably have. Organizational forms like cooperatives, mutual societies and forms of social enterprises are within the grasp of this definition. Classic voluntary organizations and charities can also be subsumed.

In her seminal paper "Social Enterprise Typology" from 2007 Alter structures different actors in the third sector with considerable success. She illustrates a spectrum, putting different types of organizations into relation according to their motives, accountability and use of income. Located at the intersection between business and classic non-profit organization she identifies four hybrid organization types, one being the social enterprise (cf. Alter 2007).

Illustration not visible in this excerpt

Graph 2: The Hybrid Spectrum (Alter 2007:14)

As Figure 1.2. shows, Alter differentiates between four types of hybrid practitioners making purpose the central trait of distinction. On the one hand non-profit organizations with income generating activities and social enterprises are founded with the intention to create social value, on the other hand socially responsible businesses and corporations practicing social responsibility are established with the intention to create economic value. Alter uses the terms mission motive against profit-making motive to highlight the different intentions.

To better understand this trait of distinction between the different models a much resonated approach by Mair/Noboa will be introduced. The two theorists have investigated individual motivation for social entrepreneurship. In their 2006 paper "How intentions to form a social enterprise get formed" they combined classic entrepreneurship approaches with empirical data on SE to form a model of social entrepreneurial intentions (see Graph 3).

Illustration not visible in this excerpt

Graph 3: A Model ofSocial Entrepreneurial Intentions

(Mair/Noboa 2006: 68)

The authors identify individual intentions at the root of SE activity. "Intentions reflect the motivational factors that influence behavior and are a reliable indicator of how hard a person is willing to try and how much effort he/she makes to perform a behavior (Ajzen, 1991: 181)." (Ajzen cited in Mair/Noboa 2006: 7) According to the model, behavioral intentions in the case of SE originate in the perceived desirability for social change and the perceived feasibility of founding and running a social enterprise. The perceived desirability is governed by the emotional and cognitive attitudes of the individual: empathy and moral judgment. The roots of the perceived feasibility are labeled enablers. Under this term Mair/Noboa subsume self-directed factors like self-efficiency and others-directed factors like social support. Through their model the authors try to show how the motivation for SE behavior works on an individual level.

Given this individual level, the question remains what the basic terms Mair/Noboa come down to (i.e. social support or moral judgment) originate. Obviously the roots cannot be found in the individual anymore but must be sought on a different level, taking external factors into account.

To understand why these external factors are so important for SE, several authors use the structuration theory by Giddens. Mair/Marti put it as follows: "Giddens's theory may help us to better understand how social entrepreneurship comes into being by directing our attention to a fundamental unit of analysis: the interaction between the social entrepreneur and the context. That interaction is crucial to understanding the process of social entrepreneurship." (Mair/Marti 2006:40)

With his structuration theory Giddens succeeded in unravelling theoretical dichotomies between the system and the individual. The central concept of his theory is circular (see Figure XX). All human action is embedded in a socio-economic structure that is governed by certain norms and rules. Thus all human action partially predetermined in the sense that it evolves along those norms and rules. Human action (agent) in turn influences those norms and rules and thus alters the socio-economic structure (see graph 4).

In the above cited quote by Mair/Marti, as well as in the working definition⁷, used here SE is understood as a process of continuous interaction between individuals and the context that they are embedded in.

Illustration not visible in this excerpt

Graph 4: Giddens s Structuration Framework (Nizet 2007:16 cited in Cajaiba-Santana 1010: 89)

Giddens's structuration model shows why the analysis of the national framework is so important for understanding SE. The 'rules' are to be understood as the constraining part of the model, the 'resources' as the enabling part. The 'agent' stands for the individual, by 'social systems' Giddens means what has so far been called society (Cajaiba-Santana 2010: 98 ff.).

"The 'social context' is conceived as a movement where individual (or collective) actions 'structure'social systems and are in turn 'structured' by them. This process is recursive; there is no identifiable starting point." (ibid.: 99)

The focus of structuration theory lies in the dynamic of the interaction represented by the arrows in Graph 4. It stresses the fact that none of the parts can be understood on their own but have to be analysed in context. "Structuration theory stresses the importance of investigating through a processual perspective the recursive relationship between everyday practices and the social system where they are embedded." (Cajaiba-Santana 2010: 89)

[...]

---

¹ This appeoach was first taken by Vollmann 2008.

² In their 1999 paper Hirsch/Levin describe four principal stages. The first stage is followed by the "validity challenge" that consequently leads to the development of dominant strains of theory, the third stage is "tiding up with typologies". The final stage "construct collapse" actually embodies the crossroad for a research field. Its problems are either overridden, they turn into a permanent (accepted) issue or the construct collapses (cf. Hirsch/Levin 1999).

³ For detailed elaboration see Cho (2008)

⁴ A earlier version of the paper was already published in 1998.

⁵ see ISE definition Table 1

⁶ The EMES (The Emergence of Social Enterprise in Europe) researches Social Enterprise throughout Europe, financed by the European Commission.

⁷ See section 11.1.5.