Social Entrepreneurship in Germany E-Book

Philipp Kenel

• Herausgeber: transcript Verlag
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Serie: Edition Politik
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 516

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Beschreibung

Public and political interest in social entrepreneurship (SE) is increasing while it remains a contested and ambiguous concept. Philipp Kenel traces the popular media representation of SE in Germany over time (1999—2021), making an important empirical contribution to the sociological and political understanding of the phenomenon. He shows that until 2008, SE was mainly understood as a reform of the welfare infrastructure (including public and non-profit institutions). From 2009, SE was increasingly conceptualised as part of the economy, while sometimes challenging and other times reaffirming mainstream economic logics. More recently, in somewhat competing perspectives, SE has been framed as part of the ›start-up‹ world or as a force for deeper social and ecological transformation.

Leseprobe

This open access publication was enabled by the support of POLLUX – Informationsdienst Politikwissenschaft

and a network of academic libraries for the promotion of the open-access-transformation in the Social Sciences and Humanities (transcript Open Library Community Politik 2024).

Vollsponsoren: Technische Universität Braunschweig | Carl von Ossietzky-Universität Oldenburg | Eberhard-Karls Universität Tübingen | Freie Universität Berlin – Universitätsbibliothek | Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen | Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main | Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek – Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek | TIB – Leibniz-Informationszentrum Technik und Naturwissenschaften und Universitätsbibliothek | Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin | Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen | Universitätsbibliothek Eichstätt-Ingolstadt | Ludwig-Maximilians- Universität München | Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL) | Rheinische Friedrich- Wilhelms-Universität Bonn | Ruhr- Universität Bochum | Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Carl von Ossietzky, Hamburg | SLUB Dresden | Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin | Bibliothek der Technischen Universität Chemnitz | Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Darmstadt | Universitätsbibliothek „Georgius Agricola“ der TU Bergakademie Freiberg | Universitätsbibliothek Kiel (CAU) | Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig | Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Düsseldorf | Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Münster | Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek Köln | Universitätsbibliothek Bielefeld | Universitätsbibliothek Erfurt | Universitätsbibliothek der FernUniversität in Hagen | Universitätsbibliothek Kaiserslautern-Landau | Universitätsbibliothek Kassel | Universitätsbibliothek Osnabrück | Universität Potsdam | Universitätsbibliothek St. Gallen | Universitätsbibliothek Vechta | Zentralbibliothek ZürichSponsoring Light: Bundesministerium der Verteidigung | Bibliothek der Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Dresden | Bibliothek der Hochschule für Technik, Wirtschaft und Kultur Leipzig | Bibliothek der Westsächsischen Hochschule Zwickau | Bibliothek der Hochschule Zittau/Görlitz, Hochschulbibliothek | Hochschulbibliothek der Hochschule Mittweida | Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen (IfA) | Landesbibliothek Oldenburg | Österreichische ParlamentsbibliothekMikrosponsoring: Bibliothek der Berufsakademie Sachsen | Bibliothek der Evangelische Hochschule Dresden | Bibliothek der Hochschule für Musik und Theater „Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy“ Leipzig | Bibliothek der Hochschule für Bildende Künste Dresden | Bibliothek der Hochschule für Musik „Carl Maria von Weber“ Dresden | Bibliothek der Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig | Bibliothek der Palucca-Hochschule für Tanz Dresden | Leibniz-Institut für Europäische Geschichte | Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) – Deutsches Institut für Internationale Politik und Sicherheit

Philipp Kenel

Social Entrepreneurship in Germany

An Analysis of the Media Discourse from 1999 to 2021

The research for this book was funded by the Berlin Senate via the Berlin School of Economics and Law.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at https://dnb.dnb.de/

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (BY) license, which means that the text may be remixed, transformed and built upon and be copied and redistributed in any medium or format even commercially, provided credit is given to the author.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Creative Commons license terms for re-use do not apply to any content (such as graphs, figures, photos, excerpts, etc.) not original to the Open Access publication and further permission may be required from the rights holder. The obligation to research and clear permission lies solely with the party re-using the material.

First published in 2024 by transcript Verlag, Bielefeld

© Philipp Kenel

Cover layout: Maria Arndt, Bielefeld

Printed by: Elanders Waiblingen GmbH, Waiblingen

https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839473153

Print-ISBN: 978-3-8376-7315-9

PDF-ISBN: 978-3-8394-7315-3

EPUB-ISBN: 978-3-7328-7315-9

ISSN of series: 2702-9050

eISSN of series: 2702-9069

Contents

List of Tables and Graphs

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Chapter 1: The Many Meanings of Social Entrepreneurship

1.1Introduction: Social Entrepreneurship – Still a ‘Messy’ Field of Research

1.2All Things Social Entrepreneurship Carry Meaning(s) – Always

1.3Describing and Defining Social Entrepreneurship – No Innocent Task

1.4Social Entrepreneurship Linked to Wider Narratives

1.5A ‘Systemic’ Perspective: Social Entrepreneurship in Relationship to Neoliberalism

1.6The Meanings of Social Entrepreneurship: Context-Specific, Dynamic and Shaped by Different Actors

1.7‘Conceptual Confusion’ as the Starting Point of an Empirical Research Project

Chapter 2: Social Entrepreneurship in Germany

2.1Introduction: ‘Social Entrepreneurship’ in Germany – Perceived as an ‘Imported’ Concept and Still Rather Marginal

2.2How to Make Sense of ‘Social Entrepreneurship’ in the German Context

2.3The Development of a Social Entrepreneurship field in Germany

2.4The (Critical) Reception of the ‘Social Entrepreneurship’ Movement and Its Actors in Germany

2.5The Political and Socio-Economic Context in Germany During the Emergence of Social Entrepreneurship

2.6Social Entrepreneurship in Germany: Once a Neoliberal Movement, always a Neoliberal Movement?

Chapter 3: Grasping the Social Entrepreneurship Discourse(s) – Theoretical Framework and Methodology

3.1Introduction: Empirically Investigating the Contested Concept of Social Entrepreneurship in Germany between 1999 and 2021

3.2Discourse(s) as Systems of Thought around Specific Topics

3.3(Critical) Discourse Analysis: Researching Not Text, but ‘Social Practice’

3.4Operationalising the Empirical Research

Chapter 4: Social Entrepreneurship Coming to the Aid of the ‘Sick Man’ (1999-2008)

4.1Introduction

4.2Describing, Explaining, Defining Social Entrepreneurship

4.3Three Groups of Actors and ‘Speakers’, and Social Entrepreneurship Coming to Germany

4.4The Fields for Social Entrepreneurship, the Sectoral Positioning and Relationships to Established Institutions

4.5Why Social Entrepreneurship? The Need and Urgency for SE

4.6Logics and Value Statements in and around Social Entrepreneurship

4.7Business Virtues as a Cure for the ‘Sick Man’?

Chapter 5: Social Entrepreneurship Becoming Part of the Economy (2009-2014)

5.1Introduction

5.2Social Entrepreneurship as Business and Economy

5.3Social Entrepreneurship as Business Ethics and Reform of the Business School

5.4The Search for ‘Purpose’ in Work – Social Entrepreneurship Becoming a Career (Option)

5.5Social Entrepreneurship as Business: Ambiguous Developments

5.6More Voices ‘Speaking’ and Social Entrepreneurs are Not All ‘Heroes’ Anymore

5.7Complex and (More) Ambiguous Logics and Value Statements

5.8Critiquing but also Stabilising the Capitalist Economy After the Financial Crisis of 2008

Chapter 6: Towards an Entrepreneurial Society, or a Transformation of the Economy, or Both? (2015-2021)

6.1Introduction

6.2Rooted in the Economy and Source of Meaningful Work: More Continuity than Change?

6.3Social Entrepreneurship and the Start-Up World

6.4Institutionalisation and Normalisation of (Some Parts and Aspects of) Social Entrepreneurship

6.5More Actors and the Expansion of the ‘Social Entrepreneurship’ Term and Concept

6.6Politics of and beyond Social Entrepreneurship

6.7Social Entrepreneurship as Part of a Regional (Economic) Model?

6.8Overlaps with Other Concepts: More ‘Confusion’ and Ambiguity than Ever?

Chapter 7: On the Rise and on the Move – but where to? Discussion, Reflection and Outlook

7.1Introduction

7.2The Three Periods in the Social Entrepreneurship (Media) Discourse

7.3Ambiguous Social Entrepreneurship: Criticising and Legitimising the Capitalist Economy

7.4The Importance of the Diversity and the Sector(s) of Social Entrepreneurship

7.5The Complex Interrelations between Social Entrepreneurship, Capitalism and the State

7.6Social Entrepreneurship and Other Concepts: Overlaps and (Lack of) Boundaries

7.7Social Entrepreneurship Discourse(s) and Newspapers: Reflections on the Methodological Approach

7.8The Political Potential of Social Entrepreneurship

Reference List

List of Tables and Graphs

Table 1:

Three Definitions of SE and Comparing Their Social, Economic and Governance Dimensions

Graph 1:

Social Entrepreneurship in German Newspapers – Articles per Year

Table 2:

Overview of Newspapers Covered for Compiling the Corpus

Table 3:

From Data to Three Periods

Table 4:

Approaches to Explaining ‘Social Entrepreneurship’ in the Newspaper Articles (1999–2008)

Table 5:

Overview: The Need for Social Entrepreneurship in the Media Representation (1999–2008)

Table 6:

Approaches to Explaining ‘Social Entrepreneurship’ in the Newspaper Articles (2009–2015)

Table 7:

Overview of Articles Including Selected Actors: 1999–2021

Table 8:

Overview of Articles Including Selected Actors: 2015–2018 and 2019–2021

Table 9:

Periodisation of the Social Entrepreneurship Discourse According to the Media Representation of Social Entrepreneurship

Acknowledgements

Many people have supported me in the process of my doctoral research and thesis writing, on which this book is based on. In particular, I am grateful to: Claudia Gather, Sigrid Betzelt, Simon Griffiths, Nick Taylor, Angela McRobbie, Simon Teasdale, Will Davies, and privately: to Roland, Anneliese and Samir. Thank you!

Introduction

In the wake of the 2021 election to the Bundestag , the Social Entrepreneurship Netzwerk Deutschland (SEND), Germany’s main network and lobby organisation for social entrepreneurs, asked all major parties to respond to some of their claims and to comment on their views and proposals for social entrepreneurship (SE) in Germany.1 The party representatives responded with video statements, which were published (among other places) on SEND’s Facebook page between September 21th and 24th. In their statements, all politicians expressed their sympathy for SE, explaining why they consider that SE is important and needed. However, each of them using their own language and linking SE to their specific argumentation and political views.

Armin Laschet of the Christian Democrats (Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands, CDU) highlights the role of social entrepreneurs as Germany’s ‘innovators’ (SEND 2021a).2 For him, social entrepreneurs can help to activate society’s potential to innovate and to find new solutions for social problems. Olaf Scholz of the Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, SPD) sees SE as an opportunity to foster community (‘togetherness’). According to him, social innovation requires the participation of many actors: in social enterprises, the community economy and cooperatives alike. Christian Lindner of the Liberal Party (Freie Demokratische Partei, FDP) points out Germany’s role as one of the richest countries in the world, but also expresses his fear that economic success alone is not enough and that there is a variety of challenges facing the country. For him, SE has the potential of addressing these challenges – by applying new solutions and entrepreneurial thinking, also in areas that are not strictly linked to the economy. On the other hand, Janine Wissler of the Left Party (Die Linke) summarises what she understands of SE as: ‘common good before profit’. For her, SE can make a contribution to overcome social ills, including poverty, loneliness and ever more precarious jobs. Wissler argues that within the framework of solidarity economies social innovation can play an important role, developing ideas on a small scale that may then serve society as a whole. Finally, Katrin Göring-Eckardt of the Green Party (Bündnis 90/ Die Grünen, Green Party) sees social entrepreneurs as agents that are committed to the common good and sustainability, who are building an economy that replaces short-term returns with long-term thinking (SEND 2021a).

Given that this is only a few days before the election and that the campaigners are hoping for votes from the SE community and beyond, it is hardly surprising that all five politicians express their support for SE. But apart from this, the different party representatives clearly demonstrate that they connect certain hopes and political goals with the SE phenomenon or movement. However, what each of the five associates with SE can be quite different from each other – and mirror each party’s political goals and broader vision for society. Two rather opposed understandings of and visions for SE that stand out are: Christian Lindner’s (FDP) claim for entrepreneurial thinking in all areas of society – representing a (neoliberal) glorification of entrepreneurial solutions – in contrast to Janine Wissler’s (Die Linke) understanding of SE as common good before profits – employing the language of solidarity (of the political left). In short, the support that these different actors express for SE is linked to different political goals and to different underlying understandings of the SE phenomenon and movement.

The much-cited quote by management scholar Dees (2001 [1998]) in one of the first scholarly publications on SE, remains timely: “[t]hough the concept of ‘social entrepreneurship’ is gaining popularity, it means different things to different people” (Dees 2001 [1998]: 1).3 While this has mostly been taken as a starting point for discussing definitions of SE and what kind of organisations social enterprises are or should be – which remain to be important aspects – I argue that this matter goes much deeper. Taking a more sociological perspective, it can be noted that the different ‘meanings’ that are attributed to SE concern not only the underlying understandings of SE but also the broader ideas, the political goals and agendas and the visions for society that people connect to SE – as could briefly be illustrated with the statements above. Academic literature, too, offers a variety of such wider interpretations and understandings of SE. To the extent that, sometimes, social entrepreneurship is described as a neoliberal concept, transforming the social and welfare sectors, while at other times, SE is said to represent an alternative to precisely this (neoliberal) capitalist economic model (e.g., Shaw & de Bruin 2013).

The fact that there is such “conceptual confusion”, as Teasdale (2012: 99) has framed it, when it comes to the wider political or sociological meaning of SE and the motivation of trying to untangle this for the German context has been the starting point for my research. Being such a fluid and contested concept that might be understood and interpreted in very different ways by different actors, also making it prone to appropriation and even instrumentalisation for various political purposes, I aimed to investigate the idea of SE in Germany empirically, in order to contribute to a better sociological understanding and making sense of it – in particular along the following research topics and questions:

•Diversity and dominance: What different understandings of SE can be identified, and what is the dominant representation and perspective of the SE concept in Germany?

•Representation and Relevance: What does a broader audience get to learn about the SE phenomenon? What parts or aspects of SE are given a platform and getting noticed by wider society, i.e., beyond the niche spaces of the SE scene itself?

•Development over time: How has the idea of SE been introduced in Germany in the late 1990s (when the ‘social entrepreneurship’ term first started to appear), and how has the concept developed over time, until the early 2020s (when interest for SE in the public and in politics has started to increase)?

•Notions of ‘change’ and politics:SE seeks to ‘change’ the status quo – but which status quo is meant, what shall ‘change’ and how, and what is the vision for economy and society proposed by SE? What (potential) societal or political role is ascribed to SE, and what is the relationship between SE and the dominant (neoliberal) social and economic model?

Until now, these aspects of SE, i.e., its wider meanings, its normative and political underpinnings, have not been investigated empirically for the German context. Several studies have addressed similar aspects – including those of Parkinson & Howorth (2008), Nicholls (2010), Teasdale (2012), Dey & Teasdale (2016), or Mason & Moran (2019), among others – but mainly for the United Kingdom (UK). As a result, the findings of these studies can only help to understand SE in Germany to a limited extent, since making sense of SE as a political and sociological phenomenon needs to take into account the political and socio-economic specifics of the respective context.

This is where this book makes an original contribution, explicitly focusing on the concept of SE in Germany, based on empirical research on representations of SE in the media between 1999 and 2021. The study is grounded on the theoretical and methodological framework of ‘discourse’ and ‘discourse analysis’. This approach allows to study the development of ideas and, therefore, proves suitable to investigate the different meanings – in the broadest sense – associated with SE, how these meanings are ‘produced’ and contested, and how they have developed over time (Fairclough 1992; 2010; Diaz-Bone 2006). The empirical study is an analysis of 349 newspaper articles of general newspapers, published between 1999 (which is when the term ‘social entrepreneurship’ first appears in the German press) and 2021 (the latest year that my analysis was able to include and which coincides with a growing (political) interest for SE). I argue that newspapers (as part of the mass media) are important arenas for a society, in which ‘common’ knowledge and meaning(s) are produced.

It must be noted, however, that this choice of data implies that the analysis primarily casts light on certain representations of SE in newspapers. It only grasps some parts and aspects of the SE discourse(s), namely: the part of the SE discourse(s) that is represented in newspaper articles, i.e., the part of SE that journalists and editors find interesting and worth writing about. It is a mediated perspective on SE: SE seen through the eyes of newspapers. Yet, given that this book seeks to portray a certain dominant or ‘mainstream’ view on SE, and aspects about the SE concept that are getting noticed outside of the niche spaces in which SE, so far, is taking place, this is a valid and suitable choice of data for the research questions outlined above, as I will explain in detail in Chapter 3.

With its distinct approach, this book makes a contribution to SE scholarship mainly in four regards: strengthening sociological research on SE, applying empirical research to better understanding SE in the specific German context, tracing the development of ‘common’ representations of SE over time and, more generally, contributing to the interdisciplinary study of (socio)economic phenomena.

First, it contributes to sociological perspectives on SE that grasp and study SE as a complex (political) phenomenon, which is ‘more’ than just a (sub-) form of entrepreneurship and which has ‘wider’ meanings and a multifaceted relationship to society. The wider political and socio-economic aspects of SE (not only in Germany) remain understudied, arguably, because most of the literature on SE comes from business administration and management studies (see e.g., Sassmannshausen & Volkmann 2018) – as pointed out by Parkinson & Howorth (2008), Lautermann (2012) or Bruder (2021), among others. Drawing on literature from political economy and sociology and a methodological approach (discourse analysis) at the intersection of sociology and linguistics, this study challenges a take on SE, which reduces SE merely to a variant of entrepreneurship, failing to acknowledge it as a complex social phenomenon and movement. In enquiring the relationship between (representations of) SE and neoliberal capitalism, my study also contributes to connecting SE more strongly to broader discussions in sociology, socio-economics and political economy. The relationship between SE and (neoliberal) capitalism remains ambiguous and an interesting object for study. Hopefully, further sociological work will explore SE’s ‘political potential’ – using Davies’s (2014a) terms – and its role in a neoliberal system, which is constantly evolving and is capable to adapt to a changing environment and to absorb its critics, as we know from Boltanski & Chiapello (2007) – but in which others see “cracks and contradictions” (Hall et al. 2015: 20–21), and which yet others already see coming to an end (e.g., Jacques 2016; Stiglitz 2019; Saad-Filho 2020).

Second, this book offers empirical insights for better understanding the SE concept and phenomenon in the specific context of Germany between 1999 and 2021. Especially from a sociological perspective, SE must be understood in interplay with its historical, geographic, political and socio-economic context – as I explain in Chapter 1. Arguably, context-specific aspects still receive too little attention in SE research, as among others, Deforurny & Nyssens (2010) have pointed out from early on (and restated more recently, e.g., in Deforurny et al. 2021). I also want to highlight the explicit empirical perspective offered in this book. So far, the interpretations of SE and its wider political meanings and (potential) role in society for Germany are mainly based on theoretical assumptions, they are most often assumed instead of researched (see, e.g., Ranville & Barros 2021) – or derived from studies from contexts other than Germany (as I will explain in Chapter 2). My study, on the other hand, offers an empirical sociological investigation on how the idea of SE is being constructed in Germany, identifying different understandings as well as the dominant mainstream (media) representations and perspectives of the SE concept.

Third, this book highlights that the idea of SE may change over time and helps to understand the development of the (mainstream view of) SE in Germany in a specific period (between 1999 and 2021). The key contribution of my empirical analysis of representations of SE in newspaper articles lies in the identification of three periods, in which certain perspectives on SE are dominant. From 1999 to 2008, SE is mainly understood as a reform of the welfare infrastructure. Between 2009 and 2014, SE is increasingly conceptualised as part of the economy. From 2015, there are two main currents: one sees SE becoming part of the ‘start-up’ world and, on the other hand, SE is conceived as a phenomenon that contributes to a social and ecological transformation of the economy. For the German context in particular this periodisation is an important contribution. As I argue in Chapter 2, little has been written about SE as a political phenomenon or movement in Germany – in particular beyond the initial phase of the late 1990s and early 2000s, and about how the idea of SE and what larger parts of society gets to perceive of it has developed over time. Arguably, this also gives political and societal relevance to this book – because even though SE in Germany remains quite marginal and weakly institutionalised interest for SE is starting to grow in the early 2020s.4

Fourth, this book is a contribution to (and plea for) the interdisciplinary study of socioeconomic phenomena. Qualitative discourse analysis at the intersection of sociology and linguistics is not the most common methodology to research topics related to business and the economy. Economists and business scholars mainly rely on quantitative approaches. In the past decades, mainstream economics has undergone a severe narrowing in methodological and theoretical perspectives – as pointed out e.g., by Graupe (2013), Ehnts & Zeddies (2016), or van Treeck & Urban (2017). The (over) reliance on neoclassical theory and on mathematical models has been heavily and increasingly criticised in recent years, different movements (led by academics, students and civil society) have emerged, demanding more theoretical and methodological pluralism in the study of the economy (e.g., Aigner et al. 2018). My study’s interdisciplinary approach shall help to highlight the potential of discourse (analysis) in order to better understand (socio)economic phenomena and developments – and plea for the case that neighbouring disciplines may help to expand the theoretical and methodological repertoire to understand (socio)economic phenomena and developments. On the other hand, my study shall also be an invitation for discourse analysts, who research issues related to the (political) economy, such as SE, less often than other topics (e.g., race or gender relations).

The book is organised as follows. Drawing on academic literature from various disciplines I am going to address the complex ‘conceptual confusion’ around SE in the first chapter. Even if this is not always explicitly stated (let alone investigated), much of the academic literature on SE offers normative and wider explanations of SE. Some explanations are (seemingly) more definitory, while others more explicitly address the proposed societal or political role of SE. Yet, all explanations of SE carry normative and political meaning (either implicit or explicit), as Section 1.2 will explain, given that the ‘social’ in SE is value-loaded and linked to a certain understanding of what is ‘good’ for society. Even though this distinction between a more definitory level and a ‘wider’ societal-political level is not strictly clear cut, it will serve as a useful framework for organising Chapter 1. Following this logic, Section 1.3 will focus on the more implicit meanings and normative underpinnings in definitions of SE. Next, Section 1.4 will address wider narratives that more explicitly ascribe SE a certain societal function, relating SE to other (established) societal institutions and explaining why SE is necessary. Section 1.5 then addresses literature that links SE to ‘bigger’, systemic questions – in particular literature that establishes a relationship between SE and neoliberalism. Section 1.6 will emphasise the importance of context (such as historical and political) for understanding SE. In addition, this section highlights the flexibility and malleability of the SE concept and the fact that different actors may link SE to various worldviews and/or political goals. Overall, this first chapter sheds light on the complex and dynamic nature of representations and explanations of SE and highlights the diverse and contested meaning(s) that are attributed to SE and that these might change over time, which is important before coming to the specific case of SE in Germany (see Section 1.7).

Chapter 2 focuses on SE in Germany and addresses particularities of SE in this context. First, Section 2.2 will situate the (untranslated) ‘social entrepreneurship’ term in this specific setting, explaining that it refers to a distinct movement, which can be (historically) distinguished from other social economy movements. Section 2.3 then addresses this specific SE movement in Germany, offering a brief overview of SE in the media, in academic literature, of the relevant actors in the field as well as of first policy engagements with SE. Section 2.4 focuses on the reception of this specific non-translated (English) term and concept – which was quite sceptical in social science and social economy circles. Arguably, this critique is embedded within a critique of wider political and socio-economic developments, as I will explain in 2.5. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, SE was mainly perceived as part of a neoliberal re-shaping of society – globally and in Germany, which at the time was undergoing substantial social security and labour market reform. Looking forward, however, Section 2.6 argues, that little is known – and little has been written – about SE as a political phenomenon beyond the early 2000s and about the (potential) developments of the SE concept and movement after this initial phase.

In order to study the contested concept of SE in Germany between 1999 and 2021, how the meaning of SE has been constructed and whether it is possible to identify developments in this process, Chapter 3 will introduce the research framework of discourse analysis. Discourse analysis offers a suitable theoretical and methodological perspective to investigate the ‘wider’ meanings of SE in Germany and their development. Section 3.2 will first introduce the theoretical framework of ‘discourse’ more generally. Section 3.3 will then explain what it means to analyse discourse and focus in particular on Critical Discourse Analysis (mainly according to Fairclough 1992; 2010), which, complemented by Diaz-Bone (2006), serves as the principal methodological approach for the empirical study. Section 3.4 will then lay out the concrete operationalization for the empirical research. This includes describing the compiling of the corpus of 349 newspaper articles and the utilised search terms and reflecting on the choice of data (newspaper articles) and what this implies for my research findings as well as explaining the analysis of the data derived from the corpus – and, briefly, addressing ethical considerations and the way that the results will be presented in the following chapters (4–6). During the analysis of the data, three periods in the SE discourse in Germany were identified: the first period from 1999–2008, the second period from 2009–2014 and the third period from 2015–2021. Chapters 4–6 will each be dedicated to one period in chronological order.

Chapter 4 presents the results for the first period, ranging from 1999 (the year in which the first article on SE appears in the German press) until 2008 (when the SE discourse ‘shifts’ towards the economy, as will be explained in detail in Chapter 5). The first half of the chapter (Sections 4.2–4.4) presents the findings of the analysis mainly in a descriptive way, while the latter half (Sections 4.5–4.7) places the focus on discussing and contextualising the findings, and establishes links to previous academic literature. In the first period (1999–2008), overall, SE in Germany remains quite marginal. A SE field emerges only around 2004, closely connected to the organisation Ashoka opening an office in Germany and revolves mainly around a few actors. The dominant version of SE in this early phase – as it is represented in the analysed newspaper articles – is rather person-centred, foregrounding the figure of the social entrepreneur. There are different (to some extent competing) ‘wider’ narratives about the role of SE in society, what ‘change’ SE shall bring about and what sort of economy and society SE envisions. Yet, the main perspective is clearly one of SE as a reform of the welfare-producing infrastructure. SE and the concrete social enterprises that are represented in the media largely operate in traditionally ‘social’ fields or fields of the state (such as education or work integration). Tied to this, social enterprises and entrepreneurs are often compared to – and presented as the more efficient or ‘better’ solution than – institutions of the state and the non-profit sector, which in turn are often depicted as inefficient or even deficient.

There is a remarkable shift around the years 2008–2009, as Chapter 5 explains, marking the beginning of the second period (2009–2014). According to the media representation, SE is now increasingly understood as belonging to the economy – in contrast to the first period, when SE was mainly seen as part of the welfare-producing ‘social’ infrastructure (see 5.1 and 5.2) – a development which I will describe as ‘sectoral shift’. Related to this sectoral shift, SE is now increasingly linked to debates around business ethics and reform of business education (as Section 5.3 points out). Section 5.4 addresses another main theme in the second period: SE within a discussion around purpose and search for meaning in work, in particular for a ‘new’ generation of students, for who SE now becomes a career option. Sections 5.5–5.7 present the findings for the second period on definitions and explanations of SE, actors as well as logics and value statements in the analysed articles, at times drawing comparisons to the first period. Finally, Section 5.8 engages in a contextualisation of the findings and discusses, among other aspects, the role of the financial crisis of 2008 for the SE discourse.

Chapter 6 is dedicated to the third period, spanning from 2015 to 2021. From 2015, SE is now often described as a ‘trend’ among founders and start-ups, appearing next to other forms of entrepreneurship. This might be seen as a continuation or further evolution of the second period, however, SE is now presented not just any part of the economy, but more specifically, as part of the start-up world and as ‘founding’ (as Sections 6.2 and 6.3 explain). Section 6.4 shows that more actors get involved in the SE discourse, and as more people become familiar with the SE concept certain aspects of SE get institutionalised and normalised. In spite of (new) powerful actors such as SEND entering the SE field, this does not seem to settle the contested discussion of what SE is supposed to mean. On the contrary, as interest in SE grows, this rather seems to lead to an expansion of the term (as explained in 6.5). Sections 6.6 and 6.7 focus on politics and policy around SE and around SEND. Some of actors and policies see in SE ‘more’ than a form of entrepreneurship; SE is sometimes portrayed as a movement that propels a transformation of the economy and linked to a specific regional (economic) model. Finally, Section 6.8 engages in a contextualisation of the findings of the third period.

The final chapter summarises and discusses the key insights and findings of both the literature review and of the empirical analysis and shows in which way these make a contribution to previous academic research. Section 7.2 will highlight the central contribution of my study: i.e., having identified three different periods in the newspaper discourse of SE in Germany. Section 7.3 will then discuss that, in spite of having identified periods with a dominant and distinct SE discourse, SE remains sociologically complex and ambiguous. It was found that representations of SE may simultaneously be able to criticise and legitimise the capitalist economic model. Section 7.4 discusses the ‘sectoral shift’ identified, leading from the first to the second period. I argue that this shift is also a reminder of the diversity of SE, acknowledging that SE takes places in different sectors – and that this is relevant for the sociological understanding of SE. The next section (7.5) will then address interrelations between SE and capitalism and the state. Section 7.6 will address some of the overlaps between SE and other concepts (such as ‘sustainability’ or ‘entrepreneurship’) and discuss what these might imply for the future of the SE idea. Section 7.7 will reflect on the data (newspapers) and the methodological approach that served to provide the empirical findings and address their limitations. Finally, Section 7.8 closes with remarks on the political potential of SE.

1All parties at the time represented in the Bundestag were contacted, excluding the far-right party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).

2The video statements were transcribed and translated from German by the author.

3Arguably, it was also this article, The Meaning of ‘Social Entrepreneurship’, which first introduced the SE term and concept to a wider academic community. According to a scientometric analysis by Sassmannshausen & Volkmann (2018), in 2013 this was the most-cited publication on SE.

4SE has not (yet) attracted significant interest or involvement of policymakers unlike in the UK, for example, where first the Labour and then the Conservative government have significantly shaped the SE sector. However, as I explain in detail in Chapter 2, interest for SE is growing in different areas of society, especially at the beginning of the 2020s.

Chapter 1: The Many Meanings of Social Entrepreneurship

1.1Introduction: Social Entrepreneurship – Still a ‘Messy’ Field of Research

This chapter is going to draw on literature on social entrepreneurship (SE) to give an overview of different definitions, explanations, narratives and interpretations of the SE concept. Although it still remains a niche phenomenon, SE has gained popularity around the world in the past two decades. Fuelled by impressive stories of heroic entrepreneurs (labelled as ‘changemakers’), and their innovative ventures, such as the Grameen Bank founded by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, and promoted by organizations like Ashoka and the Schwab Foundation, interest in this phenomenon has sparked across different societal spheres, including the media and academia. As a result, there is a growing amount of research on social entrepreneurship in different academic disciplines; Sassmannshausen & Volkmann (2018) even claim that social entrepreneurship is reaching maturity as an academic field itself. Yet, the body of literature on SE appears quite diverse (to put it nicely) – or somewhat ‘messy’ (to put it less nicely). The literature on SE is spread over various disciplines and makes reference to SE in various geographies, institutional and political contexts. In addition, there is a significant share of ‘grey’ literature, in particular contributions by support agencies, or foundations, targeted mainly at practitioners and policymakers.

Most SE literature is rooted in business administration, followed by third sector and non-profit studies. Further contributions come from policy studies, economics, geography, politics, sociology, among others (Sassmannshausen & Volkmann 2018; Teasdale et al. 2022). This book mainly approaches the SE phenomenon from a sociological perspective. Yet, the literature that is reviewed in this chapter includes various disciplines, given that authors from different disciplines offer explanations of SE as a social and political phenomenon – even though, this might not always be made explicit, let alone be empirically investigated (e.g., Ranville & Barros 2021).

While most literature is shaped by Anglophone research, it often also transcends geographical boundaries, with SE often being portrayed as a ‘global’ project or phenomenon (Dacin et al. 2010). Sometimes, a distinction is made between an ‘American’ and a ‘European’ school of SE research (Kerlin 2010; 2013; Hulgard 2010; Defourny & Nyssens 2010; 2012). In addition, it needs to be noted that there are overlaps – as well as lack of clarity and delineation – between different terms and concepts, including: social entrepreneurship,social business, social enterprise, social entrepreneur, or social innovation. Therefore, the main focus and object of study in SE literature may vary, with research that either focuses on individuals (entrepreneurs), on organisations (enterprises), or on the process and phenomenon (entrepreneurship) (Danko & Brunner 2010).

Despite the growing body of research and literature thus, there is still much “conceptual confusion” (Teasdale 2012: 99) around SE, in particular when it comes to trying to make sense of SE as a political phenomenon, the ‘wider’ meanings of SE and what sort of economy and society SE is envisioning. Despite SE being a value-loaded concept (as I will explain in Section 1.2), which advocates for ‘change’, the political and normative underpinnings of SE are only sometimes overtly and explicitly addressed, remaining understudied. The normativity in SE is rarely researched, with academic literature often reproducing assumptions around SE, instead of questioning and investigating them (Ranville & Barros 2021; Bruder 2021). Overall, the relationship between social entrepreneurship and society remains vague and ambiguous (Lautermann 2012). What is more, the political and normative meanings of SE are in flux and dynamic and can change over time (as Section 1.6 will address in detail). As Teasdale notes:

The construction of social enterprise is ongoing, and fought by a range of actors promoting different languages and practices tied to different political beliefs. That is, social enterprise is politically contested by different actors around competing discourses (Teasdale 2012: 100).

Sections 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 shall shed light on these contested meanings around SE; the sections are organised according to what I will call different levels or layers of meaning(s) contained in explanations of SE. Section 1.3 will address definitions of social entrepreneurship, which at first sight appear (or seek) to be merely conceptual or cognitive explanations, but implicitly contain certain theoretical, normative and political underpinnings. Section 1.4 will address descriptions and explanations of SE that are linked to wider narratives and topics, thereby ascribing SE a certain function or role in society and offering a more explicit (sociological) explanation of SE. Section 1.5 will then engage with accounts of SE that outright address the ‘bigger’ systemic questions around how the phenomenon of SE relates to the (neoliberal) capitalist economic model, explicitly discussing SE in the context of wider political or social developments. It shall be noted that while I use these three conceptual levels or layers to organise the chapter, they shall be regarded as rather loose categories that are not completely clear-cut from each other. Section 1.6 will emphasise and discuss the role of context when it comes to trying to make sense of SE as a sociological phenomenon, and address the fact that different actors may shape SE according to their beliefs. Finally, Section 1.7 will provide a summary of the findings of the chapter and outline this book’s empirical analysis of the SE discourse(s) in Germany between 1999 and 2021.

1.2All Things Social Entrepreneurship Carry Meaning(s) – Always

SE is always tied to certain normative and socio-economic underpinnings and political beliefs – whether or not this is addressed in an explicit way, or merely implicitly. Social entrepreneurs are branded or brand themselves as ‘changemakers’ (Bandinelli & Arvidsson 2013; Ashoka 2020). However, it remains unclear what kind of ‘change’ SE actually promotes, and in which way this shapes the economy and society. SE being framed as ‘social’ is inherently tied to normative and political assumptions – while at the same time, it often remains vague. The ‘social’ nature of SE and closely related concepts, such as ‘social impact’ or ‘social value’ in the context of SE usually means ‘for the good of society’. This has already been pointed out, for example, by Cho (2006) and more recently by Ranville & Barros (2021), who also explain that precisely this ‘social’ nature of SE often remains unclear and ambiguous, and that academic literature also tends to (re)produce this unclarity and ambiguity. Bruder, too, has noted that “[t]he prefix ‘social’ itself is not a value-free description (2021: 487), instead implying “being beneficial for society and ethically legitimate” (ibid.) and, therefore, is positively connoted.

Assuming that SE contributes to ‘the good of society’ inevitably raises questions of legitimacy: who gets to define what is to be understood as ‘good for society’ or ‘social’, and why? This will, of course, be answered differently by various actors – according to their worldviews and underlying normative and political beliefs. To translate the quote by management scholar Dees (2001 [1998]) into a more sociological perspective: What is considered to be ‘social’ will be different for different people – and rightfully so: in democratic and pluralistic societies, the ‘common good’ shall not be determined a priori by a certain actor or entity. Instead, different individual and group interests and positions shall be discussed and negotiated in a political process (e.g., Schubert & Klein 2020). A fixed and a priori understanding of the common good (set by a specific entity) would, instead, be an indicator for an autocratic system. Therefore, while I agree with Ranville & Barros (2021) who, having analysed SE against contemporary schools of political philosophy, demand SE researchers to be reflexive regarding the normativity in their object of study, I argue that the ‘social’ being a contested category is a somewhat desirable dilemma for SE that will (need to) persist, even if this might sometimes be unsatisfactory to researchers trying to make sense of SE and to untangle the ‘conceptual confusion’ that SE presents us with. Overall, such sociological aspects of SE are understudied (Somers 2013). According to Parkinson & Howorth, one reason for this is that “much of the current work has come out of business and management disciplines” (2008: 287), which does not place an emphasis on studying SE “as a complex social movement” (ibid.). Similarly, Lautermann (2012) and Bruder (2021), too, have pointed out the lack of foundation in the relevant social theories and disregard of the normative and political questions about the relationship between SE and society in the study of SE.

At the same time, as indicated in the Introduction, there are many different views on the ‘wider’ meaning(s) of SE and what sort of ‘change’ SE promotes or should promote, depending on different understandings of the SE phenomenon and the ‘hopes’ attributed to it. The following three sections in this chapter highlight the diversity of these understandings as well as their complexity and ambiguity. They show how meanings around SE are being constructed and contested on different levels at the same time, whether it comes to ‘simply’ defining SE, or explaining the wider political or social role of SE. The next section is going to begin with focussing on the apparently ‘simple’ level of defining or describing SE, which inevitably (implicitly) linked to certain (world)views and value judgements.

1.3Describing and Defining Social Entrepreneurship – No Innocent Task

‘Social entrepreneurship’ is an umbrella term, which is used to refer to a wide array of activities; social enterprises can differ greatly in size, organizational form, or the context they work in. They often operate at the margins and intersections of the state, the market and the third sector, sometimes blurring the boundaries between the three (Ridley-Duff & Bull 2011). SE might stand for a microcredit institution in Bangladesh, a work integration social enterprise in Belgium, a fair-trade chocolate producer in Benin, a kindergarten in Britain, or a tech company in Brazil. SE may also bring different people together – and as its ‘practitioners’ you may encounter (former) bankers or business consultants as well as activists and social workers, sometimes within the same venture. Considering this heterogeneity of the field and its people, it would be surprising to find that all of them had the same understanding of SE and had the same vision for SE as well as for the economy and society as a whole. The projections onto SE – the hopes that people associate with SE – are many, and often quite different from each other. Definitions are supposed to provide a solution exactly for this problem: establishing a common ground so that everyone can share the same understanding of SE. The task of defining SE plays an important role in literature on SE (Dacin et al. 2010). However, defining SE is never ‘neutral’ or ‘innocent’.1 Defining SE is inevitably tied to underlying normative assumptions – which also extend to or are linked to wider meanings, as I will explain in the following paragraphs.

Definitions of SE are per se normative. They delineate what the ‘ideal’ or prototypical form of SE is or should be and establish a set of characteristics that determines what is to be considered to be ‘social entrepreneurship’ and what is not. These characteristics inevitably convey some sort of normative or political meaning(s). As explained in the previous section (1.2), this is linked to the prefix ‘social’, which always carries both underlying and wider (normative) meanings and political beliefs – even though this might not always be stated, or, perhaps, not even be evident to the authors.

It shall be noted here that this section addresses the issue of defining SE differently than probably most other academic texts. I will have to disappoint the reader that is looking for a specific definition of SE. Selecting a certain definition as a basis is not my purpose. Quite the contrary, settling on a specific definition would be opposed to my research project, which is analysing how (different) meanings and interpretations are discursively constructed. Put differently, the definitions and explanations of SE that will be discussed in the following have a different function: they are part of the object of study. Nonetheless, as I will explain in Chapter 2, my study strongly relies on Birkhölzer (2015), who defines SE as a distinct (social economy) movement, situating it in a specific time in history (and not necessarily linked to a specific organisational form).

This being said, most academic literature tries to define SE in terms of the ‘social entrepreneur’ (the person) or the ‘social enterprise’ (the organisation). There is a vast variety of these definitions; comprehensive overviews are provided, for example, in Dacin et al. (2010: 39–41), listing 37 different definitions, or in Jansen (2013: 39–49), who gives an overview of 29 definitions.2 Most definitions of SE part from the two constituting words ‘social’ and ‘entrepreneurship’, explaining in which way, SE has a ‘social’ and an ‘entrepreneurial’ (or ‘economic’) dimension. This is also somewhat the lowest common denominator of the different definitions. The ‘social’ character of SE may be described as the pursuit of a ‘social mission’ or the creation of ‘social value’; for example, by Mair & Marti (2006: 37) as “to pursue opportunities to catalyse social change and/or address social needs” by Peredo & McLean (2006: 64) as “creating social value, either exclusively or at least in some prominent way”, or by Haugh (2006: 5) as to “trade for a social purpose”. However, the ‘social’ aspect of SE is seldom discussed in detail and can be considered as undertheorized in SE literature. The ‘entrepreneurial’ dimension of SE associates SE with ‘doing business’ and ‘innovation’, among others. For Korosec & Berman (2006: 449) this means to “develop new programs, services, and solutions to specific problems”, for Mair & Marti (2006: 37) “involving the innovative use and combination of resources to pursue opportunities”, and for Tracey & Jarvis (2007: 671) to “identify and exploit market opportunities, and assemble the necessary resources, in order to develop products and/or services”. Due to the combination of ‘economic’ and ‘social’ logics, social enterprises are often described by management scholars and organisational sociologists as ‘hybrids’ or ‘hybrid organizations’ (e.g., Hockerts 2006; Heinze et al. 2011; Doherty et al. 2014; Grohs et al. 2016).

Apart from the ‘social’ and the ‘entrepreneurial’ (or ‘economic’) dimension, some definitions of SE include a third domain: one that is often framed as ‘governance’ and which refers to aspects such as organisational form, control and accountability. In particular, third sector and ‘social economy’ scholars (most of who are organised in the research networks EMES or CIRIEC) have advocated for this perspective.3 The defining characteristics of the ‘governance’ dimension can, for example, be formulated as “a decision-making process in which voting power is not distributed according to capital shares” (Defourny & Nyssens 2012: 15) or might be inscribed within rules for “the reinvestment of surplus for community benefit” (Haugh 2006: 5). According to Defourny & Nyssens, this “governance [dimension is] specific to the EMES ideal-type of social enterprise” (2012: 12), and is sometimes considered to distinguish the ‘European’ from the ‘American’ school of thought of SE (as I will further discuss in Section 1.6).

Arguably, prescribing rules for the organisational governance of SE – or not – is linked to certain premises and normative underpinnings. More specifically, this is linked to a (normative or political) position on the question of what makes ‘good’ organisational forms for SE. Whether or not a social aim can be pursued by any organisation – agnostic to its organisational form (including for-profit private enterprises) – or whether this requires a specific organisational setting. ‘Governance’ aspects, such as participatory governance, democratic decision-making and ownership within organisations and the principle that power should be decentralised – instead of centralised in the hands of a few – comes from a specific historical and political tradition, associated with third sector organisations and cooperatives (e.g., Pearce 2003; Ridley-Duff & Bull 2011). ‘Governance’ aspects may, therefore, be seen as an expression of a certain worldview that positively connotes democratic control and participation of the many, expressing the view that organisations integrating these aspects are better suited in order to ensure the (social) aims of an organization in the long run. On the other hand, not including ‘governance’ indicates faith in the private enterprise, expressing the view that organisational forms based on capital ownership are suitable for or compatible with the pursuit of social aims.

Furthermore, when comparing different definitions, it quickly stands out that various definitions of SE show very different degrees of detail regarding the ‘social’ or ‘entrepreneurial’, or, where applicable, also the ‘governance’ dimension of SE – and, therefore, place different emphases. The following table illustrates this by comparing four definitions of SE: Dees (2001 [1998]) and Austin et al. (2006), coming from a business administration background, Defourny & Nyssens (2012) representing the ‘social economy’ approach and SEND (2019), the main network and lobbying organisation for SE in Germany. These four definitions were chosen, because they are either highly influential for SE scholarship in general or specifically for the German context. According to Sassmannshausen & Volkmann (2018), Dees’ (2001 [1998]) text is the most-cited text on SE overall, while Austin et al. (2006) is the most-cited journal article. Defourny & Nyssens (2012) are main representatives of the EMES network, which is highly influential in Europe, both in scholarship as well as in shaping (EU) policy, while SEND is currently the leading interest group for social enterprises in Germany.

The table shows which aspects of the three dimensions ‘social’, ‘economic’ and ‘governance’ are included in the definitions of the respective author or organisation:4

Table 1: Three Definitions of SE and Comparing Their Social, Economic and Governance Dimensions

Dees(2001 [1998]: 4)

Austin et al. (2006: 2)

EMES/Defourny & Nyssens(2012: 12–15)

SEND (2019)

Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by:

We define SE as (…)

Criteria or indicators for an ‘ideal-type’ of social enterprises (in Weber’s terms) are:

Social dimension

Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value),

social value creating activity

An explicit aim to benefit the community,

An initiative launched by a group of citizens or civil society organisations,

A limited profit distribution

The primary goal of SE is to find solutions for social challenges

Economic-entrepreneurial dimension

Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission,

Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning,

Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand,

Innovative

A continuous activity producing goods and/or selling services,

A significant level of economic risk,

A minimum amount of paid work

This is achieved by continuously applying entrepreneurial means, resulting in new and innovative solutions.

Governance dimension

Exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created

A high degree of autonomy,

A decision-making power not based on capital ownership,

A participatory nature, which involves various parties affected by the activity

Controlling and steering mechanisms ensure that the social mission is pursued internally and externally

The overview of the four definitions shows different things: first, that, in general, the degree of detail of the defining criteria varies considerably. The definition by Austin et al. (2006) is very short and broad, while e.g., the definition by Defourny & Nyssens (2012) is, in many ways, much more detailed and specific. Furthermore, a definition may offer a detailed understanding of one dimension – but not of all three. For example, Dees’ (2001 [1998]) definition provides a quite sophisticated and detailed understanding of the ‘entrepreneurial’ dimension, with three of the five defining characteristics in his definition referring to this dimension. The ‘governance’ dimension, on the other hand, remains rather unspecific – in the definition by Defourny & Nyssens (2012), on the other hand, the ‘governance’ dimension is quite elaborate. It can be argued, therefore, that the degree of detail that different definitions place on different (aspects) of the dimensions of SE is, to some extent, also an expression of emphasis – what is considered to be important. Certain aspects of SE are given (more) importance (over others), which, again, derives from normative underpinnings and political beliefs that are linked to different understandings of SE.

Furthermore, there are many other aspects of definitions that are normatively or politically grounded, as I will briefly illustrate, exemplarily focussing on the definition by management scholar Dees (2001 [1998]). Dees (2001 [1998]) clearly positions SE as a form of entrepreneurship – a perspective that can often be found in SE literature by business studies scholars. Embedding SE within entrepreneurship, however, can be seen as a reduction of the concept – as, to some extent, this perspective fails to acknowledge that SE may have ‘wider’ political meaning, to which I will come back in Chapters 6 and 7. Dees’ (2001 [1998]) definition ascribes certain characteristics to SE that derive from his discussion of entrepreneurship theory, namely that SE implies pursuing new opportunities as well as innovation, adaptation, and learning and acting boldly, i.e., taking risks (see table above). Dees’ definition associates SE with newness, innovation, flexibility and risk. Dees’ (2001 [1998]) framing of social entrepreneurs as ‘change agents’ further underlines the notion of SE as something that embraces the new, change and breaking with established habits or practices. What is more, newness, innovation, risk-taking, etc. as defining aspects of SE are also as such presented as positive features. Moreover, Dees’ (2001 [1998]) definition in centred around the ‘social entrepreneur’, the person or agent who engages in social entrepreneurship – in contrast, for example, to ‘social enterprise’ (as in the definition by Defourny & Nyssens 2012), which implies a stronger focus on the organization, or to ‘social entrepreneurship’, foregrounding the phenomenon or process. Dees (2001 [1998]), therefore, mainly parts from the individual as the core agent of SE, establishing SE as a process driven by individuals – and not e.g., by collective action. In addition, Dees’ (2001 [1998]) definition contrasts ‘social value’ against ‘private value’. While Dees’ (2001 [1998]) understanding of ‘social value’ remains quite vague, the distinction from ‘private value’ is nonetheless remarkable.5 Even though the two different types of ‘value’ are not presented as mutually exclusive – this is indicated by the word ‘just’ (see Table 1 above), which implies that SE may create both forms of value (‘private’ as well as ‘social’) – Dees (2001 [1998]) highlights that ‘social value’ should be the primary focus. Finally, Dees (2001 [1998]) clearly positions SE as a phenomenon that occurs in the ‘social sector’.6

This exercise of trying to unpack the sometimes explicit sometimes implicit normative and political meanings within definitions of SE could be continued endlessly. However, the main point has been made: to some extent, all definitions and academic literature on SE carry wider political meaning(s). This has been demonstrated in Section 1.2, discussing the prefix ‘social’ as well as in Section 1.3, addressing the different dimensions of SE (‘social’, ‘entrepreneurial’ and ‘governance’) and briefly discussing the definition by Dees (2001 [1998]). SE is always a value-loaded concept, even if this may not be explicitly stated by the respective author (appearing implicit and/or opaque) and not be of direct concern to their research. Yet, part of the literature on SE does, in fact, address and overtly discuss explanations and interpretations of the social entrepreneurship phenomenon and its wider meaning(s), or they link SE to certain narratives and political developments (more) explicitly, as I will discuss in the following section.

1.4Social Entrepreneurship Linked to Wider Narratives

This section is going to focus on academic literature that more explicitly links the SE concept to wider narratives. More specifically, by ‘wider narratives’, I am referring to SE being explained in a societal context, i.e., when a certain function or role is attributed to SE, and relationships between SE and other (established) societal institutions are addressed. These narratives, explanations or interpretations of SE are, inevitably, connected to specific normative and political views. Again, it shall be noted that these wider narratives of SE are extremely heterogeneous. As already indicated in the Introduction, different actors may link the idea of SE to very different political agendas and broader visions for society. In addition, it must be said that this section will only be able to provide a fraction of all the wider meanings that may be attributed to SE in academic literature and shall by no means be regarded as an extensive or complete account thereof.

A concise overview, which demonstrates the great diversity of these wider explanations of SE in academic literature, is offered by Teasdale et al. (2019: 22–23), who (citing various authors) synthesise that SE has been described as

a potential solution to area-based deprivation (…); an alternative vehicle for the delivery of publicly funded services (…); a more effective means of international development (…); an additional revenue raising stream for non-profits (…) or a potential alternative to winner-takes-all-capitalism (…); (...) a solution to the failure of markets to distribute goods and services equitably (…); (...) a policy solution to the failure of the state to deliver public services that were responsive to consumers (…); (...) a solution to the failure of the third sector to scale-up (…); (...) a vehicle through which public services can be spun off, allowing greater democratic ownership and control (…) (Teasdale et al. 2019: 22–23).

This overview shows that various authors propose quite different narratives of SE and of the societal and political functions or goals connected to the SE phenomenon. Each narrative or explanation of SE comes with its own system of thought and normative and political underpinnings. Each explanation or narrative comes with its own assessment of a ‘problem’, a situation which SE is seeking to change or overcome – thereby giving SE a specific role (in relation to other societal institutions). To pick out two of the explanations cited above: introducing SE as an ‘alternative to winner-takes-all-capitalism’ implies the assumption that capitalism (or a certain form of it) is a problem – one that SE shall help to overcome. Portraying SE as a ‘more effective means of international development’ implies that current forms of international development are regarded as ineffective – and that the function or raison d’être of SE is to offer a ‘better’ model for development.

Without doubt, these interpretations of SE are embedded in different worldviews, they ascribe SE a certain function or role in a social and economic context and represent very different underlying normative or political stands. Teasdale (2012: 103–106) has identified the following as the main theoretical assumptions behind the different narratives of SE: state failure (i.e., the assumption that the state and its institutions are unable to provide adequate welfare for its citizens), market failure (i.e., the assumption that the private sector is unable to organise equitable distribution), earned income approaches (i.e., the assumption that nonprofits are adopting earned income strategies to compensate for declined funds), marketization of the nonprofit sector (i.e., the assumption that nonprofits are becoming more business-like because of a general shift in society towards business ideology) and voluntary failure (i.e., the assumption that the third sector is unable to deliver effective welfare services). These theoretical assumptions carved out by Teasdale (2012) show that SE can be connected to very different – even opposed – analyses of contemporary societies and developments. Moreover, different narratives may place SE in completely different sub-systems or sectors of society – for example, ‘SE as an alternative to capitalism’ places SE in the economic system, giving SE the function to transform the economic model. Whereas ‘SE as the delivery of publicly funded services’ places SE in the public realm (or at the intersection of the public and the ‘traditionally social’ or ‘third’ sector), instead, attributing SE the function of transforming the model of welfare production and distribution.

These sectoral placements also determine the relationships between SE and other actors or institutions – e.g., private businesses, state agencies, nonprofits, etc. –