21st Century Foundation and Principles for Socioeconomic Development and Social Entrepreneurship
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online 21st Century Foundation and Principles for Socioeconomic Development and Social Entrepreneurship file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with 21st Century Foundation and Principles for Socioeconomic Development and Social Entrepreneurship book.
Happy reading 21st Century Foundation and Principles for Socioeconomic Development and Social Entrepreneurship Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF 21st Century Foundation and Principles for Socioeconomic Development and Social Entrepreneurship at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF 21st Century Foundation and Principles for Socioeconomic Development and Social Entrepreneurship Pocket Guide.
As a whole, as a consequence of the values under which the Social Economy researcher carries out their analysis, they will be guided by the identification of social problems and by the proposition of a viable solution to that respect.
- LES SECRETS DU CHIFFRE 7 (French Edition)!
- Buy This Book.
- Milkit: The Four Legged Approach to Business Strategy.
In this way, the economist leave his role of mere observer typical in the conventional Economics to be actively involved with a politically committed role Chaves, This idea reveals the need of adopting an holistic, dynamic and historic perspective in the study of the reality involved in the Social Economy sector Chaves, , which makes this science a more complete framework in order to understand the world we are experiencing currently. Chaves, R. Coraggio, J. EL trabajo antes que el capital.
Defourny, J. Hansmann, H. Economic Theories of Nonprofit Organisation, in W. Powell ed. James, E. Mill, J. Utilitarianis m, London: Electric Book Co. First edition: London: Parker, Son and Bourn Rose-Ackerman, S. Altruism, nonprofits, and economic theory , Journal of Economic Literature , 34, pp. Sajardo, A. Sampedro, J. El reloj, el gato y Madagascar, Revista de Estudios Andaluces , 1, pp. Tomas Carpi, J. Weisbrod, B. Towards a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sector in a three sector economy, in E.
Phelps ed. Altruism, morality and economic theory pp. However, her motivations to continue learning and researching led her to study a Masters degree in Economics and Local Development at the University of Huelva, where she discovered the significance of the Social Economy and the necessity of promoting it. Thus, she is currently in the third year of her PhD developing a research on this sector.
Her study attempts to identify the behavior of the companies belonging to the Social Economy sector in terms of entrepreneurial orientation, in order to characterize this entrepreneurial structure and to give the appropriate recommendations. Carmen, very nice article. It is a good point that the SE field as well as all fields, I imagine, will gain by being examined from a holistic approach, and the ethics and sociality of SE is a fine contribution to one such approach.
Christian, thank you for your comment. This holistic approach is neccesary if we want to go ahead developing the Social Economy as a discipline, as it pay attention to many aspects and not only economics aspects. So I am happy this contribution has helped to promote this idea. Kind regards and thanks again. I am going up against this topic as second speaker. Indeed i find this to be a task and quite challenging. E-mail: kaletka sfs-dortmund.
Against the backdrop of clear paradoxes and confusion in prevailing innovation policies, the contours of a new innovation paradigm, as elaborated in this paper, are becoming visible and causing social innovation to grow in importance.
However, innovation research is still lacking sustained and systematic analysis of social innovation, its theories, characteristics, and impacts. The purpose of this paper is to focus on a theoretically sound concept of social innovation as a precondition for an integrated theory of socio-technological innovation in which social innovation is more than an appendage of technological innovation.
This quantitative mapping is based upon 1. The mapping underlines the broad range of actors involved in the mapped initiatives and thereby confirms the need for a cross-sectoral concept of social innovation. It reveals a high diversity of social needs and societal challenges addressed by the initiatives as well as a high dependency on networks. Finally, on the basis of these empirical results, a recourse to Gabriel Tarde's social theory allows us to widen a perspective which was narrowed to economic and technological innovations by Schumpeter and after him by the sociology of technology, and to include social innovations in all their diversity.
Esse mapeamento quantitativo baseia-se em 1. Este mapeo cuantitativo se basa en 1. Revela una gran diversidad de necesidades sociales y retos de la sociedad, impulsada por las iniciativas y una alta dependencia de las redes. Since Schumpeter, the concept of innovation has focused predominantly on economic and technical developments, whereas social sciences were particularly interested in the corresponding social processes and effects Harrisson, This may explain why social sciences, until this day, have been conducting empirical work on social innovations quite comprehensively, but without labelling them as such and, with few exceptions, without a concept of social innovation informed by social theory.
They represent a special type of inventions taking the form of artefacts e. The belief in the central role of science and technologies is still the basis for contemporary innovation policies and the discourse on National Innovation Systems. However, despite this growing awareness of the significance of social innovation, there is still no sustained and systematic analysis of social innovation, its theories, characteristics, and impacts. In light of the increasing importance of social innovation, this paper focuses on a theoretically sound concept of social innovation as a precondition for the development of an integrated theory of socio-technological innovation in which social innovation is more than a mere appendage, side effect and result of technological innovation.
Only by taking into account the unique properties and specifics of social innovation, it will be possible to understand the systemic connection and interdependence of social and technological innovation processes and analyse the relationship between social innovation and social change. Following the introduction, the paper starts with an overview of the current situation and the perspectives of socio-scientific innovation research which have particularly contributed to the development and spread of an enlightened socio-scientific understanding of innovation.
Against the backdrop of clear paradoxes and confusion in prevailing innovation policies, the contours of a new innovation paradigm are becoming visible and causing social innovation to grow in importance see Section 2. The paper reflects upon the relationship between social innovation and social change Section 3.
- Are you sure?.
- Introduction | SpringerLink.
- Declaration Social Entrepreneurship Forum 2015.
- ETHICS AND SOCIAL ECONOMY – EMES Junior Experts' Blog.
It then presents the objectives, the concept and first empirical results of the global research project "SI-DRIVE: Social Innovation - Driving Force of Social Change" which intends to extend knowledge about social innovation by integrating theories and research methodologies Section 4. By these empirical results, a recourse to Gabriel Tarde's social theory Section 5 allows us to widen a perspective which was narrowed to economic and technological innovations by Schumpeter, and after him by the sociology of technology, and to include social innovations in all their diversity.
As a discipline, innovation research widely finds its systematic beginnings and point of reference, valid to this day, in Schumpeter's publication of "Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung" [Theory of economic development] Schumpeter, , where a definition of innovation is introduced. According to this work, economic development takes place as a permanent process of "creative destruction". What propels this dynamic, the impetus and origin of economic fluctuation, is innovation in the sense of the "execution of new combinations", of "establishing a new production function".
- 21st Century Foundation and Principles for Socioeconomic Development and Social Entrepreneurship.
- Introduction | SpringerLink!
- Nigeria | Ashoka | Everyone a Changemaker.
- Ashoka West Africa;
- Getting the Word Out by Creating Dynamic Newsletters.
- Beyond Catalina - Pacific Cruising in a Pre-digital Age.
Inventions become innovations if they successfully take hold on the market diffusion. Introducing and realizing innovations are the actual work and function of the entrepreneurship. Schumpeter focuses not only on technological innovation, but also distinguishes between product-related, procedural and organizational innovations, using new resources, and tapping new markets. He also addresses the process of innovation. Moreover, he underscores the necessity of social innovation occurring in tandem in both the economic arena as well as in culture, politics and society's way of life to guarantee the economic efficacy of technological innovations.
Following Schumpeter, innovations are increasingly reduced to technological innovations. Innovation research in the social sciences has been dedicated, by contrast, primarily to the relevance of innovation's social framework conditions. The central focus is on the social preconditions and influencing factors for predominantly technological innovations, the correlation between the technological and the social, between technological and social innovations, between innovations and societal development, the institutional context and the interaction between those involved in the process of innovation.
Innovation research in the social sciences has made great contributions to the development and spread of an enlightened sociological understanding of innovation. Its interpretative possibilities have become widely and 'successfully' practical. From deviation to the norm, from agent to system: this describes the central scientific discourses on innovation characterizing the last years - always in reaction to the innovation that has actually taken place, seldom, as was the case with Schumpeter, on a proactive basis.
The central elements of a sociologically enlightened understanding of innovation could be summarized as follows: 1. Consequently, technological and social innovations can be seen as closely intertwined and can only be completely captured in their interaction with one another. Against the background of the findings in innovation research, the question arises whether the technology-oriented innovation paradigm that has been shaped by the industrial society is not becoming increasingly less functional.
This approach opens up fundamentally new perspectives on recognized problems and thus simultaneously unlocks new possibilities for action. Especially in light of the basic confusions and paradoxes in innovation policy at present, this sort of interpretation of the current changes may open up new perspectives on innovation 2. International innovation research is also providing numerous indications of this fundamental shift in the innovation paradigm. In his introduction to the "Oxford Handbook of Innovation", which compiles the key development trajectories of international innovation research, Fagerberg, Mowery and Nelson , p.
It seems, as Schumpeter pointed out, to 'cluster' not only in certain sectors but also in certain areas and time periods". The argument for the thesis of the emergence of a new innovation paradigm is supported by the work of Bruland and Mowery The authors believe that fundamental changes occur in the structures of innovation systems in different time periods.
These changes are described as an expression of different phases of the industrial revolution. When a new innovation system takes hold, it leads to far-reaching changes in the institutional structures. In the face of the social shift from an industrial society to knowledge and service economy and the profound change, this entails in the economic and social structures of modern society, there are many indications signalling a fundamental shift in the innovation paradigm that can be detected.
New economic sectors and industries are increasingly determining the look of the economy and society and are changing the modes of production and innovation. Challenges such as ageing population or climate change entail social demands and action, for which traditional ways, in which markets, states, and civil society responded so far, are no longer sufficient. At the same time, technological innovation encounters limitations when it comes to resolving pressing social challenges.
The Europe Strategy, as well as its specific Flagship Initiatives, recognise these challenges. The Flagship Initiative on the Innovation Union clearly stipulates the importance of social innovation to successfully cope with the abovementioned challenges. We need a fundamental broadening of perspective.
Thus, the Vienna Declaration , p. The most urgent and important innovations in the 21st century will take place in the social field. This opens up the necessity as well as possibilities for Social Sciences and Humanities to find new roles and relevance by generating knowledge applicable to new dynamics and structures of contemporary and future societies. At the heart of the industrial society innovation paradigm were technological innovations relating to products and processes that were regarded as almost the only hope of societal development Gillwald, At the same time, social innovations, despite their importance, were largely ignored as a topic and used to be are a little-recognized phenomenon Gillwald, With social innovations, the new does not manifest itself in the medium of technological artefacts, but at the level of social practices.
If it is accepted that the invention and diffusion of the steam engine, the computer or the smartphone should be regarded differently from the invention and social spread of a national system of healthcare provision, the concept of corporate social responsibility CSR or a system of micro financing, then it stands to reason that there is an intrinsic difference between technological and social innovations. As with every other innovation, the 'new' does not necessarily mean 'good', but in this case is 'socially desirable' in an extensive and normative sense.
Companies, technical schools, and research institutes are not the only relevant agents in the process of innovation. Citizens and customers no longer serve as suppliers for information about their needs as in traditional innovation management ; they make contributions to the process of developing new products to resolve problems.
In addition, Moulaert et al. As such we see the term as referring not just to particular actions, but also to the mobilization-participation process and to the outcome of actions which lead to improvements in social relations, structures of governance, greater collective empowerment, and so on. So social innovation should become "part of a new culture of empowerment" EC - President Barroso which is central to create appreciable social change.
Thus, social innovations need to mobilise citizens to take an active part in innovation processes and thereby enhance society's generic innovative capacity Bureau of European Policy Advisers, This requires new models of governance in favour of self-organisation and political participation, allowing sometimes unexpected results through the involvement of stakeholders. This also requires interplay between actors, their networks, policy makers and the market on the one side, and processes in support of scaling-up and diffusion on the other.
In the face of the depth and development of change in modern societies and the rising dysfunction in established practice, social innovations are gaining greater importance, also in terms of economic factors, until technological innovations. They are not only necessary, but also can contribute proactively with regard to anticipated macro-trends, such as demographic developments or the effects of climate change "to modify, or even transform, existing ways of life should it become necessary so to do" Giddens, , p.
Social innovations are confronted with huge expectations of providing answers to wicked societal problems, given the fact that issues such as massive unemployment, the erosion of the social security system or the intensification of ecological risks cannot be overcome without implementing social innovation. While culminating social and economic problems identified in public discourse are increasingly prompting a call for extensive social innovation, the relationship between social innovation and social change remains a largely under-explored area in the social sciences as well as government innovation policies.
Phenomena of social change are consistently looked at in connection with technological innovation in techno-sociology and technical research in the prevailing paradigm of a social-technical system, but not from the perspective of an independent type of innovation that can be demarcated from technological innovations. This is inadequate in light of the declining functionality of the technology-oriented paradigm shaped by the industrial society.
Whereas - based mainly on Ogburn's theory - a specialised sociology of change has developed, with few exceptions social innovation as an analytical category is at best a secondary topic both in the classical and contemporary social theory approaches and concepts of social differentiation and social integration, social order and social development, modernisation, and transformation. This is all the more astonishing given that Ogburn not only makes 'cultural lag' - the difference in the time it takes for the comparatively 'slow' non-material culture to catch up with the faster-developing material culture - his starting point and systematically differentiates between technological and social innovations and inventions as critical factors in social change.
He also emphasises that use of the term 'inventions' is not restricted to technological inventions, but also includes social inventions such as the League of Nations. By inventions, we do not mean only the basic or important inventions, but the minor ones and the incremental improvements. Inventions, then, are the evidence on which we base our observations of social evolution Ogburn, , p.
Thus, Ogburn , p. In the following, the debate mainly centres on the question whether social innovations are a prerequisite for, a concomitant phenomenon with, or consequence of technological innovations. Against the background of the emergence of a new innovation paradigm, it becomes more important to devote greater attention to social innovation as a mechanism of change residing at the micro and meso level. The reasons for this are obvious. Firstly, the shortcomings of older models of social change and an economically and technologically focused innovation model become increasingly apparent when dealing with the key social challenges.
Secondly, new forms of governance and social self-management, of the "criticism that actually takes place in society" Vobruba, , p. Answering the need to describe social innovation in all its diversity, to develop robust models for the creation, roll out and diffusion of social innovations, and to better understand the relation between social innovation and social change, the global research project SI-DRIVE, funded within the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission 6 looks at the theoretical concepts, areas of empirical research and observable trends in the field of social innovation on both European and global scales.
The cases are the result of an expert based selection. Social innovation experts from all world regions, all of them either SI-DRIVE project partners or advisory board members, were asked to identify cases which meet the criteria of the working definition of social innovation. A survey template consisting of open and structured questions was developed for the data collection of all cases.
The key objectives of the empirical exercise are:. There are five key dimensions of social innovation that fundamentally affect the potential of social innovations, their scope, and their impact. They are:. During the first phase of the project, the theoretical analysis provided a general depiction of how social innovation resonates within the wider frameworks of existing innovation theory and research, the concepts and perceptions of social change, and of societal and policy development.
The five key dimensions of social innovation are essential in assessing the relations identified. Subsequently, empirical research has been applied to classify what can be observed in social reality into a typology of social innovation. SI-DRIVE analyses the differences and commonalities between social innovations in these areas to understand how social innovations develop and scale under different conditions and in relation to the cross-cutting themes e.
Social entrepreneurship - Wikipedia
Source: Howaldt, Butzin, Domanski and Kaletka As shown above, a database of cases has been created for the global mapping, covering about 80 countries from all world continents and addressing seven policy fields. To better define what is a social innovation case and to reduce the immense variety of social innovation categories, we applied a methodology distinguishing between so-called practice fields and initiatives.
A practice field is general type or summary of initiatives expressing some main characteristics common to different initiatives e. Grameen Bank, which lends micro-credits to poor farmers for improving their economic conditions, concrete car sharing initiatives. In the following, we present the results of the first phase of the global mapping of social innovation initiatives according to the five key dimensions of social innovation. The concept and understanding of social innovation are depicted so far by a growing importance worldwide on the one hand and by an unclear understanding and an unexploited potential on the other hand.
A growing number of brand new as well as adopting initiatives become a visible reaching impact in short term, diverse established and new practice fields appear connected with and affecting diverse policy fields causing innovation streams embedded in networks or umbrella organisations, social movements or policy programs.
The mapping hence confirms the assumption that there is a need for a concept of social innovation that would address different sectors, various types of partners, policy fields and cross-cutting themes as well as aspects of empowerment, user involvement, and human resources - stressed as a driving force and necessary precondition of and for social innovations.
However, given the ongoing challenges faced by creating an effective carbon market just within the E. U, the question undoubtedly stands…how long would such a market take to create and would it even be effective in time to limit climate change below devastating levels to our planet? I will start with the most undesirable of the options. Option 1 : food shortages, land conflict, famine, malnutrition and death from starvation for potentially billions of people. And according to the Oxfam Grow Report , we are heading into the perfect storm scenario for increasing world hunger: massive population growth, natural resource scarcity, environmental destruction and to top it off increasing threats from climate change, which will further undermine our already failing global food system.
A food system which, at last estimate, already leaves nearly a billion people facing hunger as a daily reality. The current food system is inherently wasteful and environmentally destructive. For example, it is estimated that across the Latin America region, rainforest is cleared at a rate of 11 acres a minute in order to grow crops , like soy. However, at the heart of this destructive agriculture drive is not our demand for tofu soy but it is our increasing global demand for meat and other animal products.
While this is an important issue to be reconciled, I will argue that this is nothing compared to the scale of systematic misapplication of food resources wasted in the design and culture of our current food system. In other words, we are clearing our rainforests in Latin America to either graze animals or grow food to feed to animals…not to mention some other alarming facts about livestock productions in terms of air and water resources:.
So on one hand, we have nearly a billion people living in hunger, and on the other hand we are feeding almost half of all the grain produced in the world to livestock? Animals are terribly inefficient converters of plant protein. For example, it takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. During this conversion, not only do we have a net loss of food calories, we also waste our precious land and water resources, and this process contributes more to climate change than all our cars, trucks, boats, trains and planes.
So, if we could continue with this option into the future, it will be a race to the bottom of our natural resources, and it will be those at the bottom who will be hit the hardest. Therefore, how our food is produced is arguably as great of an environmental concern as the type of car we drive. This bring us to Option 2 : significantly decreasing our meat consumption, learning to cook tofu and adopting a mostly plant based diet. What has made humans such a successful species over the course of history is the ability to adapt our diet to our environment in order to survive.
If ever there was a time when we needed to adapt our diet for our survival, the time is now. And our eating habits are deeply embedded in our culture and difficult to change. Unfortunately, I am increasingly skeptical about the ability of the current population to voluntarily quit eating meat — over the last 50 years, meat consumption per capita has grown exponentially. The only thing that will seemingly stop this devastating trend is involuntary measures as a result of resource depletion. Surely, we will want to avoid this forced diet change and catastrophic situation where we have destroyed our natural environment for the sake of steak.
To this effect, we now need to to start exploring new methods of meat production and this brings us to Option 3 : innovation — meat without the cow and without the environmental impact. What has also made humans such a successful species over the course of history is our ability to innovate through technology in order to break the status quo and resolve our impending challenges.
For example, 19th century cities depended on horses for transportation. A growing population and urban development meant more horse. More horses, meant more manure. Moreover, there was also increasing demand for valuable land to stable the horses and also increasing demand for hay to feed the horses, which required more farm land devoted to feeding horses instead of people, which in turn meant more horses coming into the cities to deliver the food and therefore more manure. At the end of the 19th century, it was predicted that by cities like New York and London were doomed to be buried alive in horse manure.
If this production method becomes commercially viable, what gives me the confidence that consumers will accept it, is the fact that if consumers really cared where their meat products on the supermarket shelves came from, why would we be increasingly consuming meat the way it is currently produced through industrial factory farming? The construction of the Sydney Opera house is often cited as a textbook example of bad project management. The Sydney Opera house was originally planned to cost 7 million dollars and take 5 years. In reality, it took 16 years to complete and the final price tag for the project was more than a million dollars.
So what happened down under that made this project such a blow out in terms of cost and time? At the heart the problem was poor leadership and bad management of the different stakeholders designers, engineers, construction. As a result the Sydney Opera House project technically failed because there was no accurate project planning as to how the project design goal might be achieved — that is, most of the delay and cost blow out was due to the roof design…how to actually create those iconic sails?
Because an appropriate feasibility phase was not executed, the ability of the project team to anticipate key challenges and risks in the subsequent phases in the project life-cycle was severely compromised. The identification of the sails design requirements should have been preliminary to any estimating, planning and assessment activity, but stage 1 construction of the foundations was ordered to begin before the the engineering company had completed their design.
Nevertheless, even once it became apparent there was a complete lack of knowledge about the design requirements, the government, as the definitive stakeholder in the project was committed to achieving its project goal for political reasons. Evaluating the Sydney Opera House project based on time and cost, it undoubtedly failed. However, in Australia today, we see the Sydney Opera House as a success story — it provides continuous income and fame to the country.
Nevertheless, the construction of the Sydney Opera House demonstrates the need for clear project management skills which is ultimately undermined by strong leadership and stakeholder analysis skills. We had to create slogans that captured the content of each session…. Habitation, Population, Regeneration: just some of the key principles for environmental preservation.
Choose life. Choose renewable. Choose recyclable. Choose Inexhaustible. Choose sustainable management. Pesticides as pollution. Pollution as a pest. Who are the polluters and who are really the environmental pests?
Where did all the fish go? One central theme of the report is the relationship between our diet and the state of our natural resources. Not sure what overexploitation looks like? The images in the report on page 85 show just what efficient fishermen we have become. Thanks to the advance of technologies used by intensive industrial fisheries, such as trawling operations, we are emptying the oceans of fish and other seafood at rates faster than the species can regenerate. It is hard to imagine that it is even possible for humans to deplete such a vast natural resource, but believe it or not, we are.
The report details the demise of marine species such as the Northern bluefin tuna and the Atlantic cod. The Northern bluefin tuna is a species on the verge of extinction. To this effect, the other valuable environmental services that the ocean provides us such as tourism and carbon sinks will also be heavily impacted if this mismanagement of our fisheries continues. The question then stands. How can we prevent this from happening?
Can we have our fish and eat it too? That is, we need to bring our consumption back to sustainable levels, where by our natural resources can regenerate faster than what we use. With this in mind, the future of the oceans is in our hands as consumers. We need to mobilize our consumer power to support sustainable fisheries.
Not sure how you can make sure your consumer power counts? The Marine Stewardship Council MSC is an important mechanism for tackling the current overexploitation of our oceans and an important tool to help consumers support environmentally responsible and economically viable fisheries.