Search results

Sustainability has become an ever-increasing issue in today's world. Countries across the world have had to refocus on sustainability due to the new pressures of climate change. In recent decades, numerous different institutions have become the architectural framework for the promotion and implementation of sustainability in society, namely: governments, non-government organizations, universities, social enterprises, and the private sector. One of the key drivers of sustainability is social enterprise education. This driver has become vital in higher education, as it enables the learner to understand the complex processes of sustainability. This chapter critically explores the interlocking relationship of social enterprise and sustainability. The authors of this chapter present findings from their UKIERI research project entitled “The Benefits of Modifying Social Enterprise within Higher Education's Social Sciences Curriculum.” Moreover, the authors argue that social enterprise can have a real influence in the achievement of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were set out by the United Nations in 2015.

Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship are concepts that have a real effect on social change. The strategies associated with social enterprise and social entrepreneurship have become popular in public policy circles, as they have a real aptitude for solving many societal problems. This popularity has led to the rapid development of social innovation and a rethinking of the interconnecting relationships of social entrepreneurship. The authors of this chapter present a model for social enterprise and innovation approaches, and critically explore these aspects and the ways in which they can be conceptualized within corporate social responsibility.

Social capital, according to Pierre Bourdieu, is “the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 119). Robert D. Putnam (1993) agrees, characterizing social capital as predominantly in the nature of a public good. Ongoing global economic events have highlighted some of the weaknesses of free market capitalism. It is being suggested that social enterprises with their efforts to blend societal objectives and economic efficiency can play a role of catalysts in accomplishing this equilibrium. Given their positioning toward meeting dual goals rather than merely maximizing profit, social enterprises can function in zones where there are insufficient inducements for private sector activity. Thereby social enterprises fill the hiatus between the state and market provision. This chapter aims to conceptualize the process of innovation and the potential influence of social capital on social enterprises. Value created by a social enterprise emphasizes the importance of sharing benefits among its stakeholders. This chapter examines the ways in which social enterprises co-create value for society and how social enterprises inherit, generate and invest in social capital.

This introductory chapter sets the overall context of global civil society in today’s global world. The authors will firstly provide a definition of civil society from social and political science perspectives. Then secondly, the authors provide a contemporary overview of global civil society debates in the current social and political environment; they also offer a short examination of COVID-19 and how this global pandemic has developed new spheres of contestation and collaboration. In the final part of the chapter, the authors present a brief overview of each chapter contributed to this volume.

In the final chapter of this edited book, the authors provide a summary of the key messages of civil society in a globalized world. To do this, the authors firstly discuss the future direction of civil society, and then examine the enhancement of social movements in contemporary society. In the final part of this chapter, the authors provide some observations regarding the recent global health crisis (COVID-19) and why civil society is vitally important in a globalized world.

Although the concept of social capital is rightly associated with Putnam (2000), arguably its roots lie further back in the nineteenth century, but were first articulated in a “contemporary sense” in 1916 (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2001, p. 41). The authors begin their analysis by summarizing the main types of capital: economic, social, political, human, cultural and symbolic, before exploring the different types of social capital, including bonding, bridging and linking. These are then linked to a variety of related concepts, including: social enterprise, social networks, social value, community development, community resilience and sociability (Cook, Halsall, & Wankhade, 2015). It is argued that social capital is central to these, and is of increasing importance across the globe within the context of the threats and opportunities posed by globalization on the one hand (including the spread of COVID-19) and of potential deglobalization on the other, in part as a reaction to COVID-19 and pre-existing nationalist trends toward limitation of global interactions. The discussion is supported by examination of a range of case studies drawn from societies of contrasting types, including the UK, USA, China, Bangladesh and South Africa. The authors conclude their analysis via consideration of how social capital can be expanded further in order to help meet contemporary and future challenges from whichever direction it arises.

This chapter considers how social capital is evolving in the era of globalization today especially under COVID-19 pandemic conditions globally. Definitions of social capital have varied: some broad others narrow. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), for example, currently has a broad research project on social capital. These researchers have defined social capital as comprising four key areas. These areas are:

• Personal relationships, referring to the structure of people’s social networks.

• Depth and breadth of social network support available to each person in their networks.

• Civic engagement activities such as volunteering and community action.

• Beliefs, attitudes, and action frames of reference such as trust and cooperative norms, of reciprocity.

Personal relationships, referring to the structure of people’s social networks.

Depth and breadth of social network support available to each person in their networks.

Civic engagement activities such as volunteering and community action.

Beliefs, attitudes, and action frames of reference such as trust and cooperative norms, of reciprocity.

Thus, there are tacit as well as explicit aspects of social capital though some of these may seldom if ever be articulated and delineated for others.

As Claridge (2020) indicates, there are distinct, but dynamically interrelated, levels of social capital. These levels range between the micro- or individual level. That is personal “habitus” – which Bourdieu (1977) describes as a person’s “taken-for-granted” – ways of being, thinking, and reacting to events and to other people. Then, the next level above the individual is the meso-level, which is “how things are done here amongst us,” that is, the level of a group’s social capital (such as a team, or an organizational or local community level). Lastly, and wider still, the top level is the macro- or cultural-societal structural level of the nation.

The social capital systems in any location encompasses sets of acceptable or culturally legitimated behavioral norms and rules of engagement between community members which include types of greetings, forms of cooperation, communications, and signaling between diverse members. Thus, social capital may be present in the tacit, or unspoken/taken-for-granted assumptions as much as in explicit or formalized codes of behavior. The forms of social interactions at each of the levels may have norms for specific types communication and address in particular sets of circumstances such as social gatherings at home or in public or when attending communal gatherings or ceremonial occasions, or between people of different social status. Social capital generates trust and social cohesion and some level of cultural and attitudinal consensus and interest, which in turn delivers a stable environment for the local community or larger society, business, or the economy.

• (1)

  Social capital is the development of relationships that help contribute to a more efficient production of goods and services as there is embedded trust, embodied in practice, that is, in behaviors regarded as trustworthy and socially helpful.

• (2)

  There are three types of social capital at each level of interaction – bonding, bridging, and linking. Bridging and linking are similar though they operate in different directions socially. Bonding social capital describes the connections between people in similar social levels or groups of people who share the same characteristic norms and beliefs, whereas linking social capital facilitates connects between different groups.

• (3)

  Social capital can therefore make or break businesses, especially small businesses or start-ups as those with the right kind and amount of social capital, such as good connections and contacts in the trade or profession, can usually thrive as they are able to get work done more quickly, effectively, and efficiently. Conversely, a lack of social capital denoting some distrust between groups can undermine social stability.

Social capital is the development of relationships that help contribute to a more efficient production of goods and services as there is embedded trust, embodied in practice, that is, in behaviors regarded as trustworthy and socially helpful.

There are three types of social capital at each level of interaction – bonding, bridging, and linking. Bridging and linking are similar though they operate in different directions socially. Bonding social capital describes the connections between people in similar social levels or groups of people who share the same characteristic norms and beliefs, whereas linking social capital facilitates connects between different groups.

Social capital can therefore make or break businesses, especially small businesses or start-ups as those with the right kind and amount of social capital, such as good connections and contacts in the trade or profession, can usually thrive as they are able to get work done more quickly, effectively, and efficiently. Conversely, a lack of social capital denoting some distrust between groups can undermine social stability.

The meso- or macro-levels of bridging type social capital ensures acceptance of established social roles locally and linking forms of social capital boost levels of acceptance of other roles such as those of leaders and followers.

All three forms of social capital and the three levels are not mutually exclusive but instead are mutually inclusive and interrelated. That is, they co-evolve, each impacting the other while dynamically interacting with the social capital anchored as it is emerging from the complex and interwoven fields of tacit and explicit norms of social interaction underpinning each of the levels of interaction over time.

Civil society is increasingly digitized and virtual in many parts of the globalized world of today. The networked society and the invisible “second economy” (Arthur, 2011) which powers the developed and developing countries generate debates about the degree to which the benefits outweigh the potential hazards. Artificial intelligence (AI) powered by its machine learning underpin much of the digital networked systems, and “free” services such as search engines, paid for by the “tailored advertising” we get when we view webpages. Most now recognize that the helpful “suggestions” on the web are simply adverts personally targeted at individuals who have searched for information on a topic or visited a webpage with sponsored material and cookies.

There have been cases of major political misuse of data such as the voter manipulation by the Cambridge Analytica company. We are not just referring to the hacking and “fake news” used by some governments to influence the affairs of another country. Some organizations have used AI to cynically target consumers’ weaknesses, for example, in financial management (Larsson, 2018).

Perhaps more significantly the network technology is often promoted as having potential for improving civil society through “failsafe” or default forms of regulation using the embedded Apps in domestic equipment and algorithms in much the same manner it is suggested that automatic self-driving vehicles help to improve road safety by cautious driving and sticking to speed limits and so on (Cockburn, Jahdi, & Wilson, 2015, pp. 6–7). However, algorithms and the associated machine technology have also been described as a “black box” technology where even those people running the algorithms cannot always fully understand or explain how decisions are reached in diverse systems used to evaluate many things from medical care to credit rating and finance (Danaher et al., 2017). There are issues of the budding “surveillance society” emerging from the proliferating “intelligent” apps enabling corporate “spying” on our everyday lives as some hackers have done by tapping into baby monitoring systems in homes. In addition to hacking there are large power asymmetries involved as between commercial data users and the lay public who are often the data suppliers as their personal data are harvested each time the web is used.

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that, according to the Pew Research Center report by Aaron Smith, released in November 2018, over half of Americans surveyed found it unacceptable to use algorithms to make decisions with real-world consequences for humans. In the age of connectedness and the emergent internet of things many people are not yet ready to cede more control of their currently offline lives to current online technology. This chapter reviews arguments for and against algorithmic governance.

Machine learning systems may be efficient to a high degree without being unbiased in impact across different segments of society. AI may also be fully effective in its operation without even being fully understood because the decision-making is so arcane. Importantly, though, even for those systems that have some human mediation or supervision, societal regulation is aimed at ensuring ends and means are aligned with human social, political and economic justice and thus socially effective as well as being technically efficient. Consequently, these systems have to require socio-emotional as well as cognitive safeguards. Although levels of implicit trust may vary demographically as between say millennials and baby boomers, high levels of trust, accountability and a culture of moral integrity must still form the bedrock for societal benefits.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has arguably exposed the failures of neoliberalism and its political agenda over the past generation. The response has seen governments resurrect neo-Keynesian policies in order to address the weaknesses in the current market system and to mitigate the worst economic downturn since the Second World War (1939–1945). This chapter contextualizes the Australian perspective and the policy responses to the economic challenges posed by COVID-19. The authors contrast that with the experience of the USA and UK with whom the country shares common institutions and culture, including a generation of neoliberal economic reforms.

By closing large sections of the economy, the Australian COVID-19 response provided extensive social welfare support and bailed out several sectors and industries. Previously unacceptable and unthinkable levels of budget deficit and country debt were incurred. This systemic state intervention into the economy raises the question of whether the pandemic signals the end of the neoliberal era and its ramifications – or whether this neo-Keynesian pause was a kneejerk response to ensure and protect its legacy.