Search results

Embeddedness has gained prominence in entrepreneurship studies. However, the notion that the embeddedness metaphor relates to “market” structures prevails in studies in the area. Entrepreneurship scholars still know little about whether entrepreneurs are eventually embedded in other structures whose relationships go beyond the restricted dimension of the interested actor’s assumption. This study aims to propose investigating the social structures in which a specific type of entrepreneurship, the religious one, is embedded.

The research was qualitative, using interviews as an evidence collection instrument. A total of 17 entrepreneur-pastors responsible for business churches in Brazil and eight parishioners took part in the study.

Religious entrepreneurs are embedded in market structures, corroborating a perspective that associates embeddedness with the utilitarian notion. At the same time, entrepreneurs are embedded in two other social structures: reciprocity and redistribution.

This article emphasizes the relevance of going beyond the predominant perspective associated with the utilitarian and rationalized understanding of embeddedness in relationship networks.

This study makes essential contributions. Initially, it attests to the utilitarian perspective of Granovetter’s embeddedness while suggesting incorporating two other dimensions into the metaphor. By highlighting this, this article stresses the need to reinterpret the metaphor of embeddedness and how entrepreneurship scholars use it. Further, by emphasizing the need to consider embeddedness in networks beyond its still utilitarian perspective, this paper highlights unexplored opportunities for entrepreneurship scholars.

Presents some of the economic forces which are shaping the transformation of management thought. Examines the views of Polanyi and Anderson, stating that the reciprocal aspects of community and social relationships are necessary if the benefits of exchange are to be realized. Concludes that the idea that a simple, new concept will enable managers to control and optimize commercial endeavours is a myth.

Karl Polanyi (1886–1964) was educated in Hungary, worked in exile in Vienna in the 1920s, and after 1933 alternated his residence between England and the USA. His early career was in law and philosophy, then international relations. From 1940 to his death, he concentrated on universal economic history, a broadly defined area encompassing fields that are more conventionally known as economic anthropology, economic history, and comparative economic systems. This work aimed ultimately at the creation of a new and more universal economic theory, founded on the interaction of economy and society, i.e., social economics.

The paper aims to relate the four modes of coexistence of goal-orientated systems – conflict, hierarchy, the niche and cooperation – to static behavioral descriptions of social systems.

Analyzing the options for interactions of goal-orientated systems leads the four modes of coexistence. These show certain behavioral characteristics. Searching for these characteristics in selected behavioral descriptions in organizational theory, sociology, political science and system science allows relating them to certain modes.

In organizations, the four modes of coexistence show in general (Cameron and Quinn) and dyadic interaction patterns (Argyris). In sociology, they show in educational schemes preparing for specific modes (Bernstein) and in different exchange patterns (Polanyi). In political theory, the four modes of coexistence show in preferred policies of parties, in institutional development, in oligarch power politics (Winters) and in external policy. In system science, they show in problem solving strategies (Jackson) and “mindscapes” (Murayama).

The analysis is restricted to static patterns leaving out dynamic developments, for example, in networks.

Together with previous investigations, the paper shows how behavioral descriptions ranging from psychology to politics correspond to the four modes of coexistence, and it suggests interrelations and alignments of the modes via various levels of societal organization.

The four modes of coexistence provide an unequivocal theoretical framework that allows finding parallels in behavioral descriptions ranging from psychology via sociology to politics.

With the aim of finding a balance between social and economic benefits, the social economy has reemerged in the crisis of the welfare state. The Fordist welfare state can be characterized by state-provided welfare, the mediation of paid work and welfare by the labor market and redistributive policies. Globally, neoliberalism and the market have given rise to social exclusion; in this context, the social economy is emerging as an alternative to the market domination of societies. This paper aims to construct a conceptual framework of welfare provision in an open innovation era.

The welfare state system between the Fordist welfare state and post-Fordist welfare state is different on provision and delivery of welfare service. To construct the conceptual relation among the social economy, the state and the market and welfare provision in the social economy, this study mainly used the literature review.

Attention should be paid to civil society at the local level to ignite social economy through open social innovation. Various social actors in the local community need to change and develop the social economy with collaborative entrepreneurship and collaborative economic mindsets.

This paper presents the welfare service model led by social economy and open innovation, as well as social change. To fill the shortage of welfare provision caused by crisis of the welfare state, social economy is considered as an alternative for neo-liberalism. This study emphasizes that endogenous local development is a prerequisite for social economy as a welfare supplier.

In the social economy, reciprocity, democracy, self-help and social capital at the local level are emphasized. Also, open innovation put emphasis on collaboration economy among the local community, firms and the public sector: this emphasis can be expected to affect the welfare provision system and the social relations surrounding welfare. To address social problem and social needs, the social economy can adapt and apply the open innovation model.

The previous researches on open innovation mainly deal with the business sector and the public sector, but this paper has a focus on the relation between provision of social welfare and social innovation. The social economy is likely to function properly on the foundation of open social innovation.

This paper discusses the concept of social economy. Based on an economic‐historical perspective, reciprocity is seen as the fundamental principle for the social economy. In contrast to the “official” definitions, social economy is not restricted to only certain juridical forms. From the perspective outlined in this paper, social economy and commercial economy emerge not as opposite poles to each other but as parts of a continuous spectrum. Economic activities dominated by social objectives are also performed in other forms than the juridical forms of the social economy. Commercially‐dominated activities contain social elements as well. There are also many examples of social‐economic activities that expand, increase their commercialisation rate and subsequently are transformed to commercial enterprises. Studies on social features of the economy may thus be performed on a very wide field.

In today’s “market society” almost every aspect of the everyday lives is shaped by market forces. In this essay, the purpose of this paper is to focus on the potential role of social enterprise as one means of re-embedding the economy into society to ensure the economy works for people, rather than the other way around.

This is primarily a conceptual paper: a provocation.

The authors argue that to work as an embedding force, social enterprise needs to ensure both reciprocity and market exchange while acting in a way that attempts to compensate for the retreat of the state through providing public services and promoting collective decision-making and public deliberation.

Drawing upon the work of Karl Polanyi to conceptualise social enterprise as an “alternative” economic actor within a plural economic system, the authors contribute to on-going debates about social enterprise as an alternative way of organising markets and society. The authors highlight the challenges involved in achieving such a vision and suggest ways these might be overcome.

The purpose of this paper is to show that knowledge in general, and knowledge of markets in particular, is ultimately a product of the researcher's paradigmatic approach to a multifaceted phenomenon and therefore it is as much an ethical, moral, social, ideological, and political activity, as it is a technical one.

Any adequate analysis of markets necessarily requires fundamental understanding of the worldviews underlying the views expressed with respect to the nature and role of markets. This paper starts with the premise that any worldview can be associated with one of the four basic paradigms: functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist, and radical structuralist.

It shows that any view expressed with respect to markets is based on one of the four paradigms or worldviews and is equally scientific and informative.

The paper's discussion is limited to only four paradigms.

The paper notes that there are opportunities for functionalist mainstream academic finance to benefit from contributions coming from the other three paradigms and obtain a balanced view of the subject of their study.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to explore social risk management strategies amongst Fulani in the subhumid zone of Nigeria; and second, to determine current status and nature of reciprocal exchange networks, risk pooling and social support for pastoral livelihoods in North-Central Nigeria.

Surveys of cattle productivity and pastoral livelihoods were carried out amongst Fulani pastoralists on the Jos Plateau: between 2008 and 2013 using participatory epidemiology methods and the sustainable livelihoods framework. Qualitative and quantitative data on livelihood activities, knowledge, attitudes and practices of animal husbandry and disease control, wealth grouping, herd entries and exits was gathered to determine the current state of cattle productivity and pastoral livelihoods in the study area.

Results show that reciprocal exchange networks for risk management have mostly disintegrated and patron-client relationships have become an important social risk management strategy.

This research has significant implications for sustainability of Fulani livelihoods and communities: decreased social risk-management strategies and increased self-reliance means that the most vulnerable households will find it more difficult to withstand shocks and climb out of poverty. Wealthier households may cope better with high incidence/low severity shocks like but are more vulnerable to low incidence/high severity shocks. Likewise, decreased social cohesion reduces the ability of communities to mobilise and act collectively in the face of community-level shocks. This is very important for engagement with the state – a crucial process, given current levels of acrimony and conflict.

Given the high levels of farmer-herder conflict and civil unrest in this region over the past 15 years this research is valuable in providing insights into economic drivers of conflict, current dynamics of pastoral livelihoods and social cohesion within and between communities.

In contrast to traditional welfare economics, new institutional economics has made a major contribution to analyzing institutions as both preconditions and elements of economic activities. By including institutions’ incentives and restrictions on human beings, it has made a significant first step toward the further development of economic science. The usual starting point, however, is a world without uncertainty where so‐called “anomalies” from “rational” behavior cannot occur; but in this world, institutions are not necessary either. Related research demonstrates the relevance of factors like intrinsic motivation, internalization of norms, habit formation, etc., but these characteristics are typically treated in a half‐hearted way as mere anomalies. Instead, it is time to take the full second step and to include the effects of institutions on economic actors as well as to take the third step, namely, to consider the fact that economic agents form institutions. We exemplify these further steps and look on the interaction between institutions and economic actors which leads to a general institutional economics.