question. First, as one of the pioneer spaces gathering social entrepreneurs (or in some cases “social intrapreneurs”), La Ruche enabled individuals to engage in socialentrepreneurship as one emblematic type of hybrid venturing that combines two distinct logics, i.e. a commercial logic of using a business activity and a social logic of tackling a societal challenge (Battilana & Lee, 2014). Indeed, all La Ruche coworkers, as other social entrepreneurs, work in relation to a cause concerning specific beneficiaries (e.g. work integration, fighting poverty, providing access to housing and affordable energy, etc.) and/or society as a whole (e.g. recycling, sustainable mobility, etc.). These entrepreneurs joined La Ruche at a time where the socialentrepreneurship ecosystem was under construction and there was no established framework for engaging in this venturing mode, rendering peer-to-peer interactions and experimenting particularly instrumental. Second, as one of the first coworking spaces, La Ruche itself was under construction, with coworker entrepreneurs taking bottom-up decisions about how to best shape an interactive peer-to-peer setting. Observing and interviewing entrepreneurs during and after their experience thus enabled to yield reflexive insights regarding the purposive fit between the collaborative setting and the venturing mode adopted by the coworkers.
SOCIALENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SOCIAL NETWORKS - A LITERATURE REVIEW
With some notable exceptions (Haugh 2007; Dal Forno and Merlone 2009), the social network approach has not been applied in a socialentrepreneurship context. Nevertheless, some studies deal with social networks or related concepts. The Business Source Premier (EBSCOhost) database, limited to peer-reviewed academic journals, includes 541 articles dealing with socialentrepreneurship (search terms in title, abstract, and keywords: ‘social entrepreneur*’). Among those, only 18 include the terms ‘social network*’, out of which 5 papers were dismissed because they did not deal with socialentrepreneurship (1), were an editorial note or an opinion (2), used the term ‘social network’ to mean ‘social media’ (1) or had only the abstract in English (1). The 13 remaining articles explicitly used social networks and related concepts as a central focus. Four different uses of social networks were identified: the embeddedness concept, collective entrepreneurship, networking as a critical skill for success or fundamental activity of socialentrepreneurship, and the creation of social ties and social capital as an objective of socialentrepreneurship. A snowball method was also used starting from these articles as well as from research agendas for socialentrepreneurship that mention social networks to check whether other usages of the concept could be found in the literature; yet this did not seem to be the case.
Haugh, H. (2005). A research agenda for socialentrepreneurship. Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1), 1-12.
Hervieux, C., & Turcotte, M.-F. B. (2010). Social entrepreneurs' actions in networks. In A. Fayolle & H. Matlay (Eds.), Handbook of research in Socialentrepreneurship (pp. 182-201). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
C ONCEPTIONS OF S OCIAL E NTERPRISE AND S OCIAL E NTREPRENEURSHIP : N YSSENS
implemented without raising important questions and strong debates. More precisely, the nature of social enterprises' mission appears to be a contested issue between promoters of social enterprises and public bodies. Public schemes often frame their objectives in a way that is considered as too narrow by some promoters, with a risk of reducing social enterprises to the status of instruments to achieve specific goals which are given priority on the political agenda. In other contexts, such as the United States, social innovation has been expected, typically, to expand through scaling up dynamics relying mostly on private actors. Such trajectories are not without risks. The main one could result from a kind of implicitly shared confidence in market forces to solve an increasing number of social issues in modern societies. Even though various scholars stress the need to mobilize various types of resources, it is not impossible that the current wave of socialentrepreneurship may act as a priority-setting process and a selection process of social challenges deserving to be addressed because of their potential in terms of earned income. The perspective we have adopted suggests that the distinctive conceptions of social enterprise and socialentrepreneurship are deeply rooted in the social, economic, political and cultural contexts in which these organizations emerge. We have also noted recent efforts in the academic debate to go beyond divergences which used to characterize the different schools of thought. These different conceptions are present nowadays in the different parts of the world where a debate around social enterprise and socialentrepreneurship emerges.
1.2. The United States
In the US, the first root regarding the debate on socialentrepreneurship and social enter- prises refers to the use of commercial activities by non-profit organizations in support of their mission. Although such behaviour can be traced back to the very foundation of the US, when community or religious groups were selling homemade goods or holding bazaars to supplement voluntary donations, it gained a particular importance in the specific context of the late 1970s and 1980s. The downturn in the economy in the late 1970s led to welfare retrenchment and to important cutbacks in federal funding. Nonprofits then began to ex- pand their commercial activities to fill the gap in their budget through the sale of goods or services not directly related to their mission.
analyze the Schwab and Skoll Foundations’ networks. They finally discuss three network theories that may prove insightful in socialentrepreneurship: the strength of weak ties, the small-world phenomenon, and the concept of embeddedness. The next chapter by D’Alessandro and Winzar begins with a description of the different types of surveys and the errors that have to be avoided. Then, they guide the reader step-by-step through the design of measurements and of a questionnaire. Lastly, they describe several techniques for the analysis of survey data. In the ninth chapter, Seymour introduces the logic of drawing and verifying conclusions, which he considers to be a widely misunderstood component of research. He compares the three means of drawing inferences: deduction, induction, and abduction. The different types of validity are also reviewed, focusing on inductive and abductive research.
In particular, the emphasis on the individual, “hero” social entrepreneur has been criticized as reflecting Western cultural values and as not corresponding to the reality of the field in practice where collective action is of central important (Lounsbury & Strang 2009; Nicholls 2010c). Moreover, it seems that local institutions and partnerships are as important for successful social impact as the dynamics of individual entrepreneurs, how motivated and charismatic they may be (Yujuico 2008). Collective socialentrepreneurship developing through partnerships embedded in local institutional contexts can be found in many examples from the cooperative movement, such as the cases of Desjardins (Québec) and Mondragon (Spain). An important reason for this is that enduring social change cannot be the result of socialentrepreneurship alone; it necessarily involves political action at various levels from the formal to the informal, as well as partnerships with broader social movements. A research agenda that explores the politics of socialentrepreneurship in various socio- cultural contexts and at multiple societal levels from government to grass-roots represents a second major stream of potential future scholarly work.
This leads us to the issue of “economic risk”. Social enterprises are generally viewed as organizations characterized by a significant level of economic risk. Such an economic risk even seems at the heart of socialentrepreneurship as it reinforces the “entrepreneurial flavour” of organizations pursuing social goals. In the EMES Network’s perspective however, instead of being mainly related to market sales and competition, the risk born by social enterprises simply means that their financial viability depends on the efforts of their members to secure adequate resources for supporting the enterprise's social mission. These resources often have a hybrid character: they may come from trading activities, from public subsidies or from philanthropy (including volunteering). In spite of the influence of business tools and market vocabulary upon VP, such a broad conception of economic risk meets a key concern of VP as part of the social organization resource mix. It even becomes a hotter issue at the time of financial exit by the VP organizations: “Exit can create uncertainty, particularly for social purpose organisations with little or no earned income (…) Depending on the profile of the next investor in line, issues such as potential social mission drift of the investee have to be taken into account. An exit in VP can imply providing the social purpose organization with the necessary fundraising capabilities to be able to continue working towards its social mission without further VP organizations involvement.” (Metz, Hehenberger, 2011: 18).
The major difficulty with concept of local services is a definition question. First, local services include a large number of activities, so each author use con- cept as he wants. According to National Council of French Employers, local ser- vices include: domestic works; services of improvement of living environment, environmental protection; audiovisual, culture, sport and leisure services; con- sumer services; all services where consumer is the last customer like catering, medical care…; mixed services (firms and households). So, by extension, local services could be represented in two groups: natural person assistances (elderly people, child minding, young with problems, training and education assistance) and environmental assistance (safety measures for goods or persons, improvements of public transport, improvements of living conditions …). For the European Com- mission, local service concept is made up four subsets: Daily life services, Ser- vices of improvement of living environment, Cultural and leisure services and Environmental services. An other organization broaches subject, the AFPA (Asso- ciation nationale pour la Formation Professionnelle des Adultes – Assisting the Development of Skills and Qualifications in France and Abroad) whose considers three large subsets: personal assistance (working households, elderly people, house- holds in trouble, ill persons…), community assistance (community development, social work, local shopkeepers, craftsmen…) and assistance to organizations (care- taker, cleaning firm, consulting, firm creation assistance…).
Overall, this book gives welcome refreshing perspectives and both theoretical and practical suggestions for teaching creativity. Because of the much diversified contributions, transitions between chapters and/or between parts could have eased the reader to grasp the overarching consistency of the book. This lack of fluency is unfortunately likely to push the reader to select only those chapters with a title close to his or her own interests, although he or she would probably find even more interesting insights triggering his or her own creativity in the other chapters. Another suggestion to make the argument of creativity for (social) entrepreneurship even more convincing – as the title suggests – would have been to add a chapter broadly reviewing the literature on the topic 1 . This would have usefully complemented the path-breaking chapters of this book by contextualising the debate.
À travers ce témoignage, nous remarquons que les personnes en interaction avec le dispositif de
corporate entrepreneurship semblent avoir une meilleure compréhension de l’apport et des enjeux
de ce dispositif. Nous pouvons l’expliquer par le fait que les personnes qui sont en interaction avec le dispositif de corporate entrepreneurship sont des personnes haut placées hiérarchiquement dans l’organisation, avec une vision plus transversale. De plus, à travers ce témoignage, nous pouvons également percevoir la mise en concurrence de deux types d’objectifs : objectifs globaux et objectifs locaux. Cette mise en concurrence n’œuvre pas dans le sens du dispositif et des changements culturels. Tout comme II9 et II16, IO8 décrit une perception positive des personnes avec qui ils travaillent sur le projet d’innovation et expliquent travailler dans « un mode très ouvert » (IO8). Les corporate entrepreneurs mettent en exergue également une différence d’objectifs entre le dispositif de corporate entrepreneurship et les directions métiers, les BUs (EI6, EO4, II8, II20, II29, IO8). Le dispositif de corporate entrepreneurship vise à répondre à des objectifs d’innovation globaux pour l’organisation alors que les directions métiers et les business units sont évaluées sur des objectifs locaux. Par exemple, EI6 explique que « le seul truc qu’ils voient c’est un PNL ». Ainsi, tous ce qui « ne f[ai]t pas partie des objectifs des personnes qu’on contacte donc ils ne sont pas toujours
In Table 6, we start presenting our results for regressions (28) and (29), excluding the interaction term between ability and house prices growth. In line with the findings by Schmalz, Sraer, and Thesmar (2017) for France, housing prices induce a positive effect on the entry into entrepreneurship only for individuals that were house-owners before the boom. This finding has already been interpreted as an evidence of the role of collateral financing. Our ability measure is insignificant for both renters and home owners. Recall that our ability measure captures both the negative effect on entry of higher wages (via larger worker ability) and the positive effect on entry of higher entrepreneurial ability. Hence, our theory has no prediction for the sign of this coefficient.
In their 2016 book Le Génie d’Amsterdam, Masboungi et al. explain how Amsterdam has moved forward from the Smart City discourse towards the Smart Citizens and Smart Communities ones. Van Winden et al. (2016) sums up that indeed, there is a need for the city to find an alternative to the term ‘smart city’ and ‘smart city projects’, as the region seems to wish to clarify what being a ‘smart city’ means to them. While we do observe a certain amount of technology-driven projects (e.g. a new highly efficient data centre; Amsterdam Science Park, 2017), and hence a real desire to use technologies to optimise the city’s general structure, the general discourse seems driven by alternative options such as the sharing and collaborative economy (Shetty, 2015; Starritt, 2017). Another crucial point is the strong advocacy for what the city identifies as ‘impact’ agents (IAmsterdam, online), which includes ‘impact’ investors (which we can link to angel investors) and social entrepreneurs. Hence the city tends to focus on the alleged purpose of each stakeholder, in doing good and for many, rather than relying on more capitalistic values. The general initiative seems in the end to be moving towards a FabCity model (Masboungi, 2016, p112), where all stakeholders come together to experiment and bring their own solutions to problems that they collectively observe. Hence, in its focus on the people rather than the technological solution, Amsterdam presents a different understanding of what technology brings to society, i.e. a tool for collaboration and collective ownership of projects. Similarly to other cities, an institution such as Amsterdam Smart City does exist, but in this case does not look to initiate any projects, let alone tech-driven projects. Actually, Amsterdam Smart City presents itself as a community management platform, inviting absolutely all sorts of stakeholders to meet and work together around common goals. It can show Amsterdam’s vision of a smart city (i.e. the community, not the technology), hence bringing forward how much the city values collective intelligence rather than technocratic solutions.
1.2. Entrepreneurship, networks and alliances
More recently, there have been efforts to “personalize” not only the entrepreneur, but also the “environment” that surrounds her. Considering the embeddedness of the entrepreneur in a network of relationships (Granovetter, 1985) and her need to access complementary assets (Teece, 1986), the literature in entrepreneurship has enlarged its scope in order to include other actors who accompany the entrepreneur and to account for their role in the entrepreneurial process (Alvarez, Ireland, & Reuer, 2006). The bulk of these studies build on the resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1991) and emphasize the resource constraints experienced by new ventures. Some of these resource gaps can be filled by means of inter- organizational collaborations. Thus, entrepreneurial firms ally with partners who are likely to provide them with complementary resources (Deeds & Hill, 1996; Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996) such as financing (Coombs, Mudambi, & Deeds, 2006), diverse information and capabilities (Baum, Calabrese, & Silverman, 2000), social status and recognition (Stuart, 2000), technological resources (Kelley & Rice, 2002), downstream value chain activities (Rothaermel, 2001), or knowledge of and presence on foreign markets (Leiblein & Reuer, 2004).
Wealth Distribution, Moral Hazard, and Entrepreneurship *
Sanjay Banerji † , Ngo Van Long ‡
Résumé / Abstract
On étudie la détermination endogène du choix de devenir entrepreneur. Les éléments importants du modèle sont le risque moral, l’aversion au risque, et la distribution des richesses. On démontre que, sous certaines hypothèses, seuls deviennent entrepreneurs les individus qui ne sont ni puissamment riches, ni pauvres. Ils investissent dans des projets aux rendements incertains, en empruntant de l’argent auprès de gens plus pauvres ou plus riches qu’eux-mêmes. Le taux d’intérêt en équilibre dépend de la fonction de distribution des richesses. Par conséquent, les pays ayant le même niveau de richesse moyenne peuvent être très différents les uns des autres.
a large fraction of the labor force aims at becoming entrepreneurs, 1 a vast majority of new entrepreneurs were previously employed by established …rms, 2 and the opportunity to start a business venture o¤ers incentives that di¤er from usual career concerns (i.e., wages variations).
Throughout this paper, we adopt a broad de…nition of entrepreneurship: An entrepreneur is a resid- ual claimant of the cash-‡ows that his labor generates. Among others, scientists establishing …rms in high-tech industries, self-employed doctors, lawyers, accountants and consultants …t this de…nition. 3 Our study starts from the premise, substantiated by ample empirical evidence, that credit constraints are an impediment to the transition to entrepreneurship. 4 It should especially be the case for the above industries where the …nancial capital required to start a …rm is large. 5 In this context, it is straight- forward that personal …nancial capital is helpful. When talent can be transferred from an employee activity to an entrepreneurial activity, reputation capital should also help alleviate these constraints. For instance, it is well-accepted that networks of venture capitalists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and aca- demic scientists play a signi…cant role in allocating labor and capital throughout Silicon Valley and Boston’s Route 128. 6 Thus, aspiring entrepreneurs should carefully manage their …nancial and repu- tation capital. In particular, choosing a …rm to work with or a project to work on matters. Indeed, organizations di¤er according to the information they release about their employees’performance. For example, partnerships disclose little information. 7 In general, public …rms disclose more information than private …rms, etc. Projects are also very di¤erent in that respect, o¤ering more or less resolu- tion of uncertainty about the employees’ talent. These information patterns a¤ect directly how the employees’reputation capital evolves. It also a¤ects indirectly how their …nancial capital evolves since
Le premier aspect met en lumière le fait que les avantages 3 de l’économie sociale ne peuvent se concrétiser sans un fonctionnement démocratique qui devient ainsi condition sine qua non pour la réussite du projet d’entreprise. En effet, le fonctionnement démocratique est indispensable pour que les autres caractéristiques de l’économie sociale puissent donner leurs pleins résultats. Ainsi, la participation active des personnes qui y sont associées apparaît indispensable pour bien identifier les besoins non satisfaits, des besoins habituellement peu visibles comme sont les besoins sociaux. De même, « la construction conjointe de l’offre et de la demande par les usagers et les professionnels » qui caractérise les services de proximité dispensés par l’économie sociale, suppose un espace public permettant le débat, la délibération (ce qu’on appelait autrefois les assemblées de cuisine) pour bien voir comment ce qui apparaît souvent comme une somme de problèmes individuels constitue en réalité un problème social (Laville, 1994). Dans cette visée, la mobilisation et l’hybridation des ressources marchandes, non marchandes et non monétaires ne peuvent être réalisées et surtout maintenues sans la reconnaissance de toutes les personnes engagées dans l’expérimentation. Enfin, dans la mesure où l’économie