This paper focuses on the specifics of the relationships between social entrepreneurs and local civil servants and politicians in The Netherlands. Policy frameworks for social enterprises (SE) are relatively underdeveloped here, as the central government took little initiative in policy development, and a legal definition for SE is lacking. This poses problems, but it also opens up possibilities to develop dialogue between local government and social entrepreneurs “bottom-up”.Both parties’ views of each other are explored, a practical tool to open dialogue is introduced and eight examples of collaboration are discussed.Through the collected experiences at local and regional levels, policy makers at the national level now also increasingly recognize the importance of SEs in the Dutch economy, and realize that the lack of national policy and legal frameworks has proven limiting and increased vulnerability of the sector. For the coming years, there are signs that policy support for SEs will become more structured and national policy action is likely.
MULTIFILE
Since the financial and administrative liberalisation from the government in the late 1980s and the 1990s, the Dutch housing associations have been very dynamic, regarding the considerable extension of both commercial and social activities, the increased reliance and dependence on market circumstances, and the large number of amalgamations, creating bigger organisations. In recent years the Dutch social housing sector is under increased pressure as a consequence of the credit crunch, increased tax levies and the national implementation in the sector of EU regulations on ‘Services of General Economic Interest’. Factors like these are likely to have an effect on the organisational strategies of housing associations, the main providers of social housing in the Netherlands. The direction and the size of these effects, however, are not well known. A recent inquiry among housing associations sheds more light on this. In this paper, we make use of a classification including a socialcommercial dimension and a dimension between so-called ‘prospectors’ and ‘defenders’. This classification proves to be an adequate tool to describe the recent developments in the sector. It is concluded that, in general, housing associations are focussing more on traditional social housing tasks and ‘defending’ strategies, implying a shift back compared to the trend in recent decades.
This paper focuses on the topical and problematic area of social innovations. The aim of this paper is to develop an original approach to the allocation of social innovations, taking into account characteristics such as the degree of state participation, the scope of application, the type of initiations as well as the degree of novelty, which will be elaborated on further in this article. In order to achieve this goal, the forty-two most successful social innovations were identified and systematized. The results of this study demonstrated that 73.5% of social innovations are privately funded, most of them operating on an international level with a high degree of novelty. Moreover, 81% of all social innovations are civic initiatives. Social innovations play an important role in the growth of both developed and less developed countries alike as highlighted in our extensive analysis
