Fostering social entrepreneurship through public administration support

Abstract

This research empirically examines the role of the Romanian public administration in supporting social entrepreneurship initiatives to address local community development challenges. Data were collected from a survey of 145 representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working closely with Romanian public administration institutions involved in social entrepreneurship projects. Increased awareness of social problems and publicly funded incentives enable social entrepreneurs to develop social projects. Descriptive statistical analyses were used to test several hypotheses based on the theoretical background. According to the analyses, high involvement of local public administrations in social entrepreneurship initiatives is strongly correlated with the importance of social projects for local communities and with citizens’ positive perception of the managers of public institutions. High involvement of local public administrations is moderately correlated with citizens’ interest in supporting social causes and projects that add value to the community. It is also weakly correlated with the interest of private companies in co-financing such projects through public–private partnerships (PPPs) and the capacity of public institutions to attract non-reimbursable European funds for this purpose. This research contributes to the entrepreneurship literature by illustrating the role of public institutions in strengthening relationships with private companies and NGOs to develop social projects.

Conceptualising a chameleon: social enterprise as a public provider

“…The findings lend credence to the ways that external conditions, e.g. neoliberal trends, state rollbacks, funding cuts and crises have created welfare vacuums and reallocated responsibility to individuals, therein, triggering social entrepreneurial and innovative activity (Bărbulescu et al , 2021; Desmarchelier et al , 2021; Harvey, 2005; Hoogendoorn, 2016; Schin et al , 2023) (RQ1). Importantly, the supporting role of government and structures are emphasised for fostering social entrepreneurship (Barraket et al , 2022; Hoogendoorn, 2016; Molina et al , 2018; Schin et al , 2023).…”

“…favourable institutional conditions such as public sector expenditure and regulatory quality and network development and support (Desmarchelier et al , 2021; Hoogendoorn, 2016; Molina et al , 2018; Schin et al , 2023) (RQ2). For instance, Bărbulescu et al (2021) observe the vulnerability of (innovative) start-ups and advise the development of strong relationships with employees and others, and Schin et al (2023) illustrate the role of public administration in strengthening relationships and supporting social entrepreneurship initiatives ( RQ1 ). Further drawing on the public sector support and expenditure factor, Barraket et al (2022) examine patterns and motivations of purchasing from regional social enterprises finding it is shaped by consumption needs and ethical concerns linking economic development with social inclusion.…”

“…Importantly, it converges on the factors affecting the development of social entrepreneurship and innovation, e.g. favourable institutional conditions such as public sector expenditure and regulatory quality and network development and support (Desmarchelier et al , 2021; Hoogendoorn, 2016; Molina et al , 2018; Schin et al , 2023) (RQ2). For instance, Bărbulescu et al (2021) observe the vulnerability of (innovative) start-ups and advise the development of strong relationships with employees and others, and Schin et al (2023) illustrate the role of public administration in strengthening relationships and supporting social entrepreneurship initiatives ( RQ1 ).…”

“…Further drawing on the public sector support and expenditure factor, Barraket et al (2022) examine patterns and motivations of purchasing from regional social enterprises finding it is shaped by consumption needs and ethical concerns linking economic development with social inclusion. This comes in light of the increasing interest into the socio-economic power of local purchasing and the growing recognition of social enterprises in local development (Barraket et al , 2022; Schin et al , 2023).…”

“…neoliberal trends, state rollbacks, funding cuts and crises have created welfare vacuums and reallocated responsibility to individuals, therein, triggering social entrepreneurial and innovative activity (Bărbulescu et al , 2021; Desmarchelier et al , 2021; Harvey, 2005; Hoogendoorn, 2016; Schin et al , 2023) (RQ1). Importantly, the supporting role of government and structures are emphasised for fostering social entrepreneurship (Barraket et al , 2022; Hoogendoorn, 2016; Molina et al , 2018; Schin et al , 2023). Content also converges on interest in generating social innovation, which is understood as a relational, participatory and collaborative concept, as is frequently intimated (Daglio et al , 2015; Desmarchelier et al , 2021; Hansen et al , 2022; von Schnurbein et al , 2023; Windrum et al , 2016).…”