Guest editorial

Citation

Kerlin, J.A. (2015), "Guest editorial", Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-03-2015-0010

Guest editorial

Article Type: Guest editorial From:Social Enterprise Journal, Volume 11, Issue 2

My many thanks go to the social enterprise scholars who have shown an interest in my pursuit to develop a conceptual framework to identify social enterprise country models. Indeed, their interest spurred on the idea of this special issue of the Social Enterprise Journal that includes not only applications of the conceptual framework in various country contexts, but also critiques of it. A special thank you goes to the authors and reviewers this issue who contributed an amazing amount of time and effort. With their help, the conceptual framework has been reinforced, refined and extended so that future applications of it will yield more accurate social enterprise country models and guidance.

The first article in this issue, “A Quantitative Critique of Kerlin’s Macro-Institutional Social Enterprise Framework”, by Thema Monroe-White (SageFox Consulting Group), Janelle A. Kerlin (Georgia State University) and Sandy Zook (Georgia State University), draws on large data sets of country-level socioeconomic institutional data and social enterprise survey data to test the validity of the conceptual framework through high-level regression analysis. This first attempt, by Monroe-White, to conduct such a quantitative analysis shores up some of the basic assumptions of the conceptual framework originally based on theory and qualitative country case studies.

The second article, “Understanding Social Enterprise Country Models: Spain”, by Ramon Fisac (Universidad Politecnica de Madrid) and Ana Moreno-Romero (Universidad Politecnica de Madrid), applies the conceptual framework to two distinct periods of time in Spain’s history, showing how the application of the framework in both historic and contemporary contexts can reveal a more dynamic picture of the ever-evolving concept of social enterprise on a country level. Equally important, they show how the conceptual framework can be utilized on country and regional levels to identify both an overarching country social enterprise model as well as differing regional social enterprise models that help capture social enterprise variation within a country.

The third contribution, “The Developmental State and Social Enterprise in South Korea: A Historical Institutionalism Perspective”, by Bokgyo Jeong (Rutgers University), embarks on an in-depth study of the state and its relationship to the emergence of social enterprises in South Korea. He argues that the state’s proactive role in social and economic development helps explain its use of social enterprise as a policy tool to further its public policy agenda without creating a large welfare state. Given the uniqueness of the state’s historical path and its use of social enterprise, Jeong proposes extending Kerlin’s country models of social enterprise to include a sixth category, “strategic diverse”.

Chris Mason (Swinburne University of Technology) and Jo Barraket (Swinburne University of Technology) contribute the fourth article titled, “Understanding Social Enterprise Model Development through Discursive Interpretations of Social Enterprise Policymaking in Australia (2007-2013)”. The authors argue that a combination of historical and discursive institutionalism is needed when examining country social enterprise models so that the influence of both macro-level institutions and micro-level discourses is considered. Specifically, they draw on the policymaking discourse around social enterprise in the Australian federal government to show how the Australian social enterprise model identified through Kerlin’s macro-institutional framework may shift over time if policies resulting from such discussions are implemented.

The fifth article, “Understanding the Phenomenon of Chilean Social Enterprises under the Lens of Kerlin’s Approach: Contributions and Limitations”, by Sebastian Gatica (Universidad Católica de Chile and University College of London), considers the influence of prior socioeconomic contexts and social enterprise models on present country social enterprise models. He argues that in countries where the socioeconomic context shifts rapidly because of political upheavals, organizational holdovers from the prior social enterprise model may still be found in society but not be fully captured by the present country social enterprise model identified through Kerlin’s framework. He provides examples of this phenomenon from the Chilean case.

Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to Bob Doherty and the Social Enterprise Journal for their willingness to take on this project and for their patience and ready assistance through the entire process. Without their support and guidance, this special issue would not have come to fruition.

Janelle A. Kerlin