Anna Giza-Poleszczuk - Stowarzyszenie Klon/Jawor

Transcription

edited by
Anna Giza-Poleszczuk
and Jerzy Hausner
The Social
conomy in Poland:
Achievements,
Barriers to Growth,
and Potential
in Light of Research Results
e
The Social
conomy in Poland:
Achievements, Barriers to Growth,
and Potential in Light of Research
Results
e
The Social
conomy in Poland:
Achievements, Barriers to Growth,
and Potential in Light of Research
Results
Authors of the
English version:
Anna Baczko
Giulia Galera
Marta Gumkowska
Jerzy Hausner
Jan Herbst
Arkadiusz Jachimowicz
Tomasz Kaźmierczak
Norbert Laurisz
Stanisław Mazur
Agnieszka Ogrocka
Izabela Rybka
Marek Rymsza
Warsaw, 2008
3
This work was published as part of the project ‘PROMES - Promotion of Social
Economy’ realized with funding from the European Social Fund EQUAL Initiative.
This publication may not reflect the standpoint of the European Union and the
Government of the Republic of Poland. Authors present their private opinions.
Publisher:
Foundation for Social and Economic Initiatives
www.fise.org.pl
© Foundation for Social and Economic Initiatives
Translation:
Irena Daniluk, Joanna Dutkiewicz, Anna Kubin,
Jan Popowski, Christopher Smith
Proofreading:
Agnieszka Bartosiak, Agnieszka Czmyr-Kaczanowska
Typesetting:
Olison’s Project
www.olisons.pl
ISBN: 83-85928-77-4
Warsaw, June 2008
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Anna Giza-Poleszczuk, Jerzy Hausner
Introduction - The Social Economy and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Translated by Christopher Smith
11
Jan Herbst
The Area of Social Entrepreneurship in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Translated by Irena Daniluk
41
Anna Baczko, Marta Gumkowska, Agnieszka Ogrocka
The Social Context of Social Economy Development in Poland. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Translated by Joanna Dutkiewicz
89
Giulia Galera
The Impact of Social Enterprises and Co-operatives
on Socio-Economic Development in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Tomasz Kaźmierczak, Marek Rymsza
Social Entrepreneurship and Development of Neglected Rural Communities . . . 163
Translated by Christopher Smith
Are Territorial Government and Non-governmental Organizations Partners in Social
Economy Development? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Translated by Jan Popowski
Izabela Rybka
The Relationship Between the Social Welfare System
and the Development of Social Economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Translated by Anna Kubin
Norbert Laurisz, Stanisław Mazur
Key Factors in Social Entrepreneurship Development.
Social Enterprises in the Light of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Translated by Joanna Dutkiewicz
About the authors of the texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
5
P
reface
Preface
When preparing this volume, we conducted a broad preliminary review of various
studies and reports on the operations of social economy entities in Poland. We were
particularly interested in finding those based on research projects. To this end, our
colleagues reviewed the existing websites and available databases with information
about the social economy. The Klon/Jawor Association, the driving force behind the
publication, spread the word about the plan to prepare this volume, encouraging
interested organisations, research teams and authors to submit the kind of studies we
were looking for. This netted nearly 30 documents of various types.
We finally narrowed these down to 10 studies which we decided to include in this
volume – those we considered to be the most valuable, illuminating the development
of the social economy in Poland from various perspectives. The authors of the studies
carefully prepared their original texts for this publication, following our substantive and
editorial guidelines.
We do not formally divide this volume into specific sections, but we think they do
fall into three parts. The first part includes two studies written from the perspective
of a general overview of the social economy in Poland. Jan Herbst presents the social
economy in a broad panorama. Then, Anna Baczko, Marta Gumkowska and Agnieszka
Ogrocka show the awareness factors for growth of the social economy in our country.
The second part comprises four studies addressing the key dimensions and aspects
of the functioning of social economy entities in Poland. Giulia Galera presents the
effect that social entrepreneurship has on economic growth. Tomasz Kaźmierczak and
Marek Rymsza address the growth in social entrepreneurship in rural areas. Arkadiusz
Jachimowicz discusses cooperation between social economy entities and territorial
government, and Izabela Rybka analyses the links between these entities and the
social welfare system.
9
The third part of the volume1 contains four studies with a theme in common: they
concern Małopolska, sometimes referred to as Poland’s ‘social economy basin.’ Out
of all the regions in Poland, the social economy is especially active there. The first
of the studies assigned to this part (by Maciej Frączek, Jarosław Górniak, Karolina
Keler, Norbert Laurisz, Stanisław Mazur, Jolanta Perek-Białas, Anna MałodzińskaStrzebońska and Barbara Worek) presents the labour market in Małopolska from the
perspective of the needs and capabilities for growth of the social economy. The second
study (by Marta Bohdziewicz-Lulewicz, Anna Szczucka and Barbara Worek) concerns
the influence the social economy has on development in Małopolska. The next study
(by Seweryn Krupnik, Ewa Krzaklewska and Barbara Worek) takes up the issue of the
effect that Małopolska social enterprises have on the formation of social capital. The
fourth and last one (by Norbert Laurisz and Stanisław Mazur) contains an analysis of
key factors for growth of the social economy.
The research reports included in this volume are prefaced by our introduction,
which is designed to serve two functions: (1) to place the results of the research
projects presented within the broader context of thinking about contemporary features
and trends in growth of the social economy, and the discourse surrounding its functions,
and (2) to present a synthesis, against an overall background, of the conclusions from
the most important research projects carried out in Poland in the last few years, point
out areas that require further research, and formulate the research questions that are
most crucial at this time.
Jerzy Hausner
The English version of the publication contains only one study of those mentioned here: Norbert
Laurisz and Stanisław Mazur, Key Factors in Social Entrepreneurship Development. Social
Enterprises in the Light of Research.
1
1
Introduction
Introduction
Jerzy Hausner
1
1. The social economy and growth
(Jerzy Hausner)
A good message for growth of the social economy is the often-quoted statement by
Robert Harrington: ‘If you want to help poor people of the world, step one is to make
sure you’re not one of them!’1 The social economy need not be ‘rich’ and ‘profitable,’
but it must be capable of generating an economic surplus in order to fulfil its social
mission. Only then can it serve as an alternative solution to traditional social policy of
‘redistribution’ instead of ‘production.’
The alternative nature of the social economy should be viewed in the proper
context: relational and not dichotomous. It is not that the social economy relieves the
need for social welfare, but is a systemic substitute for it. On the other hand, it is clear
that nowadays we are turning in the direction of the social economy in reaction to the
crisis of the ‘welfare state’ and criticism of it. It is no accident, but a rule, that wherever
the ‘welfare state’ has grown, and public systems of social security along with it,
traditional forms of the social economy have weakened and disappeared, which has
Cited by J. Boschee, Migrating from Innovation to Entrepreneurship: How Nonprofits are
Moving Toward Sustainability and Self-Sufficiency, in: Przedsiębiorstwo społeczne. Antologia
kluczowych tekstów (Social Enterprise. Anthology of Key Texts), FISE, Warsaw 2008, pp. 209244.
1
13
especially affected all forms of mutuals.2 In extreme cases of statism of the economy
and social life (fascism and communism), these forms fundamentally change their
character, losing their civic nature and becoming part of the organism of the state.
After World War II, ‘social economy’ disappeared from the economic dictionary.
Its renaissance also represents a kind of reaction to the neo-liberal revolution of the
last decades of the 20th century. In the course of a few decades, developed societies
witnessed that neither the state (public authority) nor the market (private economy) is
in a position to produce organisational forms that could satisfy many traditional social
needs, but especially new social needs arising out of the changing model of the family
and the ageing of the population, among other factors.
I do not believe, however, that it is possible now to speak of a return to the old ideas.
The trend in the direction of the social economy is not the manifestation of a pendulum
swing – from a market economy to an economy of solidarity and from a centralised
state to communitarianism. What we are observing now is the manifestation of a longterm evolution of the state and the market. Today’s social economy does not show
that the state and the market are in retreat, but in a gradual transformation leading
not to their limitation or extinction, but to institutional transformation and growth. The
formation of the third sector of society – the sector of non-governmental organisations
– which has provided a new dimension to civil society, is one of the manifestations and
driving forces of this evolution. It is precisely NGOs that are animating the formation of
social economy entities, finding there a path to maintain autonomy and obtain funds
for realisation of their mission. For a long time they shied away from entering the field
of economic activity, perceiving it more as a threat than an opportunity: making money
clashed in a moral sense with the social mission. In any event, state regulations most
often forbade them from taking up economic activity. It was not thought that a ‘social
economy’ was necessary and could develop alongside the ‘private economy’ and the
‘public economy.’3 For a broad spectrum of politicians, the social economy looked like
communism in disguise.
Thus the contemporary social economy is slowly seeking its own space, stimulated
from the grass roots by unsolved social problems and unmet needs, particularly
involving disadvantaged social groups and marginalised communities. It is there, at
the grass roots, and not in vast political programmes, that the place and role of the
social economy are being forged, innovative thinking and solutions are being born,
and its potential and dynamism are forming. And that is a good thing, because it
provides the best witness to the needs of the social economy and its natural, organic
development.
C. Borzaga & E. Tortia, ‘Social Economy Organisations in the Theory of the Firm’, in A. Noya, E.
Clarence (ed.), The Social Economy: Building Inclusive Economies, OECD, Paris 2007.
3
C. Borzaga & A. Santuari, ‘New Trends in the Non-Profit Sector in Europe: The Emergence of
Social Entrepreneurship,’ in The Non-Profit Sector in a Changing Economy, OECD, Paris 2003.
2
14
1.1. Dimensions of the social economy
The social economy is not a new phenomenon or a new category. In the past,
however, it was placed in doctrinal opposition to the market economy and the state.
It was either consistently segregated from these spheres or was falsely treated as a
systemic alternative. This was pointed out by K. Polanyi4 when commenting on the
philosophy and experiences of Owenism, which particularly involved formation of a
market society free and apart from politics.
Generally, proponents of the ‘new social economy’ reject such far-reaching doctrinal
assumptions, and thus they do not place it in opposition to the market or the state.
The social economy in this perspective clearly means generation of alternative
solutions, but not a systemic alternative. It is not conceived of as an idea for rejection
of the market and the state and a route to that end, but as a path of systemic evolution.
On one hand, it is conceived of as a practical way to solve social problems on a local
scale (an economy of neighbourliness and solidarity, local public-benefit services), but
also as a mechanism for deeper system-wide changes, including changes affecting
the market economy (corporate social responsibility) and the state (co-management,
public-social-private partnership).
The social economy may thus be approached instrumentally as well as systemically,
to perceive its practical advantages and its long-range consequences.5 Thus the
expectations for the social economy can be and are varied, concerning numerous
dimensions of life in the society. The problem with this is that the expectations should
not be overblown. The social economy is not a panacea for all that ails us or a magic
wand to solve all problems. On the other hand, it is mistaken to perceive it as a reflection,
in the social sphere, of the neo-liberal revolution, which seeks maximum expansion
of the market – the naïve participation by social workers in the ‘encircling strategy’ of
capital encroaching on the domain of social services and the NGO sector.6
I often wonder myself where to draw the boundaries of the usefulness or demarcate
the functions of the social economy, neither too minimally (narrowly) nor too maximally
(broadly). When I consider, for example, the proposal of P. Sałustowicz,7 it seems to me
to be too broad, too maximalist. Sałustowicz distinguishes the following five functions
of the social economy:
From the perspective of employment policy and the labour market – the social
economy is expected to create new jobs, particularly for the marginalised and
disadvantaged; it is also expected to provide services involving job training and
preparation for transfer to the ‘primary’ labour market.
K. Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Beacon
Press, Boston 1957.
5
P. Lloyd, ‘The Social Economy in the New Political Economic Context,’ in A. Noya, E. Clarence
(ed.), The Social Economy: Building Inclusive Economies, OECD, Paris 2007, pp. 61 – 90.
6
J. Peck, A. Tickell, ‘Neo-Liberalizing Space’, Antipode, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2002, pp. 360 – 404.
7
P. Sałustowicz, ‘Koncepcje i funkcje ekonomii społecznej’ (‘Conceptions and Functions of the
Social Economy’), in P. Sałustowicz, H. Guzowska (ed.), Ekonomia społeczna a bezradność
społeczna – perspektywy i bariery (The Social Economy and Social Helplessness: Perspectives
and Barriers), Ombudsman’s Office (BRPO), Warsaw 2006, pp. 13 – 35.
4
15
From the perspective of social policy – provision of social services for individuals
and collectives or local communities, particularly where the public and private sectors
are not able to meet growing social needs.
From the perspective of social integration – the task of the social economy is to
accumulate social capital.
From the perspective of the democratisation process – the social economy is
expected to draw individuals and social groups into the political decision-making
process.
From the perspective of social change – the social economy should be a place for
creation of an alternative economic and social system.
I have doubts about the fourth function, and especially the fifth. Perhaps it is
enough that we agree on the first three, which somehow mark off the area and the
principles for operation of social economy entities, and as for the last two, we can
continue to argue over the issue of whether the social economy can also bring about
such results, but without making any direct findings concerning the criteria for singling
out or supporting social economy entities. To some it may well seem certain or probable
that the social economy will bring about such long-range effects, while this may remain
doubtful to others, like myself, but this does not mean that we cannot work together
for the social economy. Someone may, for example, believe that the social economy is
an alternative to the ‘black market.’ As long as this does not lead us, paradoxically, to
confuse the ‘black market’ (under certain conditions) with the social economy, we can
continue to act jointly even while engaging in ideological and conceptual disputes.
The social economy clearly will not eliminate traditional social welfare, and is not
a solution that will bring about professional activation for all persons from disfavoured
groups. However, the task of social economy entities need not be exclusively to activate
and integrate such people through employment. They make assist the disadvantaged
in many ways by providing them various types of services, including caretaker services,
each time bringing them within a kind of community. In this sense as well, it is always
worth considering whether that which is offered by social welfare could simply be
provided more effectively by a social economy entity, particularly if it is also capable
of earning its own funds. Looking at it in this way, social welfare in the broad sense
becomes a perspective of public authority which, fulfilling its assistance function and
guided by the principle of helpfulness, will perceive the social economy as a way to
achieve social goals and solve problems.
The public authorities may treat social enterprise entities instrumentally, entrusting
certain tasks to them, for example via grant competitions or outsourcing of services.
It appears to be more important, however, that the authorities see social enterprise
entities as an autonomous partner which, if provided with the right conditions and
support, may become a significant actor in socio-economic growth. In this sense, the
social economy is necessary not only to fulfil set public tasks from the social welfare
sphere, in order to economise as much as possible, but primarily to develop economic
activity which directly serves a social purpose – both in the way it uses the funds at its
disposal and in the way it does business.
The social character of the ‘social economy’ is not derived only from the mission of
its economic activity (not for profit), but also from the way the activity is conducted. If
we reject this second dimension of the analysis, we would have to regard any economic
entity as part of the social economy as long as it set aside a significant portion of its
16
profit for social purposes defined by itself, regardless of how it operates, or what it
earns money on and how – even an entity like that which destroys certain values in
the way it does business, such as the environment, but uses part of its profit to protect
and promote the same values.
If we look at the social economy only in the context of the goal of its economic
activity, we trivialise the concept of the social economy, in an extreme form reducing the
concept to charitable impulses, only at the level of an economic organisation instead of
at the level of the individual. This does not mean that charitable impulses should not
be appreciated or accepted. It is not only the goal (mission) that constitutes the social
economy, but also adoption of certain fundamental principles for conducting economic
activity (for example, such principles as solidarity and mutuality, participation, and a
democratic decision-making process).8 It should certainly be discussed what these
principles are, how to apply them in practice, the criteria for assessing observance of
such principles, and what should thus be the legal requirements for an entity seeking
to enjoy certain fiscal privileges reserved by law for social enterprise entities. It is not
easy to develop these principles discursively or agree on the consequences following
from them. Nonetheless, this must not be ignored if the social economy is to become
an influential sector (subsystem) of the economy.
The field of operations of social economy entities falls between two vectors:
offering social services, and creating jobs for people from disadvantaged social groups.
Any particular mix of these variables is dependent on the operating conditions and
capabilities of specific organisations. Operations in this field not only generate a surplus
which may be used to achieve social goals, but also generate certain social values.
Thus when we say in shorthand that social economy entities operate ‘not for profit,’ we
do not mean only that profit that is earned cannot be divided among the participants in
the organisations, but also that earning profit is not their goal – their goal is to create
certain values. If there is a profit, that is a secondary effect, not the goal.
As I emphasised before, the contemporary turn toward the social economy is also
a manifestation of the crisis in the public sector and the crisis of the welfare state. Thus
in many countries in the European Union, there is a search for new forms for including
citizens in the activity of organisations from the third sector, particularly in providing
social services. According to V. Pestoff,9 there are three main reasons for this:
1. Ageing populations.
2. Systematic restrictions on public expenditures.
3. Democratic deficit at all levels of public authority.
The reaction to the crisis and criticism of the welfare state on the part of supporters
of a neo-liberal orientation was to promote the privatisation of public services. On this
wave, the concept of ‘new public management’ was developed and implemented,
chiefly but not exclusively in Anglo-Saxon countries. Without a doubt, this gave some
For more on this topic, see J. Hausner, ‘Ekonomia społeczna jako kategoria rozwoju’ (‘The Social
Economy as a Category of Growth’), in J. Hausner (ed.), Ekonomia społeczna a rozwój (The
Social Economy and Growth), MSAP UEK, Cracow 2008, pp. 9 – 25.
9
V. Pestoff, ‘Demokratyczne rządzenie: współprodukcja, trzeci sektor i udział obywateli w
świadczeniu usług społecznych’ (‘Democratic Governing: Co-production, the Third Sector, and
Citizen Participation in Performance of Social Services’), Zarządzanie Publiczne 2(2)/2007, pp.
81 – 98.
8
17
consumers of public services the right to choose the service provider, and competition
had a definite effect on efficiency in providing services, among other effects. On the
other hand, however, many social groups found that their access to public services was
limited, services were less likely to be suited to their specific needs, and there was a
reduction in the quality of services.
The reaction was to seek yet another formula for offering public services, particular
caretaker services, which would reflect the concept of ‘public governance’ and treat
citizens not only like clients, but also as co-producers. By promoting the mechanism
of including stakeholders in the process of producing services, this formula came very
close to the idea of the social economy. This has to do not so much with consumers’
influence on service providers, for example through co-payments, but also on their
empowerment as a result of co-management and co-production. An example of
including beneficiaries in production of services addressed to them could be parents’
participation in childcare services (such as parents’ making minor repairs or cleaning
at the preschool) or activity by associations of people suffering from illness (for
example associations bringing diabetics together and establishing conditions for them
to participate in performing mutual services). Solutions of this type are especially
popular in Scandinavian countries.10
Co-production refers to active inclusion of consumers and beneficiaries in the
production of public services, leading to the improved quality and increased scale
of services. This is a manifestation of civic participation in conducting public policy.
At the same time, it also involves formation of various forms of co-management. Of
course such a practice may mean simply shifting the costs of performing services to
the citizens, the consumers of the services, but even so, they obtain in this way clear
additional benefits from their own empowerment, and along with it, influence over the
scope and quality of services. A dilemma associated with this solution disappears,
or at least pales in significance, if co-production is carried out on a fully and truly
volunteer basis, not on terms that are institutionally imposed. This also means that
co-production is not tantamount to co-payment. To the contrary, it may be assumed
that co-production generally reduces the costs related to use of public services, and in
this sense it becomes an alternative to co-payment.11
In considering these issues, Pestoff emphasises that co-production entails various
forms of participation – not only economic, but also social and political, depending
on the nature of the services. This will be different in the case of public services of a
general nature (a public good) than in the case of targeted social services (a club good).
In the former case, co-production essentially becomes co-management, and in the
latter instance it is practically co-production, based on mutuality, whose importance
in the society is founded on horizontal, non-hierarchical networks of cooperation, that
will be sure to grow.12
Pestoff insightfully shows that while the traditional model of the welfare state
perceives citizens in the context of their entitlements, and the model of new public
management perceives them as holding real consumer rights, the model of public
co-management associated with the social economy perceives citizens as active and
Ibid.
Ibid.
12
Opening Report for the project ‘W poszukiwaniu polskiego modelu ekonomii społecznej’
(‘Searching for a Polish Model of the Social Economy’), FISE, Warsaw 2006, p. 40.
10
11
18
co-responsible stakeholders. In the first model, social services are offered primarily
by specialised offices or public agencies, in the second by private organisations, and
in the third by social economy entities as organisations which include many various
stakeholders and which may be defined as public service organisations.
The social economy develops within a specific area, defined by such parameters
as the functioning of the market economy (the private sector) and the state (the public
sector). This area is not formed unilaterally, however, but is a product of relations
occurring among the sectors of interest to us here. With respect to relations between the
social economy and the private sector, it appears that they may be shaped according
to one of three rules: competitiveness, coexistence or complementarity. I believe that
the most advantageous conditions for growth of the social economy are created by
complementarity, which opens the way for cooperation and exchange. Meanwhile,
with respect to relations between the social economy and the public sector, these rules
are enmity, indifference, clientism and partnership. It appears that only partnership
provides social economy entities with good conditions for growth. Clientism means,
on one hand, instrumental use of these entities, and on the other hand makes them
dependent on the public authorities. As a result, even if they have material means,
they will not be capable of creatively fulfilling their mission. Social economy entities
of course should cooperate with the public authorities, and thus benefit from public
support. But care should be taken to see that this does not occur at the expense of
their autonomy, the ability to spend their own funds, and innovation. If they lose these
things, they lose their independence and destroy their own character.
To define the place of the social economy, it is also important to define the
connections it has with the non-governmental sector. These certainly are not identical
concepts, and the two must not be confused. Not all NGOs conducting economic
activity are thus social economy entities, and not all social economy entities are NGOs.
The issue is complicated further if we consider the concept of a ‘social enterprise’ or
‘social entrepreneurship’. Without delving into the definitional considerations at this
point,13 I believe that each of these concepts has some meaning in common and
some apart. It seems more important to me that social enterprises can form and grow
only in the area of the social economy, which in turn cannot arise and exist without
action on the part of the NGO sector. We could, of course, refer to the NGO sector
as the ‘third’ sector, and the social economy sector as the ‘fourth’ sector, but there
must exist some symbiotic connections between them if they are to function and
regenerate. The distinction between these sectors will be clearer if, as H. Izdebski
emphasises,14 NGOs – by legislative design – are not able to conduct economic activity
independently. The distinction does not mean separation, however, but separateness
and interpenetration: the kind of interpenetration that combines the social mission of
NGOs and the economic activity of social enterprises.
I have written about this before elsewhere. See J. Hausner, N. Laurisz & S. Mazur,
‘Przedsiębiorstwo społeczne – konceptulizacja’ (‘The Social Enterprise: A Conceptualisation’),
a report annexed to the Opening Report for the project ‘W poszukiwaniu polskiego modelu ekonomii
społecznej’ (‘Searching for a Polish Model of the Social Economy’), FISE, Warsaw 2006.
14
H. Izdebski, ‘Spółdzielnie socjalne a organizacje pozarządowe – przewidywane skutki ustawy
o spółdzielniach socjalnych’ (‘Social Cooperatives and Non-Governmental Organisations: Expected
Effects of the Act on Social Cooperatives,’ Trzeci Sektor No. 7, 2007.
13
19
In my view, NGOs and social enterprises may be placed at two ends of the spectrum
that makes up the social economy. NGOs are located close to the pole defined by a
social mission, and social enterprises are located close to the opposite pole which is
defined by a market orientation. A chart reflecting this concept has been suggested by
C. Borzaga and E. Tortia.15
Classification of social economy organisations
HIGH
ADVOCACY GROUPS
FUNDATIONS
SOCIAL
ENTERPRISES
SOCIAL
PURPOSE
COOPERATIVES
MEMBER-SERVICES
ASSOCIATIONS
PROFIT
GENERATION
LOW
LOW
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
HIGH
Figure 1. Classification of social economy organisations
Source: C. Borzaga & E. Tortia, ‘Social Economy Organisations...’, p. 34.
1.2. Situation of social enterprises
For years, most EU countries have been seeking a formula for the social enterprise
that is right for them. This is true even for those countries where the social economy
has not taken root. For example, in Germany, where there is no strong social economy
movement, as early as in the 1990s there were experiments with creating ‘ABS’
enterprises (‘companies for labour promotion, employment and structural development’).
They were established with the participation of labour unions, employer organisations,
the Treuhand agency, public authorities including municipalities, chambers of
commerce and private enterprises, for the purpose of promoting employment (during a
time of dramatically high unemployment) and local development. Their field of activity
included land reclamation, environmental protection, waste recycling, local landscape
planning, road repairs, and provision of specialised social services (recreation, sports
and culture). These assumptions appear very similar to the British formula of the
community interest company, but the structure of the German company consciously
called for many stakeholders to take part in establishing and managing the company,
which is not necessarily a requirement for operation of the British counterpart.
It should be pointed out in this connection that if the definition of a social enterprise
were limited only to the issue of use and distribution of profit, it could not extend to
15
C. Borzaga & E. Tortia, ‘Social Economy Organisations...’
20
cooperatives, even social cooperatives, where profit is not only earned but also partially
distributed among the members. It is more of an American tradition to define a social
enterprise only in terms of the use of profit, which is subject to restrictive limitations
that constitute its distinguishing characteristic. In this respect the European tradition
is not so restrictive, but imposes other specific limitations on social enterprises and
places them in a different institutional context.16 The fundamental differences in the
functioning of social enterprises in the United States and in Europe are depicted
below.
Table 1. Comparison of social enterprises in the US and in Europe
United States
Europe
Emphasis
Revenue Generation
Social Benefit
Common Organizational Type
Nonprofit (501(c)(3))
Association/Cooperative
Focus
All Nonprofit Activities
Human Services
Types of Social Enterprise
Many
Few
Recipient Involvement
Limited
Common
Strategic Development
Foundations
Government/EU
University Research
Business and Social
Science
Social Science
Context
Market Economy
Social Economy
Legal Framework
Lacking
Underdeveloped but
Improving
Source: J. Kerlin, ‘Social Enterprise...’, at p. 259.
In Europe there is a distinction between two basic types of social enterprises,
namely those oriented toward creation of jobs and integration (work integration social
enterprises – WISE) and public interest companies oriented toward providing social
services. Within each of these basic types of social enterprises, there are various
organisational forms adapted to carrying out various tasks.17 The two types of social
enterprises differ not only in their functions, but in the way they operate. For example,
J. Kerlin, ‘Social Enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and Learning from
the Differences,’ in: Przedsiębiorstwo społeczne. Antologia kluczowych tekstów (Social Enterprise.
Anthology of Key Texts), FISE, Warsaw 2008, pp. 119-140.
17
On the forms of WISE, see C. Davister, J. Defourny & O. Gregoire, ‘Work Integration Social
Enterprises in the European Union: An Overview of Existing Models,’ in: Przedsiębiorstwo
społeczne. Antologia kluczowych tekstów (Social Enterprise. Anthology of Key Texts), FISE,
Warsaw 2008, pp. 253-278.
16
21
a WISE can apply democratic management to a much more limited degree than a
public interest company, primarily because of the characteristics of the people they
employ.
The question arises of what may give social enterprises an advantage over
commercial enterprises. This appears to result from the following features of social
enterprises:18
• they may exploit resources that business generally does not value or has no
access to (such as volunteering),
• because they are not forced to earn a profit, they may adopt and carry out
long-term strategies not subject to the pressure of the short-term expectations of
the owners,
• based as they are on solidarity and mutuality, they need not create complex
auditing and monitoring mechanisms, replacing these with trust and mutual
responsibility.19
The greatest strength of social enterprises, however, is the social entrepreneurs
themselves, defined by J.G. Dees in his now-classic text20 as ‘change agents.’ Dees
describes their role as follows:
• adopting a mission to create and sustain social value,
• recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission,
• engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning,
• acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and
• exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the
outcomes created.
It should be borne in mind, however, that these comparative advantages are not
absolute, and obtaining them depends first on adopting restrictions arising out of the
operating principles of social economy entities. Thus social enterprises that wish to
maintain their character will, as a rule, be niche enterprises, even if they are efficient
and competitive within their own niches. This means, in turn, that they become a sort
of mini-laboratory, in which social entrepreneurs seek new, non-standard solutions
to social problems, test them out, and generate social innovations. Thus social
entrepreneurship proves to be a field for social experimentation, on a safe, microsocial scale.
1.3. The social economy and local development
One of the best-known and often-cited conceptions of local development was
proposed by A. Pichierri,21 who distinguished four main types of local growth:
X. Greffe, ‘The Role of the Social Economy and Local Development’, in A. Noya, E. Clarence
(ed.), The Social Economy: Building Inclusive Economies, OECD, Paris 2007, pp. 91 – 117.
19
A good example would be micro-loan institutions which, as in the case of Grammen Bank
in Bangladesh or Banco Solidario in Bolivia, operate in such a way that residents make up the
loan group and mutually monitor repayment of loans. See Knowledge for Development: World
Development Report 1998/99, The World Bank, Oxford University Press, New York 1998.
20
J.G. Dees, ‘The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship”’, 1998, www.fntc.info/files/documents
21
A. Pichierri, ‘Concertation and Local Development’, International Journal of Regional Research,
Vol. 26, No. 4, 2002, pp. 689 – 706, cited by J.F. Nowak, ‘Modernizacja lokalnej administracji
18
22
1. Endogenous growth, based on maximising use of local resources by local actors.
This type may be realised in an area possessing institutional, organisational capabilities
for self-mobilisation of human and financial resources and raw materials of appropriate
quantity and quality existing in the given territory.
2. Exogenous growth – a process involving exploitation of external resources by
external participants. This type of growth occurs in areas where there is a lack of local
entities capable of mobilising local labour resources, where there are no appropriate
financial resources and raw materials. Exogenous growth is based on exploitation of
external factors such as technology, capital, sometimes raw materials, accompanied
by use of the local labour market, chiefly because of the low costs. The market is also
chiefly external.
3. Stimulating growth (stimulating internal resources) – this is a situation where
local growth results from the commitment of external actors exploiting the resources of
the given area. For example, external firms, thanks to their own capital and technology,
may involve local workers with necessary skills, as well as local raw materials. The
effectiveness of external firms of a global nature often results from the economic ties
they have, assuring promotion and sale on external markets.
4. Attracting growth (attracting external resources) – this type involves activating
local participants by providing access to external resources, most often financing and
know-how (knowledge, methods and training).
This classification arising from a combination of four variables of participants and
resources for growth – internal and external – as depicted in the table below (Table 2).
Table 2. Types of local growth, by use of resources and participants
INTERNAL
EXTERNAL
RESOURCES
PARTICIPANTS
INTERNAL
EXTERNAL
endogenous growth
stimulating growth
(internal resources)
attracting growth
(external resources)
exogenous growth
Source: A. Pichierri, Concertation and Local...,
publicznej a rozwój lokalny’ (‘Modernisation of Local Public Administration and Local Growth’),
Prace habilitacyjne No. 25, Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu, Poznań 2006.
23
The social economy is clearly suited to endogenous growth, based on local
resources identified and mobilised by local actors. It also has particular significance
for areas of socio-economic decline, where unsolved and multiplying social deficits
block activation and growth. In such circumstances, the social economy may be an
important factor in revitalisation, and entities from the social economy may prove to
be essential participants in the process of socio-economic revival.
Social economy entities may relatively easily, and with modest expenditures,
activate people and disused resources. This may be done both by integrational
employment and by providing services which generate social capital and also increase
and stimulate human capital.
Every local community has its own specific temporal and spatial features that
are, broadly speaking, part of its culture. In this respect, a sense of place is socially
constructed, and the way that the available resources are identified and activated
depends on how this construction is made.22 B. Jessop emphasises directly23 that
social economy entities that are oriented toward creating use (social) values, and not
necessarily exchange (monetary) values, may especially further the regeneration of
the temporal/spatial features of the functioning of local communities, which will entail
trust, cooperation and empowerment of local actors. They may have such an influence
on the local community to the extent that they bring about the training, activation and
integration of people who are disadvantaged and inactive, and thus the creation of
additional demand, as well as when they are in a position to provide specific services,
e.g. involving social housing or energy savings.
The usefulness of social economy entities in regenerating and revitalising local
communities derives, among other factors, from the fact that they have ready recourse
to local know-how and locally familiar technologies. In this way they cultivate the local
heritage, which outside the local context may not have significant economic value.
From the theoretical side, this aspect displays various conceptions of competitiveness
which highlight the importance of construction, by new organisational forms, of a
competitive advantage via the rooting and exploitation of localised knowledge. Borzaga
and Tortia rightly point out24 that these conceptions provide strong arguments in favour
of the social economy, and explain where the competitive capability of these entities
may lie. These are also arguments for perceiving their action in the context of the
local environment. The relations between the social economy and the local community
are neither accidental nor dispensable. They are particularly clear with respect to
services that require geographical proximity between the recipients and suppliers of
the services, and thus they may best be offered by small and locally rooted social
economy entities, creating additional jobs along the way.25
It appears that social economy entities may prove especially useful for starting
up such services – alongside caretaker services – where success is strictly linked
M. Halamska, ‘Uwagi do strategii rozwoju obszarów wiejskich i rolnictwa na lata 2007-2013’
(‘Comments on the Strategy for Development of Rural Areas and Agriculture for 2007-2013’),
Institute for Rural Development and Agriculture of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IRWiR PAN),
Warsaw 2004 (unpublished material).
23
B. Jessop, Liberalism, ‘Neo-Liberalism, and Urban Governance: A State-Theoretical Perspective’,
Antipode, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2002, pp. 458 – 478.
24
C. Borzaga & E. Tortia, ‘Social Economy Organisations...’
25
C. Borzaga & A. Santuari, ‘New Trends...’
22
24
to changes in attitudes and behaviours of small local communities, where local ties
and identification are strong. This seems to apply particularly to ecological services,
including collecting and recycling waste. In this instance, conquering settled habits is
of fundamental importance, and this is not easy to achieve by persuasion or sanctions.
The range of such pro-ecological services potentially offered by social economy entities
may be broader, I feel, and may include, for example, establishing and protecting green
areas, or exploiting local sources of renewable energy.
This approach may prove very promising in rural areas. In Europe, the conception
of growth for these areas increasingly departs from the commercial sense of agriculture,
in the direction of ‘multi-functional development’. J. Wilkin emphasises26 that this has
to do particularly with non-market functions of agriculture, including those connected
with preserving the values of the environment, protection of the rural cultural
landscape, and the importance of agriculture for the functioning of rural communities.
The European Union strongly supports this philosophy, devoting significant Structural
Funds to assist in the resulting activities.
Greffe,27 when directly analysing the relations between the social economy
and local development, emphasises above all else that since 2000, fundamental
modifications have occurred in the practical policy approach to local development,
involving a different accent with respect to the factors and institutional conditions for
growth. In the first dimension, the most important right now are considered to be new
services and new jobs, soft infrastructure, human resources, quality of life, cultural
image, and inclusion of private funds in public interest investments. Meanwhile, in
the second dimension, actions are gaining in significance that lead to strategic ties
between economic and social growth factors, partnership for growth, formation of
local networks of coordination and cooperation, establishment of clusters, and use of
the local heritage. Such an approach reinforces endogenous local growth, but does not
mean self-isolation, autarkic closing off, or reverting to a backwater. Local multipartite
partnership and co-management strengthen and empower the local community, while
also opening the community up to the outside in many ways. Social economy entities
have their role to play in formation of such a model for local development.
Meanwhile, although the social economy has previously been located mainly in the
area of activation and professional integration of disadvantaged groups, it seems that
linking it to the foregoing conception of local growth would make the social economy
a solution suited to halting degradation and exclusion – the front line of an active and
activating social policy.
This is confirmed by interpretation of the results of projects supported by the EU. In
analysing these, Borzaga and Santuari reached the conclusion28 that social economy
entities providing social and caretaker services in the local community:
• may change an informal and often irregular system for performing services into a
steady job, particularly in places (e.g. rural areas) where the need for work by
people belonging to certain social groups (e.g. women) is low;
J. Wilkin, ‘Przekształcenia własnościowe, zawodowe i społeczne na obszarach wiejskich’
(‘Privatisation and Professional and Social Transformations in Rural Areas’), expert report for the
Polish Government Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS), 2005 (unpublished material).
27
X. Greffe, ‘The Role of the Social Economy...’
28
26
25
• may reorient certain services from redistribution to production, e.g. for renovating
or managing social housing; some non-profit organisations hire the unemployed
persons who will live there, which enables these people to earn money and
receive a better home.
Institutions that without a doubt reinforce the connection between the social
economy and local growth are ‘community-based economy financial instruments’
(CBEFI), which offer their services to clients who are of no interest to commercial
banks. Equally important, they provide their clients not only certain financial products,
but also, as a rule, associated consulting and training. They may generally be defined
as micro-credit institutions. They have been observed in growing numbers in a majority
of European countries.29
The commonly emphasised reason for a lack of direct interest by commercial
banks in customers from the area of the social economy is not only the lack of security
for loans, but primarily the lack of appropriate tools for assessing risk in cases where
an undertaking is subject to realisation over a long period and with low return. The
reaction to this is either to establish a special system of financial incentives for
commercial entities or, more frequently, to create special financial instruments.30
In a relatively new phenomenon, some micro-credit institutions are becoming
intermediaries between social economy entities and commercial banks. An example of
such a solution would be the Portuguese ANDC project, which was started on a publicprivate partnership basis in 1999 by the National Association for the Right to Credit
(ANDC) in cooperation with the largest commercial banks, Banco de Portugal (the
central bank), and government institutions. The activity of ANDC involves a preliminary
review of projects by local associations belonging to Animar, an umbrella group of more
than a hundred local development organisations and organisations with a social focus.
As a result, when making loans, typical forms of security, inaccessible to customers of
micro-credit institutions, are not used.31 This looks like the right direction for solving
the problem of insufficient financing for the social economy, which may assure not
only an appropriately high level of capital but also professional expertise and social
monitoring. In my view, local and regional partnerships for the social economy may be
helpful in implementing such a solution.
In Europe, there are many examples of such partnerships. In Modena, Italy, the
field of operations of a partnership like this is the local social services system, one of
whose main institutions is a consortium of social cooperatives. In conjunction with the
city council, this consortium co-administers provision of such specialised services as
job training for mothers returning to work after a long child-rearing leave, and transport
for people who cannot use public transit because they work unusual hours.
A regional partnership in the Spanish province of Asturia especially supports
social entrepreneurship by, for example, fostering the right culture and conditions for
it, making it easier to create new enterprises and training their workers, assisting their
cooperation and consolidation, and providing financial instruments which enable them
to grow. Very concrete undertakings and projects as well as indicators for assessing
their effectiveness can thus be attributed to these types of actions.
B. Granger, ‘Financial Tools for Third System Organisations: A European Perspective,’ in The
Non-Profit Sector in a Changing Economy, OECD, Paris 2003, pp. 169 – 186.
30
X. Greffe, ‘The Role of the Social Economy...’
31
Granger discusses this undertaking more extensively, see B. Granger, ‘Financial Tools....’
29
26
Without a doubt, one factor that would strongly encourage formation of local and
regional partnerships in the social economy field in Poland would be appropriate use
of EU funds, particularly those coming from the European Social Fund. This would
involve rules for distributing and awarding funds that would prefer and empower such
partnerships. NGOs have often made this demand to the government,32 but so far
without achieving the right response.
1.4. Macro-social conditions and consequences
of growth of the social economy
The importance of systemic conditions as determinative factors for the functioning
of NGOs is aptly put by H.K. Anheier and S. Mertens when they refer to the clearly
visible differences in the functioning of NGOs: ‘How can it be that the same type of
organisation, providing similar services, produces different effects and social outcomes
in the end?’33
Addressing this issue to the social economy, I believe that its growth is fostered by
occurrence of at least several basic macro-systemic factors. I include among these:
• a significant level of social capital including trust and mutuality,
• development of the organisational culture of the stakeholders,
• variety in the forms of institutionalised partnerships,
• access to social audit instruments and experience in using them,34
• abiding by the principle of helpfulness of the state and practical, operational
implementation of that principle,
• development of forms of co-management, including multi-level co-management,
which entails participation in solving social problems at various level of
organisation of the state by other than just public actors.
This was strongly underscored, e.g., in the Opening Report for the project ‘W poszukiwaniu
polskiego modelu ekonomii społecznej’ (‘Searching for a Polish Model of the Social Economy’),
FISE, Warsaw 2006.
33
H.K. Anheier & S. Martens, ‘International and European Perspectives on the Non-Profit Sector:
Data, Theory and Statistics’, in The Non-Profit Sector in a Changing Economy, OECD, Paris
2003, pp. 269-292, at p. 282.
34
Since we are speaking of social audit and social accounting, it should be pointed out that
the social economy may involve formation and application of this at both a micro and macro
scale. The former includes assessment of the social results of undertakings and activity of social
economy entities. With respect to the latter, it is important to compare general societal costs and
results from hiring of disadvantaged people by social economy entities.
This issue is presented in a logical manner by Granger, when stating that macro-social accounting
‘makes it possible to arrive at the figure of 18,500 euros per year as the annual overall cost
of an “average” unemployed person. Consequently, in the view of the proponents of macromicroeconomic tradeoffs, any job creation subsidy that is lower than this figure or that is less than
the social minima, such as the social minimum income (RMI) in France, which is approximately
5,200 euros per year, would still be “profitable” for society as a whole.’ The author adds that
these types of jobs cost a fourth as much as the average cost of aid for an unemployed person in
Europe. See B. Granger, ‘Financial Tools...’, at p. 175.
32
27
The presence of these factors creates the proper zone for development of the social
economy, including social entrepreneurship. The nature of this zone (the macro-social
environment) will strongly influence the organisation and functioning of the social
economy. That is the fundamental issue. The scale of the social economy and its
organisational forms strongly depend on the social environment in which it develops.
If it has encouraging conditions, it develops naturally and innovatively. If not, it does
not achieve a significant scale or degenerates, losing autonomy and developmental
dynamism.
This is also a fundamental issue for growth of the social economy in Poland and
other post-communist countries. These macro-social conditions for it to grow are
present only to a limited degree.
Here I can only depict this with data on the general level of social trust and
membership in non-governmental organisations, taken from ‘Social Diagnosis,’ one of
the most important studies conducted systematically in Poland.35
Generally, the level of social capital as measured by generalised trust is very low in
Poland, and civic activity and participation are low, too. State structures are built along
hierarchical lines, which causes regular recurrence of centralising tendencies. Great
ranks of people are still dependent on the state and expect direct state intervention
in their lives. At the same time, they don’t trust the state, just as they have a mutual
mistrust of one another. The state is aware of NGOs, but treats them in an instrumental
and politicised way. State helpfulness remains in an embryonic state.
So what can reasonably be done in this situation to foster growth of the social
economy?
The answer is not easy, but generally leads to this: to start up a whole set of
undertakings and actions, conceived in such a way that they will involve various types
of organisations (territorial government, regional and local associations, the public
administration, non-governmental organisations, universities, expert circles, private
enterprises, business groups, and the media) in concrete undertakings supporting the
social economy, and as a result summon up a social movement around the social
economy, having an impact both upward – in the direction of state structures – and
downward – in the direction of local communities. The point, ultimately, is to stimulate
actions above and below, and by providing each other with mutual stimulus, they may
foster creation of social ties and an ethos of mutuality and helpfulness.
A fundamental bond holding this movement together must be an institutionally
rooted partnership – multipartite (various types of actors) and multi-level (acting at
different levels of the territorial organisation of the state). Such a partnership entails
a mutual impact, while carefully maintaining the equilibrium between proximity and
autonomy that is characteristic of mutual respect, an equal share in the decisionmaking process, mutual responsibility and transparency.36 C. Malena distinguishes
J. Czapiński, ‘Kapitał ludzki i kapitał społeczny a dobrobyt materialny: polski paradoks’ (‘Human
Capital, Social Capital and Material Prosperity: A Polish Paradox’), a report presented at the ‘Good
Government’ seminar at the Cracow University of Economics, 2007 (unpublished).
36
J. M. Brinkerhoff, ‘Government – Nonprofit Partnership: A Defining Framework,’ Public
Administration and Development, Vol. 22, 2002, pp. 19-30.
35
28
the following elements of the partnership viewed in this way:37 (l) jointly agreed goals
and values; (2) mutual trust, respect and equality; (3) mutual responsibility; (4)
transparency; (5) mutual understanding of the political, economic and cultural context
and institutional restrictions; and (6) long-term commitment to working together.
Under our post-communist conditions, accenting the significance of the social
movement as a driver of the social economy is by no means, in my view, the idea
for a systemic alternative, whether in terms of the market economy or the state as a
parliamentary democracy. However, as I would like to emphasise clearly, stimulating
the social economy is designed to trigger system-wide effects. This has to do particularly
with more safely testing out innovative economic or management solutions, especially
on a local scale, and thus better solving social problems and indirectly improving the
functioning of the economy and the state. In short, the social economy may become
a generator of alternative solutions, tested out on a safe scale. In this way, as Anheier
points out with reference to the third sector,38 the social economy will broaden the
potential of methods for solving the problems of contemporary society.
I am aware, of course, that in the 19th century the concepts of the social economy
at that time, promoted by people like Fourier, started a social movement which had
an anti-establishment edge to it and carried social revolutionary potential with it. In
this sense the cooperative movement was conceived as the antithesis of the capitalist
organisation of labour in industry. In practice it did not play such an anti-establishment
role, and if we look at the strength of the cooperative movement at this remove, we can
see that it led not to overthrowing capitalism but to ‘civilising’ it.
Its anti-statist vector also proved to be of little significance. The traditional social
economy did not bring to fruition the anarchist ideal and abolishment of the state.
However, it is possible to perceive its influence on democratisation and decentralisation
of the state.
Now it is possible to see in the social economy the economic and social potential
to rival or even battle the great global corporations, or even an alternative to the
dominant system for representing interests which will not be manipulated by market
forces or subordinated to the interests of global media conglomerates. However, it does
not appear that it can or will play such a role, but its socio-political potential may lead
to a limit on the possibilities for exploiting the social mass, marginalising it and using
it to bring about a populist revolt. Insofar as the social economy effectively reduces
exclusion and marginalisation, it may objectively neutralise the influence of political
populism.
In the case of the new social economy, speaking of a systemic alternative seems to
be a pure and simple utopia. Its ‘alternative’ potential is bound up not with a systemic
revolution, but evolution. Developing the social economy on a broader scale will foster
socio-economic growth in general. An excellent example of this is micro-credit as an
instrument for financing social economy entities but also as an institution for expanding
the financial market and stimulating entrepreneurship.
It appears that a specific systemic advantage of the social economy may be that
solutions checked out there may lead to formation of complex systems for supplying
C. Malena, Relations Between Northern and Southern Non-governmental Development
Organizations, ‘Canadian Journal of Development Studies’ Vol. 16, No. 9, 1995, pp. 7-29.
38
H.K. Anheier, ‘The Third Sector in Europe: Five Theses’, London School of Economics Working
Papers, London 2002.
37
29
2
1.6
Germany
1.6
United Kingdom
1.6
Finland
1.6
Ireland
1.6
1.3
0.9
Slovenia
1
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
Portugal
Italy
Spain
France
Israel
Belgium
Luxembourg
Austria
Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden
0.3
0.14 0.15 0.20
Source: J. Czapiński, ‘Human Capital...’; data for all countries, including Poland, from European Social Survey, 2002; for Poland, Social Diagnosis (DS), 2003-2007.
Figure 2. Percentage of persons aged 18 or older who trust other people
NOTE: In the European Social Survey, the percentage of responses at 7 to 10 on a scale of 0 (‘you can’t be too careful’) to 10 (‘most people can be trusted’);
for the Social Diagnosis in Poland, 2003-2007, the percentage of responses ‘most people can be trusted’ on a scale: ‘most people can be trusted,’ ‘you can’t
be too careful,’ or ‘don’t know;’ ESS average for all countries 32%.
0.0
0.5
2.1
Greece
1.0
2.3
Hungary
1.5
2.4
Norway
2.5
Poland ESS
2.0
2.6
Poland PSS 2003
2.5
Poland PSS 2005
3.0
Poland PSS 2007
30
31
45
43
39
Belgium
39
36
32
30
Israel
31
27
Spain
Austria
Slovenia
United States
Denmark
Luxembourg
France
Ireland
Norway
Sweden
United Kingdom
25
22
19
14
13
Source: J. Czapiński, ‘Human Capital...’; data for all countries, including Poland, European Social Survey, 2002; for Poland, Social Diagnosis (DS), 2003-2007.
Figure 3. Average number of organisations to which respondents aged 18 or older belong
NOTE: In the European Social Survey, the indicator was based on declared membership in 12 specific types of organisations (including trade unions and
religious organisations) and one unspecified; in Social Diagnosis, the percentage of positive responses to the question, ‘Are you a member of any organisations,
associations, parties, committees, religious groups, unions or clubs?’”
0
10
20
47
Italy
30
52
Hungary
40
52
52
Netherlands
52
Portugal
50
Germany
53
Grece
60
Poland
goods, whose logic goes further than the schema of the classical theory of public
goods. What is more, I also believe that it is precisely the development of such
comprehensive systems that sets the direction for growth and the future of the social
economy, because they make it possible to overcome the production/consumption
dichotomy and subordination of the functioning of social economy entities to tasks
which the public administration hires it to perform. As Borzaga and Santuari correct
emphasise,39 this means social economy entities offering new services and new ways
of producing traditional services.
Formation of complex (multi-sectoral and multi-level) systems for supplying goods
will at the same time affect the functioning of the market economy, the state, the civil
society and households. This is more certain to occur the more the social economy
becomes a practical tool for territorialising (localising) solutions to many social
problems, thus undermining the domination of sectoral structures and the hierarchical
management characteristic of the traditional model of the welfare state.
This direction for growth is supported by arguments arising out of new theoretical
approaches, which perceive the cause for weakness of the labour market not only in
its inelasticity, but also in the inelasticity of the market for products and services.40
Generally, the social economy allows us, in the search for a new European social
model, to go beyond the privatisation/statism schema for public services.41
Relations among the three sectors (institutional systems) of contemporary society
are generally complicated, dynamic and ambiguous. The weakest of these relations
is no doubt the organisations of the third sector, and they must take particular care
not to fall under the domination and subordination of public or private organisations,
with whom they must nonetheless cooperate. It appears from this perspective that it
is precisely the social economy that has important advantages for NGOs (which is not
to say without any threats), and NGOs should have a particularly strong interest in its
development. NGOs and the social economy need each other, which I look at in terms
of a synthesis where the social economy enables civic organisations to avoid becoming
dependent on the state and taking on its pathologies. Civic organisations, in turn,
allow social enterprises to avoid becoming dependent on the market and absorbing its
pathologies.
In order to achieve their chartered purposes, particularly involving provision of
social services, NGOs must cooperate with the public administration. They also require
this cooperation in order to obtain public funds to finance their activity. But if they
decide only to perform tasks they are hired to do by the public administration, they
will lose their independence and become a servant, not to say a tool, of the state in
the conduct of public policy.
Development of forms of cooperation between NGOs and private-sector
(commercial) organisations also requires thought and diligence. Here, too, abuses and
dependencies may occur, particularly if NGOs see business primarily as a sponsor.
Thus they strive to assure that social enterprises serve as a ‘bridge’ between them and
commercial enterprises, and that specific economic undertakings serve as a field for
39
40
41
Ibid.
V. Pestoff, ‘Democratic Governing...’
32
cooperation. Effective new forms for such cooperation are described by, among others,
Borzaga and Santuari,42 who include among them:
Economic partnership – for-profit organisations buy semi-finished goods or finished
goods from non-profit organisations working for employment integration, providing
financial stability to the non-profits.
Cooperation with marginalised people during training – for-profit organisations
temporarily hire marginalised people to take part in training organised by non-profit
organisations, which helps these people complete their training.
Cooperation in creating stable jobs for marginalised people – in recent years
cooperation has been steadily growing between for-profit organisations and nonprofits working for professional integration, with the goal of supporting permanent and
stable employment integration on the open market for marginalised people who have
undergone special training. There are also interesting attempts under way involving
joint action to create employment intermediation services for the disabled.
2
2. Research on growth
of the social economy in Poland
(Anna Giza-Poleszczuk)
The social economy is no longer just an intellectual project in Poland. In the last
several years, attempts have been made in Poland to bring to life the idea of the social
enterprise, using new legislation allowing social enterprises to be formed, as well as
Structural Funds to provide some degree of financing of initiatives in this area. Given
the hopes tied to social economy enterprises, many studies have also appeared in
which the authors seek to evaluate real economic undertakings and identify barriers
and potentials for growth of such initiatives. Like any other model, at the realistic level
the social economy is strongly dependent on the context in which it acts and on actors
who are key to its proper functioning.
In terms of context, the legislative aspect is crucial, as is the socio-economic
foundation, which creates a more – or less – encouraging framework for growth of
the social economy. Without statutes and regulations that are clear, well-constructed
and generally familiar to decision-makers and potential beneficiaries, effective action
is impossible. It is also important for there to be a ‘demand’ for the social economy,
and that groups and organisations exist that are capable of offering this type of action
and prepared to undertake it; that consumers are willing to make use of products
and services with ‘added ethical value;’ and, finally, that we can correctly identify the
‘target groups’ of the social economy and their needs.
Among actors, those that appear most important are local authorities (regional and
local government), non-governmental organisations, and more generally, various types
of social groups and market actors (‘regular’ enterprises and consumers). The initiative
to act – to establish and run a social enterprise – must emerge from the groups or
42
33
organisations prepared to take an economic risk in order to achieve important social
goals. This initiative must find understanding and support among local authorities
who are willing to hire the social enterprise to perform public services or support
it financially. Finally, it must also find support and understanding among potential
consumers as well as ‘competitors’ – enterprises active in the same segment of the
market.
The texts included in this volume provide an understanding of the key barriers
and growth opportunities for development of the social economy in Poland. The data
collected are extremely varied in nature, from representative quantitative research
on large samples of the overall Polish population, and studies conducted in local
communities, to case studies. They do reveal several issues that crop up regardless
of the research methodology selected or the way the sample is chosen. These issues
should not only serve as a touchstone for further discussions on the state of the social
economy in Poland, but also as an impetus to create a strategy for action on its
behalf.
2.1. Issue of initiative for action
Social economy undertakings require an initiator: a group or organisation that will
take action toward establishing an institution. It would be natural to find such initiative
within the broad spectrum of the civil society – NGOs and groups of involved citizens.
As demonstrated by the results of the research included in this volume, however, the
Polish third sector is not prepared to ‘commercialise’ itself – especially to become
involved in ‘for-profit’ activity (selling goods and services) and thus take economic
risk. For most NGOs, selling goods and services is somehow inconsistent with the very
idea of an institution of the civil society; moreover, potential buyers of such goods and
services think in a similar way. It appears that the main ideal governing Polish civil
society is disinterestedness, which excludes activity geared toward market rationales.
Concerns about ‘commercialisation’ are thus in large measure aroused by a fear of
losing social legitimacy, or falling into conflict with high ethical ideals: the conviction
that non-governmental organisations should not be involved in economic activity. The
treatment of income-generating activity by NGOs themselves as inconsistent with the
nature of the third sector crops up in nearly all the studies: ‘I’m afraid that what you’re
writing about doesn’t have anything to do with us,’ said one respondent. ‘We’re a public
service organisation. We’re not a business – it’s entirely non-profit.’ (Comment made
in qualitative interview, cited in the study in this volume by Krupnik, Krzaklewska and
Worek.)
In his report, Jan Herbst demonstrates the tension between social mission and
an expectation of economic efficiency: the types of social enterprises that are closest
to making a real play on the market, with the associated risk, have a lower index of
sense of mission. The reverse is also true: enterprises with a strong sense of mission
rank relatively low in indicators related to ‘commercialisation’ of their activity. Herbst
also demonstrates that it cannot be ruled out that a ‘loophole’ in the form of activity
for a fee but not for profit has led to de facto ‘de-commercialisation’ of the sector:
‘withdrawal from the formula of activity which meant (or at least made possible) a
34
substantial involvement in the market activity and put the organizations in one line
with the regular enterprises. (...) Looking at the results of the analyses one cannot help
but get the impression that treating the business not only as the source of financing
of the activity of the organizations, but also as the mechanism of their emancipation
is quite a rare strategy in the Polish non-governmental sector. It is the promotion of
the business activity function that should be, as it seems, the main objective of the
strategies aiming at the development of the social economy in the non-governmental
sector.’ (Herbst, in this volume.)
It also seems that taking economic risk in a situation where an enterprise’s
activity involves individuals who are hard-to-employ, disadvantaged and deprived of
opportunities on the ‘normal’ labour market is extremely difficult. While a ‘regular’
entrepreneur takes a personal risk, in the case of a social enterprise the risk also affects
the beneficiaries. The moral responsibility is thus incomparably greater. Moreover,
apart from personal motivations, there are no incentives to undertake economic
activity: apart from their pro-social motivation, NGOs have no additional stimulus
to commercialise – especially when there are funds accessible to conduct risk-free
activity, although perhaps on a smaller scale. It should also be emphasised that
Polish NGOs are generally weak (both in a material sense and in numbers of staff and
volunteers) as well as unstable – dependent for their functioning on the discretion of
government officials, the inflow of funds, and success in grant competitions and fundraising. Thus it comes as no surprise that taking up activities involving economic risk
seems too difficult for them. It is also true that the well-functioning social enterprises
studied in the Małopolska region generally come from large, strong non-governmental
organisations – and there are not many of those in Poland.
Reinforcement in the third sector appears in this respect to be particularly
important: social enterprises that have been successful come, as shown by the results
of research in Małopolska (Laurisz & Mazur, in this volume), from NGOs, and often
remain a segregated part of the parent organisation. Having a ‘patron’, as the authors
define this situation, thus serves as an important condition not only for the effective
initiative to act, but also for success. The problem thus appears to be that in the
environment that is natural for social economy initiatives, restrained attitudes towards
‘commercialisation’ predominate.
It is also worth emphasising that the initiative to act in the case of social enterprises
is, as a rule, external from the potential beneficiaries – particularly where the main goal
is to activate disadvantaged or high-risk social groups. But even where the goal is to
activate a small local community (in rural areas), an external driving force proves to
be a key to success (Kaźmierczak & Rymsza, in this volume). For the most part, there
are no examples of successful ‘grass roots’ initiatives created by the interested group of
beneficiaries themselves. The lack of internal drivers for growth of the social economy,
flowing from the motivations of the beneficiaries themselves or local communities,
reduces the potential of the field as a whole, but also translates into shallow roots of
social economy undertakings in the local context, as the research shows. Insufficient
grounding and – in the view of the representatives of social economy undertakings
studied – shortcomings in cooperation with the external surroundings (local government
and business) are not just a question of deficiencies in the area of legislative solutions
or the attitudes of potential partners. The problem is much deeper: namely, the very
idea of the social economy is far from clear.
35
2.2. The ‘semantic’ problem and its consequences
All the analyses and research results collected in this volume point to a lack of
clarity in concepts that are crucial for the social economy. Among the society at large,
as shown by the results of research on a nationwide representative sample (Baczko,
Gumkowska & Ogrocka, in this volume), a majority not only do not understand social
economy concepts, but have never even encountered them. Responses to open
questions also show very inaccurate associations (from the point of view of definitions
accepted by experts) with the content of a given concept, even among those who
state that they are familiar with and understand the terms being studied. Only a
small percentage of people in Poland understand the purpose of activity of the social
economy and are willing to support it in the choices they make as consumers; most are
guided in their purchases by price and quality. Even worse, terms associated with the
social economy (even the very term ‘social economy’ itself) bear negative connotations
in the awareness of the society. Products and services offered by social enterprises
are perceived stereotypically as being of low quality; the stigma in the widespread
perception of marginalised social groups (the handicapped, the long-term unemployed
and so on) carries over to goods and services. ‘From research using questionnaires
among residents of the communes of Wieprz and Mogilany, it appears that a large
group of people have prejudices related to use of goods and services produced by
the long-term unemployed or the handicapped. Residents of the local communities
pointed out that the only way to break through stereotypes concerning goods and
services produced by disadvantaged people is high quality, good price and positive
recommendations, particularly from friends and local authority figures. The hardest is
breaking through initial associative resistance and accepting that the firm cares about
standards.’ (Bohdziewicz-Lulewicz, Szczucka & Worek, only in the Polish version).
Worse, a lack of clarity and misunderstandings appear also among groups
of potential partners of social economy enterprises – entrepreneurs and even local
government officials. In the latter case, the consequences are very serious. Deficiencies
in knowledge on the part of officials ‘concerning the idea motivating the creation and
functioning of social firms (…) translates, according to those studied, into a lack of
acceptance or a favourable attitude on the part of officials toward initiatives undertaken
by SEEs.’ (Bohdziewicz-Lulewicz, Szczucka & Worek, only in the Polish version.) It is
emphasised in most studies that the great majority of local leaders and residents of
the communes where social economy enterprises arise and function do not know
what a social enterprise is. They have very general associations with this term, of
an unspecific nature (‘A social firm, as the name indicates, is support to serve the
society.’) So long as the essence of a social enterprise continues to be misunderstood
by both key partners and broader social circles, and its associations ‘inherit’ various
types of negative stereotypes, it will be difficult to act for growth of the social economy.
One fact that deserves particular attention is that where social enterprises come
from strong NGOs and find the support of partners, they function smoothly and are
financially stable. Social enterprises studied in Małopolska are aware of the importance
of cooperation with their surroundings – and at the same time, in their assessment, the
level of cooperation is unsatisfactory.
It may also be said that a lack of clarity surrounding social enterprises translates into
problems in finding volunteers and colleagues. Volunteerism in general is undergoing
36
a crisis in Poland; after dynamic growth in 2003-2005, we are now witnessing a
downward trend, getting dangerously close to the low indicators from 2000-2001
(Baczko, Gumkowska & Ogrocka, in this volume). The main stream of volunteers,
meanwhile, is directed toward well-known organisations, with a philanthropic profile,
most strongly associated with the third sector. A negligible percentage of those studied
declared that they perform volunteer, unpaid work on behalf of a social enterprise.
Conceptual confusions thus have a great practical impact, and many authors call
for creation of a strategy for communicating the essence of the social economy, breaking
through barriers in perceptions and clearing fertile ground for making contacts with
the surroundings. The paradox is that the essence of the social economy – seeking to
empower communities and disadvantaged groups – is neither perceived nor understood
by the social environment.
2.3. Dilemmas of rootedness
in the local community
It appears from the research that social enterprises appreciate the importance of
rooting their activity within the local community. In studies conducted in Małopolska,
nearly all enterprises studied declared that they cooperate with the local community.
However, most of them had major problems stating spontaneously what in practice
the local community means to them and who belongs in this category. An example of
such problems can be seen in the following statement given by one of the respondents:
‘I don’t know how to figure it out. It’s everything we already discussed.’ (BohdziewiczLulewicz, Szczucka & Worek, only in the Polish version.) On the other hand, experiences
collected in the project ‘We Build a New Lisków’ (Kaźmierczak & Rymsza, in this
volume) demonstrate that, fundamentally, the involvement of the local community
is not just a key condition for the social economy, but also for exploiting it as a tool
for local development. The Małopolska studies also demonstrate the important role
the local community plays in the success of social economy undertakings. Drawing
residents into consultations and maintaining ongoing contact with them make the social
enterprise into a ground for activation of the local community and in large measure
provide an experience of participation. (‘There are various meetings organised here
at our centre, even just for signing the business plan for our firm. We met with such
people, they asked questions like what product there might be a need for here on the
market, what kind of services, what price you would be interested in.’) Obviously, this
type of role is much easier for enterprises to play that are located in rural areas, where
it relatively easy to create a common meeting ground for residents. In big cities the
matter is much more complicated; most of the people who live in the neighbourhood
where a social economy enterprise is located may not even be aware of its existence.
Rootedness in the local community has its more problematic side, however. As
pointed out by the authors of one of the studies, ‘these stronger ties in rural (or smaller)
communities, based on personal acquaintance with the members, may be the source
of serious barriers to the activities of SEEs’ (Bohdziewicz-Lulewicz, Szczucka & Worek,
only in the Polish version). The problem of the blurring of local ‘elites’ – completely
understandable in the case of small localities, where it is hard not only not to know
37
people personally, but also to separate roles (e.g. a role in local government from a
role in an NGO) – gives pause to researchers, particularly where there is low ‘bridging
capital’ (contacts and cooperation networks that are open and extend beyond one’s
own community). Research in Małopolska (Laurisz & Mazur, in this volume) indicate
that most functioning social enterprises conduct economic activity extending beyond
their own commune. It is difficult to determine whether expanding the field of activity
is the reason for their market success, but it is clear that there is a connection between
‘bridging capital’ and the effectiveness of an enterprise.
Thus alongside the paradoxes involving barriers to NGOs’ taking the initiative to
act (the dilemma of ‘commercialising’ their social mission), the paradoxes involving
the reception of this type of initiative (semantic vagueness and negative stereotypes),
there is also the paradox of ‘rootedness.’ While on the one hand activeness and a sense
of co-responsibility of the local community is necessary for the functioning of a social
economy enterprise (e.g. a recommendation or ‘guarantee’ by local authority figures of
the quality of products or services), on the other, ‘rootedness’ carries the risk of closing
off the activity within a limited circle of recipients and partners and of the enterprise
becoming dependent on the local authorities.
2.4. Legislative deficiencies
The results of empirical studies of social enterprises clearly indicate that chaos
reigns in the legislative sphere surrounding social enterprises. There is a lack of clarity
and many ambiguities in the existing solutions and regulations. Some of the solutions
are grossly dysfunctional; for example, because a significant portion of the ‘managerial
personnel’ of social enterprises is made up of disadvantaged people, the enterprises
lack know-how, skills and competencies on the part of personnel who are key for their
functioning and growth. Alongside the lack of clarity, there is a problem, as pointed out
by social enterprise managers studied, of variability in the legal regulations applicable
to social enterprises. This leads to a rise in the sense of uncertainty: no one knows
exactly what may be the consequences (including financial consequences) of decisions
made in an unstable and unclear situation. This is aggravated, as mentioned earlier,
by the risk of conducting a social enterprise, which is essentially greater than the level
of risk involved with operating on the market of ‘regular’ companies. Not only are the
regulations less clear, but there is also social responsibility for the beneficiaries (and a
sense of responsibility for their fate).
Legislative chaos also affects social enterprises from a different direction. This
involves not only the possibility of rationalising the management of the enterprise in
a long-term perspective, but also the possibility of rationalising actions among public
officials. As shown by the studies, officials have problems interpreting the regulations
and get bogged down in them, and as a result are not in a position to issue accurate
and timely decisions. The authors of the studies conducted in Małopolska emphasise
that ‘the importance of the factor of “clarity and unambiguity of legal regulations” for
the smooth functioning of SEEs was ranked the highest of all the issued mentioned,
both by social enterprises and by officials from public institutions, while the level
of satisfaction with this was the lowest, among both social enterprises and public
38
institutions.’ (Bohdziewicz-Lulewicz, Szczucka & Worek, only in the Polish version.) It
should also be emphasised how shaky the foundations on which a social enterprise is
built may turn out to be: a change in regulations or a single decision by a government
official may wipe it out of existence (an example here could be provided by the EKON
enterprise, whose fate was decided by the refusal to provide it with land for a trash
sorting unit).
2.5. Future of the social economy in Poland
Given the fairly fundamental problems and barriers identified in the empirical
studies, it comes almost as a surprise that many SEEs are nonetheless getting along
very well. True, the Małopolska region, from which most of the research data come,
is regarded as the ‘social economy basin’ of Poland. It appears that it is Małopolska
specifically where many of the critical conditions for growth of social enterprises are
met: a good diagnosis of local problems, many strong NGOs interested in promoting
social entrepreneurship, and perhaps greater awareness of the nature of the social
economy as well.
It is clear that we need to rediscover the social economy in Poland. On one hand,
there are strong traditions of social entrepreneurship in Poland – at the very least,
the cooperative movement, which had a very strong presence in Poland in the period
up to World War II. And although those traditions – again the idea of cooperatives
comes first to mind – were largely destroyed and burdened by the negative, alien
influences from the communist era in Poland, there still exists a certain foundation
of positive connotations and habits upon which a ‘new social economy’ may be built
(as demonstrated at least by Jan Herbst in his analysis of the potential of social
cooperatives; see the text in this volume).
Secondly, it should be emphasised that the idea of the ‘new social economy’
appeared in Poland in large measure as an ‘imported’ project, developed and
implemented in highly developed countries of Western Europe and North America. One
might say that the well-recognised market dysfunctions typical of developed countries,
and the limitations on performance of public services by the state, which drove the
need for the social economy in those countries, take on a somewhat different character
in Poland. Namely, in Poland we are faced with dysfunctions and problems whose
main sources are not so much a developed market or a state with a long democratic
tradition, but the opposite: transformation of a system without a market and a nondemocratic state.
Thus it appears that the chance for very dynamic growth of the social economy
may be provided by the answer to the question – to paraphrase the title of the
important book by Jerzy Jedlicki:43 ‘What kind of social economy do the Polish people
need today’. The emphasis on the last few words is no accident. First, we must better
understand what the beneficiaries of the social economy need – both those who look to
Jakiej cywilizacji potrzebują Polacy (lit. What Civilization Do the Polish People Need?),
published in English as A Suburb of Europe, Budapest 1999.
43
39
the social economy as a chance to regain a sense of dignity and empowerment, and the
local communities, as well as, finally, the society at large. The question applies equally
to the form (such as the social cooperative, the professional activity facility (ZAZ), and
others) and to the content of the social economy. The lively discussion about social
entrepreneurship and the concepts and definitions developed thereby quite clearly
have not taken root in the social awareness. Definitely this is not only because of the
obscurity of the terminology, but also because of a lack of clear reference in the debate
to the needs, desires and concerns predominating in the society. Inspirations flowing
from other countries are important, but cannot replace an objective review of the
specific local landscape: surely the Poles need a somewhat different social economy
than the Italians or the British.
Finally, the word ‘today’ is important: the social economy must build upon local
tradition and potential, but its activity should solve the problems that are serious now.
It is clear that the social economy cannot be created without good legislation. But it
also cannot be created without a full understanding of who needs it, what it is needed
for, and why it is needed.
2
A
The
rea of Social
Entrepreneurship
in Poland
The Area of Social
Entrepreneurship
in Poland
Jan Herbst
The analyses presented below describe the Polish third sector from the point of
view of the ‘social entrepreneurship’ concept – in short, entrepreneurship dedicated
to serving a social mission.1 These are divided into two parts. In part one we review
the very concept of a social enterprise and find out how it compares to the practical
functioning of various types of organizations, which are viewed as a potential platform
for development of this type of activity. The second part focuses on one of these
organizations – the most common and in the deepest sense most ‘social’ – nongovernmental organizations. In particular we focus on the specific characteristics of
these organizations, which in the light of the previously described criteria seem to be
the closest to the ‘social enterprise’ model (which does not mean that these are really
social enterprises).
The deliberations are based on the data from the ‘Condition of the Social Economic
Sector in Poland 2006’ research, conducted from April to September 2006. The
research was done by the Klon/Jawor Association, on a random, layered sample of over
1900 various social economy entities – non-governmental organizations, economic
self-government organizations, cooperatives, social cooperatives, ZAZ (Vocational
Rehabilitation Facilities), CIS (Social Integration Centres), etc. The research was
done by Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej (Public Opinion Research Centre). In the
The text, presented here, was also published in a slightly modified version in the study The Role
of Social Enterprises in Employment Generation in CEE and the CIS published by EMES and in
the book under the title ‘From the third sector to social entrepreneurship – results of research on
the social economy in Poland,’ published by the Klon/Jawor Association.
1
43
conclusion some results from the most recent research from the series from 2008 were
quoted (sample – 1700 organizations, carried out by PBS DGA) – too recent to be used
in all the analyses gathered below, taking into account the time limitations connected
with the publication of the text.
1
1. The Polish third sector in the light of the
social enterprise theory
Non-governmental organizations, cooperatives, mutual societies – these and other
entities, forming the creation, enigmatically called ‘social economy’, were not until
recently of major interest to anyone, except for their devotees (at least in Central Europe).
However in recent years they have started to attract to a greater and greater extent
the attention of the political strategists and of international development institutions.
An expression of this interest can be found for example in the activity of the European
Commission2 or projects of UNDP, which recently made an attempt to describe the
importance of the social economy as an instrument for stimulating the development
of Central and Eastern Europe. The present text actually becomes a part of these
interests, since in a slightly modified version it constitutes a part of a large report,
prepared for the UNDP project ‘Role of Social Enterprises in Employment Generation
in CEE and the CIS’. The social economy is increasingly visible also in Polish strategy
programs, such as the National Development Strategy (Strategia Rozwoju Kraju (SRK)
or the Human Capital Operational Program (Program Operacyjny Kapitał Ludzki (PO
KL)). It seems, however, that the ambitions connected with the use of social economy
as a development category were not until now accompanied by appropriate thought on
its condition and development trends.
1.1. Social economy in Poland
The social economy has a long tradition in Poland. For a long time its institutions
also had a special status, being not only an instrument for the emancipation of its
members, but also a tool for national emancipation. 120 years of occupation of
the country by Prussia, Russia, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire created a system
of institutions, responding both to the needs of the societies in which they were
established, but also to various strategies of acculturation of Poles, used by the
invaders. At the time, when in the West most of all the industrialization processes
gave the impulse for the development of the social economy, on the Polish territory
it was accompanied by political or national liberation motivation. Perhaps due to
these additional determinants the social economy in Poland during the interwar
period created an important sector of the national economy, not so much because
2
www.ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/coop/social-history/social-history.htm
44
of its economic importance (over 20,000 cooperatives, the strong position of mutual
insurance societies on the insurance market), as due to the social and cultural role of
the entities creating the social economy, in particular in the rural areas.3
However the turbulences of the last 70 years to a great extent squandered this
achievement. The entities of the ‘traditional’ social economy, which survived (e.g.
cooperatives) usually lost its social character in the process. This price is being paid
until today, fighting with the image (and with the past) of degenerated institutions,
offshoots of the ancien regime. ‘The new social economy’ only starts to grow, mostly
from the non-governmental sector, which is at an early stage itself (if one does not take
into account a small group of organizations, which managed to survive the Communist
times and the times of settling accounts with Communism). In those circumstances,
it is a challenge to attempt to determine the entities which could be considered social
enterprises from among institutions which in theory create the social economy. When
attempting this, one cannot refer solely to the formal characteristics of those institutions
but has to take into account the fact that the practical functioning of the institutions
may vary greatly from this formal picture. Taking this into account, we have proposed
below a view of the third sector (in its broadest meaning) from the point of view of
criteria, determining to what level it can be treated as the basis for development of
social enterprises. As a point of departure we accepted a broadly used and quite
moderate definition of social entrepreneurship, promoted since 1996 by EMES.4
This analysis shall serve three purposes. First of all, it will provide basic information
on the potential of the whole range of institutions, which are the grounds on which
social enterprises develop (the basis indexes, showing their condition will be a starting
point here – more detailed characteristics of these institutions can be found in the
first part of this volume). Secondly, it will serve to isolate from the third sector of the
organizations, which already now can be treated as the ‘seed of the social enterprises
sector’ and to describe their condition and activity profile. Thirdly, it will allow for a few
comments relating to the usability of EMES criteria in Poland.
1.2. Polish social economy and the theory of
social enterprise
As the data gathered below shows (Table 1), the debate on the social economy
in Poland refers to a group of institutions, which together form an extensive yet
varied environment. If we tried to measure its potential, then (taking into account
the approximate nature of some data available on the subject) we could say, that it
has the collective power of over 75 000 different enterprises, employing almost 600
000 people and encompassing all together over 15 million members (while it does
See. P. Frączak, Historia ekonomii społecznej w Polsce (History of the Social Economy in
Poland), 2006, in the Opening Report for the project ‘W poszukiwaniu polskiego modelu ekonomii
społecznej’ (‘Searching for a Polish Model of the Social Economy’), FISE, Warsaw 2006.
4
Study on Promoting the Role of Social Enterprises in CEE and the CIS. Initial Overview Study,
EMES–UNDP, 2006 (draft report).
3
45
not mean that 15 million Poles are members of the third sector organizations – see
footnote 7).
Table 1. Polish third sector – basic information5
Number
of the
organizations
(registered)
Employment
(number of
employees)A
Membership
(number of
members)B
58 000
120 000
9-10 mln
5 500
33 000
1.1 mln
12 800
440 000
6 mlnC
350
55 000
30 000
Mutual Insurance Societies
(TUW)
9
500
?
Other mutual organizations
880
?
?
Social cooperatives
45
320
400
ZAZ (vocational
rehabilitation societies)
35
1 700
–
CIS (social integration
centres) and KIS (social
integration clubs)
35+90
500+?
–
circa 75 000
circa 600 000
circa
16-17 mln
Types of the organizations
„New” SE
„Traditional” SE
Associations and
foundations
Economic self-government
organizations
Cooperatives
Including: handicapped
people’s cooperatives
Total
In this column the data on the number of employed is provided, regardless of the form of the
employment.
B
Data on the number of members should not be treated as the estimates regarding the number
of Polish people who are members of the organizations, since it is based on the data received
from the organizations themselves, not on the population research. That is why the data shows
the total number of the organizations’ members, not the number of people who are the members.
The differentiation is important, since a part of these people belong to more than one organization, on the other hand, some members of mass organizations may not realize that these are
non-governmental organizations (as often happens e.g. in the case of the members of the Polish
Red Cross or the Polish Angling Association). On the population level, the total number of Polish
people who declare membership of at least one non-governmental organization reaches about
A
The data on the number of entities comes from the REGON Register, the date on the number
of employed (unless indicated otherwise) are the estimates on the basis of the research ‘The
Condition of the Social Economy Sector in Poland 2006’, on the representative, random-layered
sample of 1 900 social economy entities, including over 1 100 non-governmental organizations,
almost 400 cooperatives and 100 organizations of economic self-government.
5
46
6.7 million - see M. Gumkowska, J. Herbst, Wolontariat, filantropia i 1% – raport z badania
2006 (Volunteering, Philanthropy and 1% - Report from the Research 2006), the Klon/Jawor
Association, Warsaw 2006.
C
With the assumption (on the basis of the estimates of the National Co-operative Council) that
the number of all the active cooperatives is about 10 000, and among the handicapped people’s
and the blind cooperatives - 260.
Source: The study Kondycja sektora organizacji pozarządowych w Polsce 2006 [The Condition
of the Sector of Non-governmental Organizations in Poland 2006] commissioned by the Klon/
Jawor Association, 2006.
These numbers do not in fact say much about the potential of the Polish third
sector as a vehicle for development of the social economy, or even broader – for
the policy connected with the development of the labour market. They indicate only
how large the area of the search can be. It is difficult to evaluate the chances of the
social enterprises emerging from among its institutions not taking into account the
vital differences between them and therefore not asking to what extent each of them
matches the definition of a ‘social enterprise.’ In order to answer this question, we
will attempt now to look at the various social economic entities in Poland from the
definition’s perspective, proposed by EMES.
The EMES definition refers to 9 criteria, which distinguish social enterprise,
including 3 economical and 5 social ones. They are formulated in quite a conservative
manner, which on the one hand makes them universal in nature, on the other though
diminishes their application value and evokes many interpretation doubts. As the
authors of the definition note, however, these should not be treated as the prescriptive
‘conditions’ which have to be fulfilled by an organization that wants to be called a
social enterprise, but rather as a description of an ‘ideal type’ of such an enterprise (the
authors from EMES speak here of a ‘virtual social enterprise’), enabling a researcher
to navigate among various entities close to that notion, and comparing them with one
another. We should also note, that there is some tension between some of the criteria,
which actually reflects a specific nature of the activity of a social enterprise – taking an
economical risk (that is interest in profit), and at the same time concentrating mostly
on social benefits arising from its activity. More comments on this can be found in a
number of other publications; therefore below they will be treated mostly as a starting
point for the description of various types of enterprises, counted among Polish social
economy entities, and described only to such an extent as is necessary to make the
text understandable for the reader.
1.2.1. Economical criteria
Criterion 1. Production/sale of services: The first feature that distinguishes social
enterprises is that they provide continuous economic activity, consisting of the paid
delivery of certain products, goods or services. It is worth noticing here that these
goods or services may have both a market nature (when the purchasers are individual
consumers) and a public nature (when the purchaser is the public administration,
buying them on the basis of contracts).
47
The first criterion is easily fulfilled by cooperatives and social cooperatives, mutual
societies and ZAZ (vocational rehabilitation facilities), whose activity, similar to other
enterprises, consists of the production of goods or services. A decision in the case
of non-governmental organizations, organizations from the business environment and
Social Integration Centres (CIS) gives rise to more problems. According to approximate
data, one third of active CIS have started economic activity. Among economic and
professional organizations, about 40% declare that they conduct economic or paid
activity (i.e. about 1 500 – 2 000 organizations) and among the non-governmental
organizations – 18.5% (that is about 8 000 – 9 000). For each of these types of
entities it is difficult to define to what extent their activity is continuous.
Criterion 1: percentage of organizations producing/selling services
Mutual organizations,
ZAZ (vocational rehabilitation facilities),
cooperatives, social cooperatives
100
80
CIS –
60
Business environment
Social Integration Centres
%
organizations
40 Associations
20 and foundations
0
Towards the model of a social enterprise (according to EMES)
Chart 1. Polish social economy in the light of economic activeness criterion
Criterion 2. Autonomy: states that social enterprises are entities created and
controlled by individuals (a group of people) and not by a public administration or
other organizations (federations, companies, etc.). In practice, if one goes beyond the
obvious demands of independence from the administration or business, the criterion
gives rise to certain interpretation problems, as it is not clear how the statement that
the social enterprises should be independent from ‘other organizations’ and federations,
should be treated. First of all, the question of whether the principle relates also to the
non-governmental world, is valid. In the Polish legal system the economic activity of
non-governmental organizations may be organized both inside the organization as well
as outside it, in the form of separate business units. It does not seem to deprive them,
however, of their social character. Similarly, it is difficult to understand why enterprises
established or run by federations of non-governmental organizations should not be
considered social enterprises. A rigid interpretation of this criterion would cause some
enterprises, considered flagship examples of such type of activity, such as ‘U Pana
Cogito’ boarding house in Krakow, Hamlet café etc. to disappear from the group of
social enterprises in Poland.
48
For this study, let us assume that the most important element of this criterion is the
demand for independence of Social Economy Enterprises (SEE) from public authorities
and business. In practice, it can also be understood in different ways. A question
arises whether e.g. an association that was founded by individuals, but receives most
of its revenue from the local self-government, can be considered independent. On
the other hand, are we always able to state that it loses its independence because of
that? How should we treat the entities that rely solely on public means, but receive
them by providing services on a contract basis? I propose to assume, for the present
deliberations, that this demand is fulfilled in the case of entities not established by
public institutions, commercial companies and other legal persons (with the exception
of entities with the same form – e.g. social organizations in case of an organization,
cooperatives in case of a cooperative, etc. – there is actually just a small percentage
of such entities). On the basis of the results of the Klon/Jawor Association research
we may assume that this condition is met by all or almost all of the existing social
cooperatives, about 95% of cooperatives, by approximately the same percentage of
non-governmental organizations (92%), almost 90% of economic and professional selfgovernment organizations, every second ZAZ (vocational rehabilitation facility), 40%
of Social Integration Centres and only 3 out of 9 TUW (Mutual Insurance Societies) –
institutions, which are traditionally identified with self-organization. In the light of the
TUW research results, it is difficult to guess how would other mutual organizations,
reviving in Poland, on which no data is available, come out in that respect. We may
only say that taking into account the philosophy of their activity, it is difficult not to
consider them social entities.
Social
cooperatives
Associations and foundations
100
80
%
60
40
20
Social Integration
Centres (CIS)
Mutual Insurance
Societies (TUW)
Economic and professional
organizations
Cooperatives
Vocational
Rehabilitation
Facilities (ZAZ)
0
Chart 2. Polish social economy in the light of the criterion of autonomy
Criterion 3. Considerable economic risk level: social enterprises should act on
an economic risk basis, that is on the basis of clear relation between the level of
sales of their products/services and their condition. The criterion is a narrowing of
the criterion of ‘carrying out production’ and serves to isolate from among all the
49
organizations engaged in economic activity the organizations for which the activity is of
vital importance for their affluence. It is meant, as it seems, to distinguish ‘enterprises’
from those enterprises, which – although they produce – treat their activity as marginal
(therefore they do not need to react to the market) or undertake it only as an element
of therapy for their clients.
A simple measure to verify how the separate ‘layers’ of the Polish social economy
behave in this respect is the analysis of the importance of the income, gathered
from the economic or paid activity in the total revenue of the organization. First, one
should decide though, what level of such understood economic risk can be recognized
as ‘considerable.’ As one can easily guess, there may be many answers to such a
question. Moreover, it should be considered whether there is one answer at all. The
argument, that the risk level does not increase linearly – together with the growth of the
organization’s size, but rather resembles exponential function, seems reasonable. One
may also argue that the real shape of this function should be defined empirically, and
that it is different in case of different types of organizations, and perhaps also in case
of different countries. One should hope, that these assumptions will be the subject of a
serious study one day. In the meantime I propose to assume that a ‘considerable’ level
of economic risk is characteristic for those entities for which the income from the sale
of goods or services constitutes more than 20% or their total turnover.6
In the case of institutions of an economic nature, such as cooperatives or vocational
rehabilitation facilities, one could assume that the application of this criterion is
pointless. It appears, however, that also among them there are entities which are
ranked below the limit of 20% of the income originating from the economic activity.
It concerns e.g. as many as 35% of the cooperatives – mostly cooperatives of users
(especially residential cooperatives, the most numerous in Poland, and cooperative
banks), supporting themselves most of all with standing charges – reimbursements
of the costs within paid statutory activity and with the income from their assets.
While in the case of other types of cooperatives (producers’, labour, artisans’, etc.)
the percentage of cooperatives, obtaining a considerable part of their income from
economic activity reached 80%, among the residential cooperatives less than 30%
crossed the barrier of 20% of income from the sale of goods or services. Similar results
were noted among economic and professional organizations, as well as among TUW
(Mutual Insurance Societies). Even a smaller share of ‘market dependent’ entities was
noticed in the case of social cooperatives (about 20%). It is worth mentioning here,
that this result is probably linked to their short existence – a part of them only begin
to start their activity. A similar hypothesis comes to mind in the case of CIS (Social
Integration Centres), among which slightly more than 10% registered the threshold of
20% of revenue from paid activity. The non-governmental organizations, which in 9
cases out of 10 did not cross the barrier of 1/5 of the revenue from economic activity,
were ranked the lowest in the hierarchy of ‘risk orientation’.
In Polish conditions, the criterion of 50% of revenue from economic activity, popular e.g. in the
UK seems overly restrictive. A dynamic criterion of ‘the most considerable share in the revenue,’
setting apart the organizations, for which the revenue from sales constitutes at least 50% of the
budget, or below 50%, but more than any other category of their revenues, which seems an
interesting alternative for this kind of settlement. This criterion however excludes from the ‘social
entrepreneurship’ area those entities, for which the economic activity is one of the main, although
not the most important source of the revenue.
6
50
Percentage of organizations acting on the risk basis (>20% of the revenue from sales)
80
Mutual Insurance,
economic,
60
residential cooperatives,
% 40 Social Integration cooperative banks
Centres (CIS)
20
0
Social cooperatives
Non-governmental organizationse
Other “traditional” cooperatives
Vocational
Rehabilitation
Facilities (ZAZ)
Chart 3. Polish social economy in the light of the criterion of economic risk
Criterion 4. Employment of paid personnel: one of the characteristics which
distinguish social enterprises from other economic enterprises is the possibility they
have to use community work, as a consequence of their partly social character.
Declarations of non-governmental organizations participating in the research of the
Klon/Jawor Association discussed here, show how powerful a resource it can be. The
declarations indicate that in 2005 such organizations profited in total from the work of
800 000 volunteers and from the constant community engagement of about 1 million
of the members and representatives of their authorities. However, in the context of the
discussion on social entrepreneurship it is assumed that they will also use paid work,
at least to a moderate degree. It concerns of course in particular the enterprises which
in principle have a pro-employment nature. In their case, employment is not ‘simply’
an element of their activity, but is a value in itself.
Of course, similarly as in the case of the criteria already described above, it seems
that the ‘minimum level’ of paid employment is associated with different things in case
of various types of entities discussed here. However, in order to maintain a common
perspective for everyone, it was assumed that it refers to differentiation between the
entities employing paid personnel and those which do not employ such personnel at all.
With such a defined criterion there are about 26% of non-governmental organizations,
55% of economic self-government organizations, 66% of social cooperatives (which
should be considered a temporary situation, since, as mentioned before, the institutions
just begin their activity) and practically all the social integration centres, cooperatives,
mutual insurance societies and vocational training facilities (in the case of the latter,
the absence of the entities not employing personnel is self-explanatory) left in the area
of the potential development of social enterprises.
Should we tighten the criterion proposed above and limit ourselves only to those
entities which employ personnel on a full-time basis on the employment contracts,
the hierarchy would not change, although the proportions of the organizations which
meet such condition would change slightly. 1 out of 5 non-governmental organizations
employ full-time employees, as well as almost every second business environment
organization (49%), 63% of social cooperatives, 9 out of 10 ‘regular’ cooperatives and
51
social integration centres, and all the mutual insurance societies (there is no data on
other mutual institutions available) and vocational rehabilitation facilities.
Percentage of organizations employing paid personnel
Mutual Insurance Societies (TUW), Vocational Rehabilitation Facilities (ZAZ)
100
Cooperatives, CIS (Social Integration Centres)
80
%
60
40
20
Associations
and foundations
Economic
and professional
organizations
Social
cooperatives
0
Chart 4. Polish social economy in the light of the criterion of employing paid
personnel
1.2.2. Social criteria
Criterion 5. Distinct social goals orientation: The criterion serves to distinguish
social enterprises from the enterprises oriented mostly at economic effect. It indicates
that the adjective ‘social’ in the name of a social enterprise does not only mean ‘socially
managed’ but also ‘socially conscious.’ In a moderate interpretation this condition is
fulfilled by all the types of entities described here – their place in the social economy
concept comes after all from the universal belief that in their activities they refer not
only to the market calculation but also to the values which cannot be viewed in the
category of individual interests.
In a more strict interpretation this criterion shows the pre-eminence of social goals
over the economic ones. Such perspective forces us to ask the question: which of the
social economy entities are created mostly around social objectives and then focus on
them and which realize them, so to speak, ‘when the opportunity arises,’ or because
of their group nature and common interests of their founders? Simplifying it a little, we
can say that it is a matter of a decision which part of the ‘social enterprise’ name refers
to the basic motives or objectives of the activity and which to the instruments of the
activity – are the economic interests the basic motive, around which a given community
is organized or are they only an instrument to satisfy its other, non-economic needs?
In theory this differentiation seems quite clear. Reality, however, is not that simple.
A question arises whether e.g. producers’ cooperatives are established mostly to
improve their market position and financial status or whether they are a mechanism
of their social emancipation. The question is in fact insoluble, not mentioning the
fact that it is not particularly wise. Trying to give this differentiation a real dimension,
one should first find out which tangible indexes can help to evaluate this. It should
52
be stressed that in the case of a part of the types of organizations analysed here, e.g.
non-governmental organizations, there are no such indexes or at least there is no data
to create them. Since it is difficult to argue with the thesis that the organizations are
established to realize social goals in the view of the absence of relevant empirical
material, one should simply assume that most of the time this is the case. Similarly,
even without extensive analyses it seems clear that the institutions the basic goal of
which is to assist people especially vulnerable to discrimination on the employment
market (Social Integration Centres, social cooperatives, vocational training centres) are
rather on the ‘social’ side of social economy. It is slightly different in the case of the
organizations of economic nature and enterprises such as mutual insurance societies
and traditional cooperatives. As for the business environment organizations, originally
their basic mission was to create a platform for cooperation of individual entrepreneurs,
which does not mean of course that they do not engage in other socially vital activities.
Since in the reference to the criterion discussed here we are interested mostly in the
initial objective for which a given enterprise was established, we may assume that
they do not meet a strict criterion of ‘pre-eminence of social goals over the economic
ones’, although it is clear that they fulfil the more moderate condition of ‘community
well-being orientation.’ However, according to the data presented below, at least some
of them identify themselves with the goals which place them quite close to the social
enterprise model.
A question remains though about the position of mutual organizations and
cooperatives, in the light of this criterion, – the flagship institutions of the ‘traditional’
social economy. Their status is not clear – on one hand these are enterprises, on the
other – their history and formula of activity speak for the thesis that their basic driving
force are the unsatisfied social needs and social networks created to fulfil those needs.
In case of Poland, the question to what extent this history is still vivid and to what
extent the formula remains authentic seems particularly relevant. This is the subject
rather for a book than a paragraph. For the purpose of this work we should limit
ourselves to the question for what part of them the social needs – understood more
broadly than the needs of their members – are the basic motivation for their activity.
The cooperatives participating in the research were asked, among others, a
question about the motives for their activity. The respondents (presidents or members
of the boards of cooperatives) were able to choose any number of answers from the list
of 12 potential answers or to write their own, open answer. Then they were asked to
indicate among the listed motivations the ones which ‘currently are the most important
motivations for the activity of the enterprise.’ The distribution of those is shown in
Table 2.
As we can see, the motivations connected with the goals characterizing social
enterprises appeared quite rarely in the answers of Polish cooperatives. More or less
3% of them mentioned ‘empowerment of employees – ensuring their participation in
the management process and organization of their working conditions’ as one of the
most important motives for their functioning. Not many more maintained that their
goal was to support the local community entrepreneurship, or to offer the employment
to people facing difficulties on the labour market. More or less every one in ten
cooperatives declared that the motivations connected with acquiring the means to
solve important problems of a local community were important for them or that their
activity was driven by the intention to provide the local community with the services
or products which would be otherwise inaccessible. The goals connected with the
53
immediate environment of the cooperative, the specific sector in which it operates or
with the cooperative itself were placed higher.
Table 2. Motives underlying the activity of cooperatives
Which motives are currently the most important motives underlying the
activity of the cooperatives?
Percentage
of cooperatives
Improvement of the financial situation of its members/employees
55.14
Business cooperation between the members, joint production/ business/
trade activity
22.50
Delivering services to its members/employees, suited to their needs or/
and economic possibilities
21.98
Increasing the financial independence of the organization, differentiating
the sources of the revenue of the organization
18.30
Delivering good quality products, produced by local producers, basing on
proper ethical and environmental standards
15.95
Providing financial assistance to its members in the event of them experiencing difficulties or unexpected random incidents
11.25
Providing services/products necessary for the functioning of the local
community which were not appropriately provided/delivered before
10.67
Raising the maximum possible amount of financial means to solve the
important problems of local community
8.87
Providing its members with the possibilities to save or to borrow financial means – deposits, credits, loans
8.09
Creating jobs for people vulnerable to discrimination on the labour
market
7.29
Supporting the development of economic activity of representatives of
the local community or of certain groups
6.08
Empowerment of its employees – ensuring their bigger participation in
the management process and organization of their working conditions
3.39
Another objective
11.16
One may argue as to what extent these declarations reflect the ‘pro-social’ attitude
of cooperatives. Surely it is not difficult to undermine such a relation. Taking into
account the lack of other data on the subject, one should formulate a hypothesis
that more or less 27% of cooperatives in Poland are quite close to the model of an
enterprise that is mostly social goals-oriented - since as many indicated at least one
of the objectives marked above, connecting them with the Social Economy Enterprise.
54
About 20% of the examined economic self-government organizations and not a single
one of mutual insurance societies indicated the objectives.
Percentage of mostly social goals-oriented organizations
100
Economic
and professional organizations
80
%
60
40 Mutual
20 Insurance
Societies
Cooperatives
Economic and professional organizations
0
Chart 5. Polish social economy in the light of the criterion of social goals
orientation
Criterion 6. Grass-roots, civic character: The criterion is a ‘social’ equivalent of
the autonomy criterion, presented above. It says that the enterprises aspiring for the
name of a social enterprise should be the effect of cooperation of people belonging
to a group or community vital for this enterprise and not a result of top-down proemployment programs, organized by the public administration or business. Such
grass-roots character of a social enterprise is to guarantee its authenticity and to make
it able to appropriately define the needs of the community around it, to efficiently read
the signals it sends.
The element which distinguishes this criterion from the autonomy criterion is
stressing the permanent nature of relations between the organization and its social
basis and the need to support it constantly. From this point of view the evaluation
of individual institutions of social economy in Poland is slightly different than from
the perspective of the autonomy criterion. In the case of cooperatives, it becomes
necessary to distinguish between the ones which kept the features of membership
organizations – in the sense that participation in their activity is not limited to payment
of fees and use of their services and those that have quite limited liaisons with their
members. As the results of the research ‘The Condition of the Social Economy Sector in
Poland 2006” show, there are quite considerable differences between different types
of cooperatives in that respect.7 The members of labour and agricultural cooperatives
are the most active ones (according to the declarations of its representatives8) and the
members of cooperative banking institutions and residential cooperatives are the least
The differences between the average values in the groups were statistically important. The factor
of ‘a type of cooperative’ allowed to explain almost 40% of total variance of the level of activity
of cooperatives’ members.
8
The question was: ‘What part of the members actively participate in the life of the cooperative
(follow its activity, actively participate in its works, dedicate their time for it)?’
7
55
active, with the active members constituting on the average less than 25% of all the
members (in the case of SKOK even below 10%). One may risk a thesis that they do
not fulfil the criterion discussed here.
Total cooperatives
45.2
16.8
Agricultural Production
Cooperatives
spółdzielnie pracy
Cooperatives of the users
except for…
Handicapped
Cooperatives
of Agricultural Clubs (SKR)
Consumers’ cooperatives
38.0
81.0
8.4 10.6
77.4
12.1 10.5
10.2
70.3
11.5
60.7
42.9
42.7
Artisans and handicraft cooperatives
41.0
Residential cooperatives
0
42.7
17.5
39.9
13.4
19.2
SKOK 5.9
45.6
21.2
55.3
29.0
51.8
25.9
10
20
30.9
14.4
23.5
Cooperative banks
28.8
19.5
49.7
Other rural cooperatives
27.8
16.2
55.0
Samopomoc Chłopska
(Peasants’ Self- help cooperative)
19.5
67.3
30
percentage of active members - average
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
%
percentage of members not included neither in the active nor in the passive
percentage of passive members - average
Chart 6. Activity of the members of various types of social economy institutions
In the case of other organization types, the results of so operationalized criterion
of social entrepreneurship also vary. The members of social cooperatives turned out to
be very active in comparison to the members of traditional cooperatives (84%). The
professional and economic self-government organizations came out similarly to the ‘old’
cooperatives (on the average declaring 47% of active members). The non-governmental
organizations look slightly better in comparison. The percentage of members, actively
participating in the activities of statistical Polish association fluctuated around 55%. As
regards foundations which do not have any members at all their status from the point
of view of the ‘grass-roots’ criterion is not obvious, although we do not have enough
place here to properly describe various arguments on this subject. So one should just
56
say that they can be both ‘grass-roots’ as well as ‘externally controlled,’ therefore – as
a type of institution – they partially fit the discussed element of the definition of a
social enterprise. Social Integration Centres (with the exception of a few cases) and
Vocational Rehabilitation Facilities do not have a membership character either, and
at the same time the majority of them are established by public institutions or legal
entities from outside of the third sector, so it is difficult to consider them grass-roots
organizations. Unfortunately, there is no data on the activity of members of mutual
organizations and Mutual Insurance Societies.
Grass-roots character, strong relations with the members
100
80
60
%
SKR Cooperatives
of Agricultural Clubs,
associations
SKOK
(Cooperative
Artisans’
Savings cooperatives
and Loan
Associations)
40
Economic
organizations
Social
cooperatives
Agricultural
production
cooperatives
Labour
cooperatives
“Samopomoc Chłopska”
Users’ cooperatives,
(Peasants’ Self- help cooperative)
except residential, agricultural
and consumers’ cooperatives
Labour and handicapped
Cooperative banks
20
0
Foundations
Chart 7. Polish social economy in the light of the criterion of ‘grass-roots character’
Criterion 7. Participation in decision making, not based on the share size: This
principle, expressed in the one man, one vote slogan comes out directly from a long
tradition of cooperative movement. It states that the participation of members of a
social enterprise in decision making cannot be linked to the size of their ‘shares’ in the
enterprise. This rule defines the identity of cooperatives until today, although in the
case of large cooperatives its application causes certain problems. Despite that, there
is no doubt that – even on the account of their legal construction – it is observed by
Polish cooperatives. Similarly, such a rule is in force also in the case of all the other
organizations, with the exception of foundations, in which the final word (although not
necessarily) may belong to the founders.
Criterion 8. Participative nature, expressed through inclusion of the social
environment of an enterprise into its management: the criterion of ‘grass-roots character’
of social enterprises, discussed above indicated, that they should be ‘immersed’ in local
communities, in which they operate. The participation criterion is the development of
this condition. According to this criterion, the organization should not only remain
57
in touch with its social environment, but strive to include the representatives of the
local community in its activities to the greatest possible extent. In Poland this demand
means that at least a part of the undertakings aiming at professional reintegration
of people vulnerable to marginalization, organized by the administration or business
(e.g. CIS – Social Integration Centres, ZPCh – Protected Employment Enterprises) find
themselves outside the group of initiatives described as social enterprises. Outside the
sphere of pro-employment projects, the participation slogan means great sensitivity of
organizations to opinions and voices of all those who get in contact with their activity.
The example of expression of such sensitivity is the tendency of the organizations to
take into consideration the voices of stakeholders in the decision making process. Of
course, the evaluation of to what extent the different social economy entities in Poland
are really capable of such sensitivity, is a real challenge. On the basis of available data
one may only come closer to answer such a question, referring to declarations of the
representatives of different types of organizations on whether they listen to the voices
from their environment, i.e. the voices of representatives of the local community, when
defining the development directions and strategy of the activity of the organization
(even if these declaration often reflect rather the state of mind of the respondents of the
research than the reality).9 When answering the question, we should make a general
remark that the organizations do not listen to those voices particularly often. Most
often (in almost half of the cases) it is the social cooperatives and Social Integration
Centres that declare participation of the community when planning the activities of
the organization. One may not exclude that in case of the latter, it is the local selfgovernment, with which a part of Social Integration Centres are closely connected, that
plays the role of the ‘community.’ Non-governmental organizations and economic and
professional organizations have this type of consultations more rarely (35%). Also one
fourth of the examined vocational rehabilitation facilities and one in five cooperatives
indicated having the consultations. The institutions which are often cited as a symbol
of greatness of social economy in pre-war Poland and as an example of activities,
representing the essence of this concept – namely the mutual insurance societies –
are at the bottom of the ranking. Among 7 (out of 9 existing) TUW (mutual insurance
societies), none undertakes any activities aiming at including local communities in the
operations of the enterprise. It is hard to say whether it means that the nostalgic stories
about mutual insurance as a way for the local communities to organize themselves, as
an institution of a remarkably local character should be considered a long gone past,
or that one should simply not expect from the representatives of management boards
the assurances of including local communities in strategic planning of a company.
The following question was asked: ‘Do you ask for the opinion of the following groups when defining
the development directions and strategy of activity of the organization/enterprise?’ (categories:
members, employees, volunteers, beneficiaries, representatives of the local community, the most
important partners of the organization, other persons/institutions, and a possibility to indicate the
answer- ‘we do not seek opinion of any of these groups, only the authorities of the organization
decide on the directions of its development’).
9
58
Percentage of organizations, consulting the directions of their activity with local communities
60
40
%
20
0
Non-governmental
organizations,
economic organizations
Social cooperatives,
Cooperatives
ZAZ
TUW
(Vocational
Rehabilitation
Facilities)
(mutual insurance societies)
Chart 8. Polish social economy in the light of participation criterion
Criterion 9. Limited distribution of profits: theoretically, in Poland all the entities
listed above fulfil this condition de iure, except for ‘traditional’ cooperatives. In practice,
especially in the non-governmental environment, where proceedings in this sphere are
not a subject to routine procedures, defining the proper level of the distribution is
sometimes a cause of fierce arguments and dilemmas. 10
1.3. Social economy enterprises in Poland and the
‘ideal type’ of social enterprise
The above deliberations were of course very superficial. Their basic goal was not
to define which types of enterprises deserve the name of a ‘social enterprise,’ all the
more so because – as the EMES network researchers noted in their work – there is no
single model of such enterprise. The aim was to sketch a draft portrait of the Polish
social economy sector from the perspective of the criteria, discussed in the theory as
the elements of the definition of such enterprises. It is also worth stressing that some
of the obtained results should be looked at from a distance, keeping in mind that e.g.
the ‘participation’ criterion was operationalized here very narrowly as a tendency to
include representatives of local communities (who are not direct beneficiaries) into
planning of activities of organizations, that the low ranking of social cooperatives in
the ‘economic risk’ hierarchy results mostly from the fact that the majority of them just
start their operations, etc.
Shortly speaking, the basic intention of the deliberations presented here was the
desire to describe the internal differentiation of the institutional environment, treated
by the enthusiasts of the idea of social enterprises as a potential area where this
More information on the subject – see the text of J. Wygnański and P. Frączak, being the
starting point for the Opening Report for the project ‘W poszukiwaniu polskiego modelu ekonomii
społecznej’(‘Searching for the Polish Model of Social Economy’), Warsaw 2006.
10
59
kind of entities may emerge. The synthetic picture of the scale of those differences is
presented in Chart 9, presenting the position of individual types of enterprises against
the ideal type of a social enterprise, which was called a ‘Virtual Social Enterprise,’
after EMES’ researchers. This position is the resultant of the aggregated results in
two dimensions – social and economic definition of a social enterprise. We should
also openly say that the rules according to which the aggregation of the results was
performed were quite loose. Whether or not a given type of institution fulfils the
individual conditions describing an ideal social enterprise was defined by reference
to the knowledge on whether the majority of this type of institutions operating in
Poland fulfil them, moreover, sometimes we did not refer to empirical data but to the
knowledge on legal determinants of operation of these institutions. Decision to adopt
such a procedure was taken due to belief, that in fact it is not a question of a precise
evaluation of the ‘genetic match’ between different organizations active in Poland and
the imaginary shape of a social enterprise, but rather a question of showing the various
starting positions of the individual types of entities, which one tries to connect with
this name. We should also stress, that the results of the analysis should not be treated
as a description of all the institutions operating in reality, but as a certain collective,
statistical or formal picture of their position.
As we can see on the chart, in order for the individual actors of the Polish social
economy to get closer to the social enterprise model, they will need to adopt different
strategies and to put the accent on different elements of their activity. The institutions
of ‘traditional’ social economy in their mass fulfil all or almost all economic criteria
proposed by EMES as the outstanding social enterprises – they sell goods or services,
are exposed to economic risks, employ personnel and are independent. However, from
the point of view of social criteria they do not come out so well. The opposite is true for
the non-governmental organizations – these are (again – statistically) relatively strong
from the perspective of the social criteria but they do not rank high on the scale of
economic criteria. Social cooperatives are the closest to the ideal of a social enterprise
– however as a group of institutions they did not fulfil the condition of ‘economic risk’
(it seems that fulfilment of this conditions is just a question of the organizations being
fully operational) and from the social criteria they did not meet the ‘participation’
criterion (one can say however, that this criterion was operationalized in a controversial
way).
From the point of view of the plans to develop social entrepreneurship, the
essential issue is not only which institutions are ‘close’ to the concept but also which
segments of the third sector are sufficiently strong (in the categories of the number of
the institutions, the level of their activity, the dynamics of transformation, flexibility)
to become the area for incubation of social entrepreneurship on a large scale. Most
of these hopes are connected with the sector of non-profit organizations. As the
research shows, the Polish non-governmental sector as a whole does not create the
environment which is particularly favourable for this kind of experiments. There is
however a group of institutions within it that already today could aspire to the name
of precursors of new social enterprises – these enterprises fulfil, if not all then at least
a part of the criteria which should distinguish these undertakings. So one may ask the
question what a statistical profile of this group in comparison to the whole Polish nongovernmental sector looks like, and to what extent one may in the nearest time count
on its growth, and more generally – on shifting of the Polish third sector towards social
60
Position of individual types of enterprises against the ideal type of a social enterprise
(the “virtual social enterprise”)
4
Number of fulfilled ECONOMIC critieria*
Other cooperatives
Labour cooperatives,
agricultural cooperatives
“Virtual Social
Economy Enterprise”
according to EMES
3
Social cooperatives
2
Economic
and professional
organizations
Vocational
Rehabilitation
Facilities
1
Associations,
Fundations
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Number of fulfilled SOCIAL criteria*
Chart 9. Position of individual types of enterprises against the ideal type of a social
enterprise (the ‘virtual social enterprise’)
* Criteria fulfilled by the majority of entities of a given type or fulfilment of which results from the
very nature of these entities.
entrepreneurship. So what does the issue of the potential of social entrepreneurship
in Polish non-governmental organizations look like, in the light of the results of the
research?
61
2
2. Polish non-governmental organizations:
potential of social entrepreneurship
As it is known, the notion of ‘social entrepreneurship’ refers rather to a certain
area of activity than to a clearly distinguishable group of institutions. However, if one
intends to promote the development of entities to which the notion refers, one cannot
avoid reflecting on the question on what types of institutional forms seem to be the
best to build social enterprises and in what environments, as it seems, they can be
most successful. In Poland this question seems particularly important and in my
opinion particularly difficult as well, mostly since the institutions commonly considered
the natural environment for the development of this type of activity are still in the
development or revival phase in Poland or – as cooperatives – are fighting the identity
crisis (which actually can be viewed as a positive phenomenon from the point of view
of the development of social entrepreneurship). So it is not clear to what extent the
hopes pinned on the third sector as on the area of creation of the new, hybrid forms of
organizations that connect the social goals with the economic instruments of activity,
are justified in Polish circumstances. So far, these hopes are articulated, so to say, ‘in
advance,’ rather through the reference to the discussion on the social entrepreneurship
that takes place in Europe than on the basis of a pragmatic analysis of the climate
for its development within the Polish third sector. The analysis of the data from the
research on condition of the third sector may provide fuel for exactly such a discussion,
a more pragmatic one. The analysis revolves around an attempt to answer the three
basic questions:
1. How numerous are the undertakings that are getting closer to the ‘social
entrepreneurship’ concept in the Polish third sector?
2. What are the basic facts on their condition and characteristics of their activity in
comparison to the other non-governmental organizations?
3. On the basis of the existing data, what do the forecasts for the development of
social economy in Poland look like – both within the non-profit sector and outside
it, e.g. in the cooperative sector, and in particular, what are the forecasts for
possible migration of organizations towards the social entrepreneurship?
2.1. Organizations which become a part
of the broad (moderate) definition of social
entrepreneurship in the Polish non-governmental
sector
Starting to analyze the data on non-governmental organizations that, we can say,
already operate in a manner close to the idea of social enterprise (below we shall refer to
them using the ‘SEE’ abbreviation11), we should start from choosing the organizations. I
shall refer here to the definition of the international research network EMES, discussed
in detail in the first part of this text. Since this group must be sufficiently numerous in
11
From ‘Social Economy Enterprises’
62
order to enable us to provide any statistical analysis for it, I will skip the criteria which
do not seem vital or which are difficult to operationalize.
Therefore, the group of the organizations which will be considered a potential
‘avant-guarde’ of the Polish social entrepreneurship encompasses the entities
(associations and foundations), which:
• Conduct permanent sale of goods or services,
• Are independent from the public administration or other legal persons,
• Take economic risks (revenue from the economic or paid activity on the level
higher than 20%).
These criteria are considered to be fulfilled by all the non-profit organizations:
• Social objective of the activity,
• Limited distribution of profit.
Due to the lack of data which could be with all honesty considered here, the
following criteria were not taken into consideration:
• ‘Grass-roots’ character of the organizations,
• Participation in the decisions not connected with the ownership of the capital,12
• ‘Participative nature’ of the organization.
At the same time it is worth stressing that it does not seem, that the application
of these criteria causes fundamental changes in defining the size of the group of the
organizations of interest for us - the majority of the non-profit organizations meet all
of the criteria.
After application of the criteria, from among 1 042 non-governmental organizations
examined during the research, quoted here, an even number of 100 organizations
were left. On the basis of statistical weights, recalculating the research data to the
level of the whole population of the non-governmental organizations in Poland one
may think that in the whole Poland the number of the organizations meeting so defined
EMES conditions reaches about 4 000, i.e. less than 10% of the total number of
organizations. Of course on this basis one should not draw a conclusion that this is
the number of social enterprises with a non-governmental background in Poland (there
are probably less than 10 such ‘genuine’ enterprises). The group, isolated in this way,
should be treated only as the segment of the non-governmental sector close to the
concept of social entrepreneurship. Below we describe its specificity, in comparison to
the data on all the non-governmental organizations in Poland.13
This criterion could be theoretically applied, by not including foundations in the analyzed
group. However in Polish conditions such a move would be highly arguable - see part 1 of the
present text. By the way it is worth noting, that among the organizations, which meet other EMES
definition criteria, foundations appear more often (23%) than in the whole non-governmental
sector (13%).
13
The absence of the ‘minimum employment’ criterion among the criteria listed above requires a
separate comment. According to the EMES definition, one of the features differentiating the social
enterprises from other entities is the fact that they create jobs (even on a minimum scale). In
regard to the Polish non-governmental sector this criterion seems quite demanding – as it appears
from the data (more on which below), the percentage of the non-profit organizations, employing
paid personnel in any form decreased in 2 years by over 7% and in 2006 amounted to circa
26%. Should we add this criterion to other criteria on the basis of which the group of potential
SEE was identified, the number of the cases which meet all the criteria, taken into account,
decreases to about 1 500-3 000 in whole Poland. On the level of the sample of organizations,
participating in the research it means limiting the researched sample to 62 cases. Since such a
12
63
2.2. Basic characteristics of the non-governmental
organizations and the SEE
2.2.1. Age of the organizations
In terms of the age structure, the organizations included in the group of ‘potential’
social enterprises are not much different from all the Polish non-governmental sector.
It means they are relatively young, just as the whole Polish sector is. Every fourth of
them has existed for no more than 3 years, and almost 50% were established not
earlier than in 2001. Only the disproportionately large share of the shortest existing
organizations, established in the years 2001-2003, in the group draws attention.
It indicates that recently the newly established organizations more and more often
are focused on raising at least a part of the means for their activity from their own
economic activity. It is certainly partially caused by the regulations of the act on public
benefit activity and volunteering coming into force, thanks to which the organizations
obtained a possibility to carry out a paid non-profit activity, distinguished from a
business activity. Introduction of these regulations has caused a considerable growth
of interest of the organizations in the sale of their own services.
Structure of the age of the organizations according to the data on the year of the registration
%
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
34.9
18.4
15.3
10.5
11,5
before 1989
11.1
10.6
8.6
11.6
1995-1997
1998-2000
9.5
1989-1991
25.0
4.5
1992-1994
% SEE
2001-2003
14.9
13.6
2004-2005
% Poland
Chart 10. PES ‘Demography’
From the point of view of the forecasts for the development of the social economy in
Poland, especially the plans relating to support the self-financing non-profit institutions
oriented on creating jobs, this tendency may only make one happy. On the other
hand though, a quite considerable share of the shortest existing organizations among
group is too small for one to attempt to describe on the basis of it the characteristic of potential
social enterprises within the Polish non-governmental sector, the criterion of employment was not
included below. We can comfort ourselves, at the same time, that this condition is fulfilled by
the majority of the organizations identified on the basis of the remaining criteria – about 69% of
them employ paid personnel.
64
the potential social enterprises means that they are more prone to all ‘childhood
diseases,’ typical of all the developing institutions. Thinking about promoting the social
economy institutions in the Polish third sector one should pay particular attention to
the institutional help directed at these newly emerged initiatives. As the chart below
shows, the ‘mortality’ among the shortest existing non-governmental organizations is
high, therefore it is not easy in Poland.
2.2.2. Location of the organizations
The concentration of the non-governmental organizations in Poland increases with
the town size. To refer to the REGON data, almost 20% of all the non-governmental
organizations registered in Poland are located in the rural areas (in rural communes
and rural parts of rural-urban communes) (11 170), while 70% are located in cities or
towns. The analysis of the data from the research shows also the dependence between
the size of town and the presence of the organizations (and also their character and
affluence, more on that below). It shows that although almost every third organization
is located in a village or in a town with less than 20 000 inhabitants, only in the
15 provincial cities (not taking the capital of the country into account) their number
is almost the same. If we include Warsaw, it turns out that in the 16 major Polish
cities almost 40% of all the organizations in Poland operate. The differences are in a
sense understandable – the biggest cities gathering big groups of people and being the
administrative centres for the regions are the natural area for an organization. However,
the positive correlation between the number of organizations and the size of town is
not only the function of the size of population or its administrative importance, and
is maintained also when we take into account the differences in the population size,
using the ‘number of organizations per capita’ index, often applied by researchers.
Average number of the non-governmental organizations per capita according to REGON
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
10-20 000
20-50 000
50-100 000
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.2
rural communes
0-10 000
100 000
Number or non-governmental organizations per capita
Chart 11. Density of an organization net depending on urbanization level
Source: REGON data (as of February 2006)
65
Of course in the case of the organizations aspiring to be the ‘potential social
enterprises,’ in accordance with the criteria described earlier, the possibilities to analyze
their territorial distribution are quite limited. A certain picture of how frequency of their
occurrence is connected with the urbanization level can be gathered from the reference
to the results of the research on the basis of which they were identified. It appears that
they have even more ‘urban’ character than one might assume referring to the data
on all the non-governmental organizations. As many as 60% of them are located in
Warsaw or in other provincial cities, while only 1 in 10 are located in villages or towns
with less than 20 000 inhabitants.
Table 3. Location of the organizations and the town size
Percentage of the
SEE
Percentage of the
non-governmental
organizations – Poland
Rural areas and towns
12.3
30.0
Towns of above 20-50 000
inhabitants
16.0
10.9
Cities of above 50 000 inhabitants
11.7
20.9
Regional capitals
39.8
27.0
Warsaw
20.2
11.2
100.0
100.0
Total
2.2.3. Areas of activity of the organizations
The organizations participating in the research were asked to answer a question
in what areas they were active and which of these areas they considered the most
important from the point of view of the accomplishment of their mission. Their
responses (shown in Table 3) did not bring surprising results. The organizations dealing
with sports, recreation, tourism or hobby prevail – they constitute almost 40% of all
the Polish non-governmental sector. The second place, but with considerably smaller
number, is taken by the organizations active in the area of culture and art, education
and training, social services and social aid and healthcare. The least popular in the
Polish third sector are the international activity, the religious activity (but we should
say here that while drawing the organizations for the research we did not take into
account the entities directly connected with the catholic Church and other Churches’
structures) and the activities in the area of civic initiatives support, human rights or
scientific research. The hierarchy has not changed in many years.
66
67
2.9
2.6
1.8
1.4
0.3
0.7
Professional, personnel, trade matters
Law, human rights, political activity
Scientific research
Support for institutions, non-governmental
organizations and civic initiatives
Religion
International activity
2.0
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.8
1.9
2.2
4.7
7.0
3.0
9.5
5.6
6.9
3.9
8.8
8.8
13.4
16.8
20.5
35.6
23.1
46.7
Percentage
of the organizations
indicating the area
– Poland 2006
3.3
0.0
0.0
1.1
3.5
0.0
6.4
3.2
3.5
2.3
5.8
5.2
15.5
18.3
31.9
Percentage of the
SEE considering
the area the most
important – Poland
2006
5.8
12.3
4.5
20.6
11.4
4.7
9.3
14.9
11.3
12.0
10.2
14.6
60.4
35.5
37.2
Percentage of the
SEE indicating the
area – Poland 2006
Source: The study Kondycja sektora organizacji pozarządowych w Polsce 2006 [The Condition of the Sector of Non-governmental Organizations in Poland 2006]
commissioned by the Klon/Jawor Association, 2006.
1.6
3.6
Environmental protection
Other activity
8.0
2.3
8.2
Healthcare
9.9
–
10.0
Community services, social aid
10.3
5.9
10.3
Education and training
12.8
39.2
Percentage
considering the area
the most important
– Poland 2006
6.5
11.6
Culture and arts
Local development in the social and material dimension
Labour market, employment, occupational
development
38.6
Sports, tourism, recreation, hobby
AREAS OF ACTIVITY
Percentage
considering the area
the most important–
Poland 2004
Table 4. Areas of activity of the non-governmental organizations – percentage of the non-governmental organizations
in Poland and percentage of the SEE.
It is worth stressing though that in the current edition of the research the
organizations received a possibility to indicate a new area of activity – the key one
from the point of view of the discussion on social economy – namely the ‘services on
the labour, employment and occupational development market.’ Only 2.3% of all the
non-governmental organizations identify themselves with this type of activity as the
main area of their operation. Taking into account the scale of problems connected with
the unemployment in Poland in the researched period and the demands for bigger
participation of the non-governmental sector in implementation of the labour market
policy,14 raised by the experts, this result seems quite low. The fact that already almost
10% of the organizations indicated the area of labour market services as one of the
areas of their activity (not necessarily the main one) can be a certain comfort here.
In the event of the organizations which belong to the group of the ‘potential social
economy enterprises’ the situation seems to be very similar. The most often (although
more rarely than in the case of all organizations) indicated areas of activity are sports,
tourism and recreation as well as culture and education – these fields are indicated
considerably more often in comparison to all the non-governmental sector. The real
scale of differences in this respect is apparent while comparing the indications to those
fields as one of several areas of activity of the organization. It appears that as many as
60% of the SEE – twice as many as among all the non-governmental organizations –
are willing to include education in the important areas of their activity.
As we can easily guess, the result is connected with the dominating form of the
economic activity they engage in – in as many as 45% of the cases it is the training
activity. Among the important areas of the SEE activity also the ‘support for institutions
and organizations’ and the ‘scientific research’ appear quite often – in comparison to
all the non-governmental organizations (perhaps for similar reasons).
The analyses, carried out so far, induce a certain reflection of theoretical nature.
It seems that the group of organizations which should be getting close to the social
entrepreneurship model, isolated through the reference to ‘moderate’ versions of the
EMES definition, in fact consists mostly of entities whose economic activity consists
of providing training and educational services. The question therefore arises, to what
extent those organizations – as one of the criteria deciding on their inclusion into
our sphere of interest determines – can be really considered mostly ‘well-being of
community or a group (on which they focus their activities) oriented?’ The fact that
only 16% of them indicate that they calculate the price of the offered products or
services above the direct costs of their delivery works to the advantage of such thesis.
Regardless of that, the question translates into the demand of a more precise definition
of the ‘pre-eminence of social goals over the economic ones’ criterion, e.g. through
resigning from the assumption that due to the very formula of a non-profit organization
the non-governmental organizations can be viewed as socially oriented.
14
See e.g. ‘Out of Concern for Employment, UNDP Report,’ Warsaw: CASE, UNDP, 2005.
68
2.2.4. Scale of activity, recipients of activities, activity
level
Obviously the individuals dominate among the beneficiaries of the activities of
Polish non-governmental organizations – almost 9 out of 10 organizations (86%)
declare that in 2005 they carried out activities for such recipients. On the national
level only 1 out of 3 organizations declared at the same time that also the institutions
were recipients of their activities. In this respect the organizations with characteristic
close to the definition of a social enterprise (from EMES) stand out in comparison to the
whole non-governmental sector – since 42% of them carry out activities for the benefit
of institutions, according to the results of the research – and at least those among them
that work for individual recipients appear to act on a bigger scale – if the scale should
be measured by the number of beneficiaries of their activities, declared by them. In the
case of a half of them, the total number of people who benefited from their services
reached 200 people a year, while among all the non-governmental organizations the
number of individual recipients was almost two times smaller (120 people).
In case of (x) percent of the organizations, the total number of recipients of their activities
in 2005 did not exceed….
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
500
0
3000
2000
1000
20
5
50
10
90
45
25
Other organizations
200
120
500
50
75
90
SEE
Chart 12. Scale of organization activities – estimates concerning a number
of recipients
The information concerning the territorial range of the activities of the organizations
corresponds to this data. On the level of the whole non-governmental sector more or
less 1 in 3 organizations maintain that they carry out activities on the level of their
close neighbourhood and a half of them declare, that they are active on the commune
(gmina)/ county (powiat) level.15 The situation is similar in the case of the SEE with
that difference however, that over a half of the organizations encompassed in the group
(in comparison to less than 30% in the whole sector) indicated that their activities
are also carried out on the whole territory of Poland. It is difficult to say, whether this
specific result can be in any way connected with the characteristics which determined
The organizations could indicate more than one answer, that is why the results for individual
categories on the chart, illustrating the answers, do not sum up to 100%.
15
69
that these organizations were recognized as a potential ‘avant-guarde’ of the new social
economy in Poland. Surely, the fact that a disproportionately large part of them are the
organizations located in capitals of provinces or in the capital of the country, as it was
already shown, will be a simpler and intuitively more understandable explanation.
In what area are the activities of the organizations carried out?
60
54.7
54.3
47.5
50
39.6 37.5
40
33.4
% 30
27.8
25
28.4
20
13.0
8.2
10
5.0
4.1
0
Closest
neighbourhood
(estate, district)
Whole
county
Province,
region
Whole
country
percentage of the non-governmental organizations in Poland;
Other
Territory
countries defined otherwise
percentage of the SEE
Chart 13. Territorial scope of activities of an organization
2.2.5. People in the organizations
• Employment
As already mentioned – the employment of paid personnel is one of more important
conditions, determining (in theory) that an organization belongs to the ‘social enterprises’
family. This condition is built on several assumptions, or rather expectations, regarding
the nature of social enterprises and their goals. First of all, the organizations aspiring
to be called social enterprises should employ personnel, since the principles of their
activity should bring them closer to the ‘normal’ enterprises, i.e. the enterprises acting
only on the principle of economic effectiveness which in the sphere of management is
based rather on economic calculation than on the activity or social involvement (which
does not mean that they cannot or should not use this specific resource). Secondly,
they should employ because of the hope that they are the entities which give work,
70
generate employment, and while accomplishing important social goals, contribute at
the same time to the economic emancipation of their employees. Third of all, at last,
one expects that these enterprises will be specific employers – offering employment
and possibility of social development to people who for various reasons would not find
any employment in the open market.
Theoretically, all of the organizations described here as the ‘potential SEE’ should
have paid personnel. As already mentioned, however, the Polish non-governmental
sector is not ready to face this requirement that is not met often enough by Polish
organizations to enable it to be considered it in the analyses, presented here.
Therefore, not all the organizations included in the group, described above, employ
paid personnel. Most of them do though – as opposed to the majority of the remaining
non-governmental organizations. Almost 60% of the organizations counted among
the SEE on the basis of other criteria have paid personnel, while only every fourth
organization in the whole non-governmental sector employs them (25.5%). Almost
a half of the ‘SEE’ employ personnel on the basis of an employment contract (fulltime employment), while among all the organizations only 1 in 5 entities do. The
organizations compensate for the absence of paid personnel by the community
involvement of the volunteers (we shall talk about them separately), their members or
the representatives of their authorities. Sometimes the involvement takes on a form of
a regular, unpaid work for the organization. It is a matter of tremendous importance
not only for the individual organizations but also from the point of view of the overall
evaluation of the potential of the non-governmental sector. Usually it is not taken into
consideration in the studies on ‘human resources’ of the organizations, where the
reference is made only to the data on the number of the members of the associations.
If one should try however to estimate its scale, it turns out that 2 out of 3 Polish
organizations base in their activities on regular, voluntary work of more than 5 people
(which should not be confused with volunteer work, taken up by people who are
neither the members of the organizations nor the members of their authorities). On the
level of the whole sector it means about 1 million of extra ‘voluntary employees’ of the
organizations, who are not volunteers.
The statistics, presented above, get new meaning if one looks at them from the
perspective of the results of previous editions of the Klon/Jawor Association research.
On the one hand, in the last two years the percentage of the organizations employing
paid personnel decreased considerably – in 2004 one in three organizations created
paid jobs (33%), which is almost 7 percentage points more than in 2006. On the other
hand, the statistics concerning the overall level of employment in the sector based on
the declarations of the respondents on the number of personnel, employed in their
organizations, did not change. Similarly to two years ago, the total number of people
receiving remuneration for work in a non-governmental organization can be estimated
today at about 120 000 and the number of ‘full-dimensional’ jobs, generated by nongovernmental organizations – expressed in the full-time position equivalents (FTE19)
– at about 64 000. It means, perhaps, that we face the ‘stratification’ of the nongovernmental sector – despite the decrease in the number of the organizations which
create jobs, in certain segments of the non-governmental sector the employment
increased. A competitive explanation would say that although the percentage of the
organizations employing personnel has decreased, the number of such organizations
has increased, causing the statistics regarding the employment in the organizations to
71
72
2.5
2.4
2.4
6-10 employees
11-20 employees
Over 20 employees
100.0
1.6
1.9
0.9
15.0
80.6
How many fulltime employees
does the organization employ?%Poland
100.0
17.5
17.9
24.3
38.0
2.3
100.0
4.9
9.6
9.6
34.1
41.9
IHow many
employees does
the organization
employ? %SEE
100.0
2.8
6.0
1.0
37.0
53.2
How many fulltime employees
does the organization employ?
- %SEE
100.0
16.1
18.4
22.6
36.2
6.7
How many
members or
representatives of
the authorities of
the organization
regularly work for
it for free? %SEE
Source: The study Kondycja sektora organizacji pozarządowych w Polsce 2006 [The Condition of the Sector of Non-governmental Organizations in Poland 2006]
commissioned by the Klon/Jawor Association, 2006.
100.0
18.1
1-5 employees
Total
74.5
None
How many employees does the
organization employ? -%Poland
How many
members or
representatives of
the authorities of
the organization
regularly work for
it for free? - %
Poland
Table 5. Percentage of the organizations employing specific number of employees – the percentage of the non-governmental organizations in
Poland and the percentage of the SEE
remain on a stable level. The analysis of the REGON data does not allow us to fully
confirm the hypothesis (mainly due to the fact that the register is out of date and there
is no information which of the organizations are no longer active) but also makes it
more probable (in the last two years about 5 000 new organizations were registered).
The analyses of the relations between the age of the organizations and the fact of
whether they employ paid personnel (see Table 4) seem to confirm it as well. As these
show, the shortest existing organizations that were established after 2002, prevail
among the organizations with no employees.
Table 6. Percentage of the organizations employing paid employees and the age
structure of the organizations
Year of the registration of the
organization
Percentage of the non-governmental
organizations employing paid employees
until 1989
34.2
1990-1992
43.0
1993-1995
33.5
1996-1998
23.4
1999-2001
21.7
2002-2004
19.9
2005 and later
10.3
• Volunteering
A resource, specific to the social organizations (specific not because it is only
the privilege of the organizations but also because the organizations use it definitely
most often), besides the voluntary work of the members or the representatives of
their authorities, is volunteering, understood here as the involvement in the work of
the organizations of people who do not belong to the organizations, are not in their
management and do not receive remuneration for their work for the organization.
According to the respondents’ declarations, currently almost 40% of the organizations
cooperate with such people, while only 13% cooperated with more than 10 volunteers
throughout the year. This data is alarming, since it means that in the course of the last
two years the volunteering in the non-governmental sector has decreased – 45% of the
non-governmental organizations declared in 2004 that they used the volunteers’ work.
In the case of the organizations classified here as being close to the social enterprise
model, the situation does not look as bad as on the level of all the organizations –
although one should remember that from the point of view of the criteria, which make
them interesting for us, the fact that to a large extent these organizations base on the
voluntary work is not necessarily good news. In the last year more or less 50% of such
73
organizations used volunteers’ involvement, while about 45% could count on help
from ‘permanent’ volunteers, regularly involved in their work.
Table 7. The number of volunteers ‘in the last year’ – the percentage of the nongovernmental organizations in Poland and percentage of the SEE
Number of the volunteers
‘in the last year’
Number of the permanent
volunteers
‘in the last year’A
% SEE
% Poland
% SEE
% Poland
None
49.6
61.5
56.0
66.4
1-5 volunteers
22.7
14.6
31.7
19.3
6-10 volunteers
7.9
9.9
5.8
6.7
11-20 volunteers
6.8
5.0
4.8
3.7
20-50 volunteers
7.5
5.8
1.7
2.8
Over 50 volunteers
5.4
3.2
0.0
1.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
The ‘permanent’ volunteers were defined in the questionnaire as the volunteers ‘systematically
and often (at least once a month) getting involved in the work of the organization.’
A
2.2.6. Finances
• The revenue structure of the organizations
In the last two years no considerable changes in the revenue level of the nongovernmental sector were observed. If we would speak of any changes, it would be
unfortunately negative changes. In 2004 a ‘median’ organization could boast the
annual revenue of about PLN 13 000 (which means that the annual revenue of half of
the organizations did not exceed this amount), while in 2006 half of the organizations
declared a budget not exceeding PLN 10 000. However the differences between these
two measurements are so small that one cannot consider them statistically confirmed.
It would be therefore right to state that similarly to two years before, more or less 1
in 5 Polish non-governmental organizations have at their disposal the revenue not
exceeding PLN 1 000, while less than 4% have more than PLN 1 million. The fact
that this 4% accumulate – depending on the estimates – from 70% to 80% of the total
revenue of the sector shows the level of the stratification of the sector.
As one may guess on the basis of the already quoted data, the structure of the
budget of the potential SEE does not fit in with the results of all of the organizations as a
74
whole. Similarly as in regard of the range of their activities or the number of employees,
also in respect of the revenues they are – statistically speaking – much more powerful.
Less than 1 in 10 belong to the category of organizations with practically no financial
means, while about 85% (in comparison to slightly over 50% of all the organizations)
had more than PLN 10 000 at their disposal. 45% of them declare as well that they
have certain financial reserves which they could use in the event their current sources
of financing are cut off – while in the whole sector less than 20% (18.5%) of the
organizations made such declarations.
45
38.6
40
32.6
35
31.4
30
%
25
26.0
21.6
17.4
20
14.3
15
10
8.7
5.8
5
3.6
0
PLN 1.000 -10.000
PLN 100.000-1 million
Less than PLN 1.000
PLN 10.000 – 100.000
PLN 1 million and more
Revenues of the organizations in 2005 – brackets
Revenues of the SEE in 2005 – brackets
Chart 14. Revenues of the organizations in 2005 – the percentage of the non-governmental organizations and Poland and the percentage of the SEE
• Dynamics of the revenues
As it was said before, statistically speaking the financial condition of the whole
non-governmental sector remains stable. We can speak similarly of the budget of a
statistical organization, although we should remark here that the data on which the
diagnosis is based is incomplete.16 On the basis of the data one could formulate a
thesis that the financial situation of every second organization which is older than two
In the current edition of the research, when asking the organizations about their budget amount
in 2005, the researchers asked them as well to provide the budget figures from previous years,
starting in 2002 (of course it did not concern the organizations which did not exist yet in a given
year). A certain problem which makes gathering such data more difficult is the fact that the
organizations (and not only them, as a matter of fact) are reluctant to give this kind of information
and the fact that gathering the precise financial data, dating back several years, is sometimes
quite work and time consuming. Nevertheless, 417 (for 2002), 486 (for 2003) and 584 (for
2004) respondents answered this question.
16
75
years17 (so the organizations that we are able to build trends for) within the last two
years changed minimally (the average annual revenue growth on the level of not more
than 107%). One in four organizations, however, in the last years registered a budget
increase exceeding, on the average, 135% per year.
In comparison with this, the SEE again come out much better – in the case of
every second one of them, the average annual dynamics of budget growth in the last
few years came to more or less 115%. Due to a small number of observations it is
difficult at the same time to treat these differences as confirmed.
Comparing the data on the dynamics of the revenues of the organizations with the
analyses of the changes in the revenue structure of the whole sector, one may get an
impression of a contradiction between the data, indicating the increase of the budgets
of individual organizations and the information on stable financial condition of the
sector as such. It is worth remembering though about the specific, permanent feature
of the ‘demographics’ of the non-governmental sector, consisting in a large part of
young organizations, of which sometimes only a part survives more than a few years.
The constant revival of the Polish non-governmental sector causes, so to speak, that
constantly it ‘works its way up’ - young organizations increase their revenues, while
the older and bigger lose their dynamics. The analysis of the data on the revenues of
the organizations from the point of view of their age (we should remember, that the
cases of the organizations with the smallest revenues and in consequence the least
stable finances, were excluded from the analysis) confirms this connection. As we can
see from the chart, the revenues of the oldest statistical (median) organization did not
change from year to year, while in case of the youngest organizations (the ones for
which the comparison of revenues from at least two years was possible) the revenues
grow on average one-fourth a year.
• Sources of revenues
With regard to the sources of revenues, the fundamental difference distinguishing
the SEE from other organizations is of course the one, due to which they were included
in that group – namely the fact that they carry out an extensive paid and economic
activity. However, with respect, to popularity of different sources of financing, the
membership dues prevail. It is interesting, as the organizations much more often than
in case of the whole non-governmental sector have a form of a foundation (foundations
constitute 24% of the SEE and only 13% of all the organizations). Another feature worth
noticing, decidedly distinguishing the SEE in comparison with the other organizations
is the fact that they mention the income from saving or investing the means they own,
namely the interests from bank accounts, endowment fund yield, deposits and shares
as one of the sources of their revenue. The disproportion between the SEE and other
organizations is extremely large, though of course it can be partly explained by the fact
that the SEE are statistically speaking larger, more often conduct their activities in the
biggest cities and, most of all, have the means to invest – almost half of them declared
to have financial reserves. Without a deeper analysis it is however difficult to say
whether this is the cause or the result of their financial policy and economic efficiency.
In the meantime, we may only put forward a thesis that in the light of the presented
data these organizations seem to rather actively (in comparison with the others)
The organizations with the smallest budgets (due to the instability of the trends built for them)
as well as the extreme cases were not considered in the analyses.
17
76
50% of the organizations established in the years …
recorded increase/decrease of the budget on the average by … % in the last 3 years
130
125
120
115
% 110
105
100
95
90
125.0
113.5
110.2
104.6
104.4
105.6
until 1989
1990-1992
1993-1995
1996-1998
1999-2001
2002-2004
Average annual increase of the budget of the organizations
in the last 3 years – value for a median organization
Chart 15. Average annual increase of the budget of a ‘median’ organization in the
last 3 years
manage their assets, they try to accumulate it, therefore they manage their finances
more maturely than one might judge from their environment. Shortly speaking, these
organizations are more enterprising, which should not come as a surprise, since they
carry out extensive economic activity
2.2.7. Activity in the area of the social economy
• Labour market services
One of the most important reasons for which the debate on the idea of
entrepreneurship is so vivid today are the hopes placed in the social enterprises as the
generators of new services connected with employment and the jobs for the groups
especially vulnerable to difficulties on the open market. Both the experts18 and also
partly the results of the research presented below may prove that the non-governmental
sector is particularly favourable to creating such institutions. It is due both to the
specific features of the sector as a labour market, enabling more work flexibility and
favouring employment of people who are in special situation, as well as because of
the potential role that the social organizations could play as the non-public institutions
providing labour market services.
The use of the word ‘potential’ in relation to the role conveys a certain unsatisfied
feeling, caused by the data on the involvement of the Polish sector in the fight with
the unemployment. About 8% of the organizations are active in the area of the labour
market, while only 3% consider this area the most important from the point of view of
18
See e.g www.bezrobocie.org.pl or: ‘Out of Concern for Employment,’ op. cit.
77
Table 8. Sources of revenue of the non-governmental organizations in Poland
in total and of the SEE
Percentage
of the
organizations
in Poland
Percentage
of the SEE
Membership fees
59.5%
67.5%
Self-government sources (resources of a commune, county or provincial self-government)
43.3%
37.8%
Donations from individuals (except the 1%
revenues)
35.5%
30.0%
Donations from institutions and companies
34.5%
35.8%
Governmental sources (resources of the
ministries, governmental agencies, provincial
governors)
19.6%
24.2%
Interests from bank accounts, endowment fund
yield, deposits, shares
14.4%
31.0%
Fees (reimbursement of costs) from paid statutory activity of the organizations
9.3%
54.5%
Support from other national non-governmental
organizations (in particular foundations)
7.4%
6.7%
Income from campaigns, collections, charity
actions
7.0%
7.7%
Revenues from economic activity
6.9%
53.5%
Revenues from donation of 1% (concerns the
public benefit organizations)
6.0%
9.2%
Donations transferred by another branch of the
same organization
4.6%
5.7%
Support from other foreign non-governmental
organizations
3.5%
3.7%
Income from the assets, e.g. rent of space, lease
of equipment, property rights, etc.
3.2%
10.3%
EU structural funds means (e.g. SOP Human
Resources Development (SPO RZL), The Integrated Regional Operational Program (ZPORR),
LEADER, EQUAL etc.)
3.0%
5.7%
Foreign aid programs (Phare, Sapard, Access,
means of other countries)
2.6%
3.9%
Other sources
7.5%
7.7%
DID YOUR ORGANIZATION USE THE
FOLLOWING SOURCES OF FINANCING
IN 2005?
78
their mission. Most often their activity consists in providing training, career counselling
and services related to more broadly understood social and occupational development.
41% of the labour market organizations (which means about 3,6% of all the
organizations) undertake a more difficult task of creating jobs (permanent, temporary
or supported jobs) and of organizing trainings or internships. These organizations are
probably the first stronghold of the formation of social organizations in Poland – if,
while describing them, one does not start from the theoretical criteria which describe
this type of activity (as it was done in present text) but from the role that the social
enterprises should play as the institutions carrying out social policy, in the imagination
of their promoters.
On the basis of the data on popularity of use of the services of various types
of organizations19 one can estimate that at least 400 000 people a year are the
recipients of the services of labour market organizations, although, judging from the
data presented in the table below, the number is probably higher.
Table 9. Activity of the non-governmental organizations in different areas of labour
market and occupational development services
Percentage
of the
organizations,
active in the
area in the
whole sector
Approximate
number of the
organizations,
which indicated
the area
Approximate
number of the
recipients of the
activity of the
organization in
2005
Labour market,employment, occupational
development
8.8
4600-3200
At least 400 000
Employment agency
1.1
600-400
140 000-96 000
Career counselling
3.6
1900-1300
280 000-198 000
Trainings, professional
courses
3.7
1950-1350
620 000-440 000
Occupational
development (e.g.
psychological training)
3.6
1900-1300
150 000-110 000
Employment, creating
permanent jobs
1.5
800-550
99 000-69 000
AREA OF ACTIVITY
See M. Gumkowska, Wolontariat, filantropia i 1% – raport z badania 2006 (Volunteering,
Philanthropy and 1% - Report from the Research 2006), the Klon/Jawor Association, Warsaw
2006.
19
79
Organizing temporary
work
1
550-400
9 000-6 000
Organizing trainings,
internships
2.1
1100-750
16 500-11 500
Supported jobs,
supported/social
employment
0.3
160-110
900 000-600 000
Services for the labour
market institutions
1.0
500-350
14 000-10 000
Other labour market
and occupational
development services
1.8
950-650
24 000-17 000
Regardless of the current and potential role of the organizations in the active fight
with the unemployment problem, they are, according to many, an interesting ‘niche’ on
the labour market, perhaps particularly well suited to the needs of people potentially
facing discrimination in other sectors. Not denying that this is possible, we should
clearly say though, that so far it is not reflected in the statistics which describe the
participation of such people in the non-governmental labour market, in particular if
we compare this data with the information on the situation in the other third sector
segments. Although about 60% of the organizations which employ paid personnel
employ among them people who due to their age, illnesses, or disabilities belong to the
categories particularly vulnerable to discrimination on the labour market, and 7.3 % of
the organizations use at the same time supported forms of employment, in comparison
to the organizations of economic character and (most of all) to the cooperatives, they
do not turn out to be a ‘safe haven’ for such people at all. The pensioners and retired
people as well as people who are getting close to the retirement age (over 50 years
old) are listed most often among the people vulnerable to discrimination on the labour
market, employed by the organizations. They are employed respectively by 40% and
29% of the organizations, which employ personnel. The results turn out however
not to be so impressive when compared with the statistics for the cooperative sector.
90% of the cooperatives in Poland employ people who are getting close to retirement
age, while 45% of them employ pensioners and retired people. Almost 15% of the
cooperatives also offer employment to disabled people, while in the non-governmental
organizations (the ones that employ personnel at all) this happens almost three times
more rarely.
80
Table 10. Employment in the non-governmental organizations, economic organizations and cooperatives, divided by the categories of employees
CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES
Percentage of the organizations, employing
persons belonging to separate categories (among the organizations employing
personnel)
Non-governmental
organizations
Economic
organizations
Cooperatives
Over 50 years old
39.1
65.2
85.9
Retired or pensioners
28.8
25.5
43.3
Entering the labour market (youth)
18.4
12.5
19.5
Physically disabled
5.0
7.0
13.9
Getting out of long-term unemployment
4.9
1.8
6.3
Working at home due to health reasons
1.9
-
0.5
Recently-arrived in Poland (immigrants,
refugees)
1.3
-
1.0
Working at home due to family reasons
1.0
-
1.1
Unemployed engaged in public works
0.9
2.1
1.4
0.61
-
0.3
0.3
3.4
2.6
0.03
1.8
1.0
Persons:
Returning to the labour market after
serving imprisonment
Mentally disabled
Homeless moving out of homelessness
81
2.2.8. Paid and economic activity of the organizations
In the whole Polish non-governmental sector, 14.6% of the organizations carry
out paid non-profit activity, and 8% carry out economic activity20. The data takes on
a different meaning, if we remember, that in 2004 about 16% of the organizations
declared that they were carrying out business activity, while only a few percent declared
revenues from paid statutory activity (recently introduced at that time). As it seems,
the shift of the organizations towards a paid non-profit activity is the result of a certain
organization of this area, owing to the provisions of the act on the activity of the public
benefit organizations and volunteering. One may hope that the development trend of
self-financing of the organizations, resulting from it, will be maintained in the future,
although at the same time a sudden decrease in the number of the organizations
which declare conducting business activity (originally the appropriate formula for a
“serious” activity, or the activity based on the risk of selling goods or services) may
worry the supporters of economisation of the third sector. It should not worry them too
much, though, as it seems that the 16% from the declarations of the organizations
participating in the 2004 research are partly the effect of the “notional mess” in the
area of paid activity at that time.
Since a small part of the organizations conduct at the same time a business
activity and a paid non-profit activity, the whole set is not a logical sum of the subsets
of the organizations conducting each of these types of activity, but their logical product.
Therefore about 18% of the organizations conduct paid activity or business activity (or
both of them). It means that formally over 80% of them do not act on payment-forservice principle. From the point of view of the demands for stimulation of development
by the self-financing organizations, the otherwise embarrassing fact that the reality is
quite far from this formal picture is consoling.
Almost 40% of the organizations declare that they accept payments for their
services, 23% in a form of membership fees, about 18% (of the organizations officially
conducting paid activity) in a form of partial or total payment for services, 3% in a
form of contracts with public administration and 5% in a form of donations which are
practically a form of payment for services (we may guess that in practice there are
more such cases, but they are not disclosed, as a practice contrary to law).
Let’s move to the data on the activity of these 18% of the ‘formal entrepreneurs.’
As it was said before, in practice only in 1 out of 10 cases the revenues of the
organizations from a paid activity exceed 20% of their total income. The organizations
hardly ever conduct production activity. Most often they focus on training services
and services related to the organization and service of events. Slightly more often the
organizations conduct the editorial activity as well as service and trading activity. If we
take into account the importance of the revenues from fees in the income structure of
the SEE, it should not come as a surprise that in comparison to other organizations
they are more rarely limited to one of these types of activities. As mentioned before,
These results are slightly different from the data on the sources of financing of the activities of
the organizations. We can indicate several reasons for this situation. Probably it is mostly due to
the fact, that a part of the organizations which formally conduct the activity, did not obtain any
income from the activity in a given year. A part of the mistake may come from the incompleteness
of the financial data – usually a small part of the organizations refuse to provide the information
on the subject or are not able to provide it.
20
82
more than half of them operate on training market, while more or less 1 in 5 engage in
the organization of events, editorial activity or service and trading activity.
49.8
Training activity
22.0
Organization
and service of events
23.0
16.3
22.0
Editorial activity
9.8
Services
and trading activity
22.3
8.7
Lease of space
11.0
8.6
13.9
Other
7.7
Tourism or transport activity
15.0
6.2
Production activity
1.3
0
10
20
30
%
40
50
60
of paid activity of the organizations – percentage SEE
Type of paid activity of the organizations – percentage Poland
Chart 16. Type of paid activity or business activity – all the non-governmental
organizations in Poland and the SEE (percentage of the organizations conducting
paid or business activity)
2.2.9. Motivations underlying the economic activity
The data gathered above reflects the statistical picture of the Polish nongovernmental sector in 2006 and gives a certain insight into what the organizations
close to the model of a ‘social enterprise’ (as close as it is possible in our circumstances)
look like in comparison. Certainly, in order to fully describe their specificity one would
need much broader analyses. However, already on the basis of the presented data we
can say that these organizations are substantially different from the others, both on the
account of their general condition or the resources they have at their disposal, as well
as the vitality and ‘aggressiveness’ (aggressiveness defined as the scale and diversity
of the economic activity they undertake,21 and the strategy of assets management and
investment, etc.). In short, they are not only exceptionally large, but also enterprising.
A question arises though, to what extend they are also ‘social,’ therefore whether their
As the statistical analyses have shown, the SEE are prone to conduct more diverse economic
activity (they indicate more areas of such activity), regardless of the size (their size was measured
by reference to the data on their revenues).
21
83
economic activity can be really seen as the instrument to accomplish important social
goals, understood as the primary goals for the organizations themselves, or as the
external ones. At the beginning of the above analyses we made an assumption, that the
correlation between the business activity and the social activity in the case of the nongovernmental organizations is their inherent feature and that the means they obtain
always serve the social purposes – even when in fact they just serve the organizations
themselves. In fact there is nothing wrong with the argumentation. The efforts aiming
at making the organizations independent from the donors or from public means are by
all means worthy of support. It is worth asking a question though, whether in the case
of the ‘social enterprises’ such motives are sufficient and whether these enterprises
should not be more ‘externally oriented’, oriented most of all towards existing problems
other than merely sustaining their own existence. Some of the results of the research
also prove that the question is not purely theoretical. The organizations undertaking
business and paid activity were asked (just like the enterprises participating in the
research, e.g. cooperatives) about their motives for undertaking the activity.
According to their declarations, among the most important motives are:
• Obtaining the maximum possible amount of money to carry out the mission of
the organization or to solve the important problems of the local community,
• Reimbursement of the costs of the statutory activity of the organizations,
• Increasing the financial independence of the organizations, and (more rarely),
• Improvement of the financial status of the members of the organizations.
As we can see, the motivation that in theory is emphasized as one of the basic
characteristics of social entrepreneurship, takes the first place in the hierarchy. What is
interesting though, is the fact that ‘carrying out the mission’ becomes less important,
if we take into account only the organizations which on the basis of other criteria
were considered here as close to the SEE model, namely the ones which obtain a
substantial part of their budget from the sales of goods or services. While among
the organizations conducting economic activity on a smaller scale such motivation
was indicated in 66% of the cases, among the SEE only 42% paid attention to it. In
this group, the reimbursement of the costs related to the business activity was the
most often indicated spur for the economic activity, and the motivation relating to the
mission of the organizations or to the needs of the communities which are vital for
them, was the second most often indicated, ex aequo with the ‘differentiation of the
sources of revenues.
Of course neither the nature of the declarations presented here, nor the number of
the declarations allow us to create particularly bold theses. Should we assume however,
that the declarations reflect, at least partially, the real motives of the organizations
for undertaking the sale of goods or services, we can make a hypothesis that the
more often the organizations in the Polish non-governmental sector use the economic
instruments, the more rarely they are focused on solving social problems using the
instruments.
Should the hypothesis turn out to be true (let us hope that the further research allows
us to verify it), it would mean that the real challenge which makes the implementation
of the idea of the social entrepreneurship in the Polish non-governmental sector difficult,
is not the ‘economisation’ of the non-governmental organizations, but protecting them
from the consequences of it.
84
Table 11. Motives underlying the business/paid activity
the SEE
(%)
Other organizations,
carrying out
paid activity
(%)
Raising the maximum possible amount of financial
means to accomplish the statutory objectives, to solve
the important problems of the local community
41.8
65.8
Reimbursing the costs of the statutory activity
68.5
62.0
Increasing the financial independence of the organization, differentiating the sources of the revenue of the
organization
39.5
36.7
Improving the financial situation of its members/employees
14.4
14.0
Providing services/products, necessary for the functioning of the local community that were not appropriately
provided/delivered before
7.4
8.0
Supporting the development of economic activity of the
representatives of the local community or of certain
groups
5.7
7.4
Delivering good quality products produced by local
producers, basing on proper ethical and environmental
standards
10.6
7.3
Involving its clients in professional activity, creating jobs
for people vulnerable to discrimination on the labour
market
2.8
7.3
Delivering services to its members/employees, suited to
their needs or/and economic possibilities
5.6
6.1
Preventing the situation in which the recipients of our
services/products use them unnecessarily just because
they are provided free of charge
7.8
5.6
Business cooperation between the members of the organization, joint production/ business/trade activity
0.8
5.1
Providing financial assistance to its members in the
event of life’s difficulties or unexpected random incidents
5.4
2.9
Empowerment of its employees – ensuring their bigger
participation in the management process and organization of their working conditions
1.9
1.6
MOTIVES
85
Providing its members with possibilities to save or to
borrow financial means – deposits, credits, loans
Another objective
1.0
0.7
7.2
10.2
In place of the summary:
Transformation of the third sector and the
future of the social entrepreneurship
When reading the data describing the Polish non-governmental sector, we become
aware of how small the area for the development of the organizations matching the
theoretical definition of the SEE is. One in five organizations employ paid personnel,
one in ten obtain more than 20% of their revenues from a formally registered business
or paid activity, less than 1 out of 20 fulfil both these conditions. If we look closely
at other conditions, defining social enterprises, ‘softer,’ but as it seems also the
fundamental ones, such as for instance the focus on using the business activity as an
instrument to directly solve community problems, their number becomes even smaller.
Neither are the organizations any different from the other segments of the thirds sector,
in particular from the cooperatives, as the employers for the social groups which are
especially vulnerable to discrimination on the labour market.
One should therefore make a diagnosis, otherwise not very revealing, that the
social entrepreneurship in Poland is more of a project than the reality, and that one
should look for the examples of the social enterprises active on our market rather with
the use of an Internet search engine than the statistical programs. The fact that the
group of the organizations in the Polish non-governmental sector which are willing to
use economic instruments in their activities seems to be growing can make us happy.
Nothing, however, indicates that in the last two years the number of associations and
foundations undertaking a ‘serious’ business activity, that is to say the activity with a
considerable level of risk, has increased. On the contrary – the results of the research
prove that the institution of a non-profit organization, which from the definition should
have allowed the organizations to develop self-financing strategies without putting
them at risk of the difficulties connected with business activity and without the fear
of negative consequences of economisation, in a sense became the reason for the
withdrawal from the economic activity on a greater scale. With the growth of the
popularity of the mechanism the interest of the organizations in the regular business
activity has clearly decreased. Within two years of introduction of the mechanism
of a paid non-profit activity, 15% of the organizations have decided to engage in it,
while the number of the organizations engaged in business activity decreased by a
half (from 16% to about 9%). The most recent data from the newest research of the
Klon/Jawor Association of 2008 confirm the stability of the tendency. Up to 2008 the
86
percentage of the organizations which declared conducting paid non-profit activity
has increased to 19%, while the percentage of those engaged in business activity has
decreased to 7%. We can therefore say that the ‘loophole’ of the non-profit activity
has in fact stimulated the ‘de-economisation’ of the non-governmental sector – the
statement however would not be probably true, taking into account the fact, that the
increase in the popularity of the non-profit activity is much faster than the decrease
in the popularity of the business activity (or, shortly speaking, the total number of
the non-governmental organizations engaged in one of the two forms of economic
activity grows). We can however assume that it has stimulated the process of the
‘decommercialisation’ of the sector – withdrawal from the formula of activity which
meant (or at least made possible) a substantial involvement in the market activity and
put the organizations in one line with the regular enterprises. Should this process be
evaluated negatively, from the perspective of the social entrepreneurship demands?
The answer is not clear. Certainly, the promoters of social entrepreneurship advertise
the ‘serious’ economisation. In that sense, the proneness of the organizations to use
the formula which theoretically does not have much in common with the transition to
market-oriented economy is not a good news. One may however interpret this liability
not as much as choosing a less ‘market-oriented’ formula, but as the effect of the
regulation of the area which has not been previously regulated. It just seems that the
substantial part of the organizations which previously engaged in business activity did
so not due to their ‘business’ orientation, but because of the absence of a formula that
would make a legal activity on a smaller scale possible. It is not clear, to what extent
the shifting of the organizations towards the non-profit activity really means shifting
towards the activity ‘on a smaller scale.’ The verification of this assumption will be
however possible only when we look at the most recent data from 2008.
It is also difficult to judge, how often the economic activity serves the organizations
as a tool for solving social problems or for stimulating the local development (in
accordance with the assumptions of the social entrepreneurship theory) and how often
it is simply an instrument serving their own sustainment (it does not matter here to
what extent one can be considered equivalent with the other). Looking at the results of
the analyses one cannot help but get the impression that treating the business not only
as the source of financing of the activity of the organizations, but also as the mechanism
of their emancipation is quite a rare strategy in the Polish non-governmental sector. It
is the promotion of the business activity function that should be, as it seems, the main
objective of the strategies aiming at the development of the social economy in the nongovernmental sector. Moreover, we can observe that the greater the extent to which
the Polish organizations engage in entrepreneurship, the more rarely do they treat
it as a tool of social change. Indeed, the research results suggest that the warnings
against the negative consequences of the organizations ‘slipping’ into the market are
not ungrounded – the ones among them that really deserved to be called enterprises,
deserved the least to be called social organizations as well (statistically speaking, of
course) – i.e. the organizations which, when selling services, have other objectives
than their own development. This is at least the diagnosis that appears from the data
from two years ago. We may hope though that since then the ideas connected with
treating the entrepreneurship in itself as a vehicle for social change – the ideas which
were intensively promoted – became more familiar to the Polish non-governmental
sector. We still have to wait however to confirm or to invalidate this hypothesis.
87
3
S
The
ocial Context
of Social Economy
Development in Poland
The Social Context
of Social Economy
Anna Baczko
Marta Gumkowska
Agnieszka Ogrocka
Introduction
Social economy has found a lasting place in the discourse of the non-governmental
and academic communities. There still remains the problem of planting the social
economy idea itself and the type of enterprise it involves in the social consciousness.
Obviously, ‘ethical consumerism’ and social support are among the more important
factors for social economy development. Three aspects of the problem need
considering.
The first aspect concerns the social reception of concepts related to social
economy, such as the social cooperative, the non-governmental organization, the third
sector, corporate social responsibility, the social enterprise, or finally social economy
itself. There needs to be some extent of social understanding of these concepts if the
discussion on social economy is to be taken beyond the narrow group of the academic
community and non-governmental organizations, so that ‘ordinary citizens’ can take
part in it as well.
The second important aspect is cohesion between the ideas that serve to build the
concept of social economy, and social values and attitudes. Social norms and values
form the foundation necessary for social economy enterprises to develop.
The third aspect is the image of the non-governmental sector, and in particular the
perception of its role in solving social problems and, on the other hand, approval for
conducting the third sector’s activity along more economic principles.
The present report summarizes the results of three studies, from the years 2005,
2006 and 2007, commissioned by the Klon/Jawor Associartion.1
1
All the studies were carried out by the research agency SMG/KRC (Millward Brown Company).
91
1. Social economy - reception of the
concepts
1
In the studies discussed here,2 respondents were asked if they were familiar with
the following six concepts: social cooperative, non-governmental organization, third
sector, corporate social responsibility, social enterprise, and social economy. The
respondents could choose one of three answers: ‘I have never heard of this concept’
(classified in the report as ‘lack of contact’), ‘I have heard of this concept, but I’m not
sure what it means’ (classified in the report as ‘recognizability’), and ‘Yes, I know of
the concept and I know what it means’ (classified in the report as ‘familiarity’). The
distributions of ‘familiarity’ and ‘recognizability’ are shown in Table 1.
The share of respondents who know and - according to themselves - understand
all six concepts was no more than 1% (1% in 2007, 0.4% in 2006, and 0.6% in
2005). More than 60% of Polish people do not understand any of the concepts - this
result does not change significantly over time. Around 50% of those polled in 2007
did not recognize any of the concepts (i.e. not only did they not understand them, but
they had never heard of them) - this is 5 percentage points more than in 2005.
Table 1. Familiarity with and recognizability of social economy concepts (number of
concepts indicated)
Indices of
familiarity
with social
economy
concepts
Number of
concepts
indicated
FAMILIARITY
Yes, I know of the concept
and I know what it means
RECOGNIZABILITY
I have heard of this concept,
but I’m not sure what it means
2005
2006
2007
2005
2006
2007
0
62.4
72.9
62.4
43.8
51.8
48.8
1
21.5
15.6
24.7
23.7
23.1
20.5
2
7.4
6.4
6.2
17.4
11.1
12.7
3
4.1
2.5
3.0
8.3
7.1
8.8
4
3.3
1.2
1.5
4.2
4.1
4.0
5
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.5
1.4
2.4
6
0.6
0.4
1.1
1.1
1.4
2.9
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
100
100
Data in %.
Source: Authors’ compilation based on the studies by the Klon/Jawor Association.
In successive studies in 2005-2007, over a thousand people were asked about their familiarity
with social economy concepts (a group of respondents representative of the adult Polish
population).
2
92
Familiarity with and recognizability of the studied concepts is also low - and has
changed only slightly over the past three years (cf. Graph 1). The percentage of Poles
who recognize the concept ‘social cooperative,’ ‘non-governmental organization,’ and
‘corporate social responsibility’ grew by several percentage points between 2005 and
2007, but in the case of the terms ‘third sector’ and ‘social enterprise’ it remained
at the same level, while the percentage of people declaring they had heard the term
‘social economy’ actually dropped. It needs noting, however, that familiarity with and
understanding of the term ‘social economy’ was surprisingly high in 2005 - declared
by as much as 14.1% of Poles, with another 25% saying they had heard of it. As the
authors of the report published at the time pointed out, the term ‘social economy’
sounded familiar to the respondents though the associations it evoked probably had
little in common with the real meaning. It is possible, therefore, that the decreasing
percentage of people recognizing the term ‘social economy’ proves rather that meanings
completely unconnected with the concept are disappearing.
The trends in familiarity with the concepts are even easier to see when the
responses declaring any kind of familiarity (‘I know it and I know what it means,’ and
‘I have heard it, but I’m not sure if I know what to say’) are considered jointly.
Only the term ‘non-governmental organization’ is familiar to more than half the
Poles. The other concepts are known to no more than 30% of those polled, and
the concepts ‘third sector’ and ‘corporate social responsibility’ are particularly poorly
known. In the three years from 2005 to 2007, the level of familiarity changed
insignificantly, with the two aforementioned exceptions: ‘social cooperative’ (increase)
and ‘social economy’ (decrease).
Familiarity with the analysed terms is positively correlated with education and
involvement in community activity: especially in the case of ‘non-governmental
organization’ and ‘third sector,’ the percentage of people who ‘knew’ the term was
higher among those who had had anything to do with such organizations or groups
(encountered them or used their services), and also among those who were members
of such groups, and supported them with voluntary service or money. However, it
is worth noting that 25% of people who had had some form of contact with nongovernmental organizations declared they had never heard the term ‘non-governmental
organization.’ It is similar with the declarations of people who donated any funds to
such organizations or supported them with their work – as much as 20% of donors
and 15% of voluntary workers declared unfamiliarity with the term ‘non-governmental
organization.’
Let us take a closer look at the content spontaneously associated with the
term which is the most interesting in the context of social economy, namely ‘social
enterprise.’ In the 2006 study, an open question was posed, asking respondents
to list their associations (meanings) with this term. Only one in five people listed
any connotations with ‘social enterprise.’ Among the associations, the dominating
expressions are positive, invoking joint effort for the common good or to help others.
Social enterprises also make people think of various ‘institutional’ business or socioeconomic formations: in total almost 4% of those polled associated social enterprises
with cooperatives and companies as well as state enterprises. There seemed to be a
separate tendency for associations with the labour market and employment as well as
welfare assistance – aid for the needy.
93
94
2007
2007
social
economy
2005
declaration of familiarity
nongovernmental
organization
2005
2007
Data in %.
2007
2007
corporate
social
responsibility
2005
it’s hard to say
2007
third sector
2005
lack of contact
social
cooperative
2005
declaration of recognizability
social
enterprise
2005
Graph 1. Familiarity with social economy concepts in 2005-2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
60.7
2007
31.7
2007
27.3
72.7
social
enterprise
2005
29.5
70.5
2007
25.8
74.5
social
cooperative
2005
20.5
79.5
81.3
2007
18.7
third
sector
2005
18.4
81.6
2007
17
83
corporate
social
responsibility
2005
16.3
83.7
combined ‘I know and understand it’ and‘I recognize it but don’t know what it means’ combined “I don’t know it” and “it’s hard to say”
social
economy
2005
38.7 39.3
2007
61.4
nongovernmental
organization
2005
40.8
59.2
68.3
Data in %.
Graph 2. Familiarity with social economy concepts in 2005-2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Table 2. What Poles associate with the term ‘social enterprise’
ASSOCIATIONS
No. of replies
% Poles
%
Replies
60
5.8
33.2
For the sake of common good, helping,
community work, for free
60
5.8%
33.2%
Jointly, voluntarily, a group, together, for
the community
48
4.6%
26.5%
Cooperative, organization, farmers’
association, social company
20
1.9%
11.1%
Employment, jobs for people
17
1.6%
9.2%
State-run
16
1.5%
9.1%
Profit, company
15
1.4%
8.0%
Something bad, communist, corruption,
dishonesty
12
1.2%
6.8%
8
0.8%
4.4%
15
1.4%
8.1%
Aid, welfare
Other
Replies sorted by frequency.
Thus, familiarity with issues of social economy in a broad sense is poor, associations
with ‘familiar-sounding’ terms are quite dispersed, and even some people who have
had contacts with the third sector declare a lack of familiarity with the key concepts
for that sector. One can conclude that even if Polish people are aware of the existence
of different third-sector institutions and social economy as such, they do not think or
speak of them in the language of that same third sector.
96
2
2. Familiarity with enterprises involved in
social actions
Respondents in the studies were also asked about their familiarity with two kinds
of enterprise – those which support charities and the needy, and those which employ
mainly people having serious problems finding a job: disabled, sick, homeless. The
first kind of enterprise is linked to the concept of corporate social responsibility, while
the second kind has a direct connection to social economy, and in particular to social
cooperatives and social enterprises. This was an attempt to check the ‘awareness’
of social economy from another angle – familiarity with actions and not necessarily
terms.
In 2007 almost one in five Poles (18%) said they had had some form of contact
with enterprises supporting charities, and more than 30% said they had heard of them
though they couldn’t remember specific examples. The percentage of people who said
they knew nothing of such enterprises dropped compared to 2005, but this is in fact
only an apparent decrease, given the increased share of people replying ‘It’s hard to
say.’ If these two replies (‘I don’t know of any’ and ‘it’s hard to say’) are considered
jointly, the difference is negligible (in 2005, 45% of Poles knew nothing of this kind
of enterprise, and in 2007 – 47%). The share of people who personally know of
examples of such enterprises, meanwhile, decreased by almost 2 percentage points.
An even smaller percentage of those polled in 2007 declared familiarity with
examples of enterprises that employed people with problems on the labour market
(14%). Moreover, this was a worse result than in 2005, when around 20% of
respondents declared they knew examples of such enterprises.
Table 3. Familiarity with examples of enterprises involved in charity work and employing people with problems on the labour market
Do you personally know
or have you heard of any
examples of enterprises
in Poland which:
support charities, the
needy
employ mainly people
having serious problems
finding a job (disabled,
sick, homeless etc.)
2005
2006
2007
2005
2006
2007
Yes, I personally know
such examples
20.2
10.9
18.4
19.2
10.3
14.5
I have heard such firms
exist though I cannot
remember specific
examples
34.7
33.3
34.3
31
32.1
32.8
No
42.4
47.6
37.7
47.5
51.1
42.6
2.7
8.2
9.7
2.3
6.5
10.2
It’s hard to say
Data in %.
97
Answers regarding social approval for projects related to charity work and supporting
disadvantaged people can be found by analysing the questions posed in the studies
in 2005 and 2006. These included the question whether it was a good idea for such
firms (supporting charities and the needy or employing mainly those having serious
problems finding a job: disabled, sick, homeless etc.) to be established. Insofar as the
2005 study showed general agreement (almost 90% of those polled) that the existence
of such enterprises was a good idea, in 2006 the idea won the approval of 75% of
respondents. This means that social approval for projects linked to charity work and
supporting disadvantaged people dropped by more than 10 percentage points! The
great majority of Poles also said that the state should support the founding of such
firms (almost 88% in 2005 and 76% in 2006). In 2005 Polish people also declared
that if they knew a given enterprise supported charity work or employed mainly people
having serious problems with finding a job, this would have a positive impact on their
consumer decisions – more than 60% would gladly buy products made by such a
company.
Do you think it’s a good idea
to establish such firms? (2006)
35
Do you think it’s a good idea
to establish such firms? (2005)
53
Do you think the founding
of such firms should be
supported by the state? (2006)
35
Do you think the founding
of such firms should be supported
by the state? (2005)
55
0
10
8 2 1 11
44
36
41
51 4
10
41
33
20
30
40
50
60
70
9
6 3 13
80
90
100
%
definitely yes
probably not
probably yes
definitely not
neither yes nor no
it’s hard to say
Graph 3. Approval for enterprises which support people unable to get a job elsewhere (e.g. the homeless, disabled, long-term unemployed) and for the state’s
support for such enterprises (2005-2006)
Data in %.
98
3
3. Consumer behaviours
Thanks to the activity of consumer movements, citizens more and more often
understand that they have a substantial influence on reality by making responsible
choices during everyday shopping. A responsible consumer is a consumer who makes
conscious, wise, and ethical purchases, which means buying in a way which not only
satisfies one’s material needs but also supports responsible companies guided not just
by economic principles, but also environmental, social or ethical ones.3 The results of
studies on consumer attitudes in Poland show, however, that Poles choose products
primarily according to the criteria of price and quality. Responsible and conscious
consumers are an important partner for social enterprises.
To investigate the potential demand for social economy products, respondents in
the study were asked to choose 5 criteria they considered important and applied when
shopping.4 The study showed that Polish consumers choose products mainly for their
price (90% in 2005 and 85% in 2007) and also quality (75% in both 2005 and
2007). The product brand is an important factor when deciding on a purchase for half
the Poles (the importance of brands grew by 2 percentage points from 2005). Every
third Pole admits that whether a product was made in Poland is important to them
(37% in 2005 and 33% in 2007). This is the only relatively widespread criterion of
a social nature, mentioned the most often by older people – therefore one can guess
that it is not a question of intentional or conscious support for Polish manufacturers for
social reasons, but rather the effect of an attachment to certain well-known products or
brands. The product choice criteria interesting in the context of social economy, such
as the ethical and socially responsible conduct of manufacturers, their involvement
in charity work, and also respect for employees, similarly to 2005 are of marginal
importance and do not affect the decisions of the great majority of consumers.
www.mlodykonsument.pl/
In 2005 and 2006 respondents were asked what most often influenced them recently when they
were deciding what to buy, while in 2007 they were asked what influenced them recently when
they were deciding what to buy. Despite the changed emphasis in the question, no significant
difference in the Poles’ replies were reported.
3
4
99
Table 4. Factors influencing Polish people’s shopping decisions
% of
replies
2005
% of
replies
2006
% of
replies
2007
Price
90.5
86.8
85.1
Quality
74.8
69.9
74.8
Brand
47.8
47.3
50.0
Whether the product is polish
36.1
28.5
32.8
Whether the manufacturer respects the environment
9.7
7.6
8.6
Whether the product was made locally
5.7
5.2
7.0
5.8
4.1
5.7
5.7
3.4
4.5
Whether the manufacturer respects employees
5.4
4.7
4.1
Whether the manufacturer employs people in
need of special support on the labour market
6.6
3.0
2.1
Other
0.9
0.9
2.0
It’s hard to say
1.4
6.0
5.8
FACTORS AFFECTING SHOPPING DECISIONS
Whether the manufacturer behaves ethically
(e.G. Does not hire child labour, does not break
the law)
Whether the manufacturer is involved in charity
work
4
4. At the source of social economy
– self-organization and inclination
to cooperate in the Polish society
Attempting to produce a cohesive image of the social context of social economy
requires a closer look at the foundation on which it develops. Unless they are anchored
in the values and activities present in society, social economy projects have no chance
of success. The source of such values is found in non-formalized acts of mutual
assistance, where people living in a local area help one another, do things together,
cooperate for the common good.
Respondents were given a number of questions concerning mutual support. They
were asked about their participation in such actions as joint purchases of equipment,
mutual assistance in organizing care or lending one another money, and also whether
they took advantage of various forms of assistance and who provided such assistance.
The third group of questions concerned institutions to which people should apply if
they wanted to organize something in their community, e.g. an event or campaign of
some kind.
100
4.1. Joint actions - declarations
Polish people think it is worth working together. In 2005 the respondents were
asked to indicate which opinion they most agreed with on a 7-point scale, where ‘1’
meant ‘acting together usually means achieving more than acting alone,’ while ‘7’
denoted ‘getting involved in joint actions usually brings more losses than benefits.’
Answering this question, the great majority of those polled supported the first view –
as much as 48.3% pointed to reply ‘1,’ while a total of 77.5% indicated replies 1,
2, or 3. Belief in the value of cooperation is correlated with a belief in other people’s
honesty and good intentions: whereas among all those polled, 48% declare that ‘acting
together means achieving more than acting alone,’ among those who also agree with
the sentence that ‘I usually assume that the people I meet in life are honest and have
good intentions,’ such a declaration is made by 68%.5
Table 5. Declared support for joint actions
DATA from
a study byA:
CBOS
CBOS
The Klon/Jawor
Association
CBOS
2002
2004
2005
2006
Yes
78
74
78
77
No
9
14
7
11
13
12
4
12
It’s hard to say
‘Do Poles Show a Predisposition to Social Work for the Benefit of their Community? Report from
the CBOS Study,’ Warsaw 2008, http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2008/K_014_08.PDFData
in %.
A
In this context it is worth mentioning a CBOS study on Poles’ predisposition to
cooperation and voluntary work, which included a question on belief in the effectiveness
of working for the local community.6 According to the results, the number of people who
say that ‘people like me acting together with others can help the needy or solve some
of the problems of their community, housing estate, village, or town’ has been growing
steadily since 2002. The percentage was 50% in 2002, 54% in 2004, 63% in 2006,
and 65% in 2008. The percentage of people sharing the opposite view, that ‘people
like me, even acting together with others, cannot help the needy or solve the problems
of their community, housing estate, village, or town’, decreased consistently from 38%
in 2002 to 26% four years later. According to the results from January 2008, the
percentage dropped by another percentage point. These results prove that the sense
Cf. M. Gumkowska, J. Herbst, J. Huszcz, Społeczny kontekst rozwoju ekonomii społecznej
w Polsce – raport z badania 2005 (Social Context of Social Economy Development in Poland –
Report from Research 2005), The Klon/Jawor Association, Warsaw 2006.
5
101
of civic helplessness is diminishing. This fact is worth noting because believing
in one’s own ‘causative powers’ is a key factor for the development of all forms of
civic or social activity.7 In terms of social economy issues, it is especially interesting to
note the growing percentage of people prepared to cooperate in conducting business
operations. In 2002 39%, in 2004 47%, and in 2006 42% of those polled said they
knew someone from outside their family whom they would be prepared to take on as
a business partner.8
4.2. Joint actions and mutual assistance
Given such positive declarations, it is surprising that so few people put them into
practice. The respondents were asked about different kinds of activities undertaken
over the past year together with a group of other people (neighbours, friends, coworkers). Before we move on to the results, it is worth noting that in this question,
people were asked about very specific areas/types of co-operation; we did our best to
provide as complete a list as possible, but of course it cannot be exhaustive (compare
Graph 4 and Table 10). This is why the index reflecting the Poles’ general inclination
to cooperate with others could be underestimated.
While remembering the above reservations, it needs saying that the great majority
of Poles were not involved voluntarily in any joint action over the past year. A positive
answer was given by just 32% of respondents. Moreover, this result is a continuation
of a downward trend (which cannot be explained by an incomplete list of actions
mentioned in the question, as this remained practically unchanged in successive
years). In 2005 as much as 47% of those polled declared they had been involved
in joint actions. A year later the percentage had dropped by 5 percentage points, to
42.3%. Right now we are observing an even greater decrease – by 10 percentage
points.
The respondents were also asked if they had used the help of people from outside
their household in a number of everyday matters over the past year: cooking, doing the
shopping, cleaning, household chores; household repairs and renovations (e.g. fittings,
furniture, home, car etc.); caring for their child/children; caring for the sick or elderly;
running official errands; cash or non-cash aid.
This provided information not only on people’s active participation in joint actions,
but also on ‘self-help’ structures. It also seems important to whom the respondents
turn in the case of the aforementioned problems – whether the key role is played by
institutions (and if so, whether these are state or local-government institutions, or
social institutions or the church), or if Poles are more inclined to turn to a network of
informal contacts.
Generally speaking, Poles seldom use the help of others – a positive answer to the
above question in any category was given by just 22.1%. Among people who do use
help, the great majority chose informal forms of assistance – 52.8% turned to their
From: M. Gumkowska, J. Herbst, J. Huszcz, Social Context ..., op. cit.
Więzi społeczne i współpraca z innymi ludźmi, komunikat z badań (Social Ties and Cooperation
with Other People. Report from the Research), Warsaw, 2006.
7
8
102
2007
68.3
31.7
2006
57.2
42.8
2005
53.3
46.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
not involved
involved
Graph 4. Percentage of people involved and not involved in joint actions
in 2005-2007
friends, acquaintances or neighbours, almost as much (51.4%) used the help of a
family member who was not a member of their household. A much smaller number
of people chose institutionalised forms of assistance – 5.4% had been helped by the
social welfare service, 3% by their parish, and just 2.1% turned to the administration
of their district, county or town. 6.7% decided to hire paid domestic help or a nurse.
Table 6. Whom did the Poles ask for help?
PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS
%
A family member who was not a member of the household
51.4
Friends, neighbours, acquaintances
52.8
Hired domestic help or a nurse
6.7
Someone from a social welfare institution
5.4
Someone from the parish/church
3
Someone from the district, county or town administration
2.1
Someone else
4.1
Replies sorted by frequency
103
If they use help at all, Poles first of all ask family and friends for it. Informal
assistance networks dominate. In rare cases, someone from a social welfare service
is called in, and this happens exclusively in cases involving caring for the elderly
and cash or non-cash assistance. The respondents practically never go to the local
administration. Interestingly, they are also seldom helped by people from the church
or parish.
The above results contrast with the Poles’ declarations about the people and
institutions one should apply to for help if one wanted to organize an event in one’s
community, such as a festival, a fundraising event for charity, or a clean-up campaign.
Almost half of those polled would go to the town or district administration. 18.2%
would choose their church or parish. The percentage was not much lower for a local
social organization. Neighbours and friends were only fourth in line (15.4%).
Table 7. People and institutions to which one should turn for help when one wants
to organize an event in the local community
PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS
%
Town/district administration
46.1
Church, parish
18.2
Local social organization
17.8
Neighbours, friends
15.4
Social welfare centre
14.1
Local entrepreneurs
10.8
School
9.1
Someone else (who?)
2.6
I don’t remember/it’s hard to say
22.0
These results prove two things. First of all, they show that Poles are more likely to
turn to family and friends with everyday, common problems. With more complicated
matters, when something needs to be organized, they are more likely to turn to formal
institutions. On the other hand, it needs noting that the question on using help with
everyday matters referred to real experience of receiving assistance, whereas the
question on organizing events remains in the sphere of declarations, which could
affect the results. Probably, if we asked about actual events and their organization, the
percentage of people indicating informal contacts would have been higher. This is also
confirmed by the very high percentage of ‘It’s hard to say’ replies – as much as 22% of
Poles would not know where to go with the matter in hand. This shows people’s poor
knowledge of the possibilities to do things.
104
4.3. Involvement in the activity of social
organizations – voluntary service, philanthropy,
and membership of social organizations
As part of the study, respondents spoke of their involvement in the activity of social
organizations. Three aspects of such involvement were considered: voluntary service,
philanthropy, and membership of social organizations. Involvement in key areas for the
development of social economy in Poland is especially worth noting. In the study from
2005 and 2006 respondents were asked about several types of organizations directly
connected with social economy, including organizations and groups of producers,
groups fostering economic cooperation (e.g. agricultural producer groups, organizations
of entrepreneurs, breeders, growers), cooperative banks, cooperative savings or loan
associations, etc. Due to people’s low level of activity in such organizations, in 2007
the scope of organizations about which respondents were asked was narrowed
down, but the new data allowed some interesting changes in overall involvement in
organizations to be traced.
Below are the definitions of voluntary service and philanthropy used in the study:
• Voluntary service means devoting time to voluntary unpaid work at nongovernmental organizations, social and religious movements.
• Philanthropy is the contribution of money or gifts to non-governmental
organizations, social or religious groups or movements.
4.3.1. Voluntary service
The study results suggest a visible crisis of voluntary service. In 2007 just 13.2%,
or around 4 million adult Poles devoted their time to unpaid work for organizations or
groups. Compared to the previous year, this was a drop of 9 points in the percentage of
volunteers. The change has been particularly visible over the past 7 years. In the first
two studies (2001 and 2002) the percentage of those who declared they devoted time
or labour to at least one non-governmental organization was low, at 10% and 11.1%
respectively. 2003 saw a change in the Poles’ attitude towards voluntary service –
the percentage of volunteers rose by more than a half. This trend continued until
2005, when the percentage of volunteers reached 23.2%. Today we are witnessing
a reversal of the trend. The first sign was a small drop of 2 points in 2006.9 Data
from 2007 on voluntary service confirm this was not a coincidence, but an evident
downward tendency – unpaid, voluntary time devoted to working for non-governmental
organizations, social and religious movements was declared by just 13.2% of Poles.
This tendency is very disturbing – the scale of voluntary service among Polish people
diagnosed in the latest study is getting dangerously close to the 2001 and 2002 level.
However, before we can unequivocally say that the Poles are less and less active and
that civil society is weakening, we need to exercise caution and take into account a
Cf. M. Gumkowska, J. Herbst, Wolontariat, filantropia i 1% – raport z badania 2006,
(Volunteering, Philanthropy and 1% – Report from the Research 2006), the Klon/Jawor
Association, Warsaw 2006.
9
105
number of circumstances. On the one hand, one cannot deny that the problem has been
noticed by non-governmental organizations - a shortage of people prepared to commit
themselves to selfless activity is felt by every second organization. It is also confirmed
by other studies, including Diagnoza Społeczna/Social Diagnosis, according to which
14.1% of adult Poles were involved in work for the local community in the past year.
On the other hand, we need to remember that voluntary service is influenced not only
by people’s pro-social attitudes but also by the economic and structural situation.
The past two years have seen two important and largely correlated changes which
could have a significant impact on the cited results. They are: intensifying migration
processes, and decreasing unemployment. As a result fewer people, especially among
the young, will seek to facilitate their entry onto the labour market by taking part in
voluntary service (e.g. as a means of gaining professional experience).
13.2
25
23.2
21.9
20
16.9
17.9
18.3
14.2
15
%
10
10.0
12.6
13.0
Dec.
2007
Jan.
2008
11.1
5
0
Oct.
2001
Oct.
2002
Jun.
2003
Oct.
2003
Dec.
2004
Nov.
2005
Nov.
2006
Nov.
2007
Graph 5. Percentage of volunteers among adult Poles10
The aforementioned crisis of the Poles’ civic activity is also clearly visible in the case
of data on the different types of non-governmental organizations which were helped by
the volunteers. For the great majority of types of such institutions, the percentage of
people declaring they had devoted their time or unpaid work to them visibly dropped.
Compared to 2006, the greatest changes are observed in voluntary service at charity
The question on voluntary service in 2007 was asked in five waves of the study ‘Wolontariat,
filantropia i 1%’ (Volunteering, Philanthropy and 1%), with around 1,000 people surveyed
in each wave, who can be divided into 3 subgroups studied in 3 months - November 2007,
December 2007, and January 2008. At the same time, the samples from the waves jointly form
a sample of more than 5 000 respondents.
10
106
organizations which help the poorest people or the homeless, which were ‘leaders’
in 2003, attracted a record 7.8% of Poles selflessly committed to working for them
in 2006, but last year lost about two-thirds of their volunteers (in 2007, just 2.5%
Poles supported them). At the same time, it needs stressing that these are still the
organizations which attract the largest percentage of volunteers.
A high position is also enjoyed by religious organizations and movements, parish
communities and missions, which were supported by the voluntary work of 2% of
Poles, though this was the lowest level of such support in 5 years. The results for
the following organizations are similar to last year’s: educational organizations (2%),
sports organizations (1.6%), and the volunteer fire service and other rescue services
(GOPR - mountain rescue, WOPR - water rescue, etc.) (1.4%).
The aforementioned several types of organizations whose popularity is especially
important from the point of view of social economy (e.g. organizations and groups
of producers, organizations fostering economic cooperation, cooperative banks,
cooperative savings or loan associations) had very poor results in 2005 (from 0.1 to
0.4%). Things were similar a year later, changes were insignificant.
Table 8. Voluntary service in non-governmental organizations, social and religious
movements (respondents could indicate all the types of organization/group to which
they devoted their time)
2003
2004A
2005B
2006
2007C
Charity organizations helping the poorest people, the
homeless
3.3
2.5
4.3
7.8
2.5
Religious organizations and
movements, parish communities, missions
2.3
2.9
3.7
3.2
2.0
Educational organizations, education and care of children and
young people (including parentteacher associations, support
for educational establishments)
4.3
2.2
1.7
2.2
2.0
Sports organizations (e.g.
sports clubs and associations)
1.4
2.4
1.3
1.9
1.6
Volunteer Fire Service, GOPR
(mountain rescue), WOPR
(water rescue) etc.
1.9
2.2
3.3
1.7
1.4
Organizations for ecology, environmental protection, animal
care
1.4
1.3
1.8
1.8
1.1
107
Local communities (e.g.
neighbourhood associations,
road construction committees,
tenants’ associations, residents’
councils etc.)
0.2
0.9
1.6
0.5
1.1
Scientific, cultural organizations
(e.g. artistic associations, choirs, orchestras, dance groups
etc.)
1
1
0.7
0.6
0.9
Youth organizations (scouting
and guiding, student associations)
0.4
0.6
1
0.2
0.7
Organizations dealing with humanitarian aid, helping victims
of natural disasters in Poland
and abroad
0.2
0.1
1.3
1.4
0.6
Organizations for health care
or rehabilitation of the disabled
(including support for medical
units)
1.2
1.2
1.4
0.8
0.6
Organizations for tourism and
recreation (e.g. tourist societies,
angling societies, allotment
societies, hunting societies etc.)
1.1
1.1
1.5
0.1
0.6
Organizations dealing with job
seeking or careers, including
helping the unemployed,
holding training courses, hiring
people with limited opportunities on the labour market
-
-
0.3
0.6
0.5
Hobby organizations (e.g.
stamp-collector societies etc.)
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.5
Organizations of veterans,
senior citizens, pensioners
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
Trade unions
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.1
0.4
Women’s organizations (e.g.
Polish Women’s League, farmer’s wives’ associations)
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.1
0.4
Self-help movements and organizations (e.g. for alcoholics,
the jobless, the disabled etc.)
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
108
Professional self-governments
and chambers, guilds, employers’ organizations
0.2
0.2
0.3
0
0.3
Political parties, groups, and
movements
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.2
Organizations dealing with
fighting against corruption, civic
control over the administration’s
activity, increasing politicians’
accountability to voters
-
-
0.6
0.3
0.2
Organizations protecting local
traditions and customs, folklore
(e.g. regional societies)
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
Social movements, actions with
a broad reach, campaigns addressed to wide citizen groups
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.2
Formal or informal mutual trust
institutions - member initiatives
for mutual financial or non-cash
assistance, based on mutuality
among members
-
-
0.1
0.5
-
Cooperative banks, cooperative
savings or loan associations
-
-
0.4
0.2
-
Cooperatives (excluding housing
cooperatives)
-
-
0.1
0.2
-
Organizations and groups of
producers, groups fostering
economic cooperation (e.g. groups of agricultural producers,
organizations of entrepreneurs,
breeders, growers)
-
-
0.4
0.1
-
0.3
0.9
1.1
1.2
0.4
Other
Data based on a representative sample of 4 000 adult Poles.
From 2005, the question encompassed 6 new categories of social organizations and groups
(including cooperatives and cooperative banks, groups of producers, mutual trust institutions as
well as organizations active in the labour market or counteracting corruption). This change could
have slightly affected the growth of voluntary service in 2005, but by no more than around 1-1.5
percentage points.
C
Several categories of organizations were withdrawn from the question in the 2007 study: formal or informal mutual trust institutions - member initiatives for mutual financial or non-cash
A
B
109
assistance, based on mutuality among the members; cooperative banks, cooperative savings or
loan associations, cooperatives (except housing cooperatives), and organizations and groups of
producers, groups fostering economic cooperation. This change could have slightly affected the
differences in results from 2006 and 2007.
4.3.2. Philanthropy - donations to non-governmental
organizations
In 2007 just 25%, or around 7.5 million Poles declared they had made cash or
non-cash donations to non-governmental organizations, social or religious groups and
movements. This means we are witnessing a continuation of the downward trend from
2006, when philanthropy results dropped below the 2003 level. This year the result
has dropped by another 6 percentage points.
45
41.8
39.2
40
33.4
35
31.5
30
25.5
25
20
15
10
10
11.1
2001
2002
5
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Graph 6. Percentage of donors among adult Poles
This change is also visible when we look at the individual types of organizations
the Poles support. The first five in this year’s study is similar to 2006. Traditionally,
Poles donate money to organizations helping the poorest people and the homeless,
though it’s worth noting that this category of organizations was indicated by just 12%
110
of those polled in 2007, or 4.7 percentage points less than in the previous year. Second
place with 5.4% and a drop of around 2 points went to religious organizations and
movements, parish communities, and missions. There was no change in the number of
Poles supporting organizations providing humanitarian aid and assisting the victims of
natural disasters. Next came organizations connected with health care and education
(3% and 2.5% respectively – no great change compared to the previous year).
Table 9. Philanthropy in non-governmental organizations, social and religious
movements
PHILANTHROPY
IN NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS, SOCIAL
AND RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS
2003
2004A
2005B
2006
2007C
Charity organizations helping the poorest
people, the homeless
16.1
20.3
19.7
16.7
12.0
Religious organizations and movements,
parish communities, missions
9.2
7.9
11.2
7.3
5.4
Organizations dealing with humanitarian
aid, helping victims of natural disasters in
Poland and abroadD
1
1.4
10.7
5.1
5.1
Organizations for health care or rehabilitation of the disabled (including support for
medical units)
6.1
6.8
5.8
2.8
3.0
Educational organizations, education and
care of children and young people (including parent-teacher associations, support
for educational establishments)
4.4
2.7
4.1
3.4
2.5
Organizations for ecology, environmental
protection, animal care
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.8
1.5
Volunteer Fire Service, GOPR (mountain
rescue), WOPR (water rescue) etc.
1.7
1.3
2.6
1
1.2
Social movements, actions with a broad
reach, campaigns addressed to wide
citizen groups
4.2
3.3
0.7
0.9
1.2
Sports organizations (e.g. sports clubs
and associations)
0.6
1.2
0.6
1.2
0.8
Local communities (e.g. neighbourhood
associations, road construction committees, tenants’ associations, residents’
councils etc.)
0.1
0.2
1.1
0.4
0.8
111
Organizations dealing with job seeking or
careers, including helping the unemployed, holding training courses, hiring people
with limited opportunities on the labour
market
-
-
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.6
Organizations for tourism and recreation
(e.g. tourist societies, angling societies,
allotment societies, hunting societies etc.)
1
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.5
Organizations of veterans, senior citizens,
pensioners
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.5
Youth organizations (scouting and guiding,
student associations)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
Hobby organizations (e.g. stamp-collector
societies etc.)
0.2
0.3
0.3
0
0.4
Self-help movements and organizations
(e.g. for alcoholics, the jobless, the disabled etc.)
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
Trade unions
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
Women’s organizations (e.g. Polish Women’s League, farmer’s wives’ associations)
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
Organizations protecting local traditions
and customs, folklore (e.g. regional
societies)
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
Organizations dealing with fighting against
corruption, civic control over the administration’s activity, increasing politicians’
accountability to voters
-
-
0.1
0.1
0.3
Professional self-governments and chambers, guilds, employers’ organizations
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
Political parties, groups, and movements
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
0.2
Other
0.9
2.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
Scientific, cultural, artistic organizations
(e.g. artistic associations, choirs, orchestras, dance groups etc.)
A
As the table shows, from 2005 people were asked about 2 new categories of organizations
(organizations active on the labour market, and those fighting against corruption). This change
could have slightly affected the growth of philanthropy in 2005, but by no more than 0.5 percentage points.
B
112
Several categories of organizations were withdrawn from the question in the 2007 study: formal or informal mutual trust institutions - member initiatives for mutual financial or non-cash
C
In 2005 the description of this type of organization was simplified; in 2003 and 2004 it
read: ‘organizations helping people and institutions outside Poland (e.g. living in other countries,
victims of disasters, wars, etc.).’ The concept of ‘humanitarian aid’ is more easily recognizable
to Poles, and this could explain the sudden increase in mentions of this type of organization.
However, the fact that in 2005 10.7% of Poles supported these organizations financially cannot
be explained by methodological changes alone. It’s worth mentioning their involvement in helping
the victims of the tsunami - the Polish Humanitarian Organization (PAH) alone collected around
PLN 2 864.5 million from individual donors (about 30% of the total amount PAH collected for
the tsunami victims - around PLN 9.5 million).
D
4.3.4. Membership of non-governmental
organizations, social and religious movements
The year 2007 saw a very visible drop in the number of people declaring membership
of non-governmental organizations, social or religious groups and movements. Just
13%, or 4 million adult Poles, admitted to such membership. This was the lowest
percentage over the past 5 years. Compared to 2006, these organizations lost as many
as 2.7 million members. This change means an actual drop in formal membership of
such organizations or at least a significant waning of identification with organizations
to which Poles still formally belong.
Analysing the declarations concerning different types of organizations, we can see
which of them have lost the most members. For years, the largest number of Polish
people have declared they are members of religious organizations and movements
(2.4%), sports organizations (1.8%), and rescue services (fire service, WOPR – water
rescue team, GOPR – mountain rescue team, etc.) which are mentioned by 1.6% of
Poles, but even in these cases the percentage of people declaring membership of their
structures diminished. The greatest loss, however, was that of charity organizations
helping the poorest people and the homeless – the percentage of Poles who were
members dropped by 4.5 percentage points.
Membership of formal or informal mutual trust institutions, cooperative banks,
cooperative savings or loan associations, cooperatives as well as organizations and
groups of producers or groups fostering economic cooperation, was minimal.
113
25
22.8
22.4
20.3
20
17.5
15
13.2
10
5
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Graph 7. Percentage of people declaring membership of a non-governmental
organization, religious or social group or movement
Table 10. Membership of non-governmental organizations, social and religious
movements
MEMBERSHIP OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, SOCIAL AND
RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS
Percentage
of adult
Poles
2004A
2005B
2006
2007C
(respondents could indicate all the
types of organization/group of which
they were a member)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Religious organizations and movements, parish communities, missions
2.6
3.4
4
3.2
2.4
Sports organizations (e.g. sports clubs
and associations)
2.2
3
1.4
2.2
1.8
Volunteer Fire Service, GOPR (mountain rescue team), WOPR (water rescue
team) etc.
1.7
2.5
3.4
1.7
1.6
Organizations for tourism and recreation (e.g. tourist societies, angling
societies, allotment societies, hunting
societies etc.)
1.9
2.1
1.5
1.3
1.1
114
Educational organizations, education
and care of children and young people
(including parent-teacher associations,
support for educational establishments)
2.3
1.9
1.3
1.5
1.1
Trade unions
2.6
2.3
1.8
0.4
1.1
Local communities (e.g. neighbourhood
associations, road construction committees, tenants’ associations, residents’
councils etc.)
0.1
1.2
1.7
0.5
1.0
Charity organizations helping the
poorest people, the homeless
1.3
1.4
1.3
5.3
0.8
Organizations of veterans, senior citizens, pensioners
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.8
Youth organizations (e.g. scouting and
guiding, student associations)
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.7
Hobby organizations (e.g. stamp-collector societies etc.)
0.6
1
0.4
0.1
0.6
Scientific, cultural, artistic organizations (e.g. artistic associations, choirs,
orchestras, dance groups etc.)
0.9
1.3
0.5
0.7
0.6
Organizations for health care or
rehabilitation of the disabled (including
support for medical units)
0.5
0.9
1.2
0.9
0.5
Women’s organizations (e.g. Polish
Women’s League, farmer’s wives’
associations)
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
Political parties, groups, and movements
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
Organizations for ecology, environmental protection, animal care
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.5
0.4
Organizations dealing with humanitarian aid, helping victims of natural
disasters in Poland and abroad
-
0.2
0.4
1.3
0.4
Professional self-governments and
chambers, guilds, employers’ organizations
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
115
Organizations helping with job seeking
or careers
-
-
0.2
0.2
0.3
Self-help movements and organizations
(e.g. for alcoholics, the jobless, the
disabled etc.)
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
-
-
0,0
0,3
0,2
Social movements, actions with a broad reach, campaigns addressed to wide
citizen groups
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
Organizations protecting local traditions
and customs, folklore (e.g. regional
societies)
0.2
0.2
0
0.2
0.0
Cooperative banks, cooperative savings
or loan associations
-
-
1.1
1
-
Formal or informal mutual trust institutions (e.g. mutual insurance)
-
-
0
0.4
-
Cooperatives, excluding housing
cooperatives
-
-
0.4
0.2
-
Organizations and groups of producers,
groups fostering economic cooperation
(e.g. groups of agricultural producers,
organizations of entrepreneurs, breeders, growers)
-
-
0.3
0.1
-
0.4
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.3
Organizations dealing with fighting
against corruption, civic control over
the administration’s activity, etc.
Other
In 2005 the question encompassed 6 new categories of social organizations and groups
(including cooperatives and cooperative banks, groups of producers, mutual trust institutions as
well as organizations active in the labour market or counteracting corruption). This change could
have slightly affected the growth of membership in 2005, but by no more than around 1-1.5
percentage points.
C
Several categories of organizations were withdrawn from the question in the 2007 study:
formal or informal mutual trust institutions - member initiatives for mutual financial or non-cash
A
B
116
5. Social economy versus the attitudes
of Poles
5
An important element in the diagnosis of Poland’s non-profit sector, and of the
chances for the development of social economy projects in the third sector, is the social
reception of these kinds of initiatives, and to what extent the values and activities on
which they are founded are shared and undertaken by Poles.11 The study results show
that Poles’ views on social activity, their assessment of the work of non-governmental
organizations, and also values important to them, could be a problem and a barrier to
popularising social economy. Below are the results of studies from the past few years
on attitudes towards specific aspects of the activity of social economy institutions, and
towards their potential role in solving social problems.
5.1. Opinions on non-governmental organizations
Though the image of these organizations and opinions about them improved slightly
in 2007, the Poles’ attitude towards the third sector is still not particularly favourable,
though some aspects of the organizations’ work were given slightly higher marks than
the year before. For example, the view is spreading that social organizations have
an influence on solving social problems, as is the opinion that non-governmental
organizations play a positive role in controlling the actions of the state authorities.
Moreover, the opinion that the non-governmental sector is badly organized in Poland
continues to lose popularity. The year 2007 also saw the start of another increase in
the percentage of Poles who think non-governmental organizations solve important
problems in the nearest neighbourhood (growth by 4 percentage points). At the same
time, though, recent years have seen plummeting assessments of the value of social
work. Whereas in earlier years as much as 80% of Poles were inclined to agree that
‘voluntary workers can offer something which cannot be provided by paid staff’ (2005),
in 2007 only 54% of Poles agreed with this opinion.
Compared to Polish people’s opinions in previous years, 2006 also saw a significant
drop in the percentage of people recognizing social organizations as being more
effective in providing assistance than state institutions. In 2005, 58% of respondents
agreed with this view, and just 50% agreed in 2006. The Poles’ view changed little in
2007 (growth by 2 percentage points compared to 2006).
11
M. Gumkowska, J. Herbst, J. Huszcz, Social Context..., op. cit., p. 15.
117
84.0
58.4
54.0
Social organizations are usually
more effective in
providing aid than
state institutions
Social organizations
(associations,
foundations etc.)
generally have
little influence on
solving important
social problems in
Poland
I agree (definitely and
probably combined)
Voluntary workers
can offer something which cannot be provided
by paid staff
POLES’
OPINIONS ON
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
I definitely agree
159
17.6
45.2
I probably agree
38.1
40.9
38.9
18.9
19
9.1
I neither agree nor
disagree
I probably disagree
14.1
8.6
2.6
I definitely disagree
2.4
2.4
0.8
It’s hard to say
0.6
11.6
3.4
44.1
50.0
50.5
I definitely agree
8.2
10.9
10.9
I probably agree
35.9
39.1
39.6
2006
22.3
22.4
22.1
15.4
7.9
8.8
I probably disagree
Percentage of adult Poles
I neither agree nor
disagree
2005
probably combined)
Table 11. Poles’ opinions on non-governmental organizations (2005-2007)
2.5
1.9
2.1
It’s hard to say
15.8
17.7
16.4
probably combined)
45.1
51.9
54.4
I definitely agree
8.3
12.8
14
I probably agree
36.8
39.2
40.5
2007
24
24.8
22.8
I neither agree nor
disagree
118
I probably disagree
15.5
8.3
8.9
2.2
1.4
0.9
13.3
13.6
13
It’s hard to say
119
46.7
30.4
28.8
Social organizations play a major
role in “keeping
an eye on the
authorities”
Social organizations (associations, foundations) are usually
badly organized
and unprofessional
Social organizations (associations, foundations
etc.) solve
important social
problems in my
neighbourhood
5.6
10.1
13.7
20.3
23.2
20.3
33.1
32.6
16
23.8
17.7
15.8
29
24.5
18
13.5
12.9
4.1
5.1
1.9
13.5
17.1
12.5
16
26.0
29.2
43.0
48.0
3
5.9
10.1
12.8
52.8
Misappropriation
of funds and
self-interest are
frequent practices
in social organizations
23
23.3
32.9
35.2
20.5
26.3
24.9
21.3
23.9
18.2
10.9
9.9
9.4
3.8
3.2
1.4
20.2
22.5
18
19.5
30.7
28.1
49.1
45.2
5.8
6.9
9.5
11.8
24.9
21.2
39.6
33.4
26.9
28.8
22.5
24.7
21
19.7
11.4
10.9
6.5
4.8
1.9
2.6
15
18.7
15.2
16.7
5.2. Opinions on the business activities
of non-governmental organizations
Non-profit organizations, as their name suggests, work not for financial gain, but
for the sake of a social mission. If they need money to fulfil that mission, they may
apply for funds and perhaps obtain them – from the state, local government, private
funders, donors (sometimes the organization’s members).
This is the mode of operation the organizations themselves are used to, as are the
people benefiting from their activities, and public opinion. Also, because the problems
these organizations deal with usually concern groups marginalized in some way or
in danger of marginalization, it seems natural that they do not charge fees from the
people who benefit.
All these assumptions and views do not serve the development of social enterprise
in the non-governmental sector. After all, while achieving their social objectives,
social enterprises at the same time conduct business activities, selling products and
services. Moreover, this kind of self-financing is not a marginal or sideline activity, but
an important source of income. Are Polish society and the organizations themselves
ready for such a solution?
Before we move on to an analysis of the data on Poles’ views as to non-governmental
organizations collecting fees for the services they provide, a methodological
commentary is needed on how the question was posed. In 2005 respondents were
asked two questions – they were asked to assess the statement that ‘organizations
should provide all their services for free’ and also to state their opinion on whether
they should be able to ‘sell services or products to be able to obtain funds for their
activity.’ It turned out that the respondents found that the two statements were not
contradictory, and most were inclined to agree with both one and the other. 74%
of Poles thought that associations and foundations should offer all their services for
free, without charging any fees. At the same time 68% were inclined to support the
view that to obtain funding for their activities, social organizations should be able to
sell products or services. Moreover, in reality both views turned out to be positively
correlated - people more strongly convinced that organizations should be able to sell
goods or services were also more strongly in favour of the view that all the services of
such organizations should be provided for free.12 Hence, Poles approved both of the
view that the organizations should not charge fees and the view that they should be
able to sell their services. This apparent contradiction was the effect of the specific
way in which respondents understood the term ‘selling goods or services’ – as activity
not connected with an organization’s statutory activity and not affecting the recipients
of its social activity. For a better evaluation of the Poles’ attitude to a combination of
social and business activity, the question was changed slightly in the 2006 study, and
the abstract category of selling, not associated with social activity, was replaced with
the term ‘charging fees from recipients.’13 Also in 2007 the respondents were asked
to offer their views not so much on a form of obtaining funds for non-governmental
organizations’ statutory activity, but rather on fees to be paid by those benefiting from
social activity. How important the difference is can be seen when one compares these
12
13
M. Gumkowska, J. Herbst, J. Huszcz, Social Context..., op. cit. , p. 16.
M. Gumkowska, J. Herbst, Volunteering, Philantrophy ..., op. cit.
120
121
68
To obtain funds for
their activity, social
organizations
should be able to
sell products or
services (charge
fees from the
recipients of their
services**)
I definitely agree
22.2
35.8
I probably agree
45.7
38.2
12.9
11.5
I probably disagree
5.8
5.8
2.7
1.2
It’s hard to say
10.6
7.6
probably combined)
26
59.9
I definitely agree
3.7
25.4
22.3
34.5
I probably agree
** Comparability of data in successive years is limited due to the changes in the question.
The reading of the question from the 2006 and 2007 studies is given in brackets.
73.9
probably combined)
Social organizations
(associations,
foundations) should
provide all their
services for free,
without charging
any fees
POLES’ OPINIONS
ON NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS
I neither agree nor
disagree
2006
20.5
19.6
I neither agree nor
disagree
2005
19.3
6.6
I probably disagree
Percentage of adult Poles
9.7
0.5
It’s hard to say
24.4
13.3
probably combined)
28.4
61.8
I definitely agree
6.8
25.8
I probably agree
21.6
36.1
2007
23.7
20.4
I neither agree nor
disagree
Table 12. Poles’ opinions on the business activity of non-governmental organizations (2005-2007)
I probably disagree
23.3
7.5
11.3
2
13.4
8.3
It’s hard to say
opinions with the data for the original version of the question. Whereas in 2005 almost
70% of those polled were inclined to support the view that organizations should have
the ‘possibility of selling,’ in 2006 just 26%, and in 2007 28% of Poles agreed with the
opinion that it was acceptable for the organizations to charge fees from recipients.
The question on fees for services was also put to non-governmental organizations
in 2006.14 The view that the organizations should work ‘for free’ is present in the
awareness not only of the Polish public in general, but also the people who work at
non-governmental organizations. This opinion, however, is not as widespread in the
non-governmental community as it is in Polish society as a whole. In 2006 more than
half the representatives of organizations agreed with the view that the organizations
should not charge fees for their services. The same number of respondents were also
inclined to agree that ‘the fact of non-governmental organizations getting involved in
business activity is usually negatively construed by people.’ This opinion is actually
correlated in a significant way with views on whether organizations should obtain funds
by charging fees for their services. It is hard to say what the nature of the correlation is:
whether the polled representatives of organizations think the organizations should not
charge fees because they are afraid of the public’s negative perception of this kind of
activity, or if they are convinced people would take a negative view of the organizations
conducting business activity because they themselves have such a perception.15
Table 13. Opinions of non-governmental organizations on business activity (2006)
Social organizations (associations, foundations) should provide all their
services for free, without charging any fees
in %
Definitely yes
20.7
Probably yes
29.8
Neither yes nor no
17.7
Probably not
17.9
Definitely not
9.5
It’s hard to say
4.4
Total
100.0
Source: Authors’ compilation based on the studies by the Klon/Jawor Association
Table 14. Opinions of non-governmental organizations on business activity (2006)
The study Kondycja sektora organizacji pozarządowych w Polsce 2006 [The Condition of the
Sector of Non-governmental Organizations in Poland 2006] commissioned by the Klon/Jawor
Association and carried out by CBOS on a representative sample of 1 043 non-governmental
organizations (associations and foundations).
15
M. Gumkowska, J. Herbst, J. Huszcz, Social Context..., op. cit., p. 18.
14
122
Non-governmental organizations getting involved
in business activity is usually negatively construed by people
in %
Definitely yes
13.7
Probably yes
37.2
Neither yes nor no
19.7
Probably not
15.9
Definitely not
6.0
It’s hard to say
7.4
Total
100.0
5.3. Attitudes towards groups experiencing difficulties on the labour market: which groups should
receive help?
One important function of the ‘new social economy’ is to place people in the labour
market who may have problems finding their place in it by themselves. Though the
situation in Poland’s labour market has improved substantially over the past two years
(the registered unemployment rate, according to the Central Statistical Office (GUS) in
January 2008 was 11.7%, having dropped by more than 9 percentage points since
2004), the majority of Poles still think it is bad – this was the view of 61% of Poles
in a 2007 CBOS survey. It needs noting, however, that there were 10 percentage
points less people with a negative view of the labour market than a year before, and
17 percentage points less than in 2005.16 The change is also visible in the subjective
sense of the labour market situation. According to 29% of Poles, it is hard to get any
kind of job. This is almost 15 percentage points less than in 2005.
Opinie o rynku pracy i zagrożeniu bezrobociem 2001-2007, komunikat z badań CBOS
(Opinions on the Labour Market and the Threat of Unemployment in 2001-2007. Report from
the CBOS Study), http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2007/K_048_07.PDF
16
123
80
70
60
bad
50
% 40
very bad
30
20
neither good nor bad
10
0
good
2001 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Graph 8. General situation on the labour market according to the CBOS study
Source: CBOS (Opinions on the labour market and the threat of unemployment 2001-2007,
March 2007).
60
50
it’s hard to find a job
it’s possible to find a job,
but it’s difficult to get a suitable job
40
% 30
it’s impossible to find a job
20
10
0
2001 2002
it’s possible to find a suitable job without any great problem
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Graph 9. Assessment of how easy it is to find a job in one’s locality according to
the CBOS study
Source: CBOS (Opinions on the labour market and the threat of unemployment 2001-2007,
March 2007).
One needs to remember that the groups most threatened with unemployment
benefited (and will benefit) the least from the positive changes. This is why the question
of whether and how to help such groups enter the labour market is still relevant.
This question was put to respondents in 2005. At the time most Poles agreed that
there were groups which should receive special support in the labour market. The
highest level of support was for the idea of special assistance for persons suffering
long-term unemployment: as much as 60.6% of those polled thought such persons
should receive special support. More than half the respondents also saw a need
124
for such assistance to be provided to the disabled (56.5%), young people leaving
orphanages (54.5%), and young people newly entering the labour market (53.1%).
Support was slightly lower for assistance given to people aged over 50, the homeless,
people wanting to reconcile child care with a job (40.2%, 40%, and 39% respectively).
Respondents very seldom recognized the need to assist the mentally ill, prisoners, or
immigrants and refugees.
Table 15. Groups which should receive special support in the labour market (data
from 2005)
Groups:
in %
The long-term unemployed
60.6
The disabled
56.5
Young people leaving orphanages
54.5
Young people entering the labour market
53.1
Jobseekers aged over 50
40.2
The homeless
39.2
People wanting to reconcile child care with a job (e.G. Single parents, young
mothers)
39
The mentally ill
11.1
Prisoners
10.5
Immigrants, refugees
Other groups
All these groups should receive support
None of these groups should receive special support
I don’t know, it’s hard to say
6
0.5
11.4
1
4.5
Data sorted by frequency
Despite a quite widely shared view that there are certain groups which, due to
various kinds of problems, should receive support in the labour market, Poles did not
have any good ideas as to what this should look like. This is proved by the replies to
questions on support for different ways of helping the unemployed.
More than half (56%) put the responsibility for ensuring endangered groups
access to the labour market on the state’s shoulders. Quite a large number of people,
especially with a higher education and living in larger cities, pointed to more active
forms of assistance – applying facilitations and incentives for entrepreneurs (55%),
providing training (42%), and enabling a move to self-employment (39%).
125
Less though still significantly popular are forms of assistance from the area of
social economy. Supporting the founding of firms focused on hiring people threatened
with unemployment was mentioned by more than one-third of those polled in 2005.
Slightly less, 27%, thought support should be given to organizations specializing in
helping the aforementioned groups of people. This proves that people appreciate the
importance of supporting such forms of assistance.
Table 16. Forms of assistance for unemployed people who find it especially hard to
find a job which should be applied in Poland
Forms of assistance
The state should ensure jobs for such people
%
2005
56
The state should encourage entrepreneurs to employ such people, e.g. by
reducing the costs of labour (through subsidies, tax breaks, lower taxes)
55.4
Such people should be provided with training that would give them skills
sought-after in the labour market
42.1
Such people should be helped with self-employment, starting their own
business activity
39.9
There should be support for firms focused on hiring such people and adjusted
to their needs
33.6
There should be support for the activity of organizations specializing in helping such people
26.9
Such people should be granted higher benefits
24.2
The state should give such people a life pension that they could live on
17.8
They shouldn’t be helped at all
0.4
Other
0.4
It’s hard to say
6.9
In the context of Poles’ opinions on the role of non-governmental organizations
and social enterprises in solving problems of unemployment, there are more data on
the issue that are worth mentioning. In 2005 and 2006 Poles were asked whether
the founding of companies where people unable to find jobs elsewhere would find
employment should be supported by the state. Both in 2005 and 2006, support for
this kind of initiative was expressed by the great majority of Poles. As the table below
shows, the difference between the years is connected with the increased number of
‘it’s hard to say’ and ‘neither yes nor no’ answers; if we ignore those, the percentage of
126
people in favour of state support for social enterprises hardly changed at all, at 96%
and 94%, respectively.17
It is similar with general support for the founding of enterprises where jobs will be
available to people who cannot get a job elsewhere. In 2005, 97% of respondents
thought such companies were a good idea, and 96% thought so in 2006.18
Table 17. Support for state support for social enterprises
Do you think the founding of such firms
should be supported by the state?
Everyone
Without the undecided
2005
2006
2005
2006
Definitely yes
55.2
35.4
60.7
43.6
Probably yes
32.5
40.8
35.7
50.3
Probably not
2.6
4.0
2.8
5.0
Definitely not
0.7
0.9
0.8
1.1
Neither yes nor no
6.0
9.6
It’s hard to say
3.1
9.4
Data in %.
Table 18. Support for social enterprises
Do you think founding such firms is a
good idea?
Everyone
Without the undecided
2005
2006
2005
2006
Definitely yes
53.2
34.8
58.5
42.9
Probably yes
36.1
44.0
39.7
54.2
Probably not
1.4
2.0
1.5
2.5
Definitely not
0.4
0.5
5.8
0.6
Neither yes nor no
5.3
8.0
It’s hard to say
3.7
10.8
Data in %.
Percentages after undecided people are removed from the sample. When the ‘it’s hard to say’
and ‘neither yes nor no’ answers are included, the result is 90% and 83%.
18
Again, this is excluding the people who answered ‘it’s hard to say’ or ‘neither yes nor no.’
The percentage of answers in both these categories grew in 2006 and significantly affected the
final results of support for the enterprises in question. When the undecided are included, the
percentages of people voicing their support are 89% and 79%, respectively.
17
127
New light on the above analyses is shed by the replies to the next group of
questions. These concerned the extent to which the unemployed should be made to
suffer the consequences of their situation by themselves. The point was to find out if
people in a tough career position were entitled to assistance from the rest of society, or
if society should not bear the costs of someone else’s problems. The great majority of
Poles (64%) agree there is a need for special treatment of the disabled unemployed,
even though so many healthy people are jobless. On the other hand, 72% think that
the unemployed have only themselves to blame for losing their jobs. At the same time,
there is no unequivocal answer as to whether the unemployed should be allowed to
live at the taxpayers’ expense – those in favour and against numbered 40% each, while
as much as 19% had no particular opinion to offer.
Table 19. Attitudes towards the unemployed
Attitudes towards
the unemployed
I definitely
agree
I probably
agree
I probably
disagree
I definitely
disagree
it’s hard
to say
The disabled
unemployed
should not get
special treatment
when so many
healthy people
are jobless
8.1
14.1
38.1
26.7
13.0
The unemployed
have only themselves to blame
for not having
a job
5.2
13.0
34.2
38.2
9.4
People who don’t
work should
not live at the
expense of other
taxpayers
15.2
25.2
27.7
13.0
18.8
Data in %.
Thus, the Poles think that people who have major problems with accessing
important resources should receive support, though not necessarily at the taxpayers’
expense, while groups of the unemployed who are in a particularly difficult situation
should receive appropriate special treatment.
128
Summary
The present report attempts to answer a number of basic questions on Polish
people’s attitudes towards the idea and actions on which social economy is founded.
It attempts to describe the experience of Poles related to existing projects which are a
part of that idea, the extent to which they understand and recognize the basic concepts
used in the debate on social economy, and the intensity of activity and attitudes that
could be treated as the social foundations of its development. The material presented
here leads to the following important conclusions:
1. Poland’s social economy sector is estimated at around 100 000 projects/
undertakings, employing around 600 000 people and having 15 million
members, while the number of organizations that are close to the concept of a
social enterprise is around 4 000, or 10% of the overall number of non-profit
organizations. Despite a long period of ‘active practice’ and what can be termed
a broad range of social economy projects in Poland, the phenomenon has not yet
received a precise definition adjusted to Polish circumstances.
2. The lack of precision in defining the concepts seems to affect the Poles’ declarations
on knowing and understanding individual terms used in social economy. The
debate on the phenomenon still seems to be an academic one, inaccessible to
‘ordinary citizens,’ despite the involvement in this discussion of organizations
which are perceived as or which declare themselves to be implementing the ideas
of social economy. No change has been observed in recent years which would
suggest that knowledge or recognition of projects and trends related to social
economy is growing: one can say that familiarity with these concepts in Polish
society is not high and has not changed fundamentally over the past three years.
The level of knowledge of the meanings varies, both with respect to individual
terms and when one compares groups distinguished for their socio-demographic
features (especially education) and involvement in the work of and support for
organizations connected with the third sector.
3. Among the analysed terms (social cooperative, non-governmental organization,
third sector, corporate social responsibility, social enterprise, and social economy),
the Poles most often understand and recognize the term ‘non-governmental
organization,’ while the term ‘third sector’ is very poorly recognizable among
Polish society. People who actually have contacts with the third sector and nongovernmental organizations often say they have never heard these terms. The
study results seem to suggest a rather small presence of terms related to the NGO
sector in the awareness of Poland’s citizens.
4. Despite the problems with definitions and the ambiguity of the term, as signalled
earlier, ‘social economy’ came second in terms of recognizability of and familiarity
with the analysed terms. This is a surprisingly good result, though both indices
are significantly lower than in 2005. Given the brief presence of the term ‘social
economy’ in the Polish public debate so far, one can surmise that to Polish people
it evokes associations that are far from the meaning accepted today. Uncovering
these associations is of substantial importance from the point of view of promoting
the social economy idea, and this should be the subject of a future study.
129
5. Familiarity with and recognizability of the concept of ‘social cooperative’ is low.
Considering that social cooperatives operate on a very small scale in Poland,
the result is not very bad. Moreover, as analyses show, treating the data on the
recognizability of a given concept as an indicator of knowledge in the broadest
sense about a given phenomenon or contact with a given type of institution, could
be burdened with errors. It seems that the Poles ‘correctly’ associate cooperatives,
as ‘heirs’ to the 19th-century tradition of self-organization, with community or
cooperative activity, often of a specific type (housing cooperatives) or simply
‘organizations of people,’ ‘communities,’ ‘associations,’ ‘cooperation,’ ‘aid’ or other
similar expressions – with all the things that decide about cooperatives’ social
character, and what makes them a focus for people interested in the concept of
social economy. From the point of view of what Poles imagine cooperatives to be,
their place in the debate on social economy is clear, and their potential is worth
taking advantage of.
6. No less important for the future of social economy in Poland are the associations
brought by a new (and most often unfamiliar) phenomenon (and term) – social
enterprises. Only one in five Poles was able to mention any associations with the
term ‘social enterprise.’ Importantly, positive expressions dominate among the
associations mentioned, referring to joint action for the common good/to help
others.
7. A positive attitude towards enterprises which can be described as social is also
confirmed by the fact that there is almost universal social approval for such
undertakings. In Poles’ opinion, the state should support the founding of such
firms, and knowing that a product came from such an enterprise would be likely
to have a positive influence on their consumer decisions – most would readily buy
products made by such a firm.
8. However, other results of the study suggest that these data are purely declarative,
because few Poles have had any contact with this kind of enterprise. On the
other hand, this lack of knowledge or lack of contact are due to the small scale
of such activity. Data on Poles’ consumer attitudes also verify their declarations
on a readiness to support social enterprises. Poles choose products guided
mainly by the criteria of price and quality. Factors characteristic of conscious
consumer choices are much less important, namely those which support
responsible companies which show concern for the social and environmental
consequences of their operations. Hence, the declarations on the Poles’ readiness
to buy products from companies employing disadvantaged people need to be
approached with caution. However, the dissonance between declarations and
reality does not necessarily mean the respondents have to take the blame. Even a
cursory analysis of the marketing strategies for products available in Polish shops
shows that manufacturers (perhaps guided by research results) do not try to
emphasize those features which refer in some way to important social or ethical
issues.
9. The great majority of Poles thought that more could be achieved by acting jointly
than alone. This is confirmed by the Klon/Jawor Association study from 2005,
according to which this view is shared by 78% of Poles, and by a more recent
CBOS study. The percentage of people who believe in the effectiveness of working
for the benefit of the local community is also growing – it has reached 65%.
130
These convictions, though, do not encourage Polish people to take action – in
2007 almost 70% of Poles had not been involved voluntarily in any joint action
over the past year. Poles also seldom offer one another assistance. Those who
do, support one another mainly in household duties such as renovations, moving
house, or farm work.
10. Only 22% of Poles declare they use help in everyday matters, such as household
chores, renovations, child care, care for the elderly, running official errands, or
financial problems. Among them, the great majority used the help of family or
neighbours. A very small percentage chose institutionalised forms of assistance
such as the welfare service, the parish, or the administration of the district,
county or town. The Poles primarily turn to family and friends for help. In rare
cases, a role is played by someone from welfare service institutions, and then
exclusively in cases of caring for the elderly or cash or non-cash assistance.
The respondents very seldom turned to the administration or to people from the
church or parish.
11. Respondents declare that to organize an event, e.g. a festival, a fund-raising event
for charity, or a local clean-up campaign, they would primarily turn to the town
or district administration (this is claimed by half the Poles). Just under a quarter
of them would choose the church or a local social organization. Neighbours and
friends only came fourth. Thus, whereas with everyday matters the Poles are more
likely to turn to family and friends, with more complicated matters like organizing
something, they would probably go to formal institutions. At the same time a very
high percentage who did not know where to go with particular tasks proves there
is a high level of disorientation and poor knowledge of the possibilities of action.
12. In 2007, 13.2% or around 4 million adult Poles devoted time to unpaid work for
the benefit of others. This is almost 9 percentage points less than in 2006. After
a few years of growth and then a halt in 2006, there is currently a sudden drop in
the number of voluntary workers. Volunteers most often assist charity organizations
which help the poorest people, religious organizations and movements as well as
educational organizations and those dealing with child care.
13. 25%, or around 7.6 million of adult Poles declared that over the past year they had
contributed cash or non-cash gifts to non-governmental organizations, social or
religious groups or movements. This marks a continuation of the downward trend
from 2006 and is a record low result. Donors most often support organizations
providing charity aid to the poorest people, the homeless, religious organizations
and movements, and organizations dealing with humanitarian aid.
14. The year 2007 saw a very visible drop in the number of people declaring
membership of non-governmental organizations, social or religious groups or
movements. Just 13%, or 4 million adult Poles, admitted to such membership.
This is much less than in 2006 and 2005. The most popular organizations are
religious organizations and movements, sports organizations as well as services
such as the Volunteer Fire Service, GOPR – mountain rescue team, WOPR –
water rescue team, etc.
15. In recent years there has been a sudden deterioration in people’s assessment of
voluntary work. At the same time, the view is spreading that social organizations
have an influence on solving social problems and that non-governmental
organizations play a role in controlling the actions of the authorities. Moreover,
131
the view that the non-governmental sector is badly organized in Poland is losing
popularity. The year 2007 also saw a return to a growth trend in the percentage
of Poles who think non-governmental organizations solve important problems
in the immediate neighbourhood. However, compared to Poles’ opinions from
previous years, 2006 also saw a visible decrease in the percentage of people who
believe social organizations are more effective than state institutions in providing
assistance.
16. There is a rather widespread view among Poles that non-governmental organizations
should provide their services without charging any fees. Representatives of nongovernmental organizations seem to share this view. Hence, both the potential
beneficiaries and those who work at these organizations think that non-profit
organizations should not take money from their clients.
17. One important function of the ‘new social economy’ is to place people in the
labour market who may have problems finding their place in it by themselves,
who could be seriously threatened with unemployment unless they receive
special support in the labour market. In 2005 the Poles believed such groups to
include mainly the long-term unemployed and the disabled, young people leaving
orphanages, and young people newly entering the labour market. Respondents
very seldom indicated the need to support the mentally ill, prisoners as well as
immigrants and refugees. The Poles would turn primarily to the state for help for
these groups. However, quite a number of people indicated more active forms
of assistance, such as facilitations and incentives for entrepreneurs, providing
training, or enabling self-employment. Forms of assistance from the realm of
social economy are noticed though not as popular yet. At the same time, almost
all Poles think that such firms and organizations are a good idea and should
receive support, which is especially important from the point of view of diagnosis
of attitudes towards the development of social economy institutions.
132
4
I
The mpact of Social
Enterprises
and Cooperatives
on Socio-Economic
The Impact
of Social Enterprises
and Co-operatives
on Socio-Economic
Giulia Galera
1
Introduction
This paper aims to explore the possible role of social enterprises as vehicles for
socio-economic development at both national and local level with special regard to the
Polish case.
For the purpose of this paper, social enterprises are conceived of as autonomous
legal entities, providing goods or services with an explicit aim to benefit the community,
owned or managed by groups of citizens and in which the material interest of investors
is subject to limits. Put differently, the term social enterprise1 (SE) is here used to
describe a ‘different way’ of doing business.
The vast array of socio-economic institutions other than investor-owned (the market) and public
agencies (the state) has been termed in various ways depending the definition used on the specific
tradition, national context, and specific features emphasized. The ‘non profit-sector approach’ has
been developing since the second part of the 1970s to grasp the US situation. It relies on strict
limits on the appropriation of the organization’s surplus in the form of monetary gain by those
who run and control (Anheier and Ben-Ner, 2003). The term ‘voluntary sector’ – also fitting in the
non-profit school - is mainly used in Great Britain to refer to those organizations that are located
in a societal space between the State and the Market. The ‘social economy’ approach, French
in origin, was forged to bring together co-operatives, mutual societies, and associations. The
social economy definition stresses the specificity of the mission of these organizations, namely
their aim to benefit either their members or a larger community, rather than to generate profits
for investors.
This paper uses the term of ‘non-profit’ entities to refer to traditional organizations (associations
and foundations) that are mainly engaged in advocacy activities rather than in the production of
1
135
The interest in social enterprise stems from its capacity of tackling crucial
economic and social problems and challenges in a number of domains including social
services, health, education, environment, and economic general interest services (for
instance: electricity; public transportation; water supply). Hence the relevance of
this institutional arrangement for central and eastern European countries, including
new member countries such as Poland that are facing sever social and economic
concerns, including gaps in service delivery given their weak welfare systems, and high
unemployment rates generated by the transition to a free-market economic system.
The social enterprise definition proposed excludes non-profit organizations that
display either an advocacy or a re-distributive function, independently from the legal
framework covered. Furthermore, it excludes for-profit enterprises that adopt socially
responsible practices. By contrast, it embraces co-operatives that are characterized by
a social connotation, which form an important part of the European legacy, including
Poland that saw a significant development of these types of organizations in precommunist time and has recently witnessed a re-emergence of these institutions in a
number of sectors affected by market failures (i.e. credit and others). Hence the key
criteria for identifying social entrepreneurial organizations become the explicit social
goal pursued and the assignment of ownership rights and control power to stakeholders
other than investors. Accordingly, traditional co-operatives are included as long as they
display important social and economic functions that have a positive impact upon the
local community.
Following a description of the social enterprise as a concept, attention is devoted
to the impact of social enterprises upon local development in transitional countries.
Next, the second part of this contribution focuses on the outcomes of an empirical
analysis – conducted in May-June 2007 – that involved 26 social enterprises located
in 7 provinces in Poland. Given the goal of assessing the impact of social enterprises
on the socio-economic development of the localities they fit in, this contribution
emphasizes social enterprises’ role in supplying general-interest services, favouring
a more balanced use of local resources, generating new employment, enhancing
the social capital that is accumulated at local level, and institutionalizing informal
activities.
services. The term social enterprise refers to productive non-profit organizations and cooperatives
that display relevant social functions. The concept of the SE was worked out by a group of
researchers – the EMES Network (The Emergence of Social Enterprise in Europe). It refers to both
socio-economic entities that are newly created organizations and existing non-profit organization
refreshed by a new dynamic. (Borzaga and Defourny, 2001).
136
2
2. The emergence of social enterprise as a
concept
As emphasized in the previous paragraph, the development of economic activities
in the frame of a social project is not a new phenomenon. However, it can be said
that the use of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise as defined concepts is a
recent accomplishment in both the USA and Europe. Nonetheless, they are still underresearched as fields of scholarly enquiry and continue to be largely phenomenon-driven
(Mair and Martì, 2006). Thus, despite its rapidly rising field of practice (Roper and
Cheney, 2005), social entrepreneurship and social enterprise remain ill-defined concept
that can take on a variety of meanings (Weerawardena, Sulllivan Mort, 2006).
Considerable differences are to be noticed especially between the US and European
approach that are mainly ascribable to the specific context in which the concept was
constructed. The latter mirrors a prevailing private and business focus in the US, where
private foundations provide most outside financial support for SEs and the welfare
state has traditionally been weak, and a government and social service focus in Europe
(Kerlin, 2006).
In Europe it was mainly the rediscovery of nonprofit organizations as service
providers that paved the way for the conceptualization of the ‘social enterprise.’ The
term is often used to describe a ‘different way’ of doing business, which encompasses
the more entrepreneurial component of the nonprofit sector and innovative component
of the cooperative movement.
In the United States, as defined concepts, social entrepreneurship, social
entrepreneur, and social enterprise started to be employed, often interchangeably,
when nonprofits experienced cutbacks in government funding. That is to say when
nonprofit service providing organizations started to dramatically expand commercial
activity in order to fill the gap left by governmental retrenchment (Kerlin, 2006). The
dissatisfaction with the pace and management of standard non-profit organizations,
namely charities and foundations, called indeed for innovative alternatives.
Worth noticing is that in the United States the existence of an institutional
arrangement specifically designed to the pursuit of a social goal is not considered as a
necessary condition for being qualified as social enterprise. Hence the emphasis on the
individual dimension of the social entrepreneur as agent of change that is capable of
implementing innovative solutions apt to tackle social problems that are overlooked by
other actors in a wide variety of fields of general-interest, including among the others
welfare, health, education, employment, housing. Special attention is addressed by
some authors to ‘extraordinary individuals’ that are conceived of as transformative
forces, as they are value-driven entrepreneurs totally possessed by their vision for
change (Roberts and Woods, 2005).
As concerns Poland, the adoption of an European approach2 is preferred as
it allows for the grasping of the pre-communist co-operative tradition, current
The concept of social enterprise, as something capable of encompassing national differences in
Europe, was analyzed in particular by the EMES European Research Network, which succeeded
in developing a common approach to the study of social enterprises (Borzaga, Defourny, 2001).
By referring to entrepreneurial dynamics focused on social aims, the conceptual framework
2
137
evolutionary trends, and prospects for development in EU-27. Furthermore, such an
approach contributes to bridge the European tradition of cooperative organizations
with the new socio-economic initiatives that have recently developed in a number of
European countries,3 which represent a radical innovation in the traditional non-profit
sector. The approach favoured emphasizes the collective nature that is prominent in
the history of European social entrepreneurial initiatives (Spear, 2006). According to
this perspective, social enterprises are conceived of as specific institutions and more
generally as a facet of social entrepreneurship, which is used as an umbrella term
encompassing a set of initiatives and societal trends, blurring the public, for-profit, and
nonprofit sectors (Johnson, 2000).
For the purpose of this paper, the term social enterprise encompasses the
multiplicity of entrepreneurial organizations that pursue goals other than profit, which
have developed alongside private for-profit enterprises and public organisations across
Europe, including Poland, before the nineteenth century onwards: that is to say
organisations that have an entrepreneurial connotation, albeit the overall aim of their
activities excludes the pursuit of profit as an ultimate goal and its distribution to the
owners.
Hence the key criteria for identifying social entrepreneurial organizations become
the specific goal pursued and the assignment of ownership rights and control power,
rather than the ‘nondistribution constraint.’
To conclude, the term social enterprise is used to identify enterprises that display
a general-interest function. That is to say organizations that fulfil crucial economic
and social tasks aimed at promoting the interests of the community at large or of
specific fragile segments of society. Against this background, the services delivered can
range to a great extent ranging from social and health, work integration, environment,
education up to the supply of economic general interest services, including among the
others electricity, water supply, and transportation. Organizations traced back to the
social enterprise concept in Poland are: foundations and associations; co-operatives
and vocational enterprises for the disabled; traditional cooperatives that have a strong
communitarian dimension, and social cooperatives. Accordingly, the empirical analysis
described in paragraph 4 refers to the above mentioned legal forms.
proposed by EMES attempts to bridge the two existing and wide-known concepts used to define
organizations other than public agencies (state) and for-profit enterprises (the market): the nonprofit sector and the social economy. More specifically, the concept of social enterprise introduced
by EMES is intended to enhance third sector concepts by shedding light on entrepreneurial
dynamics focused on social aims within the sector (Borzaga, Defourny, 2001).
3
This is the case of Community Interest Companies in the UK and Social Enterprises in Italy, as
envisaged by the law currently under discussion.
138
3
3. Social enterprise and socio-economic
development
Before moving to the empirical analysis, a brief analysis of the impact of social
enterprises on socio-economic development is provided. In the search for innovative
development strategies beyond the current difficulties faced by mainstream paradigms,
social enterprises represent indeed an innovative approach that can contribute to redistribute welfare to the advantage of the whole community.
The historical analysis of social entrepreneurial organizations provides evidence of
the crucial role displayed by these institutional arrangements in supporting development
and especially in promoting the interests of the weakest stakeholders of society that
would have otherwise been excluded from mainstream economic life. Empirical
evidence shows that economic self-help strategies set up at local level have been
playing a major role in emancipating disadvantaged groups and deprived communities
in various parts of the world with totally different geographical, cultural, and political
backgrounds (Birkhölzer, 2005).
Social enterprise positive impact on social and economic development can be seen
from various perspectives: they supply general-interest services and goods, contribute
to a more balanced use and allocation of resources, generate new employment, play a
role in enhancing the social capital that is accumulated at local level, and contribute
to take informal activities out of the underground economy.
First, social enterprises complement the supply of general-interest services that
public agencies and for-profit enterprises fail to deliver for a number of reasons,
including budget constraints, the incapacity to grasp new needs arising in society,
and market failures (i.e. induced by information asymmetries or positive externalities).
Interesting experiences from target countries show that these problems can be efficiently
faced through the self-organization and self-reliance of the citizens concerned. Social
enterprises show a high innovation potential, as they have the capacity to react to
external challenges and meet new needs arising at local level. As locally embedded
institutions they adapt to the evolution of the local context and can be considered as
such problem solver devices apt to tackles crucial social and economic problems and
adhere to the specific social and economic context dealt with (Borzaga and Tortia,
2006).
Second, social enterprises contribute to a more balanced use and allocation of
resources available at local level to the advantage of the community, as they have
a direct influence on the management of economic and social development at the
local level. Thanks to the wide participation of local stakeholders, they succeed in
promoting inclusive governance models that empower the local community in strategic
decision-making (Sugden and Wilson, 2005) and support the ‘internalization’ of the
economic growth generated to the advantage of the whole community. Through the
decentralization of power promoted, they can be successful in fulfilling the needs of
various social groups, given their capacity of grasping them at local level and their
greater flexibility (Elstub, 2006). Their community dimension and local roots allow
social enterprises to adhere more harmoniously to the local context, evolution of
specific needs, and accordingly also to changing preferences of users. While taking
139
stock of local resources, including economic and non-economic ones that would not be
otherwise addressed to welfare and development issues, social enterprises are especially
suited to provide innovative responses to problems resulting from context-specific
economic, social, geographical or cultural situations. Community involvement trough
social mobilization also contributes to positive changes in attitude, as communities
become aware that they can take stock of their own situation and contribute towards
the solution of their own problems through the setting up of a participatory institutional
arrangement (Christen, 2004). The social enterprise model provides the arena for
effective solutions that change society for the better to be taken, while ensuring that
the social goals pursued will approach the general interest of the community rather
than particularistic interests. Moreover, thanks to the interactions established with
other sectors, including public agencies and for-profit enterprises, social enterprises
can contribute to transforming the social and economic system wherein they operate
to the advantage of the community as a whole. The communitarian and participatory
approach embraced by social enterprises contribute to enhance the sense of social
responsibility of the community towards general-interest issues. This sense of common
belonging contributes to contrast the profit motive and self-seeking approach that
has spread in all post-communist countries following the transition to a free-market
economy as a reaction to the previous compulsory volunteerism and solidarity.
Third, social enterprises play a crucial role in generating new jobs. In general,
social enterprises develop new activities and contribute to create new employment
in the sectors wherein they operate, i.e. the social and community service sectors,
that show a high employment potential. Moreover, they allow to employ in a number
of cases unoccupied workers, for instance women with children, who seek flexible
jobs (part-time jobs, for example) and they contribute to create innovative models of
industrial relations (Borzaga and Tortia, 2007; Borzaga and Depedri, 2005). More
specifically, some social enterprises are aimed to integrate into work disadvantaged
workers with minimal possibilities to find a job in traditional enterprises and to train
these workers (Nyssens, 2006). In addition, the social enterprise model contributes to
develop new forms of work organization, which can enhance participation of workers
in the organization. Social enterprises’ employment generation capacity in Poland is
especially relevant, given the high unemployment rates that affect in particular certain
segments of the population that are especially at risk of exclusion from the traditional
labour market. New pockets of marginalized and excluded persons resulted from the
closure of crucial economic activities – including for instance the liquidation of kolchos,
sovchos, small schools, kindergartens, and pre-schools in rural areas - that previously
ensured the full employment of the active population coupled with the supply of a
wide set of general-interest services that have ceased to be guaranteed to the local
population, following the transformation of the previous welfare system.
Fourth, social enterprises help foster social cohesion and enhance social capital
within society and economy, as they supply goods and services that are endowed
with a high social potential, which strengthens trust relations among the agents
involved. Furthermore, the inclusive and participatory approach favoured by some
social enterprises results in the active participation of citizens in the encountering
of social and economic issues affecting the local community, which contributes to
enhance the sense of social responsibility towards the belonging community and the
accumulation of social capital that is embedded in a community. Social enterprises
140
engaged in the production of general-interest services indirectly contribute to tackle
in a practical way a major problem of post-communist and post-socialist countries:
the low citizen trust in political institutions and participation in democratic processes
(Raiser, Haerpfer, Nowotny, Wallace, 2001). Provided that the promotion of cohesive
communities cannot be imposed artificially by external agencies, social enterprises
appear as an effective working tool whereby social cohesion can be enhanced (Cabinet
Office, 2006). Furthermore, the development of these institutions in addition to other
third sector organizations and public actors contributes to strengthen pluralism and
thus the possibility that different interests of various social groups are channelled and
represented, thus improving in turn the functioning of democratic process.
More specifically, social enterprises contribute to contrast the marginalization and
social exclusion of some segments of society, which could lead to the formation of
deviant groups. As emphasized by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, women and
certain minority groups appear to be more likely to turn into social entrepreneurs rather
than traditional entrepreneur. (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2004). Hence, the
potential contribution that this institutional model can give to attenuating the most
negative consequences of the economic transition among certain segments of society
that are at risk of social exclusion.
Finally, social enterprises can contribute to take informal activities out of the
underground economy. Several social enterprise-like initiatives arise informally and
become formal once they are legally recognized. By contrast, other social-entrepreneurial
initiatives may be prevented from moving toward the formal economy as a result of an
inappropriate legal, financial, and fiscal system. What is worth analysing is that where
social enterprises initiatives are allowed to develop thanks to an enabling environment,
they can allow for irregular workers to get out of the black market and regularize their
positions.
4
4. The contribution of social enterprises on
socio-economic development in Poland
Description of the Sample
Empirical evidence shows the relevant roles covered by social enterprises in EU15 as welfare providers and new employment agents (Borzaga and Defourny, 2001;
Nyssens, 2006). By contrast, research on central and eastern European countries is still
rather lacking. The lack of research data is accompanied by strong perplexities induced
by the social enterprise concept as such, as well as the bad reputation characterizing
some organizational models (e. g. co-operative enterprises). Not surprisingly, the weak
involvement in collective initiatives is confirmed by the circumstance that at national
level less than 1% of Polish farmers are associated; this weakens substantially their
negotiating power and prevents them from playing a competitive role in the agricultural
sector (Piechowski, 1999).
141
This empirical research stems firstly from the idea of contributing to a better
understanding of the social enterprise phenomenon, which appears as a structural
dynamic involving also eastern European countries, including Poland. Secondly, the
analysis of social enterprise role and impact upon local communities is conceived
of all the more important in light of the weak welfare systems that characterize
post-communist countries. This paves the way for an increasing reliance on private
providers for the supply of social and general-interest services, given the sever budget
constraints that public agencies are facing.
The first stage of the empirical analysis was devoted to the identification of
representative organizations. Accordingly, Polish contacts – consisting of both
academicians and practitioners – were endowed with a precise social enterprise
definition, whose salient features are:
• the social goal pursued;
• the non-profit distribution constraint;
• the assignment of ownership rights and control power to stakeholders other than
investors coupled with an open and participatory governance model.
The common sharing of this definition by the Polish contacts allowed for the
identification of 26 representative organizations, located in both urban and rural areas
in 7 provinces of Poland, and engaged in three economic sectors:
– provision of traditional welfare services (services to families – elderly care; childcare etc - soft health services)
– work-integration (through enterprises inherited from communist time and/or new
organizational forms)
– supply of other than welfare and health general-interest services (including: credit;
cultural and recreational services; activities aimed at protecting and regenerating
the environment; services aimed at supporting the economic development of
specific communities).
A questionnaire was delivered to the selected social enterprises and interviews
were carried also out with at least one representative of each organization. The
questionnaire was delivered with the language support of one interpreter (EnglishPolish and Polish-English). Meetings with organizations happened to be extremely
interactive and fruitful, given the great interest shown by the selected organizations,
which were eager to participate actively in the discussion beyond the scope of the
questionnaire’s questions. This contributed to obtain a clearer picture of development
dynamics, drivers, obstacles, and challenges characterizing each organization.
Out of the 26 organizations, 7 are social cooperatives, 2 are cooperativesvocational enterprises for the disabled, 8 are associations, 7 are foundations, and 2
are traditional cooperatives. Ten organizations perform their activities mainly in urban
localities, 3 in rural areas, and 13 both in urban and rural areas.
The organizations selected, while sharing a core set of features – in terms of goals
pursued, profit distribution constraints, ownership asset, and governance structure –
are characterized by completely different development paths, having been established
in different historical phases.
Out of the 26 organizations under consideration, 3 organizations were founded
before the collapse of communism, out of which one co-operative was set up before
the XIX century. Twenty-three organizations were established after the change of regime
(Table 1). This choice is not incidental, having the goal of tentatively representing the
142
various typologies of organizations that can be classified as social enterprises in Poland.
While acknowledging that we are mainly dealing with a new wave of development
of productive non-profit organizations, one should also take into account that social
enterprises had existed in pre-communist time and some organizations similar to
social enterprises existed under socialism as well, albeit being subjected to a strong
centralization and control on the part of state bodies.
The three organizations that were founded before the collapse of the soviet system
are respectively: one consumer co-operative and two cooperatives aimed at favouring
the work integration of disabled persons (i.e. blinds and invalids). Twenty organizations
(over the 60%) have been established in the last 5 years, out of which 7 cooperatives
in the last 2 years, following the adoption of a new legal framework (Journal of Laws
of 5 June 2006) that has formally acknowledged social cooperatives in Poland.
Table 1. Organizations according to the legal form
Number
of organizations
Period of founding
Traditional co-operative
1
Before 1900
Traditional co-operative
1
1990
Co-operative- enterprise for the handicapped
2
1946-1950
15
1989-2006
7
2005-2006
LEGAL FORM
Association/foundation
Social co-operatives
Total
26
Source: Author’s compilation
Concerning the development phase undergone by the social enterprises under
consideration, 19 organizations are going through a growth phase, which shows the
expansion potentials of the sectors where they perform their activities. None of the
organizations interviewed is facing difficulties with possible closure of activity.
Despite the relatively young life of most of the organizations dealt with, the majority
of social enterprises under consideration (65.4 percent) declare that the communist
background has had an impact on the development of the initiative. This is especially
the case of organizations employing workers that are over 50 years old, who claim that
evident negative legacies are the lack of self-confidence and belief in one’s abilities
coupled with insufficient entrepreneurial skills.
In particular, one interviewee describes the widespread difficulties in embarking
on common actions on equal grounds as barriers for developing new cooperative
143
initiatives. A strong commitment of individual leaders with a consequent difficulty of
building strong teams and replacing founders emerges as a specific feature of Polish
social enterprises. This characteristic is shared by most social enterprises interviewed,
which are managed by charismatic founders. The weak team-work that distinguishes
most social enterprises can be regarded as a negative legacy of communism, which
translates in a general distrust towards collective initiatives. This latter issue is
conceived of as either important or very important in jeopardizing the development of
social enterprise initiatives by 13 organizations.
In this respect, associations seem to be preferred as legal structures as they allow
also for hierarchical relations to be maintained, whereas co-operatives presuppose a
democratic management of the enterprise according to the rule ‘one person, one vote.’
Moreover, the negative image of traditional cooperatives is ascribed to the circumstance
that most people continue to perceive them as a relict of the previous regime without
realizing that the development of cooperatives is a much older phenomenon dating
back to the 19th century (Piechowski, 1999).
One organization that was founded right after the change of regime highlights as a
negative legacy of communism the lack of consciousness of third sector’s organizations
role in society. By contrast, one organization set up during communism describes the
frames of thinking about self-organization of people with disabilities that were built at
the time as a positive legacy that continues to survive today.
In particular, previous solidarity networks inherited from communist time are
regarded as important by 6 organizations, very important by 4 organizations, and
not important by the remaining 16 SEs. Interestingly, organizations that regard as
important or very important previous networks perform their activities either in the
rural area or both in urban and rural, confirming the existence of stronger stocks of
social capital that have managed to survive the change of regime in small localities.
Fields of activity of the social enterprises considered are multiple and vary to a
great extent, with most organizations displaying various roles at a time, including in
most cases a productive and advocacy role. The latter continues to be an important role
covered by foundations and associations of the sample in addition to other productive
activities that are currently carried out.
Most organizations are mainly engaged in productive activities – out of which 15
are engaged in the production of goods and services of general interest. An exception
is provided by 1 organization that has marked advocacy and lobby as the main activity
performed. The latter is a networking organization that mainly supports the spin-off of
social cooperatives and associations supporting the integration of socially marginalized
groups, as well as training activities in the fields of social animation according to
an interdisciplinary approach that combines social support with education, ecology,
housing construction, culture, and sport.
144
Table 2. Activities carried out by Social Enterprises
Number of
organizations
Main activity
16
1
Re-distribution of money resources
4
0
Production of services/goods of general interest
to support other institutional activities
2
1
Production of services/goods of general-interest
(social services; credit services; water supply,
etc.)
17
15
Production of general-interest activities in order
to integrate disadvantaged persons to work
6
2
11
7
Activities
Advocacy/lobby activities
Engagement in economic sectors other than the
production of general-interest services in order to
integrate disadvantaged persons to work
Social enterprises and the production of general
interest services
•Types of services supplied and target groups addressed
The social enterprises under investigation supply a wide set of general-interest
services (Table 3) that range from welfare services responding to primarily social
needs – rehabilitation, training, educational services – up to cultural, sport, and tourist
services. As for social co-operatives, work integration dominates, being the main goal
of these types of social enterprises. More specifically, 20 organizations are engaged in
the supply of social services and 14 organizations supply cultural, sport, and leisure
services, 9 sale of commodities. Whereas associations and foundations are mainly
focused on carrying out welfare services, social cooperatives and cooperatives for the
disabled are engaged in a variety of economic sectors. 3 social cooperatives and 2
cooperatives for the disabled declare that they do also supply social services, but their
main sectors of engagement are the sale of commodities, handy-craft/manufacture,
and gardening plus other sectors, including housing and publishing.
The increasing relevance of other than welfare and work-integration services
parallels the evolution trend followed by social enterprises in EU-15, where an
expansion of the fields of activity of social enterprises has taken place in recent years
confirming the general commitment of social enterprises towards coping with a variety
of needs other than basic necessities. As for Poland, stands out for instance the goal
of strengthening social cohesion at a local level though the promotion of leisure, sport,
and cultural activities, which confirms the emergence of a new demand responding to
more complex needs that characterize more economically developed societies.
145
Table 3. Sectors of activity according to legal form
Social
Coops
Coops for
disabled
Coops
AssociationsFoundations
Total
number
Social services
3
2
-
15
20
Credit
-
-
1
-
1
Agriculture
2
-
-
2
4
Gardening services
3
-
-
4
7
Environmental
services
2
1
-
3
6
Handy-craft/manufacture
3
2
-
-
5
Sale of commodities
4
2
1
2
9
Catering services
1
1
-
2
4
Laundry services
-
-
-
1
1
Building industry
(reparation/construction)
1
-
-
3
4
4
5
Sectors of activity
Home-based services/
cleaning
1
Computer, printing,
call centre services
1
1
1
3
6
Culture, leisure, sport
1
1
2
10
14
Other
4
2
1
11
18
The total exceeds 100% as each organization carries out more than one type of activity
• Incomes generated by the supply of goods and services
The economic weight of social enterprises in Poland is still weak if compared to EU15 countries. According to the organizations interviewed, despite the acknowledgment
of the role of third sector organizations and SEs by the government, public resources
are still lacking. Hence, social enterprises’ capacity to create wealth is far from being
fully exploited in the interviewees view.
As far as social enterprise reach is concerned, the number of total users benefiting
each year from the services supplied by the 26 SEs under consideration amounts
to 167 770 individuals. The number of individuals daily served by the 26 social
enterprises is of 137 097. When compared to other Central Eastern European countries,
social enterprises’ capacity to improve the quality of life of local communities and
shape locally situated development strategies turns out to be significant. This can
146
be partially accounted for to the circumstance that the Polish law is friendly oriented
towards the carrying out of economic activities by third sector organizations: several
organizations do carry out economic activity on the market without encountering strict
legal constraints, if compared to the situation faced by similar organizations in other
countries of the region. Some constraints are introduced by the new Bill on the Public
Benefit Status, which foresees though the possibility that public benefit organizations
can carry out economic activities under cost, with costs to be defined by the public
administration.
The main source of incomes of the organizations under investigation are revenues
from sales of goods and services (30.34%), followed by grants from public agencies
(24.94%), and other sources (22.97%), out of which emerge EU funds and membership
fees. Moreover, 17.2% of the SEs have a contract with public agencies that ensures a
stable income (tab.4).
Table 4. Sources of income of the 26 Social Enterprises
Types of income
Average
Revenues from sales of goods and services
30.3
Contracts with public agencies
17.1
Grants from donors
Grants from public authorities
Monetary and in kind donations from individuals
Other
3.3
24.9
1.3
23.0
When looking at average incomes according to legal frameworks, the picture
changes substantially (Table 5). Indeed, revenues from sales of goods and services are
the main source of income for cooperatives, followed by other kind of revenues, out
of which prevail EU funds under the European Social Funds. Two social cooperatives,
one credit cooperative, and one consumer cooperative rely exclusively on commercial
revenues. By contrast, associations and foundations rely mainly on grants from public
authorities, followed by contracts with public agencies.
This confirms the stronger entrepreneurialization of co-operative structures vis-àvis associations and foundations, which appear though to have stronger relationships
with public authorities.
147
Table 5. Sources of income incomes according to legal framework
Type of income
Social
Co-operatives
Co-operatives
for disabled
Co-operatives
Associations
-foundations
Revenues from
sales of goods
and services
58.88
82.00
100.00
4.5
Contracts with
public agencies
3.13
.00
.00
26.8
Grants from
donors
0.00
.00
.00
5.4
Grants from
public authorities
0.83
.00
.00
40.6
Monetary
and in kind
donations from
individuals
0.00
.00
.00
2.20
37.17
18.00
.00
20.5
Other
The contribution of social enterprises to a more
balanced use of local resources
The contribution of social enterprises to a more participatory governance model at
local level can be seen from various perspectives.
• Re-distributive role displayed by Social Enterprises
The data gathered show that the general orientation of Polish social enterprises is
that of addressing the needs of more marginalized segments of society, rather than the
community as a whole – i.e. tackling social exclusion and unemployment, which are
among the most pressing issues in contemporary Poland (Hausner, 2008, Piechowski,
1999). More specifically, the commitment of Polish social enterprises is towards the
provision of new general-interest services that meet new needs arising in society (i.e.
alternative education; assistance to homeless people), previously unsatisfied needs
(i.e. work integration of persons with psychiatric disabilities; medical and social
assistance to drug addicts and HIV/AIDS positive), as well as needs that cannot be
encountered anymore by public providers owing to sever budget constraints (i.e. health
and educational services).
148
Interestingly, most social enterprises under investigation declare that they supply
services to users that are unable to pay, either fully (16 percent) or partially (56
percent) by relying on a contract established with the public administration. This is an
important indicator of the increasing institutionalization of social enterprises as welfare
providers that co-operate strongly with local agencies. Out of the organizations declaring
to rely fully on a contract established with the public administration, 2 are located in
the Silesian region in a municipality where relations among local organizations and
local authorities appear to be rather cooperative; one is a traditional cooperative; one
is a foundation that was set up in the frame of a EU Leader project.
The social enterprises under study were in all cases driven by the need of
encountering crucial problems affecting the local community that are mainly associated
to the social costs of the transformation, including the weakening of social bonds
and the emergence of new pockets of marginalized persons following for instance the
closure of state farms. The main issue that prompted social enterprise founders to set
up social enterprise initiatives is the aim of satisfying a new and/or unmet need arising
in society that other actors are either unable or not interested in encountering (Table
6).
Grant opportunities offered by foreign donors were mentioned as the main issue
explaining the social enterprise existence just in one case, showing a positive trend
towards independence from foreign sources.
Table 6. Issues that stimulated the setting up of the social enterprise
Main issues
Meet needs unsatisfied by the existing supply
N
12
Overcome problems affecting the labour market
2
Offer work opportunities to unemployed members
7
Grant opportunities offered by external donors
1
Networking strategies of other NP organizations
1
Other
Total
3
26
The prevalence of general-interest issues – the tackling of a crucial problem of
the local community as a whole – vis-à-vis a mutual interest of facing a personal
disadvantage is also considered by most organizations as the main goal pursued by
the starting-up group. 22 organizations assert to have an extroverted goal - either the
promotion of the local community as a whole, or of segments of marginalized groups
and individuals. In 4 cases (2 social cooperatives and 2 cooperatives for the disabled)
the organizations under investigation specified that the social enterprise addresses
its activities mainly to its members. However, in these latter cases, the organizations
interviewed clarified that the open-door policy adopted allows for any member of the
local community to join the social enterprise, thus paving the way for the enlargement
149
of the membership and the taking of additional issues concerning the local community
into account.
When dealing with welfare services, all social enterprises interviewed claim that
the services supplied differ from the ones delivered by other actors on the ground that
SEs are capable of providing more comprehensive and personalized services, including
training, assistance and therapeutic services. Furthermore, two organizations (both
foundations) emphasize the circumstance that the delivery of social services by SEs
is based on trust relations and is more responsive to the needs of the beneficiaries.
Interestingly, the circumstance that the quality of services is considered in most cases
as an issue that is currently addressed is a positive indicator of the willingness of the
SEs interviewed to improve their performance.
Social enterprise capacity of redistributing resources to the advantage of its
beneficiaries depends upon the mobilization of resources of the local community. One
characteristic that distinguishes social enterprises and third sector organizations from
public and for-profit organizations is their capacity of attracting volunteers. Volunteers
are currently involved by most social enterprises under consideration (18) and their
number has in the 50% of cases increased in recent years or remained unchanged.
Two organizations dealing with medical and rehabilitation services have witnessed a
decrease in number of volunteers in recent years which can be accounted for to their
strong professionalization recently occurred.
Another important issue is social enterprise capacity of transmitting the redistributive function displayed to their member and to the local community. This is done
by almost all organizations through various means ranging from the organizations of
recreational and sport events up to local partnerships – that allow for the strengthening
of the links between the social enterprise and the surrounding environment that hosts
it. Only 3 social enterprises – all social co-operatives that seem to be working in
isolation from the local community – declare not to transmit the social mission pursued
to the local community.
To conclude, organizations supplying goods and services with a high merit character
appear to be more capable of mobilizing resources and redistributing them to their
beneficiaries. They are indeed more rooted at local level, for they tend to involve
beneficiaries and family members as volunteers, and interact steadily with the local
community that hosts them.
• Social enterprise governance and participation
Another crucial issue that has a an impact upon social enterprise capacity
to contribute to a more balanced exploitation of local resources is the number of
stakeholder groups involved in the setting up and management of the enterprise.
Depending upon the type of social enterprise under consideration, ownership rights
and control power can be assigned to a single category of stakeholders (users, workers,
or donors) or to more than one category at a time – hence giving ground to a multistakeholder ownership asset.
As far as the setting up of the social enterprises under consideration is concerned,
18 organizations (Table 7) number volunteers among the stakeholder groups that set
up the social enterprise. The involvement of volunteers equals the number of workers,
who participated in the social enterprise promotion in 18 cases and were mainly
motivated by occupational reasons.
150
Social co-operatives number among their founders mainly workers and volunteers,
who nevertheless do not continue to offer their unpaid work after the setting up of the
enterprise, as well as other non-profit organizations that supported substantially the
founding of the social enterprises concerned. Associations and foundations appear to
be more eager to involve various categories of stake-holders in the starting up of their
initiatives, including also for-profit enterprises in 2 cases and local donors in 4 cases
in addition to workers and volunteers.
Table 7. Stakeholders involved in the founding of the SE
Stakeholders
N° Social Enterprises
Volunteers
18
Workers
18
Public authorities
7
Non-profit organizations
9
For-profit enterprise
3
Local donor
4
International non-governmental donor
2
Other
12
The percentage exceeds the 100%
Table 8. Members’ motivations
Social Cooperatives
Co-operatives for
disabled
Co-operatives
Associations-foundations
Total
Occupational
reasons
7
1
1
1
22
Have access
to goods/services supplied to
members
0
1
1
0
2
Attracted by the
SE institutional
asset
0
0
0
1
1
A family member
is a beneficiary
0
0
0
2
2
Interested in
contributing to
a local social
project
0
0
0
6
6
Motivations
151
The relevance of occupational issues is confirmed by the circumstance that 10
organizations (out of which 7 social cooperatives) consider the need to find a job as
the main factor pushing members to join the social enterprise as opposed to 6 that are
driven by altruistic motivations (all associations and foundations).
The involvement of various stakeholders is a positive indicator of social enterprises’
endeavour of representing various interests at play at local level and hence to approach
the interest of the community as a whole. Associations and foundations are more
eager to involve various kinds of stakeholders in the social enterprise governance
system. Interesting multi-stakeholder experiences are provided for instance by two
foundations that work in the field of local development that are characterized by wide
partnerships at local level, involving both for-profit and non-profit actors. Another best
practice is provided by a foundation engaged in the field of education in rural areas,
which numbers among its members: teachers-workers; disadvantaged workers; users;
volunteers; representatives of non-governmental donors; and representatives of public
institutions.
By contrast, membership in social cooperatives appears to be rather homogeneous,
involving almost exclusively disadvantaged workers that establish the enterprise for
occupational reasons. This circumstance is regarded as not conducive to the full
social integration of the disadvantaged workers employed in society, nor seems to
be contributing to the self-sustainability of the enterprises set up, given the severe
disadvantages characterizing some of the workers employed.
Twelve organizations number working-members in their membership, out of which
5 organizations have less than 5 working members and 4 have a number of workingmembers ranging from 8 up to 30. Three organizations account for more than 192
working members.
Nine organizations have disadvantaged working members, out of which emerge
the two cooperatives for the disabled pre-transformation that account respectively for
277 blind persons and 88 invalids. The 7 social cooperatives under study have among
3 and 11 disadvantaged working members. Interestingly, only 2 social co-operatives
out of 7 have workers that are not characterized by specific disadvantages.
Volunteers appear as members in 8 organizations (all associations and foundations),
which distinguish themselves for being especially rooted at local level and committed
to supply goods and services highly meritorial (educational, medical care, social
assistance).
Representative of public institutions are members of 2 SEs, out of which one was
set up in 1999 and is a good case in point of an organization that has managed to
establish throughout the years cooperative relations with public entities, whereas the
other one was set up on the initiative of public authorities in 2006 with the goal of
supporting the development of entrepreneurship and mutual support in Byczyna.
As far as the board of the organizations under study is concerned, 12 organizations
(10 associations/foundations and 2 traditional cooperatives) number working-members,
ranging from 1 up to 7. Disadvantaged members are involved in the board of all social
cooperatives, in one cooperative for disabled, one association, and one traditional
cooperative. Volunteers appear in the board of 7 organizations (all associations and
foundations). Public representatives are members of the board of two organizations
(1 association and 1 foundation).
152
Table 9. Number and types of stakeholders involved in the board
Social
Co-operatives
Number
Coops
Number
Workers
Number
Coops
Number
Workers
Number
Organ.
Number
Workers
Associationsfoundations
Number
workers
Co-operatives
Number
Soc. Coop
Stakeholder
groups
Co-operatives
for disabled
Working
members
0
0
1
1
2
2-3
8
1-7
Disadvantaged
working
members
7
2-9
1
36
1
2
1
1
Volunteer
members
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
2-10
Representatives
of non-profit
organizations
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1-3
Representatives
of for profit
organizations
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1-3
Representatives
of public
institutions
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2-4
From this description emerges the prevalence of multi-stakeholder memberships
when dealing with welfare services other than work integration. In the latter cases –
both traditional ones that existed also under the previous regime and newly established
ones via social cooperatives – membership are rather homogeneous, involving almost
exclusively disadvantaged workers. When looking in depth at the associations and
foundations under study, 4 are managed by a plurality of stakeholders.
Social Enterprise employment generation capacity
The employment of remunerated workers is of crucial importance for the carrying
out of economic activities in a stable and continuous way. Almost all social enterprises
under consideration but two account for remunerated personnel and some social
enterprises have been specifically set up to integrate to work persons that experience
153
difficulties in finding a job on the open labour market (e.g. social co-operatives and
co-operatives for the disabled).
This analysis confirms the strong occupational orientation of Polish social
enterprises. Whereas less than 50% of the organizations under study declare to have
a percent of workers over total members that is less than 55%, showing a substantial
involvement of other-than worker members in the pursuit of the general-interest goal
of the social enterprise, the remaining organizations have a percent of workers over
members that is above the 55% (cooperatives and social cooperatives). Interestingly,
4 organizations of the sample (all social cooperatives) account for the involvement
exclusively of workers as members of the organization, confirming the occupational
orientation of this typology of SE. Three other organizations, out of which two inherited
from socialist time and one newly established – account for more workers than
members. This can be accounted for to the circumstance that the institutional goal of
these organizations is to integrate to work persons that are unable to be hired on the
traditional labour market.
Two organizations declare not to be able to hire workers and hence to be forced to
rely exclusively on volunteers. Most of the SEs under study account for less than 10
workers, whereas 32% have between 10 and 50 workers. 24% have more than 50
workers, out of which 2 cooperatives that were respectively founded under communism
and in pre-communist time account for more than 400 workers.
Table 10. Workers employed
Number of workers employed
Percentage
Less than 10 workers
44%
Between 10 and 50 workers
32%
More than 50 workers (out of which 2 with more than 400 workers)
24%
From the analysis of data emerges the prevalence of small organizations that
account for few employees. The social enterprises under consideration tend to employ
more women than men through flexible contracts (e.g. part-time contracts), as well as
workers affected by specific disadvantages.
As far as the human capital of the social enterprises under investigation is
concerned, 15 organizations – most of which account for a high percent of workers
that were trained under communism – consider important or very important the
educational level of leaders educated under communism. Half of the workers employed
is endowed with an upper secondary school diploma, showing thus the high level of
human capital engaged in these organizations and hence the development potentials
of such institutions if endowed with a proper upgrading of skills. This is especially the
case of associations and foundations, which rank high in terms of general skills, but
show a lack of managerial competences.
By contrast, social cooperatives are the social enterprises under study showing
the lowest number of skilled worker. In addition, most social cooperatives interviewed
report a sever lack of entrepreneurial skills and managerial competences as opposed to
technical skills, which are by contrast well developed. This can be partially accounted
154
for to the high percent of disadvantaged workforce that is requested by law for a
social cooperative to be set up. When dealing with specific types of disadvantages
– homeless; former prisoners; alcoholics etc. – the endowment of technical skills is
often accompanied by a lack of any other types of qualifications, which prevent social
enterprises from developing as efficient and self-sustainable organizations.
However, when dealing with the development of entrepreneurial capabilities, 48
percent of the SEs believes that the lack of entrepreneurial skills has jeopardized the
development of the SE initiative. The endowment of entrepreneurial capabilities is
indeed considered as an aspect of strength that is conceived of as important or fully
important for the SE capacity to supply goods and services in an efficient and effective
manner by 24 organizations.
Similarly, most social enterprises under consideration consider important the
improvement of the competences and skills of their workers. Out of 26 organizations,
12 implement differentiated training programmes in order to improve the quality of the
services supplied, to contribute to the professional growth of workers, or to improve
the management of the social enterprise.
As far as workers’ motivations are concerned, 12 organizations assert that workers
chose to work in the social enterprise because in search of a job. Out of these 12
organizations, 7 are social co-operatives, 3 are co-operatives, and the remaining two
are foundations. 10 organizations (all associations-foundations) pinpointed both items,
being characterized by both explaining factors for workers’ engagement. However, only
3 organizations emphasized as an explaining reason for workers’ involvement the
willingness to contribute to a social project.
Thus, it can be said that half of the workers are pushed by self- seeking motivations
and half either by a mix of motivations (both self and other regarding) or – as it is the
case of 3 organizations – by the willingness to share the distributive goal pursued by
the social enterprise.
Table 11. Workers’ motivations
Motivations
N
Percentage
12
48,0%
3
12,0%
Both
10
40,0%
Total
25
100,0%
Occupational reasons
Sharing of the SE mission
When looking at individual organizations, associations and foundations are
characterized by workers that are more eager to contribute to the pursuit of the social
goal of the organization, whereas cooperatives mainly engage workers that are pushed
by personal motivations – e.g. occupational reasons. This can be accounted for to the
sever problems of unemployment in contemporary Poland, which are mirrored by the
specific features taken on by Polish social enterprises.
Concerning the employment growth of the SEs of the sample, most organizations
(17) have witnessed an increase in number of remunerated workers (overall variation
of 1 up to 38 employees) hired during the years 2004-2006; only one organization
155
out of 26 has been subjected to a decrease of 8 workers. This shows a clear expansion
of the sectors of engagement of social enterprises. The number of new employees has
involved social cooperatives the most; all social cooperatives but one have witnessed
a positive variation of the workers hired.
Eighteen organizations out of 26 employ disadvantaged workers, out of which
emerge those organizations that are specifically aimed at providing work opportunities
to persons with specific disabilities, namely cooperatives for the disabled, social
cooperatives and one centre of social integration. 8 additional organizations that
mainly pursue goals other than work integration, happen to have also disadvantage
workers employed (ranging from 1 up to 6, in two large organizations).
Table 12. Typologies of disadvantaged workers integrated to work
Disadvantaged workers
N° organizations
Physical disabled
11
Psychical disabled
4
Drug-addicts and alcoholics
8
Unemployed adults
13
Homeless
8
Immigrants
1
Members of minority groups
1
Prisoners
3
Most disadvantaged persons employed are unemployed adults, followed by
physical disabled, drug-addicts and alcoholics, and homeless persons.
The main goal of the services supplied is that of ensuring a stable occupation of
the beneficiaries (9 organizations), rather than contribute to a subsequent re-entry of
the beneficiaries in the traditional labour market (2 organizations). However, 6 SEs
investigated assert that the ultimate goal pursued in not previously defined, depending
upon the capabilities and skills of the persons integrated.
Table 13. Main goal of the work integration services supplied
Goal of integration
N° org.
Ensure a stable work integration of the beneficiaries
9
Ensure a transitory integration of the beneficiaries
2
Ultimate goal depends upon the capabilities/skills of the disadvantaged worker
6
Total
156
17
Social cooperatives are the organizations integrating the highest percentage of
disadvantaged workers (over than 85% up to 100%). 4 organizations – out of which
one cooperative for the disabled and 3 associations-foundations – account for between
30 and 70% of disadvantaged workers; 2 social enterprises – 1 traditional cooperative
and 1 foundation integrate between 10-20% of disadvantaged persons.
Table14. Percentage of disadvantaged workers integrated according to legal form
Percentage of
workers integrated
Social
Co-operatives
Co-operatives
for disabled
Co-operatives
Associationsfoundations
5
–
1
0
0
10-200
–
0
1
1
30-700
–
1
0
3
85-100
7
0
0
0
Social enterprise and the enhancement
of the social capital
As it is the case of other countries of the region, the level of social capital in Poland
is rather low. A considerable number of people are dependent on the state, although
they do not trust it, just as they do not trust each other (Hausner, 2008). Whereas
this phenomenon hampers on the one hand the development of third sector initiatives,
on the other hand it can be positively contrasted by locally based participatory
initiatives.
Against this background, the data gathered confirm that social enterprises can
contribute to revitalize trust relations as long as they are locally rooted and embedded
in local communities. Social enterprise potential of enhancing the social capital that
is accumulated at local level is jeopardized when such institutions work in isolation
and when their establishment is prompted by external actors, rather than being
authentically strived by local forces.
All organizations interviewed have stable relations with relevant local external
stakeholders. All social enterprises have for instance relationships with public entities.
Relations with public authorities are mainly formal and stable (17 organizations).
This confirms a positive trend towards the institutionalization of social enterprises as
welfare actors by public policies.
By contrast, relations of the majority of SEs with local donors are either absent (9
organizations) or informal and occasional (7). The types of relations established with
local donors shows the still marginal role displayed by national donors in supporting
social enterprise development.
Fourteen social enterprises under study have stable relations with other non-profit
organizations, whereas only 2 have no relations. This shows the prevalence of networking
efforts vis-à-vis competitive relationships between institutions sharing similar goals,
157
which is a clear signal of the relative maturity of the sector. However, in the case of 4
organizations (social cooperatives) stable and formal relations are established with the
‘mother’ organization and not with external non-profit organizations.
The majority of organizations under investigation do not have any relations with
trade unions (23) and political parties (20), confirming thus their relative autonomy
and emancipation from political and quasi-political entities. One organization that was
set up under socialism and one post-transformation social enterprise have stable and
formal relations respectively with both trade unions and political parties, and trade
unions.
The independence of SEs from previous identity bonds is also confirmed by the
weak relations of SEs with religious groups. 18 organizations declare not to have
any relations with religious groups as opposed to 2 that establish formal an stable
relations, the remaining organizations maintaining either informal occasional (4) or
informal and stable (2) relations.
Another indicator of SE contribution to the enhancement of social capital at local
level, is the carrying out of educational activities aimed at promoting cooperative and
solidarity values at a community level. Most organizations (19) declare to promote
initiatives at local level to this end, including lecturers addressed to cooperative
members and future social entrepreneurs, training programmes, local partnerships,
special scholarships,
Furthermore, 24 organizations have contributed to the setting up of other initiatives
at local level, out of which 18 are non-profit initiatives, 11 other SEs, and 5 for profit
organizations. This trend shows the high capacity of SEs of multiplying their benefits
through additional initiatives of various kinds that have a positive impact in terms of
new services and additional employment opportunities offered at local level.
Table 15. Organizations supported by the SE
TYPE OF ORGANIZATIONS
N
Non-profit Initiatives
18
Other SEs
11
For profit enterprises
Totale
5
34
In most cases (19 organizations) social enterprise members are also involved in
other non-profit activities that are promoted by other actors at local level. This confirms
the involvement of individuals that are rather other-regarding and commit themselves
to various initiatives at local level.
All organizations declare that the goals of the organization – expressed by the
founding members – are consistent with the goals of the single stake-holder groups
involved. Similarly, all SEs consider the goals of the organizations – expressed by the
board of directors – consistent with the goals of the single stake-holders involved. Both
items confirm the internal cohesiveness of the SEs under consideration and consistency
of the social goals pursued since their inception.
158
Another important issue related to social capital enhancement, is social enterprise
capacity of strengthening internal networks, amongst members and workers. Most
organizations (92.3 percent) under consideration assert to have managed to establish
trust relations among themselves and all consider the work environment favourable
(65.4 percent) or rather favourable (34.6 percent), thus confirming the capacity of SEs
of improving or maintaining fruitful relations among members.
Concerning the impact of the social enterprises upon the local community in terms
of strengthening of the relations among its inhabitants, 21 organizations declare that
the social enterprise offers the opportunity to meet and exchange opinions. Three
organizations partially disagree with this statement. This can be accounted for to the
circumstance that they all 3 work in rather isolation from the local community.
One crucial aspect that can contribute to assess the local embeddedness of
the social enterprises is the involvement of volunteers. 4 social cooperatives and 1
consumer cooperative declare not to involve any volunteers and to have never done
it neither in the past, reinforcing the strong commitment of these organizations
towards providing occupational opportunities to disadvantaged persons rather than
establishing links with the local community at large, including people simply interested
in sharing the social goal of social enterprise. Eleven organizations, out of which 10
associations/foundations account for more than 40 volunteers. Most volunteers are
engaged in activities where employees are not involved. In 6 cases (all foundations
and associations) volunteers participate actively in decision making process, as they
are members of the board. In the remaining cases, they limit themselves to assist
employees in dealing with their tasks. Volunteers are involved in a continuous way by
18 organizations and occasionally by 7 organizations, which all show strong links with
the local community.
Seventeen organizations interviewed claim that the SE contributes to maintain a
high level of trust, whereas 8 partially disagree (4 cooperatives and 4 associations/
foundations), arguing that the impact of social enterprises is in this respect irrelevant.
Most organizations (84.6 percent) join second-level associations-federations-consortia,
thus giving emphasis to the high level of cooperation among organizations pursuing
similar goals (77.3 percent join national second-level organizations; 68.2 percent join
local second-level organizations), which is a positive indicator of the potentials of
the sector in terms of lobbying for creating a more enabling environment for social
enterprises.
Overall, associations and foundations’ embeddedness at local level appears to be
stronger than co-operatives’ one (both social and traditional). This can be accounted for
to two main circumstances. First, the specific characteristics of the services supplied,
which are mainly not relational services in the case of cooperatives. That is to say
services whose quality does not depend upon the interaction between workers and
users. Second, social cooperatives tend to involve almost exclusively workers affected
by various kinds of disadvantages, who run the risk of performing their activities in
isolation from the local community, with an almost insignificant involvement of other
stakeholders, namely volunteers and other types of workers.
159
Social Enterprise capacity to institutionalize informal
activities
The analysis of the data gathered shows that several social enterprises have
allowed for the formalization of initiatives that developed spontaneously, following
a mobilization of the local community. The institutionalization of such initiatives has
been made possible thanks to the availability of legal structures that have ‘crystallized’
the reaction of the local community into private-participatory institutions, and made
possible their subsequent acknowledgement by public authorities, in some cases also
through the direct funding of the services supplied by such organizations.
A good case in point of the grass-rooted mobilization of the local community
against the closure of well equipped schools that relied on valuable facilities and
human resources, is provided by one foundation located in the Podlaskie region.
Following the closure of public schools, 700,000 children ceased to have access
to pre-school educational activities, with families having to take care of their children
themselves. Hence, parents and local community mobilized, triggered also by the fear
that the closure of schools would also accelerate the collapse of entire villages. The
end result has been the bottom-up establishment of 23 schools in rural areas managed
by a foundation, with the parallel hiring of teachers previously left unemployed.
Another interesting example is provided by a grass-rooted foundation that numbers
among its founders 6 local third sector organizations and 4 for-profit enterprises. It
works in the field of local economic development, being specifically aimed to promote
environmentally-friendly tourist initiatives. This initiative was developed against the
background of tackling local unemployment that resulted from the liquidation of
kolchoses previously engaged in timber production.
As it is confirmed by this brief analysis a crucial contribution of social enterprises
is that of allowing for irregular workers to get out of the black market and regularize
their positions. People’s engagement in the underground economy was partially
triggered by some social policy measures undertaken during the 90s, which relied
on monetary transfers and pushed unemployed persons to organize themselves in the
black market.
Thus, ‘patching up’ incomes from various social transfers coupled with occasional
works on the black market have become widespread (Gumkowska M., Herbst J. and
Wygnanski J.J., 2007).
Against this background, the expansion of new forms of jobs promoted by certain
social enterprises – such as the possibility offered by social cooperatives to integrate to
work persons otherwise condemned to social and work exclusion, including homeless,
psychiatric patients, former prisoners, etc. – allows for the regularization of workers
that would be otherwise doomed to work irregularly in the underground economy. This
is the case of 5 social cooperatives under consideration that are specifically aimed at
integrating to work persons that are not characterized simply by a physical disability.
Opportunities and Obstacles for Social Enterprise Development in Poland
Most organizations (14) consider the national and local climate not favourable
to social enterprise development. 50 percent of the organizations interviewed report
as hampering factors the lack of financial resources, the lack of clarity of accounting
procedures, and too strict EU regulations. Interestingly, one organization that was
set up on the initiative of the local administration reports the weak participation of
160
local inhabitants coupled with the insufficient commitment of volunteers as the main
problems that have prevented the social enterprise from carrying out all the activities
pre-identified. This confirms the importance of relying on an authentic mobilization of
citizens for a sustainable social enterprise initiative to be developed.
As it occurred during the 1990s in EU-15 countries (Defourny and Borzaga, 2001),
positive factors that contribute to social enterprise development at local and national
level are considered EU programs (25 organizations) in addition to the increase in
interest of relevant stakeholders at national and local level (policy-makers; researchers;
donors; etc.), the decentralization of administrative competences, the increasing
interest of public administrations to contract out, new university courses and training
programmes launched.
In spite of the over-mentioned obstacles, most organizations (24) foresee a positive
development scenario for social enterprises in Poland, as they believe that these
institutions will develop further, thus contributing substantially to social and economic
capacity within local communities.
5
5. Closing remarks
The empirical analysis has confirmed that social enterprises are engaged in very
different activities alongside other co-ordination mechanisms (the ‘market’ and the
‘state’). Social enterprise intervention is specifically related to the solution of economic
and social problems and especially of certain welfare issues and challenges induced
by global and regional economic trends.
Overall, emerges a high potential of social enterprises as agents of socio-economic
development. Nevertheless, the capacity of pursuing a social goal through the carrying
out of economic activity is still unexploited to a great extent.
Associations and foundations are in general rooted at local level (hence the higher
number of volunteers involved and the multi-stakeholder character of their governance if
compared to social co-operatives), their mission is clearly extroverted, and benefit from
stable relations with public agencies. Their capacity to contribute to social cohesion is
stronger at local level, but it is accompanied by a much weaker economic dimension
– in terms of commercial incomes and number of workers employed, if compared to
social co-operatives. This can be partially accounted for to legal constraints limiting
the possibility of carrying out economic activities by associations and foundations
coupled with a cultural attitude shared by some traditional organizations against the
carrying out of economic activities.
By contrast, social cooperatives, which are the legal form that allegedly approaches
the theoretical social enterprise definition the most, albeit limited to disadvantaged
workers’ employment, appear as highly entrepreneurial. Their strong economic
dimension results from the high percent of incomes gained from commercial activities,
number of workers employed, and types of economic activities run. Nevertheless, they
seem to be still weak in building trust networks at local level. The number of volunteers
involved, homogenous membership represented almost exclusively by disadvantaged
161
workers, and low impact upon social capital enhancement confirm this assumption. In
this respect, the high threshold required by the law on social cooperatives, prescribing
that 80% of the workforce has to be represented by disadvantaged workers, seems to
bear some responsibilities, given the lack of stable and continuative interaction with
people not affected by specific disadvantages induced.
Thus, the overall picture is one of a social enterprise sector that is still in its
inception phase with positive indicators coming from a rather enabling legal system
and strong endowment of human capital. The main obstacles that hamper social
enterprise development are low stocks of social capital and poor entrepreneurial skills
of workers and managers. In spite of this, several best practices confirm the role of
social enterprises as generators of participatory developmental strategies at local level
and pave the way for the possible replication of similar initiatives in other localities. As
a result, the prospects of development and consolidation of the social enterprise sector
appear to be very broad in contemporary Poland.
5
Entrepreneurship
SandocialDevelopment
of Neglected Rural
Communities
Social Entrepreneurship
and Development
of Neglected Rural
Communities
Tomasz Kaźmierczak
Marek Rymsza
Introduction
We present in this report the main results of research conducted under the project
‘Toward a Polish Model of the Social Economy: We Are Building a New Lisków’.1 The
authors of this report are co-authors of the concept for this project and participated in all
phases of implementation (Measures 1, 2 and 3).2 The project was a joint undertaking
by three non-governmental organisations: the Institute of Public Affairs (ISP), which
acted as administrator of the partnership; the Academy for the Development of
Philanthropy in Poland (ARFP); and the Working Community of Associations of Social
Organisations (WRZOS). Local partners from the four districts [powiaty] of Biłgoraj,
Lublin Ziemski, Nidzica and Ełk were invited to carry out the project.3 Seven social
enterprises were established under the project: three social cooperatives (in Prostki
and Golubie, near Ełk, and in Motycz Leśny, near Lublin), three non-profit limitedliability companies (in Biłgoraj, Kamionka near Nidzica and Nasutów near Lublin),
The original Lisków is a village near Kalisz, Poland, which the parish priest in early 1900s,
Wacław Bliziński, activated by founding cooperatives and other civic initiatives there. It has thus
become a symbol of the social economy tradition in Poland. For more information about the
current project as well as the original Lisków, see www.liskow.org.pl.
2
Tomasz Kaźmierczak led the research work, and Marek Rymsza provided substantive supervision
over all project activities as a whole.
3
A total of 42 entities participated in the work of the partnership, representing all three sectors:
NGO, public and market.
1
165
and one enterprise operated in the form of a branch of an association (in Krężnica Jara
near Lublin). A total of more than 80 of the long-term unemployed found jobs in the
newly established social enterprises.4 Community development was also conducted
in five communities: Kamionka, Krężnica Jara, Prostki, Golubie, and Korytków near
Biłgoraj.
All of these enterprises are local in character: it was local partnerships, formed in
each of the four districts independently, that decided on the legal form for the enterprise,
the type of production to be started up, selection of staff, and so on. The autonomy of the
local partnerships allowed the Institute of Public Affairs (ISP) to conduct field research
on the local communities where the enterprises were established without the danger
of a conflict between the roles of an ‘active’ institution and a ‘research’ institution. A
research team was formed within the ISP,5 functioning independently from the group
responsible for administering the project; their independence was emphasised by
the fact that the director of the research team was not a regular staff member of
the Institute. The team conducted three rounds of field research in the four districts
mentioned.6 Studies were conducted twice of the local partnerships (May-June 2006
and November 2007), the community developers (June-July 2007) and employees
of the enterprises (managerial staff and selected rank-and-file workers, in November
2007). The research was conducted chiefly using the method of open-ended interviews;
a total of nearly 120 interviews were conducted.
Independently from the analysis of the four local project partnerships, case studies
were prepared concerning 7 grass-roots social entrepreneurship initiatives: in Kadłub,
in the Opole area of Silesia; in Rodaki and Lanckorona (together with Sułkowice,
Mucharz and Stryszów) in Małopolska province; in Handzlówka and the ‘Strug Valley’
(communes of Błażowa, Chmielnik, Hyżne and Tyczyn), in the Rzeszów area; and in
Dokudów and Łykoszyn, in Lublin province.7 Research was conducted in the period
of May – July 2007 using chiefly the open-ended interview technique (about 80
interviews were conducted).
The two research undertakings were independent from each other on the
organisational side, but complementary from the point of view of the research goals,
which also means they were based on a commonality of theoretical assumptions, the
As of 31 March 2008.
Team participants included Tomasz Kaźmierczak, Dobroniega Trawkowska, Anna Olech, Marta
Łuczyńska, Agnieszka Rymsza, Kamila Hernik, Paulina Sobiesiak, Dominika Skwarska, and
for part of the time also Anna Ziółkowska. All case studies were published in the volume T.
Kaźmierczak & K. Hernik (ed.), Społeczność lokalna w działaniu. Kapitał społeczny. Potencjał
społeczny. Lokalne governance (The Local Community in Action: Social Capital, Social Potential
and Local Governance) ISP, Warsaw 2008.
6
Results of field research were published in T. Kaźmierczak (ed.), W poszukiwaniu strategii
pobudzania oddolnego rozwoju społeczności wiejskich (In Search of a Strategy for Stimulating
Grass-Roots Development of Rural Communities), ISP, Warsaw 2008.
7
Specific case studies were prepared by Kamila Hernik and Jacek Kisiel (Rodaki), Dobroniega
Trawkowska and Paulina Trawkowska (Kadłub), Agnieszka Włodarczyk (Handzlówka), Agata
Dobrowolska and Joanna Leszczyńska (the Strug Valley), Katarzyna Lipka-Szostak (Łykoszyn),
Agnieszka Hryniewicka (Dokudów), and Ewa Bogacz-Wojtanowska (Lanckorona and
surroundings). They were published in the work T. Kaźmierczak & K. Hernik (ed.), The Local
Community in Action...
4
5
166
same conceptual apparatus was used, and to a certain extent the same research tools
were also employed. Both of the research sub-projects were qualitative in nature.
We should add that the field research was supplemented by analytical/study work
devoted, among other things, to Polish social economy traditions. We examined more
closely the original Lisków (from the title of the work) and the pre-war development
work of the priest and social activist there, Wacław Bliziński;8 a comparative analysis
was also prepared concerning three initiatives from the period between World War I
and World War II, in Lisków, Zaborów and Handzlówka.9
While the main goal of the practical phase of the project ‘Toward a Polish Model
of the Social Economy: We Are Building a New Lisków’ was successful start-up of
social enterprises, the research and study work was intended to provide answers to
the question of how to kick-start processes of endogenous growth in socially and
economically neglected communities, primarily rural ones. The particular goal was
to determine whether this effect is encouraged by application of a model for actions
referred to as ‘partner intervention strategy’, whose key components are a local
partnership, community development, and a social enterprise treated as a kind of
generator for local growth. For such a research goal it would be useful to conduct
research based on the (full) schema of a natural experiment. That was not possible,
however. To maintain methodological correctness, conclusions thus referred to the
logic of the canon of singular agreement; this allowed for the assumption that a partner
intervention strategy is effective if it brings similar desired results when applied in
many differing communities. In practice, however, it was possible to use sociological
apparatus to ‘observe’ only certain elements of the strategy. That also proved to be the
case during realisation of both of the research undertakings referred to. The information
thus obtained was to provide a basis for answering three specific questions:
Is a local partnership capable of inspiring and supporting local social enterprises,
and can it serve as a source of bridging social capital for them, and indirectly for the
communities where the enterprises are located?
Does community development work as an instrument for building community
capacity, including increasing its social capital?
What is the social and economic effectiveness of social enterprises and the degree
of their rootedness?
These questions contain concepts that are key to the entire project: social capital,
community capacity, and a social enterprise rooted in the local community.
Social capital was understood, in line with the Putnam tradition, as an attribute of
community. In particular, the differentiation among ‘bonding’ capital, vertical ‘linking’
capital and horizontal ‘bridging’ capital – applied by many authors, including Putnam
himself, but ultimately deriving from Granovetter – was of crucial significance.
See T. Kaźmierczak & P. Sobiesiak, ‘Lisków: model rozwoju lokalnego?’ (‘Lisków: A Model for
Local Development?’), in T. Kaźmierczak (ed.), Zmiana w społeczności lokalnej (Change in the
Local Community), ISP, Warsaw 2007.
9
See I. Bukraba-Rylska, ‘Przedsiębiorczość społeczna w Polsce dwudziestolecia międzywojennego
– przykłady’ (‘Social Entrepreneurship in Poland in the Interwar Period: Examples’), in T.
Kaźmierczak & M. Rymsza (ed.), Kapitał społeczny. Ekonomia społeczna (Social Capital: Social
Economy), ISP, Warsaw 2007. The collective works cited in notes 10 & 11 also contain theoretical
studies concentrating on the issues of connections between social entrepreneurship and social
capital and community development.
8
167
Community capacity is a concept that includes a number of interrelated factors
determining whether the community ‘functions’ and how smoothly. ‘Community capacity
arises during the course of interactions among the human capital, organisational
resources and social capital that exist in a given local community and may be exploited
to solve common problems and to improve or maintain the prosperity of the given
community. This capacity may be realised via informal social processes and/or under
organised activities of individuals, organisations and social networks existing between
and among them, as well as within larger systems in which the given local community
is found.’10
The concept of a social enterprise rooted in the local community has been developed
in the course of studies. A rooted enterprise is an enterprise that is involved in local social
networks and economic ties; as such it constitutes a strategically important element
of community capacity stimulating local growth. It appears that such enterprises
essentially constitute a certain specific, separate type of social enterprise, in the same
way that enterprises specialising in social and occupational reintegration of people
who are unemployed or hold a marginal position on the labour market constitute a
certain type referred to as a ‘work integration social enterprise’.11
We preface the presentation of the main research results with a sketch of the
broader context in which we place the research project and in which we would like it
to be viewed.
1
1. The social economy, local growth, and
rural areas
The authors of one of the latest reports concerning the state of the social economy
in Europe, prepared for the EU, write: ‘(...) The social economy has displayed a
significant capacity for increasing the level of social cohesion (…); it has brought
about social integration and integration into the labour market of disadvantaged
persons and localities (....) Through the social economy the society has increased the
level of its democratic culture (…) and successfully given a voice and bargaining power
to social groups previously excluded from economic processes and from the process of
developing and implementing public policy.’12 It would be a gross exaggeration to say
that the social economy has displayed such an ability yet in Poland as well, but without
a doubt it is trying to do so. Moreover, the view that a social enterprise is chiefly a
R.J. Chaskin, P. Brown, S. Venkatesh & A. Vidal, Building Community Capacity, Aldin de
Gruyter, New York, 2001, p. 7; quoted passage are based on the Polish version in T. Kaźmierczak
(ed.), Change in the Local Community.
11
C. Davister, J. Defourny & O. Gregoire, Work Integration Social Enterprises in the European
Union: An Overview of Existing Models, EMES Working Papers (No. 04/04), 2004, www.emes.
net
12
The Social Economy in the European Union, report published in 2007 by CIRIEC for the
European Economic and Social Committee (No. CESE/COMM/05/2005) (passages quoted are
based on the official Polish summary).
10
168
tool for social and occupational reintegration or readaptation of disadvantaged and
excluded people predominates in the public debate and also lies at the foundations of
the current (and planned) institutional and legislative solutions.
The authors of the report for the EU continue: ‘The social economy is also a
strategic driving force for local and regional development. It displays vast potential
to unleash internal growth processes in rural areas, reactivate vanishing industrial
zones, and rehabilitate and revitalise depressed urban areas, and potential for support
of endogenous economic growth.’13 It is puzzling that this property of the social
economy appears underappreciated in contemporary Poland, since it was precisely
to ‘lift the nation out of material and spiritual decline’ that the idea of the cooperative
was resorted to in the late 19th century. Thus the strength of tradition would dictate
that local development should be the focus of debate on the ‘new social economy’,
but that is not the case. What’s more, the issue of the social economy is not tied to
the issues of the Polish countryside, as tradition would suggest, and in particular the
social economy is not perceived as offering a method for dealing with its backwardness
(or if you will, its economic, social and cultural neglect), although in the past the cure
for rural poverty was supposed to be (and was) the cooperative movement, mutual
insurance, and credit unions – the basic forms of the ‘old’ social economy.
The failure to perceive rural areas as an environment for growth of the social
economy, tradition notwithstanding and – it should be stressed – despite the extent of
the needs that exist there, is curious for yet another reason. After all, the countryside
has a generally collective nature and requires a certain level of bonding social capital,
reserves of which appear to be greater in rural communities and small towns than in
urban areas, not to mention big cities. It may thus be said that it is precisely in the
countryside that social enterprises have better conditions for growth than in urban
environments. The success of ‘theme villages’ or activities exploiting the category of a
regional product appear to confirm this thinking. In this situation, that is, taking into
consideration the experiences of the past, contemporary needs and the nature of social
entrepreneurship, an attempt should be made to verify the dominant approach to the
issue of the social economy and its role in Polish society, and to a greater degree, at
least, reflect the issues of rural development in what we may refer to as social economy
policy.
In our view, an orientation of the social economy toward the countryside and
development there could constitute a characteristic and distinguishing feature of the
Polish model of the social economy.
There appears to be a consensus among experts on rural problems, both in
Poland and in the countries of the ‘old’ EU, on the need to develop a new approach
(paradigm) for the issues of rural development.14 Insofar as there are any specific
features characterising the state of the Polish (and European) countryside and
particular related grounds justifying the need for development, it appears that the
chosen direction for the quest reflects the general trends that have appeared in recent
Ibid.
See e.g. L. Kolarska-Bobińska, A. Rosner & J. Wilkin (ed.), Przyszłość wsi polskiej. Wizje,
strategie, koncepcje (The Future of Rural Poland: Visions, Strategies, Conceptions), ISP, Warsaw,
2001; T. Marsden, ‘The Road Towards Sustainable Rural Development: Issues of Theory, Policy
and Practice in a European Context’, in P.J. Cloke, T. Marsden, & P. Mooney (ed.), Handbook of
Rural Studies, Sage Publications, London 2006.
13
14
169
years in the approach to issues of local development. These trends may be seen in
the growing interest in endogenous growth, which appears better suited to facing the
contemporary globalised economic and social reality than exogenous growth. In the
early 1980s it was still accepted that local growth occurs as a result of investment of
external funds and the initiative of central authorities. Now the role of local/territorial
actors is stressed; development processes should be initiated thanks to local/territorial
inter-sectoral cooperation (local governance), coordinated horizontally and vertically.15
The sources of growth are thus seen to come from mobilisation of local resources, or
to use the terminology of P. Bourdieu, we may say: mobilisation of economic, cultural
and social capital. Local resources and local initiative are not everything, however: in
line with the logic of the contemporary networking society, it is still necessary to join
broader networks extending beyond the local area. Contemporary endogeny is thus no
longer the Weberian ‘ideal’ endogeny; researchers into rural issues, in this situation,
even suggest a departure from the classic dichotomy of endogenous vs. exogenous
growth, to be replaced by focusing on the issue of the interaction/transaction dynamic
between the local territory and its immediate and more distant institutional, political
and economic surroundings.16
Perhaps the best example of the new thinking about local development of rural
areas is the concept of ‘neo-endogenous’ or ‘participatory’ growth, as it is alternately
referred to by the author of the concept, C. Ray. He distinguishes three planes on
which neo-endogenous growth of a given community or territorial collective (a given
territory) occurs.17 The first of these is the intra-territorial plane. Important here are
such elements as local cultural and social capital and their cultivation, including
through use of values and instruments of the social economy, and local partnerships.
The second plane is the political and administrative context. Its role is responsibility for
joining (and exploiting) transfer channels created under the redistribution policy carried
out by the state and by EU structures. The third plane is the inter-territorial, involving
ties that allow for multi-level exchange of goods, services, know-how and so on.
In our view, the concept of neo-endogenous growth appears to be the right tool
both for studying the processes of local growth in rural areas and for developing social
policy and policy toward the third sector.
X. Greffe, ‘The Role of Social Economy in Local Development’, in The Social Economy: Building
Inclusive Economies, A. Noya & E. Clarence (ed.), OECD, Paris 2007.
16
P. Lowe, J. Murdoch & N. Ward, ‘Beyond Models of Endogenous and Exogenous Development’,
in J.D. van der Ploeg & G. van Dĳk (ed.), Beyond Modernization, van Gorcum, Assen, 1995;
cited by C. Ray, ‘Neo-Endogenous Rural Development in the EU’, in P.J. Cloke, T. Marsden & P.
Mooney (ed.), Handbook of Rural Studies.
17
C. Ray, ‘Neo-Endogenous Rural Development...’
15
170
2
2. Main research results
The research results will be presented in the form of answers to the three specific
questions referred to above, involving the issues of local partnerships, community
development, and rootedness of social enterprises. It should be borne in mind that
because of the nature of the research (qualitative) and the scale (several monographs
and case studies), the results should be treated cautiously, definitely more as hypotheses
for further studies than as any sort of resolution.
2.1. Local partnerships
During the course of the research, empirical (descriptive) material was collected
concerning six local partnerships: four of them were established under the ‘Lisków’
project, one (the Gościniec partnership from Lanckorona and surroundings) at the
beginning of this decade, and one (the very specific case of the Strug Valley) in the
early 1990s. Without a doubt, each of them displayed a sufficient level of efficiency
and effectiveness in action to start up initiatives involving the social economy; they
were also able to include local social enterprises in broader (supra-local) networks of
connections if they only set such goals for themselves. Certain similarities between
them should be stressed – or perhaps chiefly differences – which, apparently, were
responsible for their differing abilities to create added value, i.e. the scale of planned
and achievable social changes.
Partnership may be looked at as a certain formalised task-based structure. But this
point of view doesn’t reveal the essence, namely that the phenomenon we are dealing
with is generally a network of more or less personalised local/regional institutional
ties which appears after some time and under which common actions are taken. This
network is capable of generating formal structures (project partnerships) if the need
arises (and also to recruit members from outside the network). This process took
place in most of the partnerships studied. It may be stated that such networks arise
faster and easier in homogeneous (intra-sectoral) environments than in heterogeneous
environments, and thus there is a certain difficulty when it is necessary to establish
a formal inter-sectoral partnership – a difficulty in putting together the right balanced
composition or introducing a balanced division of roles. The partnerships studied
included those that are essentially part of the third sector, as well as those that derive
from the public sector. The difficulties referred to occurred in both types.
It should be mentioned that in this respect one of the partnerships studied clearly
stood out. This was a case where the initiative to create the partnership did come from
the local government authorities, but from the very beginning it was built on the basis
of inter-sectoral cooperation, with a balanced division of responsibility: the government
partner in some way legitimised the activities conducted and (institutionally) maintained
technical coordination functions, but the execution functions were basically turned
over to NGOs. Anticipating the line of analysis, we should stress that the effects of the
partnership proved significant (synergy) and apparently enduring, even though with
171
time the dynamic of the partnership weakened (from what we could call objective
reasons). This case seems to represent the type of partnership that has the greatest
potential for instigating processes of long-lasting social change (development).
Each partnership/network has its key figure or institution with ‘vision,’ capable
of mobilising others and organising or imposing a style and manner of acting. The
leadership exercised by this figure or institution is not identical. Among the partnerships
studied, there are instances of a style that is nearly autocratic, as well as a style
involving a combination of various entities (with the leader as a ‘broker’), which by
creating a zone for appearance or activation of other people or institutions leads toward
a situation that may sometimes be described as collective leadership. Either style is
fine, and acceptable to other members of the network, so long as it remains sufficiently
effective. It does appear that at a certain level of complexity in actions, autocratic
leadership may prove to be a barrier.
The network as the basis for a formalised partnership, difficulties in building intersectoral structures as a result of the original homogeneity of the network, and clear
leadership (though with different characters): these are the similarities found in the
partnerships studied. The differences, meanwhile, concerned the style of action and
the ability to achieve synergy. The empirical material gathered provides a basis to link
these differences to the level of bonding and bridging social capital available in a given
community or region.
Among the partnerships studied, some may also be indicated that were capable
of achieving synergy and meeting goals, which we may call ‘bold’ partnerships; those
that do not rely on synergy, setting and achieving ‘realistic’ goals; and those that rely
on synergy but do not manage to create it and do not achieve goals.
We encountered the first situation where there was a willingness (and thus a
sufficient level of trust) to enter into cooperation with ‘strangers’. The second and third
situations, on the other hand, arose when cooperation was formed only among their
‘own’ people; however, in the second situation the goals were reduced to what could
be realistically achieved with the help of their ‘own’ people; and in the third situation,
it was as if this awareness were lacking. In reality, the members of such a partnership
had (or at least claimed to have) a strong desire to ‘do something together’, but when
it came to doing it, for reasons that are hard to determine unequivocally, nothing
worked out. Characteristic of the two latter instances of partnerships, they assume (in
theory or practice) that a style of action referring to (vertical) relations of authority will
be effective, as if horizontal relations (such as voluntary cooperation) were more or
less consciously not taken into consideration. Meanwhile, these types of relations (i.e.
horizontal relations) serve as the foundation for the style of action in the first situation
singled out above.
Thus, using concepts from the theory of social capital, namely bonding capital and
bridging capital, it should be stated as follows: partnerships are capable to bringing
about an effect of synergy and creating added value where bridging capital is available.
This suggestion appears to be a truism and indicates an interdependence that would
have been expected. It does seem, however, that what is of crucial significance is
not so much access to bridging capital as a kind of surplus of bonding capital, which
doesn’t sound so obvious. Partnerships appear to have the capacity to generate added
value where the level of bridging capital is equal to or greater than the level of bonding
capital. If the situation is reversed, bonding capital blocks the chances for growth
172
of bridging capital: people acting rationally rely on vertical relations, which deprives
horizontal relations of their rationale.
In light of regional differences occurring in Poland, which also affect the distribution
of bonding capital, greater efficiency and effectiveness may be anticipated in actions
by partnerships formed in northern, western and southern areas than in central and
eastern regions of Poland (Mazovian, Podlasie and Lublin provinces).
2.2. Community development18
The community development carried out under the project ‘Toward a Polish Model
of the Social Economy: We Are Building a New Lisków’ proved to be an effective
instrument for building community capacity in the local communities where it was
conducted, including formation of networks of new connections (bridging capital). The
‘hard’ results of the actions conducted by the community developers are the local
associations that were established in each of those communities.19
Perhaps the most spectacular example of the possibilities inherent in community
development is that of the small village of Korytków, near Biłgoraj in Lublin province.
It appeared to be the most passive and apathetic village in the entire commune. As a
result of the community development work, lasting a year, a ‘dead’ school was brought
back to life, a volunteer fire station that had been closed to the community was
reopened, and the ‘Patria’ Association for Support of Local Growth and Integration was
formed. It should be stressed that more than 70 people showed up for the founding
meeting. This must be regarded as an exceptional event, considering that two years
before, at a meeting held to elect the sołtys – the head of the village – barely 20 people
showed up.
A specific feature of the model of community development20 used in the Lisków
project was that the community developers were not part of the community in
question, but outsiders. Apparently this allowed the community developers to take a
neutral position within the structures of local relations, in the sense that, remaining
apart from local political alignments, coteries and similar clusters of strong bonds, but
providing the opportunity to influence these relations, and particularly to build bridges
between them. Clearly, the community developers had to create their necessary
The term ‘community development’ [animacja lokalna] is used to refer to social work conducted
in the field not with particular individuals or families, but with entire local communities.
19
Community development projects were carried out by Weronika Pylak in Krężnica Jara,
Dominik Skrzypkowski in Kamionka, Marek Śliwiński in Prostki and Golubie, and Rozalia Zając
in Korytków. For more on community development fieldwork, see M. Dudkiewicz et al. Animacja
lokalna. Jak aktywizować społeczności wiejskie? (Community Development: How to Activate
Rural Communities?), ISP and ARFP, Warsaw 2008; M. Łuczyńska & A. Olech, ‘Animatorzy
lokalni: zidentyfikowane role i efekty działania’ (‘Community Developers: Identified Roles and
Effects of Action’), in T. Kaźmierczak (ed.), In Search of a Strategy…
20
For a description of this model, see T. Kaźmierczak, ‘Model animacji lokalnej wypracowany
w projekcie „W stronę polskiego modelu gospodarki społecznej – budujemy nowy Lisków”’ (‘The
Model for Community Development Prepared in the Project ‘Toward a Polish Model of the Social
Economy: We Are Building a New Lisków’), in T. Kaźmierczak (ed.), In Search of a Strategy…
18
173
authority themselves, chiefly by carrying out projects in the communities that proved
to be successful. This gave them a basis for winning the acceptance and trust of
members of the community. Thanks to their influence, the community developers were
able to set up situations allowing self-organising processes to be started up in the
communities; people obtained new experiences, knowledge and skills, and new local
leaders emerged.
Community development thus appears to offer important strengths: effectiveness
in building community capacity, including increasing the level of bridging capital and
neutralising the effects of too-strong bonding capital. This provides a strong justification
for using community development to stimulate processes of endogenous growth in
communities that are too weak for these processes to appear spontaneously.
Case studies of social economy initiatives in several villages provided evidence that
a community needs to possess a certain threshold level of community capacity in order
to follow a growth trajectory. Some of the initiatives were successful and some were not.
Not surprisingly, it turned out that the community capacity of the communities where
economic initiatives succeeded was greater in every dimension than in the communities
where the initiatives ended in failure. They had greater institutional resources and a
higher level of social capital: civic involvement and a tradition of involvement, trust
and bridging capital (internal and external ties); more people involved in public affairs,
a greater level of knowledge, and key skills for effectively conducting local affairs and
activities.
The empirical material collected provides strong grounds for the thesis that that in
communities that are socially and economically neglected, economic growth initiatives
should be preceded by community development – work to increase their community
capacity.
2.3. Rooted social enterprises
During the research, some dozen or more social enterprises or social economy
initiatives were analysed. In each case the question of their degree of rootedness was
posed. In order to assess this, the following indicators were adopted:
• economic dimension:
– capitalisation of local resources (human, natural, cultural etc.),
– stimulation of local economic exchange;
• social dimension:
– inclusion in local social networks,
– involvement in community affairs,
– degree of feeling ‘at home’.
Most of the enterprises or initiatives could be said to rooted, but not all. This was
primarily the case for enterprises whose creators concentrated on the reintegration
function of the social economy. Features of rootedness were found, on the other hand,
in initiatives that were intentionally subordinated to development goals and those that
managed to combine both functions (integration and growth). The types of rooted
social enterprise are illustrated by the following examples:
174
In Kamionka, a small village near Nidzica (Warmia-Mazuria province), the social
enterprise Garncarska Wioska sp. z o.o. was created by the Nida Foundation. The main
purpose of the company is promotion of entrepreneurship in rural areas by occupational
and social activation and integration of people who are unemployed, disadvantaged,
or marginalised on the labour market. Ultimately this initiative is to transform into a
type of economic cluster, gathering various entities under its banner such as groups of
local entrepreneurs, institutions and organisations linked in a network of cooperation.
The form of a cluster makes economic sense – the concentration of resources will
strengthen the position on the market as well as the social position – and offers an
open formula for action which additional entities may join. Garncarska Wioska handles
artisan production (such as tailoring, ceramics, souvenirs and handmade paper),
organisation of training, seminars and conferences, and workshops on making stained
glass, ceramics, handmade paper and painting on glass. The ‘flagship’ product of
Garncarska Wioska is organising Mazurian folk-style wedding receptions, with marriage
rites, folk music, and food prepared according to traditional recipes. In its products and
services, Garncarska Wioska seeks to combine contemporary entrepreneurship with
promotion of local history and regional culture, and to revive craft skills and trades that
are dying out.
It should be added that in Kamionka, community development was carried out
alongside work on setting up the enterprise. This resulted in creation of the ‘We
Do’ Association for Development of the Mazurian Countryside, which undertook the
initiative of producing herbs (growing and curing). Via the association and production
of herbs, residents of Kamionka may join Garncarska Wioska as participants in this
network of cooperation – and as beneficiaries.21
In Handzlówka (the Podkarpacie province), a group of some 15 to 18 women are
conducting an economic project involving production of local specialities, which they
then sell directly or as part of catering services ordered by such customers as province
offices in Rzeszów. The project has operated since 2007 under the ‘Handzlowianka
Homestead’ Association for Rural Development, which was established especially for
this purpose. (The project was previously operated by another local association.) While
the sale of locally produced milk, vegetables and grains for flour is not particularly
profitable in economic terms, their attractiveness grows after processing into products
of the regional cuisine, the most famous of which is Easter serwatka, a wheybased soup recognised as a speciality of Handzlówka. In addition to the whey soup,
‘Handzlowianka Homestead’ produces other regional foods, such as bread baked in
cabbage leaves, rolls known as proziaki, fresh and aged cheese, fried dry cheeses
called gomółki, butter, pierogi, crêpes, cinnamon apples and cheesecake. Other local
producers, from outside Handzlówka, have added their products, including honey,
cordials, embroidery and Easter eggs.22
In Lanckorona (the Małopolska province), the social firm ‘Horizons ITD’ was
established in 2006 under the auspices of the Amber Trail Ecological & Cultural
Description of initiative based on K. Hernik & P. Sobiesiak, ‘Uszyjemy świat dla dzieci –
Spółdzielnia ‘Stara Szkoła’ w Prostkach’ (‘We Will Tailor a World for Children: The ‘Old School’
Cooperative in Prostki’), in T. Kaźmierczak (ed.), In Search of a Strategy…
22
Description of initiative based on A. Włodarczyk, ‘Handzlówka – tam, gdzie przedsiębiorczość
ma lokalny smak’ (‘Handzlówka: Where Entrepreneurship Has a Local Flavour’), in T. Kaźmierczak
& K. Hernik (ed.), The Local Community in Action...
21
175
Association. Its field of operations includes cultural heritage tourism and nature
tourism. It handles the sale of local products (chiefly handmade artistic and household
items); organisation of various types of training, seminar excursions, outdoor events
and craft workshops (crêpe paper, embroidery, painting on glass, origami, salt dough,
cross-stitch, candle-making, ceramics, drawing lessons and the like); leading tourist
excursions, organising and staffing celebrations and other special events in and around
Lanckorona. These activities make up the market aspect of Horizons. It should be
noted that on the local tourism market, this enterprise has no real competition; it filled
an existing need. But there is also another networking aspect to the firm’s activities.
The firm is a manifestation of the cooperation within the local partnership created by
several NGOs and local government units; in carrying out its mission, Horizons ITD
sells and promotes local products and supports the operations of other organisations
active in the partnership. This function should ultimately expand together with growth
in partner activities.23
In the theoretical conception, the value of an enterprise rooted in the local
community should be to serve as a generator for local growth. Because the great
majority of the enterprises studied are very new initiatives, it not possible yet to
determine whether they will actually fulfil this function in the future. That may prove
to be the case after several years. Nonetheless, in analysing their social and economic
business plans, and giving free rein to the imagination, one may well hope that this
will be the case, once they pass through the first, most difficult period.
Among the empirical material gathered during the course of the studies, evidence
that this optimism is not misplaced may be seen from the example of the District
Telephone Cooperative (OST) established as a result of cooperation among several
communes in the area around Rzeszów (the ‘Strug Valley’ Partnership) and the activity
of their residents in the early 1990s. The cooperative brought the latest telephonic
technology to an area that was lagging in telephone service, and continues to hold
its own on the telephonic market down to the present day. Appearance of modern
telephonic infrastructure was obviously of great important for economic entities. But
the role of the cooperative was determined by other rooting activities: inexpensive
telephone service and Internet access, free Internet for rural schools and libraries, free
local calls for cooperative members, discounts for the handicapped and partial fee
waivers for poor people, telephonic cardiological monitoring, and the ability to make
conference calls. The authors of the ‘Strug Valley’ monograph write in this way of the
social influence and development effects of the OST cooperative: ‘The social effect
generated by OST is empowerment, an unusual strengthening of the local community
– a deep, almost revolutionary cultural change. The telephone became a part of the
everyday life of the society and transformed it: children catch up on their school
lessons by phone, elderly people carry on lengthy discussions by phone (including
group discussions using the conference call feature); in other words, the telephone
became an instrument of social integration. As one of the interviewees put it, physical
and financial accessibility of telephone services meant that “people started to talk with
one another.” And that is a lot. It is estimated that the total length of telephone calls
in the “Strug Valley” ranks at about the level of a large urban area. During the initial
Description of initiative based on E. Bogacz-Wojtanowska, ‘Tworzenie sieci – budowanie
partnerstwa Gościniec’ (‘Creating Networks: Constructing the Gościniec Partnership’), in
T. Kaźmierczak & K. Hernik (ed.), The Local Community in Action...
23
176
period of activity, it was at a level comparable to that observed at the time in New
York.’24
Summary
The new wave of the social economy, blossoming in Poland and the rest of Europe
thanks to use of EU Structural Funds, is oriented firstly toward creation of labour market
institutions counteracting the problem of social exclusion. Thus social enterprises being
established are primarily those that carry out occupational reintegration of people
from disadvantaged social groups. In Poland as well, most of those implementing
social economy projects under the EQUAL Community Initiative (thematic field D)
have primarily created jobs for the disadvantaged, and the number of jobs created
and their duration are treated as the main yardstick of success.25 But the adjective
‘social’ which we use to identify enterprises from the social economy sector also has a
second meaning: a firm’s rootedness in the local environment. A locally rooted social
enterprise is a crucial factor in the socio-economic development of the environment
in which it functions. This is particularly important in neglected territories (especially
rural ones) where there is a lack of financial capital. In such areas, social enterprises
may be a true generator for local growth. Particular attention is paid to this aspect
of the functioning of social enterprises in Britain.26 The significance of this aspect of
social entrepreneurship is also demonstrated by the research and implementational
experiences gathered in realisation of the project ‘Toward a Polish Model of the Social
Economy: We Are Building a New Lisków’. The orientation toward local development
should be one of the priorities in spending money from the European Social Fund
in Poland in the upcoming years (during ‘Programme Phase II’, after the EQUAL
Community Initiative is discontinued). Public decision-makers appear to be starting
to discern this aspect.
A social enterprise, and especially a locally rooted social enterprise, is an institution
that exploits social capital in its activity, but it also creates reserves of social capital.
And it should give more to the local community than it takes from it. Only an entity that
creates ‘added value’ can be referred to as an enterprise. This means, however, that a
certain store of social capital must exist in the community. If social capital is lacking,
the community must first be reinforced. Otherwise, economic initiatives undertaken in
a given territory either will not succeed, or they will function as it were alongside the
A. Dobrowolska & J. Leszczyńska, ‘Dolina Strugu – w laboratorium współpracy partnerskiej’
(‘The Strug Valley: In the Laboratory of Partner Cooperation’), in T. Kaźmierczak & K. Hernik (ed.),
The Local Community in Action..., at p. 142.
25
See description of the ‘empowerment Polish-style’ model in M. Rymsza, ‘Druga fala ekonomii
społecznej w Polsce a koncepcja aktywnej polityki społecznej’ (‘The Second Wave of the Social
Economy in Poland and the Concept of Active Social Policy’), in T. Kaźmierczak & M. Rymsza
(ed.), Social Capital..., at pp. 187 – 188.
26
See M. Aiken, ‘Przedsiębiorstwo społeczne w ekonomii społecznej. Rozwiązania brytyjskie na
tle tradycji europejskiej’ (‘Social Entrepreneurship in the Social Economy: British Solutions in
Light of the European Tradition’), Trzeci Sektor No. 2, 2005.
24
177
community without fostering its development. Reinforcement of community capacity
may be referred to as community development. In Poland in the 1990s, the Local
Activity Centre [CAL] Association developed the model of community development
(and continues these actions down to the present) using institutions functioning in
the local community such as schools, cultural centres and social welfare centres.27
Under the project ‘We Are Building a New Lisków’ we prepared and tested a model
for community development using an external catalyst. The two models are mutually
complementary, but the model of community development using an ‘outside’ catalyst
particularly deserves to be brought to small, neglected communities where the local
leaders first need to be brought up to speed. But today’s community developer is not
a knight-errant, as a social activist might have been in the 19th century, working on
his own initiative, but a person with strong institutional ties. Institutional support is
especially needed when community development is associated with initiating economic
undertakings.
A social enterprise has greater chances for remaining on the market, growth,
and, finally, becoming rooted in the local community, when it is created not by one
institution, even the most effective one, but by a local partnership. The social economy
in Europe is evolving toward a culture of partnership. Initiation of enterprises at
the turn of the 20th century was the work of activists who persuaded residents of
neglected localities to set up cooperatives. That was the method used by the priest
Wacław Bliziński in pre-war Lisków. Development work then became institutionalised,
crystallising into the profession of social worker or community developer. The effective
entity now appears to be the partnership – not only between institutions, but between
sectors. The initiative in such partnerships is often taken by NGOs, who serve as a
kind of nursery for innovation. It is third-sector organisations that are the main carrier
of the concept of active (activating) social policy28 (and leaders continue to play a key
role there). This is also confirmed by the Polish experience (including our ‘Lisków’
project). In the long run, however, an enterprise cannot grow without support from
local government structures – hence the necessity for local government to support
social enterprises. Finally, business has an important role. If local entrepreneurs regard
social firms as a foreign body upsetting the balance on the local labour market and the
‘rules of play’ (e.g. use of public support), they are in a position to block the growth
of the social economy on the local market. If, however, they discern the added social
value (as may be hoped in an age when the idea of corporate social responsibility is
widespread29), then they will not only refrain from using dumping prices, but will enter
into cooperation, for example by outsourcing provision of services or semi-finished
goods. The culture of partnership is still at the toddler stage in Poland, however.
Cooperation must grow between the third sector (broadly conceived to include NGOs
and social enterprises) and the public administration, and also with the business
See B. Skrzypczak, ‘W poszukiwaniu partnerstwa: z doświadczeń programu Centra
Aktywności Lokalnej’ (‘In Search of Partnership: From the Experiences of the Local Activity
Centres Programme’), in M. Rymsza (ed.), Współpraca sektora obywatelskiego z administracją
publiczną (Cooperation of the Civic Sector with the Public Administration), ISP, Warsaw 2004.
28
See T. Kaźmierczak & M. Rymsza (ed.), W stronę aktywnej polityki społecznej (Toward an
Active Social Policy), ISP, Warsaw 2003.
29
See Trzeci Sektor No. 12, 2008 – entire issue of the journal devoted to the concept of corporate
social responsibility and its influence on the condition of the third sector.
27
178
community. Growth of the culture of partnership is a sine qua non for growth of social
entrepreneurship.
These three components – starting up economic initiatives that include social goals,
formation of a local partnership by social enterprise stakeholders, and conducting
community development in the area where the enterprise is established – when taken
together, set the frame for the ‘partner intervention strategy’ developed and tested in
the project ‘Toward a Polish Model of the Social Economy: We Are Building a New
Lisków’. Based on the studies conducted and the practical experiences gained, we
regard this strategy as worthy of spreading, particularly as part of the development of
social entrepreneurship in neglected rural areas. We hope that the components of this
strategy will spread under further social economy initiatives in our country, and that
the strategy itself will become one of the constitutive elements making up the ‘new
wave’ Polish model for the social economy.
6
T
Are erritorial Government
and Non-governmental
Organisations Partners
in Social Economy
Development?
Findings from a survey on annual co-operation programmes
between territorial government bodies and non-governmental
organisations
Are Territorial Government
and Non-governmental
Organisations Partners
in Social Economy
Development?
Findings from a survey on annual co-operation programmes
between territorial government bodies and non-governmental
organisations
Introduction
This paper aims at answering the question whether Polish local government –
acting based on provisions of the Act on public benefit activity and on volunteerism
– supports non-governmental organisations sufficiently enough to give them an
opportunity to become important social economy players. This paper forms a part
of the Opening Report for the project ‘Searching for a Polish Models of the Social
Economy’ implemented under the EQUAL Initiative.
The social economy gives priority to the well-being of people rather than the
maximisation of profit. It is based on a set of values such as solidarity, participation,
autonomy etc. It plays an important role in the local social development, using available
human resources to complement the activities of private and public sectors, countering
the threats of social exclusion, alleviating social tensions and divisions, promoting the
development of civil society.
The social economy includes entities such as cooperatives, mutual societies, nongovernmental organisations, social enterprises, developmental agencies etc.1
1
More information on social economy can be found at www.ekonomiaspoleczna.pl
183
This paper concerns only the basic types of non-governmental organisations, i.e.
associations and foundations, because it is them that are covered by the Act on public
benefit activity and on volunteerism.
Not all non-governmental organisations can be automatically included in the social
economy sector, since not all of them reveal an economic dimension in their activities.
To be counted as social economy initiatives they must pursue economic activity or run
a social enterprise, employ paid staff, take economic risk etc. Polish non-governmental
sector has not been surveyed in this respect yet, so it is hard to say precisely what
percentage of organisations can be classified as social economy initiatives. But
activities of this kind seem to raise a huge and growing interest (also as a result of
several EQUAL partnerships), so it can be expected that the number of social economy
organisations in Poland will increase over time. How fast these developments will
follow depends mainly on the attitudes of local government bodies, for it is them
that have legal and, more importantly, financial powers to support activities of nongovernmental organisations and other social economy actors. Local government should
also be the party that is the most interested in introducing innovative and effective
schemes in the field of social assistance. It is local government that remains the
natural source of the initial financial support for new non-governmental initiatives.
Local government bodies can offer grants, contracts for services, preferential rental of
premises or buildings; they can also help to organise subsidised employment, as well
as promote and underwrite the activities of an organisation within local community.
Undoubtedly, there will be some independently created social economy enterprises,
but the great majority of them will have to rely on the assistance from local government,
at least in the initial phase of their operations. For non-governmental organisations,
local government bodies remain the natural partner. According to a survey led by
the Klon/Jawor Association, 60 percent of organisations see the local government as
their main ally. Until the Act on public benefit activity and on volunteerism (PBA) was
passed on 24 April 2003, the relationships between local government bodies and
non-governmental organisations were quite unregulated – the then existing provisions
indicating the co-operation with non-governmental organisations as one of the proper
tasks of local government in fact had not required from local authorities any practical
action. The first formal regulatory document concerning such co-operation, ‘The program
of co-operation with non-governmental organisations,’ was passed in 1995 by the City
Council of Gdynia.2 It was the first example of formal local government regulation
concerning the modalities of co-operation with non-governmental organisations.
In this respect, the PBA Act formed a crucial step in regulating the mutual relations
between non-governmental organisations and local government bodies: it made them
much more orderly and introduced a minimal standard for relationships between the
three levels of local government and non-governmental organisations. In particular, the
financial issues, the basic forms and rules of co-operation, and the main concepts,
such as non-governmental organisation, public benefit or volunteer, found their precise
legal definition in the Act.
The Act does not use the term social economy. It contains provisions that can
be conducive to the Third Sector development and its greater role within the social
economy. However, to a great extent it is up to local government bodies whether they
M. Guć, Poradnik dla samorządów (Guide for Self-Governments), FRDL, Warsaw 2004, p.
125.
2
184
will use its provisions to strengthen the non-governmental sector, for – in spite of the
principle of subsidiarity included in the Polish Constitution – the Act does not oblige
local government to co-operate with the Third Sector, and only opens the possibility
and regulates such co-operation. Thus, non-governmental organisations should also
try to actively take the opportunities created by the Act.
The very important aspect of the Act is that it regulates the contracting of services
and describes the modalities of delegating the proper tasks of local government
bodies to non-governmental organisations. Contracting services means the transfer
the obligatory responsibilities of local government bodies to other entities (including
non-governmental organisations) together with the financial resources needed to fulfil
them.3 Before being commissioned, the service should be standardised according to
the PBA Act,4 for otherwise it will be impossible to define precisely the value and the
quality of the service commissioned. Standardisation of social services means a precise
description of all its components, such as formal, material, personal and financial
aspects, in quantitative and qualitative terms.5 In practice, the development of such
standards has only started in Poland, so quite a time is still needed to implement them
thoroughly. Services realised under multiannual contracts given to non-governmental
organisations increase their chances to find a stable place on the market as social
economy entities, so we will pay special attention to them in this paper.
Entering the system of contacting services allows organisation to stabilise its
activities and focus on the statutory tasks, as well as to plan its development in the
long run, to create permanent jobs and to employ staff, thus forming a good basis for
engaging in social entrepreneurship initiatives.
Contracting services is a common practice in European Union countries, while
in Poland it has only begun to be used more widely. The system has its drawbacks,
such as making organisations dependent on only one source of financing, limiting their
operational flexibility and increasing their bureaucratic burdens.
The PBA Act requires local government bodies to develop annual co-operation
programs: ‘The executive body of a local authority shall resolve annual programmes of
co-operating with non-governmental organisations and other entities identified in Article
3 clause 3.’6 And it is those ‘annual programmes of co-operating’ that are – within this
survey – the main source of data on the attitudes of different local governments towards
non-governmental organisations and their willingness to co-operate. The information
contained in the documents reflect to some extent the conditions of co-operation,
but we should also bear in mind that practical arrangements may often differ from
the formal provisions quite substantially. In this initial survey it has been assumed
that the provisions contained in documents concerning co-operation will be used as
a starting point for the next surveys that should also cover the practical modalities of
co-operation.
For more information on contracting services see: Z. Wejcman, Świadczenie usług społecznych
(Provision of Social Services), BORIS, Warsaw 2000.
4
Art. 12, par. 2.1 of the PBA Act.
5
For more information on standardizing of services, see: J. Boczoń, Poradnik standaryzacji usług
społecznych (Guide of Standardization of Social Services), SPLOT, Warsaw 2004.
6
Article 5, par. 3 of the PBA Act.
3
185
1
1. Annual co-operation programs
The PBA Act requires territorial government bodies of all three levels (commune,
district and province) to develop annual co-operation programmes, but it does not
indicate their specific content or modalities of their preparation. The relevant provision
in the Act is very general: ‘The executive body of a local authority shall resolve annual
programmes of co-operating with non-governmental organisations.’ Perhaps this is the
reason why – as indicated by surveys led by the Klon/Jawor Association – only 70% of
local governments passed the annual co-operation programmes (data as of 2005).
The process of preparation of such annual programme was described in more detail
in the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Economy, Labour and Social Policy in 2004,
entitled ‘Framework programme for co-operation between territorial government bodies
and non-governmental organisations and entities mentioned in Article 3 par. 3 of the
Act on public benefit activity and on volunteerism of April 24, 2003. Methodology and
recommendations’ (MELSP Guidelines).
The document presents the basic principles for preparation of co-operation
programmes:
1. The co-operation programme shall cover non-governmental organisations in
general, and not only public benefit organisations.
2. The co-operation programme is obligatory.
3. From a formal point of view, the co-operation programme has a one-year timespan, but it should be prepared in the context of a longer-term co-operation.
4. The very process of its development should engage both local government body
and relevant non-governmental organisations operating a given territory.
5. The co-operation programme should cover various forms of co-operation, and not
only delegating of tasks.
The document suggests the formulation of general and specific goals of cooperation and modalities of their implementation; it also describes the basic principles
of co-operation, its results, scope and forms. The analysis of the surveyed programmes
indicates that quite commonly the document has been used as a model by many local
government bodies.
The requirement to develop co-operation programmes has met with quite different
responses from different interested parties: it has been seen as an interference in the
established local relations from central authorities, as a measure to discipline local
government activities, as an opportunity to initiate and enhance co-operation in a more
orderly manner. It seems that co-operation programmes have been developed more
willingly in those territorial units which already had a tradition of preparing written local
regulations describing the modalities of co-operation, and those where the co-operation
between local government bodies and non-governmental organisations is already quite
well established. In this respect, the most problematic are local governments in rural
areas where the lack or small number of non-governmental organisations is used by
local authorities as an excuse for not preparing ‘useless’ documents.7
Opinions taken from the survey on reactions to the introduction of the Act on public benefit
activity, led by the Klon/Jawor Association and the Public Policy Institute in 2005. The survey
results concern the statistical aspects of co-operation programmes.
7
186
The multiannual co-operation programmes, occasionally developed in some
territorial units and called ‘principles of co-operation’ or ‘chart of co-operation,’ are
not required by law. For that reason, it is hard for non-governmental organisations
that usually initiate the preparation of such documents to gain active engagement
from the relevant local government bodies. Sometimes, multiannual programmes that
have already been passed by local government authorities are questioned by Regional
Accounting Chambers.
2
2. Goals, subject and methodology
of the survey
This survey aims at evaluating to what extent the local government bodies of all
three levels support non-governmental organisations in their initiatives taken in the
area of social entrepreneurship.
The main issue is granting contracts for social services to non-governmental
organisations, but other factors, such as favourable climate created by local government
for operations of non-governmental organisations reflected in clear, predictable and
stable local regulations, are also very important.
Information needed for the survey come from the analysis of annual co-operation
programmes containing the provisions on co-operation with non-governmental
organisations.
The survey focuses on the quality of the documents, notably the annual cooperation programmes, setting the rules for co-operation, rather than on practical
arrangements which, as we already mentioned, may quite differ substantially from the
formal guidelines.
This survey opens a series of three annual surveys led between 2006 and 2008,
and it will form a basis for evaluation of trends and developments in this field over the
following years.
Spreading good practices of co-operation between local government and nongovernmental organisations in the field of social economy and highlighting inappropriate
practices form another goal of this survey.
The survey covered all regions of Poland. Before it was started, a request for
information on forms and scope of co-operation and for basic documentation relevant
to the co-operation between local government and non-governmental organisations
was sent to all communal and district local government bodies throughout the country.
The official letters indicated that a free access to the information is guaranteed by
the Act on the accessibility of public information (OJ No 112, par. 1198). The letters
were drawn on behalf of the Klon/Jawor Association and the Support Network for Nongovernmental Organisations SPLOT.
Additionally, the survey coordinators received documents on the model co-operation
system prepared by the SPLOT network, discussed in more detail later in this text. In
this way, they were able to compare the ‘ideal situation’ with the ‘existing one.’
187
We have no room in this paper to describe all the difficulties encountered during
the process of gathering required documents and information. Finally, the sixteen
regional coordinators received 927 programmes from communes and districts, and
16 programmes from provinces. Every coordinator had to review from 30 to 100
co-operation programmes. Every document received was evaluated using the same
evaluation form prepared by the experts from SPLOT,8 and every one of them had
separate evaluation chart.
The evaluation form used three sets of criteria: basic, extended and special ones.
The basic criteria covered goals of a programme, its target groups, its executors
(partners), terms of co-operation, areas of co-operation, forms of co-operation. In
addition to that, the following questions were asked: Is the programme consistent
with local government development strategy? Does it include rules of procedure for
competition board? Does it include evaluation form for projects/offers? Does it include
a budget describing expenditures for particular tasks?
The extended criteria covered issues such as: is the programme written in a
clear and understandable manner; is it detailed enough to be used as a guide for cooperation, rather than being a simple compilation of excerpts from legal acts and rules;
is it easily available for non-governmental organisations (is it accessible on the BIP
website, can it be easily found there), how many pages does it contain.
The special criteria were meant to survey the following issues: have the joint
committees of the representatives of local government and non-governmental
organisations been created (consultation, coordination, monitoring etc. groups); is the
multiannual co-operation programme between local government and non-governmental
organisations in place, forming a broader context for the annual programme; are the
delegated tasks required to be first jointly standardised, have the evaluation and
monitoring methods for the programme been defined, is a representation of nongovernmental sector or formal/informal unions, federations, networks etc. taken into
account. Finally, a question was asked of whether the programmes mentioned notions
such as social economy, social entrepreneurship, social co-operatives.9
The first set of questions identified the fundamental and core features of cooperation between local government and non-governmental organisations, and it must
be said that a great majority of programmes surveyed met only those basic criteria.
However, we have to bear in mind that as much as 30 percent10 of local governments
did not fulfil even the basic requirements set by the Act.
The second set of questions evaluated the understandability and clarity of the
language used in the document describing the programme, its completeness, its size
and its availability for non-governmental organisations. The special criteria were meant
to identify outstanding programmes, mainly those related to multiannual programmes,
the so-called ‘principles of co-operation’ or ‘charters of co-operation;’ programmes
providing for the creation of joint committees consisting of representatives of local
government and non-governmental organisations or any other representation of nongovernmental sector etc.; and programmes directly referring to social economy.
Then, each regional coordinator prepared summary report based on the above
mentioned criteria, and the reports formed a basis for the present paper.
Jerzy Boczoń, Zbigniew Wejcman, Łukasz Waszak, Łukasz Domagał, Arkadiusz Jachimowicz.
The evaluation form is attached to the survey report.
10
Data from the Klon/Jawor Association.
8
9
188
The reader of this paper should bear in mind specificity of the survey: it was
not meant as a systematic research, but rather as an illustration/ indication/ general
description of general trends and attitudes. The regional coordinators had different
levels of expertise, being often participants of the described processes. The survey
also lacks any detailed standardisation. But nevertheless, it forms the first attempt to
evaluate the developmental opportunities for social economy in the light of the quality
of documents meant to regulate the co-operation between local government and nongovernmental organisations.
3
3. The model system of co-operation
The system of co-operation developed by the Support Network for Non-governmental
Organisations SPLOT, most thoroughly implemented by the local government in Elblag,
was taken as a reference point in the present survey.
According to the SPLOT model, the term ‘system of co-operation’ means much more
than the mere ‘annual co-operation programme’ required by the PBA Act. The system
means a sustainable inclusion of non-governmental organisations into the structure
of activities performed by local government bodies, appropriate local regulations, and
good practice of co-operation based on the principle of subsidiarity.
A system of co-operation should comprise several complementary elements.
As far as local regulations are concerned, the following components are needed:
• the development strategy for local government, giving appropriate role to nongovernmental organisations as both recipients of support and actors performing
various tasks (the programs implementing the strategy are equally important),
• resolutions passed by local/district/regional councils (or regulations by the
relevant executive bodies) concerning the multiannual programmes of cooperation between local government and non-governmental organisations (the
so-called principles of co-operation or charters of co-operation), based on the
above-mentioned general strategy and describing the practical arrangements of
co-operation. It should be noted that these programmes are not obligatory for
local government bodies,
• resolutions passed by local/district/regional councils concerning the annual
programme of co-operation between local government and non-governmental
organisations, describing particular tasks to be implemented in a given year as a
part of the general development strategy.
The system of co-operation should also include the following additional
components:
• an organised partner entity on the part of non-governmental organisations,
being a representation of non-governmental organisations from a given territorial
unit – district, commune or province; such partners should actively participate
in preparation of the above-mentioned legal acts, as well as ensure the good
practice of co-operation, and its continuous monitoring and evaluation,
189
• joint committee consisting of representatives of local government and the nongovernmental sector, supporting and monitoring the co-operation,
• a contact person on the part of local government, e.g. a liaison for nongovernmental organisations,
• a joint committee, providing opinions on the offers submitted by non-governmental
organisations in competition procedures announced by local government body,
with mandatory participation of representatives of the non-governmental sector;
in this connection, the important issues are the evaluation form for projects/
offers and the requirement to avoid any conflict of interests, i.e. excluding from
the committee any person that may be related to the entities submitting offers in
the competition procedure,
• a permanent, institutional support centre for non-governmental organisations,
run by a specialised non-governmental organisation implementing the task
commissioned by local government,
• introducing the principle of mandatory standardisation of tasks that are meant
to be delegated by local government to non-governmental organisations; the
standardisation is performed by a group of experts from both sides and forms a
basis for opening a competition procedure for delegation of tasks.
The annual co-operation programme forms an important part of the system
described above, closely linked to the local budget, developed with the participation
of non-governmental organisations, describing particular tasks for a given year and
indicating financial resources for their implementation. A sustainable functioning of
the co-operation system depends on all those components, their harmonisation and
monitoring.11
The system has been monitored by a group of researchers from the Local Civil Group
Leaders Association.12 They concluded that ‘the developed, accepted and implemented
system of co-operation can be seen as complete, logical and sufficient.’13 It should be
noted that no alternative system has been identified.
For a full description of the co-operation system consistent with the model proposed by the
Support Network for Non-governmental Organisations SPLOT, see a paper published by the
Klon/Jawor Association under the series 3W: A. Jachimowicz, System współpracy samorządu
lokalnego z organizacjami pozarządowymi. Praktyczny przewodnik (System of Co-operation
between a Local Self-government and Non-governmental Organizations. Practical Guide), the
Klon/Jawor Association, Warsaw 2005.
12
Piotr Frączak and Ryszard Skrzypiec. For the results of monitoring, see: R. Skrzypiec,
Monitoring systemu współpracy pomiędzy instytucjami samorządu terytorialnego a sektorem
organizacji pozarządowych w Elblągu, (Monitoring of the System of Co-operation between a
Territorial Self-government and the Sector of Non-governmental Organizations in Elbląg) Elbląskie
Stowarzyszenie Wspierania Inicjatyw Pozarządowych, Elbląg 2005.
13
Ibid., p. 45.
11
190
4
4. Description of the results of the survey
Co-operation programmes have been surveyed according to the three groups of
criteria: basic, extended and special ones.
Having in mind the scope of tasks that can be delegated by local government
to non-governmental organisations, the programmes developed by local government
bodies at the level of the commune are the most interesting in the survey. To broaden
the picture, also the programmes prepared at the level of district local government
were analysed. The programmes at the level of province are discussed separately, but
they were analysed using the same criteria.
4.1. Basic criteria
4.1.1. The goals of co-operation
The vast majority of the programmes surveyed describe the goals of co-operation.
Differentiation between a long-term goal and particular tasks is less common. Most
of the goals indicated in the programmes are consistent with the recommendations
included in the MELSP Guidelines.14 The most commonly cited goals are: ‘building
partnership between public administration and non-governmental organisations,’
‘directing the co-operation with non-governmental organisations,’ ‘activation of local
community,’ ‘meeting the needs of local population.’
The goals indicated in the MELSP Guidelines:
MAIN GOAL: Development of the democratic social structures in the local environment through
building of partnership between public administration and non-governmental organisations. The
process can be enhanced by supporting non-governmental organisations in their efforts to realise
important social tasks.
PARTRICULAR GOALS:
Supporting local activities, creating conditions favourable for initiatives and structures functioning
for the benefit of local communities.
Broadening the civil sector participation in the creation of social policy at the levels of commune/
district/province.
Improving the quality of life through better fulfilment of social needs.
Integration of local policy actors in the field of public tasks mentioned in article 4 of the Act.
Participation of interested parties in the development of the co-operation programme.
Openness to innovation, competitiveness through making it possible for non-governmental
organisations to submit offers for implementation of particular public tasks that are now realised
by local government.
Development of an annual model of local co-operation between non-governmental organisations
and local government bodies within a context of a long-term, multiannual co-operation
programme.
14
191
Only in few cases the goals indicated in the co-operation programmes are more
closely linked to the goals of the development strategy for a given territorial government
unit.
Comments from the survey coordinator (the Podlaskie province): The goals were
presented according to a few recurring clichés (it is a common knowledge that local
government bodies borrow the programme formulations from other local government
bodies, hence very often the programmes are very similar to each other).
4.1.2. Target groups for co-operation programmes
The vast majority of programmes mention their target groups, most often through
citing the relevant passages from the PBA Act.15 Only in few cases the addressees are
described more specifically, even by mentioning the proper names of organisations.
Occasionally, the target groups are mentioned only in the title of the co-operation
programme.
Comments from the survey coordinator (the Malopolskie province): In some
programmes the institutions are indicated by their proper name. The plausible reason
for this is the fact that in some communes non-governmental organisations are so
few that such detailed indications is justified. But then what about the newly created
organisations?
4.1.3. Executors
In most of the programmes surveyed, it is the local government bodies that are
indicated as the executors of co-operation. The programmes mention voting (Councils,
Committees) or – most commonly – executive (head of village, mayor) bodies of
the local government. Every third programme indicates a person responsible for cooperation with non-governmental organisations – co-operation coordinator or contact
person.
Quite often, a department of local government body responsible for co-operation is
mentioned – usually promotion department, and sometimes education or development
departments. Several programmes indicated also joint committees, but usually with
no precise responsibilities. Only in few cases self-government institutions and nongovernmental organisations, together with their representations, are mentioned as the
executors of the programmes. Occasionally, the executors are not defined at all.
Comments from the survey coordinator (the Lubelskie province): Persons or bodies
responsible for co-operation, as well as the substantial scope of such responsibility,
have been rarely mentioned.
15
Art. 1 par. 3 of the PBA Act.
192
4.1.4. Principles of co-operation
Most of the programmes indicate the principles of the co-operation between local
government and non-governmental organisations. Most commonly these were the
principles mentioned in the PBA Act:16 the principle of subsidiarity, independence of
parties, effectiveness, partnership, fair competition and transparency. Occasionally,
some other principles, not mentioned in the PBA Act, are added, e.g. the principle of
social dialogue or the principle of participation.
Usually, the principles are merely listed, only a small percentage of the programmes
go on to explain them in more detail, most often based on the MELSP Guidelines.
A few programmes give a detailed description of the co-operation principles, though
not in the annual programme itself, but in a separate document called ‘principles of
co-operation/charter of co-operation.’
Comments from the survey coordinator (the Pomorskie province): About 71% of
the programmes surveyed contained information on the principles of co-operation. The
remaining 29% of them mentioned them only marginally.
4.1.5. Areas of co-operation
Almost all of the programmes surveyed indicate the areas of co-operation, most
commonly the areas listed in the PBA Act,17 sometimes only some of them. Only few
programmes clearly describe the areas/priorities of co-operation that are of special
interest to local government bodies in a given year. In the rural local government units
the ‘development in the field of sports and recreation’ is quite often mentioned as the
area of co-operation. Few programmes relate to local development strategy, alcohol
problems prevention and therapy programme or other social programmes.
Comments from the survey coordinator (the Lubuskie province): Local government
units in the Lubuskie province use two methods for describing the areas of co-operation:
some of them just put in the programme any item they can think about, while other
take more creative approach and include only those areas that are of special interest
to a given local government.
4.1.6. Forms of co-operations
Most of the programmes surveyed envisaged four forms of co-operation listed in
the PBA Act:18 delegating tasks, exchange of information, consultation and joint task
forces. This basic catalogue was extended in some documents to cover additional forms
of co-operation. In a few programmes forms of co-operation were described in detail in
a separate document called ‘Principles of co-operation/Charter of co-operation.’
16
17
18
Art. 5 par. 1-4 of the PBA Act.
193
It seems that the additional forms of co-operation, not mentioned in the PBA Act,
were most often formulated based on the MELSP Guidelines, but in some cases they
were also related to the already implemented practical arrangements.
An interesting form of co-operation, mentioned in several programmes, is the
financing of organisation’s own contribution to projects by local government from
European funds (e.g. Elbląg, Olsztyn, Ostróda). In general, forms of co-operation
can be categorised in two types: financial and non-financial (the former are definitely
described in more detail).
4.1.7. References to local government
development strategy
Only a small percentage of the programmes surveyed refer directly to local
government development strategies, and usually these are programmes prepared
by local government units that have also developed the ‘Principles of co-operation/
Charters of co-operation.’
Some programmes contain indirect references to development strategies, often in
their preambles.
A provision that a programme forms a part of wider social policy is common
enough, but this can hardly be seen as a direct reference to a document describing
local development strategy.
Comments from the survey coordinator (the Lubuskie province): It is very rare
that the analysed co-operation programmes include references to local government
development strategy, and if so, the reference amounts to a single statement that the
annual co-operation programme remains in line with the local development strategy.
However, most of the programmes contain not even such general statement.
Comments from the survey coordinator (the West Pomeranian province): It should
be noted that in most cases local government units at the commune or district level
have official local development strategies, and the goals indicated in them find their
reflection in the annual co-operation programmes. The local regulations just do not
contain cross-references to each other, and the co-operation programme is only
sometimes described as one of the components of a ‘support/development system.’
4.1.8. Competition board
Few of the programmes mention competition board for evaluation of offers
submitted by non-governmental organisations. Competition boards are created mainly
in those local government units which have in place a document called the ‘Principles
of co-operation/Charter of co-operation.’ The rules of procedure for the competition
board is usually attached to the document.
The practice of co-operation shows that local government units create special
committees consisting of local officials, as well as local councillors, and only occasionally
of the representatives of non-governmental sector. But usually the arrangement is not
mentioned in the co-operation programmes.
194
In some provinces (Mazovian – 26% of the programmes surveyed, Pomeranian –
24%) the competition committees are more common.
4.1.9. Offer evaluation forms
Only few programmes mention project/offer evaluation forms in appendices to the
co-operation programmes.
But in general, the programmes include no description of such project/offer
evaluation forms which, of course, does not exclude the possibility that in practice the
competition committees may use evaluation tools of this kind.
The programmes quite commonly mention ‘soft,’ other than score-based, evaluation
criteria, often related to the proposals included in the PBA Act.19
4.1.10. A budget containing expenditure plan for
particular tasks
Only in very few cases the co-operation programmes provide for detailed local
government budget for the tasks implemented by non-governmental organisations in a
given year. The vast majority of documents surveyed indicates generally local government
budget as a source of financing for the tasks. Only in the Pomeranian province about
one fifth of the programmes contained a more detailed budget arrangements.
Comments from the survey coordinator (the Silesian province): The amount of
budgetary resources for implementation of the co-operation (excluding two cases:
Jastrzębie Zdrój and Katowice) was described generally by indicating the local
government budget (most often being still only a draft) as a document where the
resources for public task implementation will be set in more detail.
4.2. The extended criteria
4.2.1. Clarity and understandability of the text of the
document
In general, the programmes use an official language that can be difficult for the
average reader, but is clear enough for people familiar with the subject. Usually the
documents form a compilation of passages from PBA Act, MELSP Guidelines and
19
195
fragments from other co-operation programmes. Sometime the documents are copied
in full length, and they often contain references to other documents.
Several programmes can be found that are written in a language easy to understand
for average leaders and members of non-governmental organisations. Usually, these
are the programmes developed by local government units that also prepared the
‘Principles of co-operation/Charter of co-operation.’
Comments from the survey coordinator (the Silesian province): (…) the language
used is an official ‘idiom,’ difficult to understand by an average reader of the
document.
Comments from the survey coordinator (the Opolskie province): The programmes
are written in an official language that is hard to understand; particular passages are
often copied in several documents.
4.2.2. How detailed is the description
Some programmes are quite lengthy, but often only because they include extensive
citations from the Act or because they describe all possible areas of co-operation.
The annual programmes related to the ‘Principles of co-operation/Charter of cooperation’ are of a much higher quality. In those cases (6) it can usually be said that
the ‘Principles of co-operation/Charter of co-operation’ form a general guidelines for
the co-operation.
Comments from the survey coordinator (the Łódzkie province): Only four programmes
were model ones, while the rest of them are compilations of other documents, more
or less modified and tailored to a given local circumstances, and using very general
statements.
Comments from the survey coordinator (the Silesian province): The cooperation programmes are seldom a comprehensive guide to co-operation activities
performed by the local government and non-governmental organisations. It can be
assumed that co-operation programmes mainly focus on financial arrangements and
are disproportionately bent on this kind of co-operation, being very general about
practical measures such as the evaluation board formation, evaluation of applications,
information on competitions and their results etc.
Comments from the survey coordinator (the West Pomeranian province): It would
seem that the programmes should take exactly the form of a guide to activities. But it
seems to us that the only reason that they are prepared is the legal requirement to do
so rather that a genuine willingness to initiate and organise the co-operation.
4.2.3. Availability of the documents to nongovernmental organisations
The territorial government units where the co-operation programmes are in place
usually make them available in the web-based Public Information Bulletin (BIP), but
sometimes they are not available there. It is often hard to find the programmes on the
relevant website (e.g. it is posted in the section ‘Resolutions’ listing only the numbers
196
and dates of resolutions taken: to find the relevant resolution containing the programme
the user has to view all documents one by one; an additional difficulty is often the fact
that the programme is attached as an appendix to a resolution). Organisations that
have no access to the internet can only obtain the document in the local government
offices.
Comments from the survey coordinator (the Silesian province): Most of the cooperation programmes are well hidden in the jungle of resolutions taken by the local
government councils of commune or district level (…).
4.2.4. The size of the document
The size of the programmes is between two and ten pages, they have on average
3-7 pages. Their size does not necessarily translate into their quality – they may simply
contain more citations from legal acts and regulations. As a rule, the programmes from
rural local government units are shorter, and the town and district ones are longer.
Comments from the survey coordinator (the Kujawy and Pomeranian province):
The shortest programme had only one page, the programmes form towns and districts
had up to 10-12 pages. Most often, the programmes had 4-5 or 7-8 pages.
4.3. The special criteria
4.3.1. Joint task forces
In line with the provisions of the PBA Act concerning the forms of co-operation, the
programmes commonly envisage the possibility to create joint task forces with nongovernmental organisations, but this general statement is usually not given any more
practical meaning in the detailed parts of the programmes. Such joint committees are
usually mentioned in programmes developed by local governments of bigger towns.
Their creation is initiated by local government bodies, only in few cases also the nongovernmental organisations are given such powers.
Several co-operation programmes discuss the joint task forces in more length, but
without precising their responsibilities and organisational forms.
The few territorial government units where, in addition to the annual co-operation
programme, the document called the ‘principles of co-operation/charter of co-operation’
was developed, usually have also regulations concerning creation, membership,
powers and activity forms for such joint committees. They have different names, such
as coordination unit, consultation unit, steering and monitoring committee etc. Some
programmes contain rules of procedure for the bodies, laid down in an appendix.
In several cases (e.g. the Ełk district, Olsztyn), branch groups gathering nongovernmental organisations were created in relation to different local government
departments specialised in areas covered by a given branch of non-governmental
sector.
197
Comments from the survey coordinator (the West Pomeranian province): The
programmes mention the ‘possibility’ to create joint groups, only in few cases they are
mandatory; still fewer programmes indicate joint groups as one of the executors of the
programme. The replies from local government bodies also show that non-governmental
organisations are not consulted at the stage of the programme preparation.
4.3.2. Multiannual programmes of co-operation
(charters of co-operation, principles of co-operation)
Very few territorial government units prepared documents called ‘multiannual
programme of co-operation,’ ‘principles of co-operation’ or ‘charter of co-operation.’
And even if such programmes are in place, their quality varies – sometimes they are
hardly more elaborated than the annual programmes from other local government
units.
Comments from the survey coordinator (the West Pomeranian province): ‘A
document such as multiannual programme of co-operation remains a genuine rarity
(…).’
4.3.3. The requirement to standardise the services
to be delegated
Standardisation of tasks is very rare, almost absent in the co-operation programmes.
Only in some of the territorial government units that have the ‘principles of cooperation/charter of co-operation’ in place, the provisions on standardisation of tasks
to be delegated can be found. Some local governments implement the standardisation
procedure in practice (in Elbląg – the task: non-governmental organisation centre and
university for elderly people, and in Olsztyn – the task: non-governmental organisation
centre).
4.3.4. Monitoring and evaluation of programmes
Most of the co-operation programmes surveyed contain no mention on monitoring
or evaluation of the programmes. Provisions that organisations may comment on the
programme are quite common, and sometimes the executive body of local government
unit undertakes to present information on the co-operation programme implementation
at the local council sessions (at the level of commune or district), which most usually
amounts to financial statement on the projects implemented by organisations.
In some of the territorial government units that have the ‘principles of co-operation/
charter of co-operation’ in place, the provisions on monitoring and evaluation can be
found, as well as a provision on periodic external evaluation commissioned by the local
government body.
198
4.3.5. Representation of the non-governmental sector
The fact that the non-governmental sector is not federated finds its reflection in
the provisions of co-operation programmes – it is very rare for them to contain any
rules on co-operation between the local government and the representation of nongovernmental sector.
In the territorial government units that have the ‘principles of co-operation/charter
of co-operation’ in place, provisions on the representation of non-governmental sector
are included in the programme (non-governmental organisation boards at the level of
commune or district).
4.3.6. The notions of social economy, social
entrepreneurship, social co-operatives
in the co-operation programmes
These terms are absent in the co-operation programmes. In some ‘Principles of
Co-operation documents the issue of co-operation with business sector is mentioned,
but in the context of partnerships rather than social economy.
4.3.7. Differences between co-operation
programmes developed by local government
units of different levels
Local government bodies in towns where more organisations are active and where
they are better organised develop more comprehensive and innovative co-operation
programmes. In rural local government units the programmes are usually shorter and
more schematic. The co-operation programmes prepared by district local government
units are commonly better.
4.3.8. Annual co-operation programmes
at the level of province
Some programmes prepared at the province level are hardly different from the cooperation programmes developed at the level of commune or district. However, what
distinguishes some of them is a relatively higher awareness of the importance of the
document and more advanced arrangements described in it. The document usually
refers to the province development strategy and operational programmes, while the
main and particular goals indicated are usually not much differentiated and remain
quite similar to the ones envisaged in co-operation programmes developed at the
commune and district levels. The areas of co-operation are discussed in great detail.
The forms of co-operation are usually the same in all programmes and remain limited
to the proposals contained in the PBA Act.
199
At the level of province the programmes envisage quite a lot of joint committees, and
representation of the non-governmental sector is more often mentioned. In two cases,
multiannual co-operation programmes/principles of co-operation were developed and
these are the most interesting documents.20 Very occasionally, precise budgets and
timetables for competitions of offers are described.
None of the programmes refer to social economy. Some mention the issue of cooperation with the business sector and creation of new jobs, but not in the context of
social entrepreneurship.
The programme for Warmińsko-Mazurskie province is the only one that mentions
as one of its goals the support for the creation of social co-operatives and social
integration centres and points. None of the programmes highlights the issue of service
contracting.
5
5. Evaluation
Using the SPLOT network model, the programmes surveyed can be grouped
into three main categories: (1) programmes containing basic provisions borrowed
almost in full length from the PBA Act; (2) programmes extended to include some
locally developed components; and (3) programmes placed in the context of a more
comprehensive document, such as multiannual co-operation programme, principles
of co-operation or charter of co-operation. The classification is far from being perfect,
because there are also different configurations, and the programmes are often copied.
The first category of programmes is the biggest one, the second one is much less
broad, and the third one covers only about a dozen of programmes throughout the
country.
The evaluation of co-operation programmes is presented according to the questions
contained in the questionnaire and is based on the survey findings and the experience
of the author of this text.
5.1. Basic criteria
Almost all co-operation programmes present the goals of co-operation, but the great
majority of them do not refer to the local government development strategy and other
operational programmes. The goals are also not based either on the historical analysis
of the previous co-operation with non-governmental organisations or the identified
social needs. It is a common practice for local governments to borrow the co-operation
goals from the MELSP Guidelines or even from other co-operation programmes,
which shows the lack of thoughtful planning for broadening the co-operation with
It seems that the documents on co-operation from the Świętokrzyskie and Warmian and
Mazurian voivodships are the most interesting ones.
20
200
non-governmental organisations as well as the socio-economic development of local
community, and inability to create a consistent and multidimensional planning system.
It seems that making local government units more aware of the role of proper planning
should be a priority now, especially in the context of availability of resources from the
European funds.
As a target groups of co-operation programmes usually (and in line with the PBA Act)
all entities from non-governmental sector were mentioned to which the public benefit
tasks may be delegated by local governments. A requirement to build ‘data banks’
on non-governmental organisations that co-operate with a given local government
unit is rare in the programmes. The fact that all organisations are included in the
programmes should be seen as a positive arrangement, ruling out any discrimination,
but inattention to newly created or weaker organisations (such as organisations for
veterans, elderly or young people etc.) can lead to marginalisation of or decline in their
activities which are very valuable for certain groups. The positive development is that
finally local governments learnt to distinguish organisations operating in the sphere
of public benefit activity from organisations having the formal status of public benefit
entities. None of the programmes favoured the latter, but at the same time all of them
ignored their specific advantages, such as transparency of activities, access to the
one-percent tax funds etc.
Local governments do not see the executors of co-operation programmes in nongovernmental organisations! It shows how deep the paternalistic and clientist attitudes
are rooted and how weak is the tradition of partner-like co-operation. The situation
results from many circumstances, such as:
• a huge disparity between local governments and non-governmental organisations
in terms of financial resources available to each of them: non-governmental
organisations are still ‘poor cousins,’ lacking appropriate financial, material
and human resources; they also lack in skill of using their advantages, such
as dedication on the part of leaders, volunteer work, direct work with people in
need, familiarity with social problems etc.;
• inability on the part of non-governmental organisations to solicit funds from
sources other than local government budget, leading to overdependence on
only one source of financing and susceptibility to being subordinated to local
authority, and as a consequence creating their clientist image in the eyes of local
officials;
• there is no co-operation between non-governmental organisations themselves,
they lack own sectoral representation that could promote their interests;
• the co-operation programmes are developed without participation from nongovernmental organisations which precludes them from actively lobbying for
appropriate provisions in the documents that would strengthen their role.
The situation slowly changes, as more and more non-governmental organisations
apply for and receive substantial funds from external sources (notably from European
Social Fund). Local governments follow the development which may result in quicker
changes in their attitudes towards non-governmental organisations and greater respect
for their opinions.
A shortage of employees in local government bodies that are well prepared
to act as contact persons for co-operation with non-governmental organisations is
201
still persistent. Skilful work of such officials is an excellent driver for development
of partner-like co-operation which is confirmed by examples of local government
units (especially in bigger towns) where the contact persons are in place. In smaller
communes and districts the contact persons are usually local officials who have many
other responsibilities seen by them as more pressing, and hence they treat the cooperation with non-governmental organisations as a rather marginal task. As for now,
the greatest challenge for such representatives is to organise properly and implement
the competition of offers procedures, and often this is the only activity they perform.
However, they should ideally be also skilled animators of partner-like co-operation,
facilitating non-governmental organisations’ relations with local government agencies,
creating new solutions, bringing together partners, building partner-like relations
with local government; they should train other local officials how to work with nongovernmental organisations that are a relatively difficult social partner. It seems that
shaping appropriate attitudes of the contact persons should be an important priority at
this moment.
The principles regulating mutual co-operation between parties described in
the programmes are usually copied from the PBA Act (principles of subsidiarity,
independence of parties, effectiveness, partnership, fair competition and transparency).
Occasionally, the catalogue is extended to include some additional elements such as
the principle of participation or social dialogue which must be seen as a positive
sign.
It is worth noting that in Polish situation the principles often look strange, for it
rarely happens that they are properly understood by either of the parties or implemented
in practice.
In most of the cases the principles are not explained in spite of the fact that the
MELSP Guidelines dwell on them in detail. Local governments pay little attention to
them, and the problem lies in understanding the principles, their acceptance and
practical implementation on both sides. The fact that the principles are included in
the local regulations gives non-governmental organisations an opportunity to cite them
and require corresponding practical behaviour (especially important is the principle
of subsidiarity that gives them the right to apply for tasks to be delegated to them by
local government). But the practice is quite different, so both sides should be made
more aware of the importance of the principles which should be consistently applied
in their practical co-operation.
A very interesting example is the inclusion of a document developed by the
non-governmental sector, the ‘Charter of Operational Rules for Non-governmental
Organisations,’ into the ‘Charter of Co-operation’ for the Ostróda district. It is an
important message that local government expects ethical behaviour on the part of
non-governmental organisations, creating at the same time a reference point for
organisations, prepared by themselves and serving to evaluate their actions. It is an
example that should be followed.
Only occasionally local governments thoughtfully indicate the priority areas of cooperation in a given year. In general, the programmes lack in any deeper reflection
on the needs of local community in the context of local development strategy and the
possibility to use the resources available to non-governmental sector – a reflection that
would allow to focus on the most important and defined tasks for a given year.
202
Year after year, local government bodies tend to support the same tasks and
the same organisations – the attitude results from different factors such as personal
contacts, political issues, perpetuation of the existing grant system, informal relations,
and last but not least, the inertia of the bureaucratic system.
The situation, especially in smaller communities, is difficult to change even using
new solutions contained in the legislative acts. On the other hand, the non-governmental
organisations themselves have little to offer in terms of innovative co-operation
solutions, and they apparently passively accept the existing status quo. However, if
we bear in mind how difficult it is for non-governmental organisations to get through
to local government agencies with innovative proposals in the field of public benefit
activity, sometimes it is no wonder that many of them finally give up such efforts.
Local governments are not prepared for this kind of co-operation, remain distrustful of
innovation, and as a result refuse such proposals rather than create new mechanisms
to implement them. Implementation of new solutions in the field of co-operation with
local government (e.g. development of principles of co-operation) to a great extent
results from determination on the part of non-governmental organisations rather than
from openness of local government bodies for the proposals. What is positive is that
these ‘good practices’ introduced in some local government units make other ones
more open to change, as witnessed by direct interviews with local officials.
The programmes surveyed do not describe the whole variety of forms of co-operation
that are used in practice. They usually list four forms of co-operation provided for in
the PBA Act (delegating of tasks, exchange of information, consultation and creating
joint groups), and only some programmes extend the catalogue to include the forms of
co-operation mentioned in the MELSP Guidelines. A few documents try to describe all
actual and possible forms of co-operation. As a result, the organisations starting the
co-operation with local government cannot be sure what forms of support (beside the
obvious, financial one) from the local government are available to them. Local officials
also do not know what kinds of support they can offer. An interesting thing is that
some types of co-operation are used in practice though they are not provided for in the
co-operation programmes, as witnessed by interviews with local officials responsible
for co-operation with non-governmental organisations. A systematic description of
the used forms of co-operation greatly facilitates co-operation, makes it more orderly
and effective. Non-governmental workers should not be left to solicit information from
different local official, taking their time and disturbing their normal work – they should
be able to find the basic data in the documents regulating co-operation, and use them
to build appropriate relations with local government agencies.
The documents surveyed contain relatively ample descriptions of the forms of cooperation related to financial support for non-governmental organisations: supporting
and delegating of tasks. As a rule, the modalities of transferring financial resources to
non-governmental organisations are thoroughly discussed (in line with the description
contained in the PBA Act), while the mechanism for selection of the tasks to be
financed from the resources in a given year are usually less defined. The need to
develop a standard of the service to be delegated to non-governmental organisations
is very rarely stressed.
Our observations show that the persons responsible for co-operation with nongovernmental organisations are mainly focused on the correct announcement of the
competition for offers, the transfer of funds and the settlement of accounts (the issues
203
are supervised by the Regional Accounting Chamber). The types of delegated tasks and
the effectiveness of their implementation are of minor importance to them (the issues
are not controlled by any external body). Besides, the latter issues are decided by other
groups, consisting of local officials and councillors, often of political or social nature,
that are still quite closed for non-governmental organisations. Most usually, year after
year the tasks are distributed routinely, according to well known paths. The priorities for
a given year are usually not consulted with non-governmental organisations or if they
are, the consultation process remains ineffective. As a result, the tasks are delegated
in a way that not always takes into account the real social needs and the provisions
of local strategy or operational programs. In consequence, organisations often perform
tasks not matching the local social needs, sometimes their activities unnecessarily
overlap, and in view of the shortages in funding they are often implemented only on a
basic or low level.
The spending of funds given to non-governmental organisations lacks social
oversight, in phases of both defining the tasks and granting financial resources. The
control function should be performed by the joint groups (competition boards) provided
for in the PBA Act, formed of the representatives of the non-governmental sector
chosen by the organisations themselves rather than being named – as is often the
case – by local officials.
The Polish legislation, as exemplified by e.g. the PBA Act and the Act on social
assistance, creates opportunities for contracting services. At the level of local
government, the possibilities should translate into appropriate provisions contained in
the annual co-operation programmes – and indeed, all the documents surveyed provide
for some opportunities for contracting services (delegating tasks), but in practice this
form of co-operation is implemented in few local government units.
Local governments do not use this form of social service performance that is so
commonly implemented in other European Union countries. Even when they delegate
permanent, institutional tasks consistent with this form of co-operation, such as running
a hotel or shelter, they do so in the form of co-financing (i.e. partial covering of costs)
rather than delegating (i.e. full covering of costs). Interviews with representatives of
local government indicate that the situation results from the fact that delegating tasks
implies a substantial financial burden for local government, hence local governments
prefer to give smaller subsidy and count on the initiative of organisations themselves
which, in this way, are forced to solicit additional funds for the task from sources other
than local government budget. Hence the organisations have to focus their efforts on
fund-raising rather than increasing the quality of the tasks performed. Local government
bodies are reluctant to contract services also because they are not used to this kind
of co-operation (it is easier to manage the task performance by an ‘own’ director than
by a separate legal entity), and are afraid that the non-governmental organisations will
‘take over’ the jobs from local government agencies etc.
As we already mentioned, multiannual contracts enable non-governmental
organisations to initiate activities in the field of social economy. Unfortunately, this
form of co-operation remains still very rare.
Though there is no room in this text to dwell on the issue, it is also tempting to ask
the question whether, on their part, the non-governmental organisations themselves are
prepared in professional, organisational and personal terms to perform tasks delegated
in the form of a long-term contracts.
204
Delegating tasks requires their standardisation. The mechanism seems logical
enough: the money must be given for a defined service – but the rule is far from being
used commonly. Over time, the need to standardise services will become obvious, but
for now the idea should be still promoted together with the examples of a good practice
in this field.
It is worth noting that in several local government units (Elbląg, Olsztyn, the
Warmian and Mazurian province) there is a mechanism in place for co-financing the
own contributions of non-governmental organisations to projects implemented based
on external grant programs. It is an excellent form of financial support from local
government that allows it to co-finance the tasks that are of interest to it (before
submitting the grant application, organisation consults the local government as to
whether it is interested in a given project).
The non-financial forms of co-operation are less featured in the co-operation
programmes. However, for non-governmental organisations that have their own sources
of financing, e.g. from European Social Fund, and thus are financially independent
from local government – and the number of such organisations is growing – the nonfinancial forms of co-operation with local government, such as preferential rental of
premises or buildings, participation in the development of the relevant local regulations,
professional co-operation during task performance, creation of partnerships etc.,
become more and more important. The co-operation programmes should be extended
to include these forms of co-operation.
The vast majority of programmes are created quite independently from planning
documents of the local government units. The local government bodies lack the
awareness of the fact that the co-operation with non-governmental organisations
should be harmonised with the overall development strategy and operational programs
for local community.
When the co-operation is based on the development strategy the interests of
both sides, the non-governmental sector and the local government, can be better
streamlined. But to attain this goal, the non-governmental organisations have to be
invited as equal partners to the groups that prepare the planning documents, and
given opportunity to voice their needs and submit their own proposals. It must be
said that local governments quite often consult non-governmental organisations when
preparing new documents, but only after the relevant draft proposals are ready, when
it is hard to introduce any substantial amendments. The organisations should take
part in the process of drafting the documents from its very beginning. On the other
hand, the representatives of non-governmental organisations are not very active in the
proceedings of such groups, because of other more pressing responsibilities, the lack
of expertise, disbelief in the rationale for preparing the documents etc. Also the local
governments themselves are not very interested in planning work, as witnessed by the
results of the present survey.
The analysis of documents shows that few local governments use measurable
criteria to evaluate projects (score evaluation). Public funds are usually granted based
on soft criteria (with the silent criterion of obedience to local government bodies as one
of them). Some local government units use the evaluation charts for offers, but quite
often the form is not publicly available (in the principles of co-operation the evaluation
chart forms an appendix to the document).
As a rule, the funds are granted by local officials without any social oversight.
Local councillors, very occasionally sitting in the commissions, can be seen as a kind
205
of public oversight, but the non-governmental organisations’ representatives should
also be present there as a guarantors of the transparency of the proceedings and as a
source of experience and expertise.
The leaders of non-governmental organisations are persons that are the most
familiar with the specificity of non-governmental sector operations and can serve
as a valuable source of professional knowledge needed in the process of evaluation
of offers. The practice of proceedings in the evaluation committees shows that the
representatives of non-governmental sector are the most competent and rigorous
judges of offers while the local officials prefer to give grants quite easily, e.g. fearing
that an organisation will appeal the decision to the mayor or the president. Another
issue are the competences to evaluate offers that are far from being sufficient among
all members of the committees.
The representatives of non-governmental organisations sitting in the committees
should be trusted by the organisations (ideally, they should be elected by organisations
rather than being named by local officials) and must not have any conflict of interest
(some principles of co-operation contain the relevant statement form that has to be
signed by every member of the committee). Fortunately enough, the unacceptable
situations that a representative of an organisation that submitted an offer to the
competition takes part in the proceedings of the evaluation committee become less
and less common.
Some principles of co-operation contain the rules of procedure for committees
evaluating the offers which is an example of a good practice in this field.
Few programmes contain financial statements describing the amounts dedicated
for particular tasks to be performed in a given year. The established methodology of
drafting local budgets makes it hard, though not impossible (as witnessed by the
example of Gdynia), to define in advance the funds for the performance of particular
tasks. Organisations quite understandably prefer to know in advance what amounts
and for which tasks are planned to be distributed by the local government in a given
year. The information should be included in the co-operation programmes.
Another problem for organisations, resulting from the timetable of passing the
local budget and the requirements of the PBA Act, is the fact that it is difficult for
local governments to finance the tasks performed by non-governmental organisations
from the very beginning of a calendar year. The problem is especially poignant for
organisations that perform a permanent activity such as canteen or shelter and usually
have very small financial reserves. Local governments should organise the competitions
of offers early enough to enable their completion before the end of a calendar year,
so that the organisation could receive the funds in January. The relevant provisions
should find their place in the annual co-operation programmes, and especially in the
principles of co-operation.
5.2. Extended criteria
The co-operation programmes are written in an official language that can be hard
to understand by persons that are not familiar with the issues described in them (and
the average non-governmental workers and members of organisations are not experts
206
in local government matters). The programmes, rather than forming a ‘guide to cooperation,’ remain simply summary containing slogans instead of useful information.
The documents are usually short (3 to 7 pages) and not very helpful for entities that
would like to start co-operation with local administration. The clarity of the language
used and the richness of information provided directly translates into the effectiveness
of co-operation, allowing both sides to better know the partner. Information on where to
submit documents, where to find contact persons, what deadlines must be respected,
how the relevant forms look like etc. are all very important and useful.
To make the documents on co-operation sufficiently detailed, ideally and in line
with the model promoted by the SPLOT network, two separate documents should be
developed by local government units: the principles of co-operation and the annual
co-operation programme. The principles of co-operation should describe all long-term
components of co-operation, while the annual programme should focus on particular
tasks to be performed in a given year. In this way, local government bodies will not
have to pass an almost identical document every year, and the broader principles of
co-operation will form a good basis for a long-term planning of co-operation between
local government and non-governmental organisations.
The fact that the Internet is still not available widely enough means that the
documents posted in the Public Information Bulletin are not commonly accessible. Nongovernmental organisations are not familiar with the annual co-operation programmes
and pay little attention to them. In addition, the same is true for contact officials in
the local government bodies. In their opinion the programmes are mandatory by law,
but they do not see them as very useful. However, it should be noted that the jointly
prepared, more detailed programmes are taken more seriously as a set of binding rules
that have to be used in practice.21 It is in the interest of local government that the
jointly prepared document is known to all local organisations – local officials should
actively promote the programme and refer to it in practical action.
5.3. Special criteria
Although the PBA Act provides for the possibility to create joint committees and they
are commonly mentioned in the co-operation programmes, in practice such committees
are very rarely created. The work in the joint groups, including representatives of both
local government and non-governmental organisations, gives both parties an excellent
opportunity to get familiar with one another, to work out new forms of co-operation,
to monitor and evaluate the past achievements. Such groups, if they gather the right
persons and have appropriate powers, can initiate positive changes in the mutual cooperation and guarantee its sustainable development.
Local government should encourage the non-governmental sector to autonomously
choose its representatives for the joint groups. They must not be named, as the
‘preferred’ representatives of the sector, by local government officials – such practice
Conclusions based on interviews with a group of 18 local officials responsible for co-operation
with non-governmental organisations in local government units of the Warmian and Mazurian
province.
21
207
would lead to permanent conflicts. The joint groups should have their rules of procedure
(some local governments have them), defining their responsibilities and modalities of
action.
In spite of the MELSP Guidelines recommending the creation of multiannual cooperation programmes, they are developed very rarely and are of different quality.
Some are barely different from the annual co-operation programmes, other can be seen
as proper ‘guides to co-operation.’ There are some pilot examples of the documents,
prepared jointly by local government units and non-governmental organisations (e.g.
in Elbląg), that can be used as a model for other local government units. However, it
should be noted that even the best documents are useless without the proper practice
of co-operation: local government agencies have to respect their provisions and the
non-governmental sector has to monitor their implementation.
The documents surveyed usually lack any provisions on monitoring and evaluation
which means that local government shows no need to reflect on the state of the cooperation. If anything, they only provide for self-evaluation, and not external assessment.
If there are no monitoring and evaluation procedures, the programmes lack the in-build
mechanisms for their own improvement in the future. The programmes often underline
the possibility to present remarks by non-governmental organisations, but it is doubtful
whether such comments are in fact submitted, and if so, whether they are used (local
governments usually do not reply to letters from non-governmental organisations, in
spite of the requirements of the Administrational Procedure Code).
The need to monitor and evaluate their programmes, including the annual cooperation programme, should be promoted among local government units. The
monitoring of the programme implementation from non-governmental sector is also
very important, but so far usually inexistent.
The programmes very rarely contain any provisions on the representation of
the non-governmental sector. It means that the sector has no such representations,
for local governments usually appreciate any representative bodies, enabling them
to co-operate more effectively with rather segmented non-governmental sector. The
few representative bodies of non-governmental sector – some of them of territorial
(organisations in a given commune), other of branch nature (e.g. organisations helping
disabled people) – usually take part in the preparation of the annual co-operation
programmes, and in consequence are mentioned in the documents. If the representation
is mentioned in a local regulation such as the co-operation programme, its position in
the local community and non-governmental circles tends to be strengthened. When
there is no representation of non-governmental organisations, the documents prepared
are of poorer quality and less flexible. The representative bodies can successfully
negotiate with local government arrangements that are favourable for the sector, taking
the responsibility for the state of co-operation and remaining accountable before the
sector. As every representation, it can also become alienated, so it must work out
appropriate communication methods with organisations, meet them on the regular
basis etc. Because of the fact that membership in the representative bodies brings
no profits and only adds responsibilities, the existing representative bodies are not
always functional and operate based on personal engagement of individual members
rather than genuine support from all organisations. This is an obvious weakness of
208
non-governmental sector that should be overcome as soon as possible. But gradually,
non-governmental organisations start to realise the importance of this sphere, as
witnessed by their advocacy activities concerning the relevant provisions in documents
on distribution of the European funds.
The documents regulating the co-operation between local government and nongovernmental organisations do not contain any references to social economy, either on
the theoretical level, in the context of new arrangements in social policy, or on the level
of practical measures. It means that initiatives are needed to make them more aware
of the developmental opportunities related to social entrepreneurship.
5.3.1. Differences between co-operation programmes
prepared at the three levels of local government
The co-operation programmes developed at the province level are of very different
quality. Some of them hardly differ from the average co-operation programmes from
lower levels of local government, and some are very well prepared documents.
It is hard to point out any substantial differences between the programmes
developed at the levels of commune, district or province. In general, it can be tentatively
concluded that the higher the level of local government, the more satisfactory the
programmes are, though there are exceptions from this rule.
The survey did not aim at comparing programmes prepared by local governments in
different years. But the comments from survey coordinators indicate that once prepared
programmes are not substantially changed in the following years. Local governments
simply do not take the opportunity to gradually improve their co-operation with the
sector and specify the tasks performed by non-governmental organisations. The annual
co-operation programme is usually seen as another legal requirement rather than as a
tool to stimulate co-operation.
Conclusion
It can be said that the Act on public benefit activity and on volunteerism creates a
solid foundation for the development of good co-operation between local governments
and non-governmental organisations. The planned amendments to the Act should
further improve the situation in this respect.
It can be assumed that the PBA Act should not hamper initiatives in the field
of social entrepreneurship, especially when delegating services to non-governmental
organisations by local government is concerned: the Act defines the rules and the scope
of co-operation, allows for contracting of services, recommends their standardisation,
etc. The notion of social economy is absent in the local regulations concerning cooperation, the annual programmes of co-operation, because it is not implemented in
209
practice. Both local governments and non-governmental organisations are not familiar
with social economy and its practical solutions. If the social economy initiatives
become more widespread, the relevant local regulations will hopefully take account of
the new developments.
The process of development of social entrepreneurship initiatives in local
communities has only started in Poland. In this connection, the legal acts regulating
financial aspects of the activities should be evaluated to check whether they are
favourable enough for social entrepreneurship.
It is hard to conclude whether the reality of co-operation between local government
and non-governmental organisations is better, worse or simply different from the picture
found in the provisions of the annual co-operation programmes. Our observations
indicate that there is a huge discrepancy between the written documents and the
practical arrangements, and that they overlap only occasionally. However, it should
be assumed that a jointly prepared and well structured co-operation programme can
strengthen and facilitate the practical co-operation. For several years, there have
been tensions between local government bodies and non-governmental organisations.
The annual co-operation programmes can ease the tensions, directing joint efforts
towards the well-being of local communities. But the precondition for that is mutual
understanding, knowledge and joint action. It can be achieved.
What should be done to make the local regulations concerning co-operation as well
as the practice of co-operation more open for the idea of social economy? Below, we
present some recommendations:
1. Joint development of multiannual co-operation programmes (the charters of
co-operation, the principles of co-operation) as practical guides to co-operation
should be promoted.
2. More attention should be paid to the consistency of the programmes with local
government development strategies and operational programs; it should also be
stressed that co-operation with non-governmental organisations has to enhance
the implementation of the strategy (here, the relevant issue is the quality of
development strategies and their consistency with operational programs of lower
level as well as with strategies and programmes of higher level).
3. There should be more focus on training the people responsible for co-operation
with non-governmental organisations (co-operation representatives) who should
also play the role of local development animators, also in the field of social
entrepreneurship.
4. The idea of social economy and the examples of good practice from particular
social enterprises should be promoted in local communities.
5. The mechanisms of contracting services, together with the principle of their
standardisation, should be promoted in local communities.
6. Good practice in standardisation and service contracting should be presented.
7. A mechanism for the promotion of model legal arrangements within annual cooperation programmes should be established.
7
R
The
elationship between
the Social Welfare System
and the Development
of Social Economy
The Relationship between
the Social Welfare System
and the Development
of Social Economy
Izabela Rybka
Introduction
The social economy and social work are two separate areas of social activity, but
they have the common goal of strengthening the agency of individuals, social groups,
and entire local communities so that they become more independent, resourceful, and
united. Both forms of social activity are helpful, affect the same beneficiaries, and
were shaped by similar value systems. The contemporary approach to social problems
– known as active social policy – includes limitation of social support’s redistribution,
increased social activation, as well as development of social enterprise, all of which
strengthens social ties and creates work for people who are redundant in the global
economic market. Thus, social services and social enterprises can – and even should
– work together in order to advance social and job reintegration of marginalized people
and to increase social capital, which is a basic element of local development.
The role of social workers is to support their clients in overcoming difficult life
situations – which often result from long-term unemployment – and in organizing
local community in a way that will make it open to marginalized people. Local social
work realizes this second goal by inspiring and mobilizing people to participate in
grassroots initiatives, which then creates social ties based on trust, informal and
formal collaborative institutions, and increased social cohesion. In turn by making
use of social economic tools in work with excluded people – for example by shaping
attitudes and behaviors to fulfill the expectations of employers – social workers prepare
213
future workers for social enterprise. Meanwhile, unemployed people’s motivation to
resolve their life problems and improve their qualifications is greater if they have real
chances for finding employment.
Collaboration between entities that organize social services and the subjects of
the social economy brings mutual advantages: on the one hand social workers achieve
better results and greater work satisfaction, while on the other hand, by launching
mechanisms of self-help and by helping long-term unemployed people prepare for
work, they contribute to the development of social enterprise. Countries that have
many years of experience in this area exemplify all of this. What is the situation in
Poland?
The fundamental causes of insufficient social work for marginalized people and
local communities include: an over-extensive range of activities, domination of benefits
by various forms of relief, and shortages in social workers. Even though the social
economy statute imposes on social workers activities that favor the development of
social economy, not many of them realize enterprises that are based on the following
actions: 1. inspiring social and self-help activities in order to fulfill the essential
needs of individuals, families, groups, and communities, 2. collaboration with other
specialists in the attempt to respond to and limit pathologies and negative effects of
social phenomena and to ease the side-effects of poverty, 3. initiating new forms of help
for individuals and families who are in difficult situations, and motivating institutions
that provide services for the improvement of those people’s lives, 4. participation in
inspiring, formulating, implementing, and developing regional and local social welfare
programs that are focused on improving the quality of life (statute about social support,
dated 12 March 2004, article 119, statute 1, points 6-9, Journal of Laws, 2004, No.
64, item 593).
Considering the structural limitations of the social welfare system, we should
assume that only elite social workers with foresight have a vision for the modernization
of social support, are determined and open to collaboration with partners, and are
willing to educate themselves – only they undertake the effort to teach their clients
effective strategies for dealing with difficult life situations and mobilize members of
local communities to participate in social economic enterprises. Half-way through
the first decade of the twenty-first century, it seems that the social welfare system
in Poland is prepared only to a limited extent to take advantage of social economic
tools.
The Institute for the Development of Social Services, within the framework of the
EQUAL Initiative project titled ‘Searching for a Polish Model of the Social Economy’
carried out a study based on random samples of Poland’s social sectors. It was called
‘A Study of the Potential for Using Social Economic Tools in Social Services.’ The
goal of this study was to describe how prepared social support mechanisms were to
make use of these tools and to test if the beneficiaries of social economy can count on
collaboration with social workers.
The study was based on surveys that were sent to local Social Welfare Centers
(OPS). We sent surveys to 20 percent of the centers in each province and maintained
this proportion in choosing the centers of rural, small town, urban and large urban
agglomeration communities. Out of the 506 surveys that were sent, we received
160 completed surveys in return (a 32% return). Thus, on the basis of information
gathered from leaders and directors of Social Support Centers, we assessed the level
of preparedness of social services to use social economic tools in social work.
214
We asked the respondents about actions that were realized in the social service
organizations that they directed, and about enterprises that were initiated in partnership
with Social Welfare Centers and in their surrounding areas. In the first study the subject
of analysis was social projects focused on mutual help and employment. We found that
centers which create long-term programs that are directed at a specified category of
people and oriented toward achieving concrete results and have a good understanding
of the mission of social work are able to organize in a way that works effectively, and
they fair well as participants in social economic enterprises.
Since social economy by nature is an enterprise that straddles sectors, we also
studied the relations between social welfare centers and local social partners: nongovernment organizations and regional governments. We focused on studying the
relationship between Social Welfare Centers and non-government organizations, which
are important subjects in the social economy because of their elastic approach to
activities and their greater inclination (in comparison to public institutions) toward
generating innovative solutions.
The preparation of strategies for solving social problems is a particularly interesting
venue for collaboration. Based on information regarding who took part in strategy
development work, we came to ascertain the position of social services in the local
network of social relations. We established that local governments that did not fulfill
the requirement of the statute to develop strategies and did not have a vision for their
actions or an idea for utilizing existing resources (people, knowledge, infrastructure,
financial resources) would not be interested in supporting the development of social
economy and other activities that are directed at overcoming social problems which
impede local development. We were also interested in the opinion of the directing staff
of Social Welfare Centers regarding social enterprise and the role of social services in
resolving local, social problems.
1
1. Results of the Study
1.1. The qualities of respondents or in other
words, who manages social welfare centers?
The staff that manages social welfare centers is entirely dominated by women
(93% female) – which is similar to percentages for social work. Two-fifths of the
respondents were 50 years old or older. In turn, almost every third was between the
ages of 45 and 49, and almost every third respondent was younger than 44 years.
Surprisingly half of the staff that directs social support centers does not have the
level of education expected of managers (46%). In other words, they do not have higher
education in that field. Every fourth respondent graduated from a higher educational
program for social workers, not including a Masters degree. Almost every tenth manager/
215
director has a Masters degree but in an area of study not related to social services.
Almost 5% of the managing staff has a high school diploma and nothing more, which
indicates how low the merit-based preparation for managing staff is. Considering the
type and magnitude of activities that social support centers undertake, as well as the
weight of responsibility in resolving social problems, investments in raising the level of
competence of the managing staff of local social service efforts is essential.
Levels of Education among Members of Managing Staff of Social Support Centers
Specialized
higher education
46.0
Unspecialized
higher education
8.6
Bachelor’s Degree
3.3
Professional education
(social work school)
37.5
High
school education
4.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
Graph 1. Levels of Education among Members of Managing Staff of Social Support
Centers
Source: A Study of the Potential for Using Social Economic Tools in Social Services, Institute for
the Development of Social Services, Warsaw 2006.
The most unsettling phenomenon, in addition to the insufficient education of social
workers, is the habit of giving managing positions to people without previous work
experience. This is not uncommon – one fourth (26.2%) of managers or directors
lead social welfare centers without experience or practical knowledge regarding the
social services system (which is also illegal). Meanwhile, nearly every tenth manager
or director of a Social Welfare Center took the managing position with previous work
experience of less than three years.
Over one-third of respondents have held the managing position since the reforms
of the social welfare system that were enacted on January 1, 1991. On the one hand
these people have rich work experiences and are very familiar with the mechanisms
of Social Welfare Centers. On the other hand, however, they could be against the
suggestion to modernize the social welfare system, especially regarding changes in the
way the centers function.
216
No work
experience
26.2
Work experience
shorter than 3 years
8.1
3-5 years
work experience
15.4
6-11 years
work experience
28.8
Over 11 years
work experience
21.5
0
5
10
15
20
%
25
30
35
40
Graph 2. Work Experience in Social Services
Source: A Study of the Potential…, Journal of Citations.
Up to 2 years
10.7
15.3
2.5-6 years
7-15 years
38.0
16 or more
years
36.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
%
Graph 3. Managing Work Experience
217
1.2. Employment and self-help projects
Creating projects is a logical approach to changing local community effectively
in sustainable and desirous ways. The ability to prepare and realize a social project
is very useful in the effort to develop the social economy. These kinds of enterprises
– considering their innovative character, the involvement of varied partners, and longterm nature – require a solid plan. However, it seems that Social Welfare Centers rarely
realize social projects. Only a bit more than a third of Social Welfare Centers realized
projects that were based on preparing their clients for employment (35%), and only
14% carried out projects that were focused on preparing clients for social activity,
which is essential in the work place.
Employment
of the beneficiary
(N=149)
35
Development of self-help
mechanisms/mutual
support (N=143)
65
14
0
86
20
40
60
80
100
%
yes
no
Graph 4. During the last two years (2004-2006) have Social Welfare Centers that
are managed by women realized projects focused on employment training or development of self-help mechanisms?
• The character of projects focused on employment
Social work with unemployed people does not aim to increase employment
qualifications (because that is the role of employment services), but to change
their approach to work and to teach them the basic behavior that is necessary at
the workplace (for example: punctuality, reliability, responsibility). It is difficult to
draw the line between social and employment reintegration, assigning one to social
services and the other to employment services. The two activities are intertwined and
they complement one another. They are realized in Social Integration Centers, which
according to the statute serve as preparatory phases in accepting employment, for
example in a social cooperative or in some other kind of social enterprise.
The responses of those who were surveyed reveal that the Local Employment
Offices took part in the realization of most projects (84%), although it would be
expected that there would not be a single employment project realized without the
218
participation of the Local Employment Office because it is responsible for resolving
the unemployment problem, has the appropriate tools for employment activation, and
according to the statute is obliged to collaborate with Social Welfare Centers in this
area. In turn, about half of the centers (54%) collaborated with the local government
within the framework of the project – that is not a small number, but it is not enough
considering that the favor and support of local government is essential for the success
of social economic enterprises.
Although Social Welfare Centers work with public institutions on most projects,
their relations with non-government organizations are not as good. Of 50 centers only
nine (about every fifth) realized their projects in collaboration with non-government
organizations. Other public institutions and companies were involved to a similar
extent (14%). It is worth noting that the scope of collaboration (other than financial)
is almost two times as big as monetary contribution, thus favoring the development
of the social economy, which expects to gain knowledge, above all, not money, from
businesses.
Local Employment
Offices
Social Service
Organizations
84
80
Local Governments
54
Non-government
organizations
Other public
institutions
18
14
Businesses
14
Church
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
%
60
70
80
90
100
Graph 5. Who participated in the realization of the project? (N=50, up to three
items chosen)
Source: A Study of the Potential…,
•The character of self-help projects
Self-help is voluntary initiative based on mutuality and social unity. It is the
foundation of social enterprise. The realization of this kind of project serves to
strengthen social ties, teaches organization skills and responsibility. According to the
respondents, the most important function of self-help projects (95% of responses) is
to motivate and shape social activity. This is a very difficult task, which requires a lot
of effort, often takes many years and repetitions.
The second most frequently indicated goal of such projects – according to
respondents – is providing group participants with emotional support from other
219
members of the group, which is based on the principle of mutuality (three-fourths
of respondents). The support that a marginalized person finds in other people is
extremely important in the process of reintegration. People who have experienced longterm unemployment will not take the risk of establishing social cooperatives, without
mutual trust.
Forty-two percent of respondents indicated that teaching Social Welfare Center
clients social skills was important. It would seem that this response should gain greater
support from social workers since to a large extent, social skills determine whether or
not beneficiaries of the project will remain permanent recipients of social services and
if they will take up their chances for independent lives. A relatively low percentage of
projects is focused on exchanging goods and services (16%). We can infer from this
statistic that self-help projects are seen as a way to prepare people for independence,
rather than a way to fulfill life’s needs.
Motivating
and shaping
social activity
94.7
Emotional support
73.7
Teaching basic
social skills
42.1
Exchanging goods
and services
15.8
Other
5.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
%
60
70
80
90
100
Graph 6. What is the goal of self-help/mutual support groups? (N=20, up to three
items chosen)
Source: A Study of the Potential…,
Non-government organizations play a greater role in self-help projects than
they do in employment projects – they are involved in every two self-help projects.
Nevertheless, a decidedly greater number of projects was realized in collaboration with
public institutions (86%), which confirms the concern that in practice, the potential of
the third sector is not being utilized by the public service sector.
• The opinion of management about the usefulness of projects
The majority of respondents positively assesses the management of social work
with social groups within the framework of projects – from 72% to 86% of responses
were positive, regarding specific categories of advantages resulting from projects.
However, it is important to emphasize that most responses were formed according to
the imaginations of managers of social welfare organizations – in Graph 4 we see that
only a small portion of centers was convinced that projects are a useful tool in social
work.
220
From their answers we can infer that most respondents see the utility of social
projects above all in categories of more effective problem solving and increased activity
of clients. The same number of leaders (or directors) chose these two answers – that
is 108 people each. However, it is important to highlight the fact that the majority of
positive answers was given carefully – with hesitation in the form of phrases such as
‘rather yes than no.’
Fewer people – that is 97 people (82% of leaders/directors) – asserted that such
projects favor the development of new forms of social support. Furthermore, this
question conjured the most decided answers (for example, ‘decidedly yes’). According
to responses, another positive effect of projects was the building of partnerships
between centers and other institutions – 80% of answers were positive, but there
were almost twice as many hesitant answers as decided answers. Questions regarding
planning and achievement of long-term goals received the lowest percentage of positive
responses. Only every fifth respondent is completely convinced that these projects
favor the achievement of far-reaching goals (the lowest percentage of ‘decidedly yes’
answers).
In turn, the greatest percentage of ‘decidedly yes’ answers (54%) were applied to
the following question: does the realization of projects cause administrative work to
increase? In all, nine out of ten respondents are afraid that administrative work – which
is already a problem for social service organizations – will increase. As many as 110
(of 123) people who responded to surveys shares this opinion (where over half of the
110 respondents answered ‘decidedly yes’). In the survey an increase in administrative
work is the only acknowledged negative effect of such projects on centers.
What kind of impact does the creation and realization of projects have on the effects of work?
Increases effective
problem solving (N=126)
37.3
48.4
11.9
2.4
Activates beneficiaries
to a significant extent (N=128)
33.6
50.7
14.1
1.6
Makes planning and achieving
long-term goals possible (N=115)
20.9
55.6
Contributes to building partnerships
between centers
and other institutions (N=113)
27.4
52.2
Increases the scope
of administrative work (N=123)
53.7
35.8
Favors the development of new kinds
of social services (N=119)
39.5
42.9
0
decidedly yes
10
20
rather yes than no
30
40
50
%
60
rather no than yes
18.3
5.2
18.6
1.8
8.1
2.4
16.0
70
80
90
1.7
100
decidedly no
Graph 7. What kind of impact does the creation and realization of projects have on
the effects of work?
221
It is worth considering if education is a variable that influences opinions about
the usefulness of such social projects. Thus, in comparing two leading categories of
education completed by people who manage social welfare organizations (see Graph
1), it turns out that graduates of higher education institutions with majors that prepare
them for social work (more so than managers with professional high school educations)
tend to acknowledge the positive impact that social projects have on the development
of new kinds of social services and on building partnerships with other institutions.
To a lesser extent, they also help plan and achieve long-term goals. Nevertheless, the
level of education does not indicate differences of opinion regarding the influence of
projects on the effectiveness of problem solving or activating beneficiaries. Meanwhile,
managers with professional high school training more often perceive projects as
additional administrative work.
86.4
85.7
Increases effective
problem solving
83.3
83.6
Activates beneficiaries
to a significant extent
Makes planning and achieving
long-term goals possible
71.4
78.9
Contributes to building partnerships
between centers and other institutions
73.8
85.2
Increases the scope
of administrative work
91.1
84.7
76.2
Favors the development of new
kinds of social services
88.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
professional education (social work school)
specialized higher education
Graph 8. Education and Opinions on Project Effectiveness
1.3. Strategies for solving social problems
The local strategy for solving social problems is not just a document containing
specific information and resolutions (diagnosis, prioritized goals, activities, and
results), which after being passed by the council is to be realized in a specified region.
The collaborative preparation process of this document is just as important as the
document itself. The collaboration that is involved in developing the strategy leads
not only to better quality of solutions contained in the document, it also improves the
222
proceedings and results of the strategy. Unfortunately, at least 40% of strategies do not
include collaboration between social welfare centers and other local institutions. This
most likely indicates that in these cases, the strategy for solving social problems will
be limited to social services – that is, corrective measures directed at society’s weakest
groups. This overlooks activities that tie in with other aspects of social policy that are
focused on the development of local communities and the inclusion of marginalized
people in those communities.
The study reveals that in most cases, the local strategy was developed by social
workers at social welfare centers, with the participation of local government. In
these cases it can be expected that the goals and activities in the strategy will be
formulated according to the perspectives of varied areas of social policy – education,
health, housing, etc. – and they will not be limited to social work. It would also
be appropriate to positively assess the participation of representatives of various
independent organizations (for example: job market institutions, schools, cultural
houses, educational and care-giving institutions, health services). In other words these
are people who have knowledge about the needs and social problems that actually
exist in specific local communities; meanwhile, they will be the creators of strategies
for solving social problems.
Council members take equal part in preparing the strategy. They decide if the
project, once prepared, will become an act in the local law. Linking workers of
local government with council members is a desired move and should become an
obligatory standard in all strategic decisions that bring about long-term changes in
local development. Considering that the support of local government is an essential
factor in the development of social economy, the level of education of those in power
is a long-term investment in the context of social problems, in building local social
markets. Thus, it is unfortunate that these people take part in only every fourth strategy
preparation process.
Director/manager of the center
92.9
Social workers of the center
73.5
Workers in the local government
58.4
Directors/workers
of other government institutions
39.8
Council members
38.9
Representatives
of non-government organizations
31.0
Others
18.6
Outside
experts/consultants
15.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Graph 9. All subjects who took active part in its preparation (N=113, up to three
items chosen)
223
According to the data shown in Graph 9, we see that the strategies were prepared
by local government workers and local leaders, and thus not by the locals who are
represented by non-government organizations. Only every third strategy arose through
collaboration with representatives of the third sector. It also turns out that local
communities create strategies on their own terms, with minimal support from external
experts and consultants. The participation of people from various centers in given
communities is worthy of praise; the quality of the strategy would undoubtedly be
better if the locals had veritable support from experts who specialize in preparing
strategies. This even more so, when we consider the fact that social workers admit that
preparing strategies exceeds their abilities. People who manage social welfare centers
in communities which not only did not approve a strategy but also did not begin
initiatives intended to prepare the strategy (as much as 25% of respondents) assert
that they abandoned these activities because of a lack in time and competence.
The respondents unanimously asserted that the main reason why they did not
take up conceptual work focused on preparing strategies and long-term solutions to
problems was because of the excessive burden of realizing immediate actions. It is worth
emphasizing the fact that with regard to this issue, over three-fourths of respondents
gave a decided answer – even though in most cases they chose ‘decidedly yes’ with
hesitation. They simultaneously admitted that local social services are not competent
in preparing local strategies for solving social problems. This was the answer of almost
80% of respondents. In this kind of situation, a suitable solution would be to leave the
strategy writing up to an external subject – and they would certainly do this if they had
the money to do so (as indicated by 97% of respondents). However, from the point
of view of social economic development, which is based on grass-roots initiatives and
local organization of communities, this kind of solution is not favorable.
Lack of conviction that approval
of the strategy will in actuality
improve the center’s 10.0
activities (N=30)
46.7
23.3
20.0
Lack of adequate support
from local government (N=26)
57.7
23.1
11.5
7.7
The center’s staff is overloaded
by realizing immediate 78.8
actions (N=33)
18.2
The center’s staff lacks
qualifications for preparing 19.4
strategy (N=31)
58.0
Insufficient financial resources
for hiring an external subject 67.7
to develop the strategy (N=34)
0
decidedly yes
10
20
rather yes than no
30
40
50
%
60
rather no than yes
Graph 10. Why has not strategy development work begun?
224
70
80
3.0
19.4
3.2
29.4
2.0
90
100
decidedly not
1.4. Collaboration with non-government
organizations
Trust, collaboration and social networks, which impact people and social institutions,
are the basic components of social capital, without which the development of social
enterprise is impossible. A clear majority of social welfare centers (77%) declares
collaboration with non-government organizations, which is a manifestation of local
organization. However, when we asked about the basic scope of the collaboration –
that is, about the realization of social projects or the preparation of strategy for solving
social problems – it turns out that a clear minority (that is, respectively every ninth and
every third Social Welfare Center) collaborates with the third sector.
Meanwhile the most common response to the question regarding motivations for
collaboration with non-government organizations, suggests that Social Welfare Centers
treat organizations instrumentally, rather than treating them like partners. The centers
collaborate with the organizations above all because they do not have enough funding
for realizing all necessary activities. It turns out that almost 75% of centers does not
understand (or does not respect) the constitutional principle of subsidies and does not
know that the public sector is required to support grassroots social initiatives (not vice
versa).
According to managers of social welfare centers, further reasons why the centers
collaborate with non-government organizations are because of the organizations’
solidity in carrying out tasks (which has been proven by years of collaboration), as well
as their suitability for developing self-help mechanisms and developing support groups
(about 38%). Meanwhile, only every fifth respondent asserted that the prerequisite
for collaboration is trust in the quality of work done by non-government organizations.
The discrepancy between the answers to these two very similar questions might result
from the fact that ‘solid’ describes the activities of organizations that Social Welfare
Centers are very familiar with, while the concept of trust in this case pertains to the
entire third sector.
Almost every third respondent mentioned the client’s satisfaction, which is by all
measures an important reason for collaboration with non-government organizations,
although it seems to be more of an expression of hope than fact (even if this is due
to the problematic method of measuring the satisfaction of clients with the services
that are offered to them). It turns out that a lower price for services is an incentive for
almost every fourth Social Welfare Center (24%).
The lowest percent of respondents asserted that they collaborate with organizations
because these organizations initiated collaboration by designing a good project.
Interestingly, this correlates with the dominating tendency to see non-government
organizations as carrying out some of the activities assigned to them, rather than to
treat them as members of a sector which is competent in identifying and effectively
fulfilling social needs.
225
The center does not have enough funding
to deal with every problem on its own
70.9
Non-government organizations
have been carrying out social
services for years
Non-government organizations
are particularly helpful
in developing self-help mechanisms
and support groups
The beneficiaries are satisfied
with the services provided
by non-government organizations
38.5
37.6
29.1
It costs less when
non-government organizations
carry out activities
We can trust the quality of services
provided by non-government
organizations
23.9
21.4
A non-government organization
prepared a good project
and suggested collaboration
11.1
Others
2.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
%
Graph 11. What are the most important reasons why centers collaborate with nongovernment organizations? (N=117, up to three items chosen)
In turn we asked the leaders/directors of Social Welfare Centers which do not
collaborate with non-government organizations why they chose against it. The most
common response – given by nearly every respondent (98%) – was that there was
a lack in non-government organizations which would carry out activities in the area
where the center was located. There certainly are areas where the level of social
capital is very low and where there is an insufficient number of grassroots initiatives,
but on the other hand, there are non-government organizations which lead actions all
over Poland (for example, foundations) and help neglected regions develop. Moreover,
mobilizing local communities to create self-help groups is one of the tasks assigned to
social workers. Consistent social work will sooner or later lead to the creation of local
associations.
1.5. Opinions about social enterprise
Respondents provide unequivocally favorable opinions regarding the social economy.
They express a willingness to support social enterprises in various ways. Each leader
or director of a Social Welfare Center (65% of responses was ‘decidedly yes,’ while
98% of responses was positive) agrees that in work with unemployed people, social
226
workers should mobilize their clients to find employment in social enterprise which
– considering the intent of its activities – is suitable for people who, as a result of
long-term unemployment, do not yet fulfill professional standards required by the free
labor market. Simultaneously this is a clear example of up-holding new solutions for
increasing the effectiveness of social and employment reintegration of people how
have been marginalized (a task which was initiated by Social Integration Centers and
Social Integration Clubs which function according to the social employment statute of
2003).
Professional activities seem to be backed by strong, personal convictions that there
is a need for supporting social enterprises as potential places of work for clients of social
work. It is thanks to this employment that these clients can become independent. Over
half of those surveyed expressed decided support for social enterprise, and they did
so as personal consumers of the goods and services offered by social enterprises.
These respondents are ready to choose social enterprise products in stores, rather than
picking others, even if the products are of the same quality and at the same price. The
number of positive responses regarding this issue reached even 95%.
However, respondents were least eager to take part in motivating local partners
(businesses, non-government organizations, etc.) to participate in creating social
enterprises. Over half of those surveyed (54% of responses were ‘rather yes than
no’) were inclined to include local partners in social economic projects; however, only
38% of respondents provided a fully decided response on this issue. This means that
managers of basic social service organizations do not aspire to search for innovative
solutions – focused on both creating places of employment for people who have
experienced long-term unemployment (an investment in human capital) and developing
local communities (strengthening social capital) – with partners.
To support such companies by choosing
their products in a store,
rather than choosing other products,
if they were of the same quality
and at the same price (n=135)
52.6
42.2
5.2
To mobilize your clients
– with the help of social workers –
to work in such enterprises (n = 143)
65.0
32.9
2.1
To motivate local partners (for example,
businesses and non-government organizations)
to take part in projects which set the goal
Of creating social enterprises (n = 131)
38.2
54.2
6.9 0.7
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
%
decidedly yes
rather yes than no
rather no than yes
decidedly no
Graph 12. Please, express your opinion regarding social enterprises. To what extent
would you be ready:
227
The creation of social enterprises – and sometimes their functioning too – require
various forms of support, including funding. Thus, we asked the directors of Social
Welfare Centers about their opinions regarding the forms and sources of support
for social enterprises. They asserted that the most important factor that aided the
development of social enterprise was guaranteed access to free legal and financial
advice (98% of responses, of which most (63%) answered ‘decidedly yes’). According
to them knowledge about and the ability to create business and marketing plans, as
well as knowledge about legal obstacles and the potential to develop social enterprise,
play a great role in the creation of social enterprises. Social workers know their clients,
and they also know that their own ingenuity and entrepreneurship will not suffice.
They need tips, advice, and content-based support. Creation of a suitable tax system
with forms of allowances and waivers (97% of respondents) appears to be equally
important, since over half responded ‘decidedly yes’ (57%). Furthermore, all the
respondents (97%) stated that subsidies from European funds were a desirable form
of support for social enterprise in Poland, even though more people responded with
‘rather yes than no’ regarding this issue.
A clear majority of respondents (87%) thinks that the state should also provide
subsidies for founding and running social enterprises; 33% of respondents were
entirely convinced about this. However, they did not perceive the local government
as a source of financial support for social enterprise –43.3% of respondents gave a
positive answer, but only 13.3% gave a decided answer.
Creating a suitable tax system,
for example one that includes
allowances and waivers (n=134)
56.7
40.3
Subsidies provided
by the state (n=118)
33.1
54.2
Subsidies provided
by local government (n=105)
13.3
Subsidies from european
funds (n=126)
2.2
6.8
0.8
5.9
37.1
9.5
47.6
49.2
2.4
Providing credit/loans at a low
interest rate for setting up
social enterprises (n=119)
46.2
42.0
10.1 1.7
Guaranteeing general access
to free legal and financial
advice (n=127)
63.0
34.6
2.4
0
10
40.1
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100
%
decidedly yes
rather yes than no
rather no than yes
decidedly no
Graph 13. Do you think that the development of social enterprise should be supported by...
228
Social enterprise is in essence a local action, and its success depends on the local
government’s approach to it. Taking this into consideration, we asked the leaders of
Social Welfare Centers in what way they thought the local authorities should support
the creation of new work places for unemployed people in the social economy. The
respondents affirmed that subsidies from the local government were the least realistic
solution – 34% of answers were positive, and of these only 4.4% were entirely
decided.
According to the local governments that we interviewed, they themselves were
not very supportive of assigning communal real estate to enterprises. Only 13.3%
thinks that such a project would definitely be possible, while in sum only under 58%
of Social Welfare Center leaders thinks that it would be at all possible. They think that
giving away communal infrastructure to leasing on favorable terms is a more suitable
option (82%, of which almost the same percent – 13.7% – answered ‘decidedly yes’
in response to the notion of giving communal real estate to enterprises). Nearly threefourths expects local governments’ help in the form of waiving local fees for enterprises.
However, only every tenth person is entirely convinced about this. Most respondents
(94%) expect local government to provide local tax relief that applies to these kinds of
enterprises. In summary, according to those who were surveyed, local government is
not inclined to provide subsidies or give up its real estate; thus, it is possible to count
on only relief and waivers applied to taxes and local fees.
Allotting communal real estate
for social enterprise (n=105)
13.3
43.8
Exchanging communal infrastructure
for leasing on favorable terms (n=117)
13.7
68.3
Granting subsidies
from local government (n=91)
Relief from local taxes
for these kinds of enterprises (n=129)
16.3
Waiving local fees
for these enterprises (n=108)
10.2
10
30
40
19.8
77.5
6.2
25.0
50
4.3
46.1
63.9
20
10.5
13.7
29.7
4.4
0
32.4
60
70
80
0.9
90 100
%
decidedly yes
rather yes than no
rather no than yes
decidedly no
Graph 14. To what extent do you think the local government would be willing to
support the creation of new places of employment for the unemployed in social
enterprise, social cooperatives, and other social economic projects, with the help of
the following methods...
229
1.6. The role of social services in solving local
social problems
For the past several years, the basic problem that clients turn to social workers
with is long-term unemployment, which causes poverty and social marginalization as
well as hinders local development. How do the leaders of social welfare centers assess
the effectiveness of various kinds of activities that are designed to support unemployed
people? Above all, they recognize the fact that the form of support that they most often
offer – that is financial benefits – is the least effective (26% of respondents asserts that
it is ‘decidedly’ ineffective). Additionally, less than every tenth leader of Social Welfare
Centers (8%) believes that social work that is based on mobilizing unemployed people
to establish social cooperatives brings about the expected results, and not much fewer
(6%) holds the exact opposite opinion. They suggest that a much more effective way
of overcoming unemployment is individual economic activity or self-employment, in
other words enterprises which fit outside the framework of social enterprise (19% of
respondents answered ‘decidedly yes,’ while 57% ‘rather yes’). However, the creation
of job opportunities in the public sector is considered the optimal solution (almost
40% of respondents was completely decided about this); yet – considering the fact
that only short-term employment is offered – it is more appropriate to see these jobs
as an intermediate step in employment reintegration, which serves as preparation for
ultimately desired work.
Meanwhile, every third respondent is completely convinced that the state should
make use of finance-based tools (for example: tax relief, low credit interest) for
supporting the development of social cooperatives and other kinds of social enterprise.
Even though in comparison to Graph 13 this is a lower percent of full conviction about
initiating this kind of support for social enterprise, if we look at all positive responses at
once, then considering both graphs we notice that support reaches almost 100%. Thus,
it seems that the low percentage of responses encouraging the mobilization of clients
to establish social cooperatives is actually an objection to placing more responsibility
(that belongs on the border between social work and employment services) on the
shoulders of social workers.
The limitations and deficits that exist in social services – especially the great
discrepancy between reality and the desired situation – point to the need for making
some essential changes. It is necessary to again delineate the role of social service
as a national institution of social policy, as well as its role in solving social problems
on the local level. For this reason, we asked the leaders of Social Welfare Centers
to express their opinions about the realization of activities which are in fact realized
sporadically, even though these activities are intended to build the foundations of the
social economy and prepare clients for participation in social enterprise and therefore,
should function constantly as social services.
Most of those who were surveyed (96.3%) tend toward the opinion that social
services should concentrate on realizing self-help projects, which will help clients
become more resourceful in life, which will in turn make them more independent. As
much as 65% of respondents decidedly support this kind of role for social services.
230
Giving back part of the costs
of employing such people
to the employer
(N = 119)
31,1
60,5
7,6 0,8
Creating work in the public sector
(public work, interventionist work)
(N = 138)
38,4
52,9
8,0 0,7
Encouraging unemployed people to attend
workshops, which will provide them
with qualifications that are desired
on the job market (N = 122)
35,2
50,8
Encouraging them to open their own
economic enterprises or
to become self-employed (N = 117)
18,8
56,6
Supporting non-government organizations
that specialize in helping
these kinds of people (N = 105)
20.0
64.8
8.0
56.0
29.2
68.1
Using social workers
to mobilize unemployed people
to establish social cooperatives (N = 100)
Supporting the creation of companies
that are focused on employing these kinds
of people – for example: social cooperatives
– through for example: tax relief,
low interest on credit for these purposes,
etc. (N = 113)
Providing financial assistance
through social services (N = 96)
6.3
0
decidedly yes
28.1
39.6
14,0
5,1
20,5
13.3 1.9
30.0
6.0
1.8 0.9
26.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
%
rather yes than no
rather no than yes
decidedly no
Graph 15. Do you think that the below actions initiated for the purpose of helping
unemployed people are effective?
Source: A Study of the Potential…, Journal of Quotations.
According to a large group of respondents (nearly 95%, of these over 40% answered
‘decidedly yes’), social services should be the connector between various subjects and
stimulate public institutions and non-government organizations to act together. Not
a much lower percentage of respondents (87%) agrees that social services should
animate local communities by initiating shared enterprises directed at building social
capital. Meanwhile, 13% of those surveyed thinks that this is not the role of social
services; even though this is not a high percentage, it still reveals the opinion of
managers who do not accept one of the three basic social work methods, namely work
with the local community.
231
A large number (in sum 89%, of which every third responded ‘decidedly yes’)
support the idea that social services mobilize their beneficiaries to create work places
for themselves, for example by establishing social cooperatives. In this case, there
are four times more decidedly positive answers than in Graph 15, which could result
from the wider approach to the issue, an approach that does not exclusively consider
the creation of work (for example, the establishment of social cooperatives) but also
includes activities that aim to create the work. It also applies to developing work in
various sectors.
Animate enterprises – realized by
local inhabitants – that build and
strengthen social ties (N=128)
41.4
45.3
11.7 1.6
Stimulate efforts shared by various
public institutions and non-government organizations (N=135)
40.7
54.1
4.4 0.8
Realize projects focused on the
development of self-help mechanisms, which will teach beneficiaries
how to be resourceful and prepare
them for independence (N=135)
65.2
Mobilize beneficiaries to create their
own places of work, for example by
establishing social cooperatives
(N=136)
33.1
0
10
20
31.1
55.9
30
40
50
60
70
2.2 1.5
8.8
80
2.2
90 100
%
decidedly yes
rather yes than no
rather no than yes
decidedly no
Graph 16. In your opinion, what role should social services place in solving the
problems of local communities?
232
2
2. Conclusion of studies and recommended
changes in the social service system
Both activities founded on the notion of social economy and activities done within
the framework of social services have a lot of meaning in people’s lives. Work is
considered to be a basic value as well as a condition for independent fulfillment
of existential and social needs. Both kinds of activities are intended for increasing
employment and realize this goal according to its abilities: the social economy does so
through the development of social markets and creation of work within the sector, while
social services do so through organization of social and work reintegration programs,
which provide people who have been socially excluded with access to and sustenance
in the job market, whether it is free or protected.
From the results of the study, it appears that despite the functional ties between
social services and subjects of the social economy, the potential to prepare people
who have experienced long-term unemployment for work and to effectively guide
processes of reintegration in the local economy is very limited. Many factors converge
to indicate this, above all the fact that a clear majority of Social Welfare Centers does
not coordinate social work with the help of a basic tool – social projects. This basic
tool is a sequence of purposeful and rational activities that are planned and realized
methodically.
As a result of a lack in time and limited competence, social workers do not organize
local communities around activities that uphold long-term, consistent, and sustainable
local development. By resigning from a participatory process of strategy development
for solving social problems, they lose an excellent opportunity to build (or strengthen) a
network of social relations, which encompasses local subjects (public, non-government,
and commercial), whose collaboration is essential for a complex and effective solution
to social problems. This kind of participatory process is also an indispensable condition
for the development of social enterprise. Most leaders (directors) of Social Welfare
Centers (over 60%) do not see great potential in non-government organizations that
would be necessary for building the social market: innovation, self-help, creation of
social ties. Unfortunately, almost three-fourths of Social Welfare Centers do not know
and do not follow the constitutional principle of subsidies, which is one of the basic
principles of government and determines the legal order between state bodies plus
local government and citizens plus local community members.
From the perspective of social policy, it is expected that the social welfare system
will activate the social and employment activity of excluded people. This expectation is
fully justified. At least three arguments support it: the fiasco of the protective policies
of the 1990’s, the need for solving growing social problems (instead of easing the
social costs of market changes), and the experiences of other countries in the European
Union. Yet there exists a great discrepancy between the expectations of social service
organizations and the real results of their functioning. As a result of this, the social
welfare system absolutely needs to go through a process of modernization, which
will make it possible for social services to fulfill the essence of their professional
activity, which is social work. It is necessary to carry out many changes, which
include: shaping and educating social workers, managing organizations and building
233
institutional infrastructure for social service, developing local governments’ abilities
to create social welfare policy. A group of experts called on by the Institute for the
Development of Social Services (IRSS) within the framework of EQUAL Initiative
project titled ‘Searching for a Polish Model of the Social Economy’ developed a whole
set of recommendations that are available on the IRSS website.
On the local level, it would be advisable to create new models for social welfare
centers, which would be suitable for local communities (rural, urban, and metropolitan).
The organizational structure of the center should favor the management of three basic
types of activity, including: 1. social work directed at activation and reintegration –
social and employment-based, 2. care for people who cannot function in the labor
market (they need services, human contact, and social ties), and 3. financial support
(providing social work with financial support, for example by establishing Social Work
Departments in Social Welfare Centers).
Institutional changes must be accompanied by educational activities directed at
social and employment services, local governments, and other local partners. These
educational programs should be focused on integrating the actions of various public
institutions and non-government organizations for the purpose of resolving local, social
problems and developing social economy. Considering the aims of active social policy
and the challenges that social services face, educational programs should address a
wide range of issues pertaining to the following areas: organizing the local community,
developing the local community, social and job-based reintegration of people who
have experienced long-term unemployment, social economy, social markets, an
integrated system of social services, building and collaborating within the framework
of partnerships between the public and social sectors, social work with regard to the
lives of people, managing social work. Meanwhile, it is important to build a stable
support network for social services, which will provide knowledge that will increase
the effectiveness of social services, create conditions for testing innovate solutions and
propagate good practice, lead systematic analyses and studies of social services, and
monitor the modernization of the system.
The basic suggestion for building an institutional infrastructure regards the
integration of social service organizations and other institutions which realize similar
actions – by creating long-term collaboration between partners on three levels:
• the vertical level – that is between public, social service organizations located on
various local and state government administrative levels.
• above the Department of State – that is institutions that carry out the activities
of other social policy departments, for examples the job market, educational,
health, and housing institutions.
• outside the sector – that is non-government organizations and informal social
initiatives which work to activate and reintegrate socially and professionally, and/
or realize other social service activities.
In turn, the optimal way to coordinate efforts to develop a strategy is by creating
interdisciplinary work teams, which combine representatives of various professions
and local communities, who share their experiences and competence, represent the
interests of various social groups, and try to develop a consistent vision of activities
that is oriented toward realizing the common good and equal social development.
Streamlining work to prepare a strategy makes it possible to become familiar with and
234
understand the mechanisms of other subjects and to develop a shared understanding
of phenomena that up to this point have been seen from one perspective, that is from
the perspective of a given discipline, institution, or work-place. This is an invaluable
experience, one that is extraordinarily useful in building local partnerships for the
purposes of developing the social economy and creating social enterprise.
Preparing concrete legal-institutional solutions – that are necessary for increasing
the effectiveness of social services that work for the good of marginalized people who are
trying to find employment and become socially independent – requires time, for carrying
out necessary expert assessments and initiating public debate (with the participation
of all interested sides), which will disseminate the notion that the necessary condition
for a safe society and local development is the following: a consistent policy (which is
essential for social policy) that makes social and economic aims compatible.
8
K
ey Factors in Social
Entrepreneurship
Development. Social
Enterprises in the Light
of Research
Key Factors in Social
Entrepreneurship
Development. Social
Enterprises in the Light
of Research
Norbert Laurisz
Stanisław Mazur
The present report is based on the results of empirical studies on social enterprises
conducted within the COGITO Cracow Initiative for Social Economy project, implemented
as part of the EQUAL Community Initiative Programme (CIP) for Poland 2004-2006,
financed from the European Social Fund.
The condicio sine qua non of the methodological correctness of social studies
includes the operationalization of the concepts and phenomena being studied.
Complying with this methodological recommendation, in our studies we have adopted
the meanings of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise proposed by Hausner
and Laurisz in the paper Czynniki krytyczne tworzenia przedsiębiorstw społecznych
Przedsiębiorstwo społeczne – konceptualizacja (Critical Factors in Establishing
Social Enterprises. The Social Enterprise - Conceptualization; J. Hausner, N. Laurisz,
2007). The next element of our research methodology involved drawing up a catalogue
of research problems, defining the dimensions of the analysis, and formulating the
research questions for designing the questionnaire. This created the foundation for a
pilot study and the study proper.
239
1
1. Objective, course, and scope of the study
The basic aim of the study was to identify the key factors in the development of
social entrepreneurship. The study was part of the Cogito project financed from the
EQUAL Programme. The classic path was adopted for the study, i.e.:
• preparing a catalogue of research problems,
• formulating the research questions,
• building the questionnaire,
• pilot study,
• study proper.
The first stage, as part of preparing a catalogue of research problems, was to
identify the subject and scope of the study. The next stage involved arranging and
grouping the issues forming the detailed categories of the subject of the study, within
three defined dimensions: axiology, praxiology, and social consent. Next, the key factors
in the development of social enterprises were selected.
The division into dimensions and sub-dimensions (key factors) is shown in the
table below, while the detailed division into dimensions, key factors, and the values
characterizing them which were defined during the research process, is are further on
in the report.
Table 1. Division of the scope of the study into dimensions and key factors in social
enterprise (SE) development
DIMENSIONS
CRITICAL FACTORS
Area of activity
Axiology
Objective of activity
Social added value
Financial aspect of SE activity
Capacity for business operations
Praxiology
The people in SEs
Management
Managerial staff
Social participation in SE activity
Directions and forms of cooperation
Social consent
SEs’ environment
External evaluation
Methods of supporting activity
Source: Authors’ compilation
240
Detailed division into dimensions, sub-dimensions, and values characterizing
them:
AXIOLOGY
1. Area of activity:
• area of activity,
• forms of activity,
• type of activity,
• level of local anchoring of activity.
2. Objective of activity:
• counteracting social exclusion,
• providing social services,
• providing financial services .
3. Social added value (SAV):
• actions raising the level of social added value,
• social capital,
• employee training and upgrading of qualifications,
• ocal impact.
PRAXIOLOGY
4. Financial aspect of SE activity:
• level of income,
• level of income stability,
• sources of income,
• level of income diversification,
• level and directions of profit redistribution,
• SE assets,
• storing of resources, financial reserves, investments.
5. Capacity for business operations:
• ability to measure and present the social added value for non-income-generating
projects,
• obtaining resources from structural funds ,
• familiarity with the local market,
• innovative offer,
• product marketing,
• access to advanced technologies,
• level of flexibility of activity.
6. The people in SEs:
• paid staff,
• membership,
• voluntary workers.
7. Management:
• having a developed strategy, plan of action for the future,
• defining the horizontal objectives of activity,
• decision-making process,
• means and procedures of decision-making,
• number of people necessary to make a decision,
• flexibility, promptness of decision-making,
• decision-making conflicts.
241
8. Managerial staff:
• stability of management, and the size of managerial staff and their competence,
• level of experience of the managerial staff,
• level of reliance on external services,
• level of reliance on external workers,
• level of flexibility, capacity to change the environment, sources of financing, etc.
• SOCIAL CONSENT
9. Social participation in SE activity:
• participation of people from the local community in SE activity.
10. Directions and forms of cooperation:
• formal ties between social enterprises,
• informal ties between social enterprises,
• cooperation at the level of objectives,
• cooperation resulting from SE status,
• cooperation with the local government,
• cooperation with non-governmental organizations and external experts,
• cooperation with business,
• cooperation with other SEs.
11. SEs’ environment:
• SEs in local government policies,
• the local government has a strategy, plan for cooperating with SEs,
• the local government includes cooperation with SEs in its development strategy,
• the local government creates conditions for the development of SEs,
• SEs have the opportunity to co-create local social policies by taking part in
decision-making,
• representation of the sector,
• networks/platforms for cooperation of SEs.
12. External evaluation:
• social reception / public image,
• level of trust in the local community,
• accreditation or standardization,
• external evaluation/auditing of SEs and their activities.
13. Methods of supporting activity:
• instruments of support,
• institutional structure necessary to implement the instruments of support,
• forms of direct and indirect support,
• the existence of a coordination and consultation network,
• the existence of a catalogue of good practices,
• access to professional services for enterprises,
• level of burden of reporting, accounting, monitoring, and evaluation,
• formal and legal facilitations introduced into existing instruments of support.
The pilot study and the study proper were carried out on a group of entities describing
themselves as social enterprises. The group included foundations, associations, social
cooperatives, vocational rehabilitation facilities, supported employment enterprises. A
total of 50 entities were included in the study.
242
2
2. Study results
2.1. Dimension 1 - Axiology.
The first stage of the analysis attempted to characterize the group of social
enterprises being investigated. This involved describing the specificity of the group,
defining the type and scope of their activity, identifying the reasons why they were
established, among other things by defining the social objectives and precisely
specifying the benefits of the activity conducted by the enterprises.
The great majority (86%) of polled entities do not limit their activity to the town
or district where they are based. They try to conduct their activity, both business and
social, all over their county or even the whole province - almost half (46%) of the
polled entities. The social activity of some of them goes beyond the national borders
(24%), whereas in the case of business activity this only occurs in rare cases (4%).
More than half (62%) of the polled entities are closely linked to non-governmental
organizations. These organizations were the initiators of the founding of the social
enterprises or had the greatest influence on their founding. At present these enterprises
operate locally, as separate units of non-governmental organizations responsible for
business activity. In individual cases (4% of the total), social enterprises from the
above-described group conduct their activity as limited-liability companies where one
of the founders is a non-governmental organization. Non-governmental organizations
are shareholders in such a company, and the generated profit is assigned for statutory
activity, while the other shareholders are obliged to redistribute profit, which means
transferring the profit generated by the company, in the part to which those shareholders
are entitled, to specified social goals. The next group among the enterprises polled
(14%) were social cooperatives, and the remaining 24% were entities such as
vocational rehabilitation facilities and supported employment enterprises. No less than
72% of polled entities described their stage of development as stable, claiming the
enterprise they represented was a developed entity, at the same time ready to expand
the scope of its activity.
The next stage of the study involved identifying and hierarchizing the social
objectives of the social enterprises. The questionnaire proposed a broad range of
objectives possible to strive for. The people taking part in the survey could decide that
the social enterprise they represented worked towards several of the listed objectives,
hence they had the possibility of choosing more than one reply. Consequently, the sum
of values in the replies does not add up to 100.
The main social objectives of the polled entities included:
• mobilizing local communities to work towards social and economic objectives
(52% of those polled chose this as one of the main objectives of their activity,
while for 38% it was important, but came second)
• reintegrating excluded people into the labour market, and finding employment
for them (48% and 34%),
• creating new jobs within projects for accomplishing both economic and social
objectives (32% and 34%),
• building and consolidating interpersonal relations (8% and 46%).
243
The objective indicated the least often was fulfilling local communities’ needs by
producing goods and services addressed to the whole community, e.g. in the form of
care services (preschools, nurseries, care for the elderly) or ‘neighbourly’ services.
84% of the entities polled did not deal with this area of social activity at all. Just 4%
stated this was one of the main objectives of their activity, while for 10% it was an
objective that came second in order of importance.
The polled entities indicated the following as the main benefits stemming from the
activity of social enterprises:
• mobilizing the local community in limiting social exclusion (68%),
• creating new jobs (62%),
• providing training services to people working at the social enterprise and to
people participating in some other way in the entity’s activity (48%).
A surprisingly small proportion (8%) indicated providing goods and services
addressed to the local community. This could mean that social enterprises have a
weak position on the public services market, or that they are unable to identify the
social needs at the local level.
2.2. Dimension 2 - Praxiology
The next stage of the study was an analysis of the activity of social enterprises
from a praxiological perspective. Factors like the enterprises’ incomes, income stability,
and the level of diversification were analysed. Next, the capacity for measuring the
non-financial benefits of social enterprises’ activity and the availability of and skills to
use advanced technologies were verified. The study also encompassed issues such as
people in social entrepreneurship. The aim was to determine accurately the human
potential involved in the activity of the enterprises under investigation, and the size of
the gap between the demand for labour and the actual status.
The main source of income for social enterprises is their business activity – 41% of
mentions. A large share in the structure of income belongs to funding provided by local
government (32%) and funding from European funds (20%). The other sources of
income include support received from non-governmental organizations (4%), donations
from private individuals (2%), and donations from institutions and companies (1%).
The studied entities stated that 56% of their income could qualify as stable (arithmetic
average). It is worth noting that the standard deviation was 27.6, which suggests
a rather high level of diversification of the declared level of income stability among
the studied social enterprises, further proved by the size of the range (the difference
between the extreme values of the variable in the studied set) which was 77.
According to the respondents, the primary factor deciding about the stability of
social enterprises’ incomes is the administration. Administrative bodies can ensure
stable income for the enterprises by signing long-term agreements on implementation
of specific programmes or on providing public services. They can also contribute to
destabilizing the enterprises’ financial situation by frequent delays in transferring due
payments.
Another important group of factors influencing the stability of social enterprises’
incomes includes demand for the products they offer, the overall economic situation,
244
labour costs, and space rental and maintenance costs. Other factors mentioned after
that included complicated legal procedures, a low standard of workers’ professional
qualifications, and the low credibility of social enterprises in their relations with
business. It is surprising that as much as 86% of the polled entities were unable to
measure the social added value of their activity.
All the representatives of the studied entities claim that the number of employed
workers is too small for them to be able to conduct fully professional activity. The
deviation of the desired state from the actual employment level was 36%. The situation
was similar with respect to the number of volunteers working for the social enterprises;
here the difference between the actual number of volunteers and the desired number
was 68%.
The respondents viewed as positive the growing level of involvement of members
of the local community in the activity of social enterprises. More than a half (56%)
recognize this involvement as being large and very large.
2.3. Dimension 3 - Social consent
In the next stage of the study, social entrepreneurship was analysed in terms of
social consent. The role and level of involvement of the social enterprises’ initiators
in their current activity was characterized, the studied enterprises’ need for external
services was determined, and entities with which cooperation was of key importance
were identified. After that, constitutive forms of cooperation with the previously selected
entities were identified.
The influence of entities involved in establishing and developing a social enterprise,
subsequently referred to as the initiators of the social enterprise, on its current activity
can be described as stable, with a median of evaluations of 3 on a scale of 1 to 5. Less
than 10% of the enterprises stated that the level of involvement of those entities in the
current activity of enterprises from the social economy sector was low. Thus, one can
conclude that social enterprises are treated by their initiators as autonomous entities
though, a fact worth highlighting, the initiators do not avoid responsibility for their fate.
The basic functions currently fulfilled in social enterprises by their initiators are usually
an advisory (64%) and consultative (52%) role. The initiators fulfil a management role
in a small part of the enterprises (14%).
A great majority (86%) of polled entities use external consulting services. As much
as 74% have access to preferential external services which support the enterprise’s
functioning. The basic preferential external services available to social enterprises are
training and transport services, and for some – the effect of their activity’s specificity –
medical services.
245
5
3.8
3.7
4
3.4
3.2
3
2.6
2.5
2.2
2.1
2
1.1
1
Public service
institutions
The church
Political parties
Local media
Academic community
Business
Government
administration bodies
Regional government
Local government
0
Graph 1. Assessment of social enterprises’ cooperation with different entities*
* on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means no cooperation, 2 - insufficient cooperation, 3 - adequate
cooperation, 4 - good cooperation, 5 - very good cooperation
Source: Author’s compilation on the basis of conducted studies
The graph presents an assessment of social enterprises’ cooperation with different
entities in their environment. The assessment was based on both a quantitative and
qualitative evaluation. The data show that the best cooperation exists between the
social economy sector and public service institutions (the median of marks was 3.8)
and the non-national administration, both local and regional (median of marks 3.7).
In the study, public service institutions are taken to mean entities such as health
centres, emergency rescue, police, city patrol service, legal and tax authorities, sports
organizations, cultural organizations, education and training establishments, railways,
municipal transportation, postal service. Cooperation with the business community was
also given very high marks (3.2). This confirms the previously noticed growth trend in
corporate social responsibility, manifesting itself mainly in the financial commitment
of corporations to helping non-governmental organizations and supporting social
initiatives, including social entrepreneurship. This could also mean that the studied
group of social enterprises are doing well on the open market and are treated by private
business as a worthwhile partner, however, as further studies have shown, this aspect
is marginal in the relations between social enterprises and business.
One important element in assessing this cooperation is an analysis of the
distribution of positive replies on cooperation with local and regional governments and
with public service institutions. The level of the lower quartile for these three variables
246
means that 75% of the group give positive marks to cooperation with public service
institutions and local government. The median for these variables shows that half the
studied social enterprises think cooperation with these entities is good and very good.
This could mean that the local administration is well prepared for working with the
social economy sector. There is a greater difference in assessment, compared to the
aforementioned entities, in the case of business, where cooperation with the sector,
according to the replies of representatives of social enterprises, is assessed as equally
positive as in the case of local administration and public service institutions, though
not quite as high.
Cooperation with the government administration was assessed as being
unsatisfactory. Very low marks were also given to cooperation with the academic
community and religious communities, with just 22% of the respondents saying that
cooperation with such entities was adequate or good. The worst marks were given to
cooperation between social economy entities and political parties and organizations –
94% of the enterprises have no such cooperation.
A more in-depth analysis of the cooperation between social enterprises and the
different entities reveals an interesting regularity: social enterprises give high marks
to cooperation with a specific entity whenever the research question concerns a
general level of cooperation (for example: how does the social enterprise assess its
cooperation with the local government). When the assessment involves a detailed form
of cooperation, e.g. financial cooperation, the marks are always lower than for general
cooperation with a given entity.
There is no enterprise in the studied group that does not cooperate with the local
government. In the study, a local government is taken to mean any unit of local or
regional government, or an entity representing that unit and implementing its policies.
However, the marks given to financial cooperation and cooperation in implementing
and creating social policies are very low. Half the studied enterprises say that the level
of cooperation in these areas is insufficient. Only 25% of the respondents thought that
cooperation in this area was adequate, and none of the respondents gave a very good
mark to any form of cooperation with the local government.
The presence of social enterprises in relations with local administration takes place
mainly through day-to-day exchange of information between the administration and
social enterprises, and through meetings between representatives of social enterprises
and representatives of local government. Such cooperation much less often involves
commissioning social enterprises to perform public tasks.
The general tendency to give lower marks to specific forms of cooperation is also
visible in the case of cooperation between social enterprises themselves. Even so, the
marks here were higher than those given to cooperation between social enterprises and
local government. The lowest marks went to cooperation between social enterprises of
the same legal status, and to their cooperation in creating a formal network supporting
the development and activity of the social entrepreneurship sector.
The assessment of specific forms of cooperation between social enterprises and
non-governmental organizations suggests close ties between them. The highest marks
were given to cooperation on carrying out joint tasks, assignments and projects. On
the one hand, this is the effect of the fact that non-governmental organizations carry
out numerous projects connected with establishing social enterprises. On the other
hand, it is the result of social enterprises’ active participation in establishing non-
247
governmental organizations in order to increase the possibilities for taking advantage
of public funding. To some extent, this observation is confirmed by the marginalization
of certain forms of cooperation between social enterprises and non-governmental
organizations. This applies mainly to tasks or services that social enterprises perform
for non-governmental organizations (75% of the studied enterprises report a lack of
such a form of cooperation or consider it marginal and insufficient).
Social enterprises give similarly low marks to specific forms of cooperation with
commercial entities. The average marks for individual forms of cooperation suggest
business is not taking advantage of the social economy sector’s potential. At the same
time, this suggests great interest on the part of the social enterprise sector in such
cooperation. An analysis of the distributions of replies on the cooperation between
social enterprises and corporations reveals an interesting trend. Social enterprises offer
a high assessment of the kind of cooperation in which companies commission them
to perform specific tasks (the median of marks shows that 50% of those polled saw
this form of cooperation as being at least adequate). They give less favourable marks
to cooperation in which the social enterprises use the services of commercial market
entities (50% of those polled reported a lack of such cooperation or considered it to be
marginal and insufficient).
Interpretation of the results concerning the other forms of cooperation between
business and social enterprises serves to highlight the expectations of the latter. Social
enterprises focus mainly on charity work, and not market forms of cooperation. Few
of the studied social enterprises are interested in development through commercial
cooperation.
Also interesting are the replies on the relations between participation in developing
and implementing social programmes and the financial flows between a social
enterprise and the local government. A higher degree of activity on the part of the
social enterprises translated directly into their involvement in the activities of the local
government and, among other things, resulted in increased financial support from the
latter.
Another trend, though of a similar nature, is the high correlation between
cooperation on the level of working towards social objectives with private companies
and cooperation with business consisting in business being a donor. The high level
of correlation suggests the crystallization of two kinds of attitudes: either the social
enterprise is active and strives to build its position and independence, focusing on
business activity, or it assumes a demanding attitude, expecting financial support
from commercial entities to achieve its objectives. These observations show there is
substantial diversification in the group of social enterprises. Some are prepared and
ready to conduct business activity, while others focus on obtaining funds to work
towards their objectives by means similar to those applied by classic non-governmental
organizations.
The study also shows that the higher the degree of activeness of a social enterprise
in terms of cooperation with other social economy entities and local government, the
greater the scale and intensity of its commitment to cooperation with business entities.
However, it is worth noting a certain exception to this general rule. In the case of very
well developed cooperation between a social enterprise and other enterprises of its
kind, the scale and intensity of its cooperation with market corporations decreases.
248
2.4. Barriers to the development of the sector,
and key development factors
The final stage of the study involved identifying the barriers to the development
of social entrepreneurship and selecting the areas and factors with a key impact on
the sector’s development. First of all, the most desirable forms of support for social
enterprises were identified, followed by a catalogue of barriers to the development of
these enterprises. This stage ended with the selection and characterization of areas
of activity essential to improve the possibilities for developing and founding social
enterprises.
The most important forms of support for social enterprises are:
• direct subsidies - 90% of the enterprises see these as the most desirable form of
support for their activity,
• preferential loans and credit - enabling social enterprises to take advantage of
funds, especially when they lose financial liquidity, e.g. during successive stages
of projects or when applying for new projects (75% of respondents indicated this
form as very and the most desirable).
On the other hand, few of the studied enterprises are interested in the following
forms of support:
• preferences in assigning public orders to social enterprises working for social
objectives (26%),
• access to free information and advisory services (22%),
• the possibility of taking advantage of guarantee funds and credit guarantee funds
(18%).
Only a small number of the studied entities expressed an interest in mechanisms
which would form the basis of closer, commercial economic cooperation between
corporations and social enterprises.
The catalogue of barriers social enterprises face in their activity is long. The main
categories of barriers include:
• an accumulation of negative social and economic features in rural and poorly
urbanized regions,
• a lack of trust in initiatives undertaken by social enterprises,
• a low level of activeness of local communities,
• a perception of a social enterprise as an entity active in areas of social exclusion,
and thus offering goods and services of a low standard,
• a lack of social trust in the creation of pacts/partnerships and a lack of ability to
cooperate for shared objectives,
• a lack of cooperation between social enterprises on the local level,
• 50% of the studied population say these are barriers which significantly hamper
business and social activity.
A barrier which was indicated especially often by respondents was the image
of social enterprises (75% of respondents think this is a barrier which prevents or
significantly hampers their activity). Many shared the opinion that it was much easier
to find a worker or client by hiding the social character of the enterprise.
249
The respondents pointed to the existence of a kind of discrimination of social
enterprises (with respect to the situation of commercial entities), including the lack
of access to free or subsidized training courses on conducting business activity, and
the lack of specialist courses. One of the few types of training available to social
enterprise workers are those addressed to non-governmental organizations. However,
the profile of such courses (which do not include issues of entrepreneurship) makes
their usefulness limited.
One particular example of unequal treatment of entities on the market are social
cooperatives which, as representatives of these cooperatives highlight, have to employ
exclusively disadvantaged people or those at risk of social exclusion, whereas the
state treats them like any other business entity. Such treatment frequently disqualifies
social enterprises in the competition for contracts, also with regard to public services
commissioned by local governments, and even by the Ministry of Labour and Social
Policy.
The respondents also stressed that a social enterprise as a quasi-company has
little chance of obtaining resources for investment from structural funds. This results
in a situation where a social enterprise comes into being through the implementation
of a specific project, it has the required workers, but has no possibility of investing
and this often results in its bankruptcy. The situation is better in the case of those
social enterprises which are connected with entities from the third sector. This gives
them the possibility of extra financial support. The respondents also pointed out that
a social enterprise (e.g. established in the form of a vocational rehabilitation facility)
cannot obtain funds in the same way as a non-governmental sector entity, whereas an
enterprise formed as an entity spun off from a non-governmental organization may take
advantage of such funding.
An important issue for the respondents was the impossibility of achieving one
of the main objectives of social enterprises’ activity, namely reintroducing people
threatened with social exclusion to the labour market. The absence of possibilities for
preferential hiring of people coming out of the social economy sector into the open
labour market, implies that such people have to remain in social enterprises. For a
prospective employer, hiring a jobless person registered with the employment authority
is more worthwhile than hiring a worker from a social enterprise. This problem is
exacerbated by the fact that workers from the social economy sector are in a way
branded as people without qualifications, possibly with addictions and mental or
personality problems. The lack of preferences for hiring such people, and the lack of
preferences for employers providing training courses or traineeships for people from
the sector, effectively blocks the flow of workers from the social economy to the open
labour market.
Some interesting information was provided regarding the actions which need to be
taken to support the process of founding social enterprises. The respondents indicated
the following as being the most important:
• developing instruments of financial support for social enterprises (half of those
polled stated this was an essential measure, while 90% of those polled said
such actions would significantly contribute to the efficient functioning of social
enterprises),
• introducing a system of preferential employment (breaks for entrepreneurs,
exempting the employee from some fees and premiums) for people moving from
employment at social enterprises to the open labour market,
250
• creating an information base on the possibilities of obtaining funding and on
running a social enterprise,
• creating possibilities for social enterprises to take part in training courses on
finance and accounting, specialist courses relevant for the enterprise’s profile,
courses in work organization, law, courses in management, obtaining EU funding,
and administration.
2.8
2.9
3
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.8
2.1
2.0
2
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.0
1
Fire protection, work safety
Language
Specialist (relevant to profile)
Administration
Obtaining EU funding
Logistics
Interpersonal communication
Work organization
Production
Management
Sales techniques
Technology
Quality systems
Computer skills
Finance and accounting
Law
0
Graph 2. Value of the upper quartile of the demand for training courses
* on a scale of 1 to 3, where 1 means useful, 2 - much needed, 3 - essential
Source: Author’s compilation on the basis of conducted studies
Equally interesting information was obtained from the question on systemic action
serving to support social entrepreneurship. Here, the respondents indicated:
• the need for a law regulating the functioning of social enterprises and cooperating
entities (96% of mentions),
• creating an institutional support system (consulting, training, cash and non-cash
assistance) for social enterprises (60%),
• including social enterprises in the system of developing, implementing, and
coordinating social policies (56%),
• building a positive image of social enterprises and promoting the idea of social
entrepreneurship (54%),
• facilitating social enterprises’ access to funding from EU Structural Funds
(52%),
• creating a transparent system of obtaining support, transparency of the decisionmaking process, objective selection and verification criteria (48%).
251
3
3. Conclusions
The study provided a basis for characterizing the social enterprises which operate in
Poland. The characterization had been arranged according to three defined dimensions:
axiology, praxiology, and social consent. In the next stage of the study, following a
multi-tiered analysis, the key factors in the development of social enterprises were
identified. Below are the main conclusions summing up the study.
3.1. Dimension 1 - Axiology
An analysis of the potential and the power of influence of social enterprises showed
that most of the studied entities conducted business and social activity reaching
beyond the borders of their town and district. This could be proof of the growing
potential of social enterprises and the sector’s good condition. However, it is likely
that this picture is not a precise reflection of the sector’s situation. More than half
of the polled enterprises are closely linked to non-governmental organizations. Nongovernmental organizations were the initiators of the enterprises’ founding or had the
greatest influence on their being founded. Today most of the enterprises operate as
separate units of a non-governmental organization. Hence, one can say that most of
the enterprises have a strong protector which supported the founding of the enterprise.
Often this assistance does not end at the enterprise foundation stage, but continues
throughout the enterprise’s operation. One can surmise that one of the key weaknesses
of the sector are the problems faced by independently founded social enterprises,
without any or with a low level of potential and founding capital. This situation has led
to disproportions between the quantity and quality of social enterprises as the effect of
having a strong protector or not.
The legal form of entities describing themselves as social enterprises is diverse. The
group includes such legal entities as foundations, associations, social cooperatives,
vocational rehabilitation facilities, supported employment enterprises. The fundamental
objectives of activity mentioned by social enterprises include: mobilizing local
communities to work towards social and economic objectives, reintegrating excluded
people into the labour market and finding employment for them, and building and
consolidating interpersonal relations. As for the main benefits of their activity, the
polled enterprises mentioned mobilizing the local community to limit the extent of
social exclusion, creating new jobs, and providing training services to people working
at the social enterprise and those taking part in its activity. The exemplification of the
objectives and benefits of social enterprises’ activity testifies to the sector’s focus on
meeting the needs of the local communities where they operate. Their activity can be
described as directly counteracting social exclusion, through mobilization and work.
On the other hand, the marginalization of such forms of activity as providing goods and
services addressed to the local community could mean that social enterprises have a
weak position on the market for public services, or suggest that they are unable to
identify local needs.
252
3.2. Dimension 2 - Praxiology
An analysis of the financial aspect of social enterprises’ activity showed that the
enterprises’ incomes can be described as stable. Considering that these are subjective
opinions, the result suggests a high level of income stability. One needs to remember
every time that the previously mentioned difficulties with founding independent entities
in the sector prove that these results concern the group of social enterprises which
usually cope well on the market and those which often have a strong protector, which
can strongly affect the enterprises’ financial stability. Business activity is an importance
source of income for the studied entities, followed by funding from local governments,
and resources from European funds. The high level of income from business activity
proves that the enterprises are well managed and enjoy a high degree of financial
independence. The major share of income from business activity implies that stability
depends on several factors: demand for the products offered by the social enterprise,
the overall economic situation, labour costs, and space rental and maintenance costs.
These factors can be considered key for the enterprises’ development, though one
needs to remember that these are objective elements on which the enterprise has
little or no influence - as in the case of the overall economic situation. Meanwhile,
there is a second group of key factors which decide about the whole sector’s financial
stability. These are administrative factors, which unfortunately can often be counted
among subjective and arbitrary factors. Their impact can be dual: they can contribute
to stabilizing an enterprise’s income through the signing of long-term agreements on
implementing specific programmes or providing public services, but they can also
contribute to destabilizing the financial situation by frequent delays in the transfer of
funding.
Analysing the influence of the human factor on the activity of social enterprises,
one notices substantial shortages both in employment and in the number of volunteers
working for the enterprise. The lack of people looking for work could be a factor which
will contribute significantly to decelerating the development of social entrepreneurship.
It is worth noting that according to the polled entities, the local community’s
participation in and commitment to working for the benefit of social enterprises is
growing substantially, which in the longer term could result in eliminating the shortage
of workers.
3.3. Dimension 3 - Social consent
Summarizing the study in terms of social consent, it is worth noting that the
entities which initiated the founding of social enterprises have a major share in
their subsequent existence. This confirms the earlier observation on the substantial
contribution of a strong protector to the market success of social enterprises. Social
enterprises are largely dependent on external services, most often preferential. This
leads to the conclusion that one of the key factors for the development of the sector
is the creation of a stable infrastructure run along preferential principles and offering
services to these enterprises.
253
Cooperation between social enterprises and external entities is assessed in diverse
ways. In general, this cooperation receives high marks. The study shows that the higher
the level of the social enterprise’s activity in terms of cooperating with other entities,
the greater the scale and intensity of its commitment on all levels to cooperation with
business entities. Hence, if the achievement of social objectives through business
activity is recognized as the main attribute of a social enterprise’s activity, then the
entities closest to the objective are the most active social enterprises whose areas of
cooperation are the broadest. In this aspect, the key factor for the development of a
social enterprise is the level of its activeness and its ability to cooperate with different
entities.
3.4. Barriers to the development of the sector, and
key development factors
The representatives of social enterprises indicated direct subsidies as well as
preferential loans and credit as forms of support important for the sector’s development.
They found access to free information and consulting services and the possibility of
taking advantage of guarantee funds and credit guarantee funds to be less important.
The main barriers to the development of social enterprises were identified as being
an accumulations of negative social and economic features in rural and poorly urbanized
regions, a lack of trust in initiatives undertaken by social enterprises, the low level of
local communities’ activity, a lack of social trust in the creation of pacts/partnerships
and the ability to cooperate to attain common goals, and a lack of cooperation between
social enterprises. A particularly frequently mentioned factor with a direct impact on
the activity and development of social enterprises is their image. A large group of
representatives of social enterprises voiced the opinion that it was easier to find a
worker or client by hiding the social character of the enterprise.
A very important factor weakening the position of social enterprises operating
autonomously on the market is that the law treats them like any other entities in the
non-public sector. As a result of such treatment, there exists a kind of discrimination
of social enterprises with regard to commercial entities. This type of discrimination is
particularly visible in access to preferential specialist training courses and in obtaining
funding for investments. On the other hand, these enterprises are not recognized as
non-governmental organizations by the law, and may not obtain funding in the same
way. The key factor defined at this stage of research and confirmed at a later stage, is
a lack of a clear legal definition of entities operating within the social economy sector.
The best way to solve the problem would be to create a law regulating the principles
of this type of activity.
The last stage in identifying the key factors for the development of social
entrepreneurship was a subjective evaluation of the situation in the social economy
sector offered by the representatives of the studied entities, showing which factors are
of key importance for their activity.
254
The following were indicated as actions constitutive for the development of social
entrepreneurship: developing instruments of financial support, introducing a system
of preferential employment (breaks for entrepreneurs, exempting the employee from
some fees and premiums) for people moving from employment at social enterprises to
the open labour market, creating an information base on the possibilities of obtaining
funding, and creating possibilities for social enterprises to take part in relevant
training courses. Moreover, the respondents mentioned a need for a law regulating the
functioning of social enterprises (this need was already identified at an earlier stage
of the study), creating an institutional support system, including social enterprises in
the system of developing, implementing and coordinating social policies, building a
positive image of social enterprises and promoting the idea of social entrepreneurship,
facilitating social enterprises’ access to funding from EU Structural Funds, and creating
a transparent system of obtaining support.
255
A bout the authors
of the texts
About the authors
of the texts
Anna Baczko
Graduated with Master degree from the Institute of Sociology at the University of
Warsaw. Presently prepares her doctoral thesis in the Division of Statistics, Demography
and Sociological Mathematics of the IS at the University of Warsaw. She has taken part
in numerous research projects on social capital and social economy. Her main areas
of academic interest include the methodology of (qualitative and quantitative) social
research, application of the theory of complex configurations for the description of
social phenomena and the urban sociology.
Giulia Galera
Prepares doctoral thesis in the School of International Studies at the Trident
University in Italy. Her research work concerns the analysis of the impact of social
entrepreneurship on the transition economies, with a particular focus on Poland and
Ukraine. After four-year studies in international relations and diplomacy and obtaining
the Master degree in the field of non-profit organisations and social entrepreneurship at
the Trident University, she worked in the non-commercial sector for three years. Since
April 2000 she works in the Institute for the Development of Non-Profit Organizations
(ISSAN), one of the research centres of the Trident University. At present she cooperates with the Trident Centre for Local Development OECD LEED and the European
research network EMES - the ISSAN being a founding member of the network. Her
research work focuses on the potential of social enterprises and non-commercial
organisations in the transition economies.
259
Doctor of sociology, works in the Institute of Sociology at the University of Warsaw
as a director of the Research Unit on Social Economy. She started her academic
career at the University of Warsaw in 1981. Between 1994 and 2005 her work
focused on market research, marketing and social communication. She tries to
use the experience gathered from practically oriented social research and popular
communication of scientific findings to a broader public to create closer links between
the theoretical work and practical activity, and in particular to deepen the common
knowledge on social issues. In her theoretical work she focuses on the history and
the present condition of the family, the issues of social capital and social economy.
She published a book Rodzina a system społeczny. Reprodukcja i kooperacja w
perspektywie interdyscyplinarnej (Family and the Social System. Reproduction and
Co-operation in the Interdisciplinary Perspective). She is also the co-author, together
with Mirosława Marody, of a book Przemiany więzi społecznych (Transformation of
Social Ties) (2004) which received the renowned Jan Długosz award. At present, she
is the scientific deputy director of the Institute of Sociology at the University of Warsaw,
and her greatest wish is to open the institute for the external world.
Marta Gumkowska
Graduated from the Institute of Applied Social Sciences at the University of
Warsaw; she is the coordinator of the programme Research on the Third Sector in
the Klon/Jawor Association. For the last six years she has led research work on nongovernmental organisations and civil society; she prepared numerous reports and
articles on the Third Sector and civil activity in Poland. She coordinated research
activities led under the project ‘Searching for a Polish Model of the Social Economy.’
Jerzy Hausner
Professor of the Economical University in Cracow (Department of Economics and
International Relations), head of the Faculty of Economy and Public Administration at
the Economical University in Cracow. He coordinated several research projects and
received 6 scholarships. In 1994 he received the title of a professor of economic
sciences, and in 1998 he was became a nominated professor. He is a member of
Economic Sciences Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences. During the 1990s
he worked as a head of the group of advisers for the deputy prime minister for economic
policy, the government representative for the reform of the social security system and
the member of the Team of Economic Advisers for the President of Poland. Between
2001 and 2005 he was a member of the Polish Parliament. In October 2001 he
became the Minister of Labour and Social Policy in the cabinet of Leszek Miller. In
January 2003 he became the Minister of Economy, Labour and Social Policy, and
from June 2003 also the deputy prime minister. He prepared the plan of the reform of
public finances (the so-called Hausner Plan). In the cabinet of Marek Belka (between
260
May 2004 and March 2005) he served as the deputy prime minister and the Minister
of Economy and Labour, coordinating the preparation of the National Development
Plan for the years 2007-2013. He received many awards, such as the Kisiel award
and the Władysław Grabski award. He is the chief editor of the ‘Public Governance’
quarterly. He wrote over 250 academic publications.
Jan Herbst
He graduated from the Department of Philosophy and Sociology at the University
of Warsaw, and now he prepares his doctoral thesis in the same department. In
2003 he received the Florian Znaniecki award for the best Master thesis. He is the
author or co-author of several books and several dozens of articles on civil activity,
the Third Sector, civil society. He is a member of the research team in the Klon/
Jawor Association. He participated in many research projects on the condition of nongovernmental organisations, social activity, social economy. Member of the program
board of the ‘Public Governance’ quarterly and of the research team ‘Good governance’
in the Małopolska School of Public Administration at the Economical University in
Cracow.
Graduated from the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, the president of
the Elbląg Association for the Support for Non-Governmental Initiatives. For over ten
years he has worked for the third sector – leading trainings, giving advice, animating
activities. He is an expert in the field of non-governmental organisations, co-operation
between local governments and NGOs, creating and managing local funds. Journalist,
chief editor of the periodical ‘Pozarządowiec.’ Deputy president of the Board of NonGovernmental Organisations in Elbląg, member of the executive board of Program
Board of the Network of Support for Non-Governmental Organisations SPLOT and
member of the executive board of the Federation of Local Funds in Poland. Author of
papers on non-governmental sector, co-operation between territorial government and
non-governmental organisations, local funds. Author, co-author and executor of many
projects for the non-governmental sector.
Tomasz Kaźmierczak
Sociologist and social policy researcher, works in the Unit for the Theory of Social
Work Methodology in the Institute for Social Prevention and Social Rehabilitation at the
University of Warsaw, expert of the Institute of Public Affairs, where he led the research
team under the project ‘Towards the Polish Model of Social Economy – We Build a
New Lisków.’ In his academic work he focuses on the issues of social work and social
assistance. He participated in the reform of the social security system in 1990s (inter
alia, as a secretary of the team for social assistance reform under the Round Table
261
negotiations). His recent publications include: T. Kaźmierczak (ed.) W poszukiwaniu
strategii pobudzania oddolnego rozwoju wiejskich społeczności (Searching for
a Strategy for Stimulating Grass-Roots Growth of Rural Communities), ISP, Warsaw
2008; M. Rymsza, T. Kaźmierczak (eds.) Social Economy in Poland. Past nad
Present, ISP, Warsaw 2008; T. Kaźmierczak, Praca socjalna: między upośledzeniem
społecznym a obywatelskością (Social Work: between Civil Dysfunction and Civic
Duties), Wydawnictwo Śląsk, Katowice 2006.
Norbert Laurisz
Graduated from the Economical Academy in Cracow (now the Economical
University in Cracow) (2000), works in the Department of Management at the Mining
and Metallurgical Academy in Cracow as an assistant at the faculty of economics
and econometrics. In his academic work he focuses on the issues of labour market
functioning, social economy and social policy. Author and co-author of academic
publications concerning, inter alia, the labour market, social economy and the social
security market.
Stanisław Mazur
Doctor of political sciences, graduated from the Department of Law at the
Jagiellonian University (specialised in political sciences). The head of the Centre
for Studies on Economy and Public Administration at the Economical Academy in
Cracow (1996-1997), director of the Małopolska School of Public Administration at
the Economical Academy in Cracow (1997-2004). Senior assistant at the faculty
of economy and public administration at the Economical Academy in Cracow (since
1999). The president of the Foundation for Economy and Public Administration. As an
expert, he participated in and coordinated several dozens of national and international
projects on programming and evaluation of public policies and programmes, local and
regional development, quality of governance, social communication and participation.
Author of several dozens of academic publications. Author or co-author of over 100
expert opinions and papers.
Agnieszka Ogrocka
Graduated in the Department of Philosophy and Sociology at the Warsaw University.
Participated in research projects on, inter alia, the issues of social economy, nongovernmental organisations, youth entrepreneurship. She is interested in the research
methodology, most recently in the internet surveys, as well as the broadly conceived
issues of exclusion. For several recent years she has co-operated with the research and
analytical team in one of non-governmental organisations, she works in an international
survey company.
262
Izabela Rybka
Doctor of sociology, works in the Social Policy Programme at the Institute of Public
Affairs; an expert of the Institute for Social Service Development for the EQUAL project
‘Searching for a Polish Model of the Social Economy.’ She focuses on the issues of
social assistance, non-governmental organisations and social entrepreneurship.
Marek Rymsza
Sociologist, senior assistant in the Institute for Applied Social Sciences at the
University of Warsaw, director of the Social Policy Programme in the Institute of
Public Affairs where, inter alia, he led an expert oversight during implementation of
the project ‘Towards the Polish Model of Social Economy – We Build a New Lisków”.
He specialises in comparative social policy in the field of social security, the issues of
civil sector and non-governmental organisations, and social entrepreneurship. Chief
editor of the ‘Third Sector’ quarterly. Author of over one hundred articles published
in collective works and academic periodicals. His recent publications include: M.
Rymsza, T. Kaźmierczak (eds.) Social Economy in Poland. Past and Present, ISP,
Warszawa 2008; M. Rymsza (ed.) Organizacje pozarządowe. Dialog obywatelski.
Polityka państwa (Non-governmental Organizations. Civic Dialogue. State Politics),
ISP, Warsaw 2007.
263
ISBN: 978-83-85928-66-9

Anna Giza-Poleszczuk - Stowarzyszenie Klon/Jawor

Transcription

Similar documents

rampion headquarters

Ferguson Enterprises - Olaf Anderson Construction

World Youth Day

Historical Background Briefing Conditions of

Now - Family Residences and Essential Enterprises, Inc.

Fresh Roping Cattle: 90 North American Corriente cross

Live the never-ending weekend at Pilar`s Harbour

Diapositiva 1 - Comune di Mondoví

"Triple helix in international projects. Building local and global

Making entrepreneurship easy