Kuba Wygnanski kuba.wygnanski @klon.org.pl

Searching for a Polish model of the social economy

- systemic approach

Main partners of the project • The Foundation for Social and Economic Initiatives (FISE)

• KLON/JAWOR Association• Bank for Socio-Economic Initiatives S.A. (BISE)• Association for the Forum of Non-Governmental Initiatives (FIP)• Institute for the Development of Social Services (IRSS)• Civil Society Development Foundation (FRSO)• Network of Information and Support for Non-Governmental Organizations

SPLOT• United Nations Development Program in the Republic of Poland (UNDP)• Malopolska School of Public Administration Cracow University of Economics• Warsaw University – Institute of Sociology (Laboratory of SE)• SKES - Permanent Conference of Social Economy (SKES) • Ministry of Social Policy

• International Partners:• UK:Oxford Bussines School, South East England Development Agency• Italy: Consorzio Farsi Prosimo and Confcooperative Toscana

CredoSocial economy, and in particular social entrepreneurship, is of interest to us mainly in its

entrepreneurial dimension, seen as human willingness and capability to take responsibility for their own life and to strive for as high economic self-reliance and independence as possible. In the context of social economy it means efforts to reach a situation where individuals, organisations or communities can, to a greater extent than before, take independent decisions concerning the purpose and form of their activity.

For individuals, a specific mechanism of social inclusion, enabling people to quit the position of a client, a person dependent on the help of others (including the help from non-governmental organisations), and creating a chance for them to reach self-dependence and ability to take care of their own and their families’ fate.

For organisations, obtaining resources needed for their activities, and changing the position of asking for funds and of dependence on public institutions for a status of independent entity, capable to take action in the public sphere in accordance with its mission and choices of its members and founders.

For communities, ability to shape independently developmental strategies based onown resources, conducive to genuine self-government and communal well-being.

Objectives of the project – levels ofintervention

• Macro – SE Environment– Legal / fiscal framework– Financial infrastructure (EU + private institutions)– Institutional support structure (national and local level)– Social embedenes of SE– Positioning SE in relations with other sectors (incl. Business)

• Mezzo – Observatory of SE– Infrastructure of SE (advocacy, technical support)– Integration of SE actors (national annual meetings of SE actors)– Information and knowledge generation (Reports, working papers, SE anthology, library,

portal www.ekonomiaspoleczna.pl, university programs incl. postgraduate studies and seminars)

• Micro – Laboratory of SE– Action Research– Generating models and tools (individual, community)– Convergence of models – scaling up

Research related to social economy (coordinated by KLON/JAWOR

• Annual omnibus survey (n=1000) Embedenes of social economy (voluntarism, philanthropy, ethical consumerism, generalized trust, perception of social economy)

• Demography and geography of the Third Sector (inventory on-line data base of aprox 110.000 institutions)

• Quantitive approach – biannual research stratified sample of 2000 institutions of Third Sector – (in depth face to face interview) – last edition October 2006

• 50 case studies (Social Economy Enterprises) clustered in 4 groups (A, B, C, D) (based on Open System Model of Organization, ActorsNetwork Theory)

• Monographies of 10 local communities and role of social economy („question of social capital” and experimenting with social auditing and participatory governance)

Demography of TS% organizacji (2006)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

1892

1911

1924

1928

1934

1948

1953

1955

1957

1962

1967

1972

1974

1976

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Associations & foundations registered in REGON per capita (2005)without Voluntary Fire Brigades and business associations

13,7 and more10 - 13,77,4 - 104,5 - 7,4

> 4,5

Russian partition

Prussian Partition

The "Western Territories"

East Prussia

Austro-Hungarian partition

Geography of Third Sector

App.16-17 000 000App. 600 000App.83 000Total

-500+?35+90Social Integration Centres+Clubs

-170035Vocational Rehabilitation Facilities

40032045Social Cooperatives“New”

SE

??880 Other mutual aid associations

?5009 Mutual Insurance Associations

30.00055.000[3]350Coops for the handicapped

6.000.00012440.000[2]12.800 Cooperatives

1.100.00033.0005.500Business support organizations

9-10.000.000[1]120.00063.000Associations & foundations

“Traditional”

SE

MembersEmployment(N. employees)

N. of registered organizations

Types of organizations

EMES – Criteria at work – a posteriori approach to selection of SE

Criterion 1: % organizations producing goods and/or selling services

NGOs(associations &

foundations)

Social Integration Centres

Business support organizations

Mutuals, VRFs, Coops, Social Coops

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Closeness to the notion of Social Enterprise (by EMES)

C.2: % org. not created/controled by administration or indiv. firms

NGOs

Business support organizations

Social Cooperatives

Cooperatives

Mutual Insurance Companies

Social Integration Centres

Vocational Rehabilitation

Facilities

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Closeness to the notion of Social Enterprise (by EMES)

C.3: % org. taking economic risk (>20% incomes derived from open market)

Vocational Rehabilitation

Facilities

Other "traditional" coops

Social Int. CentresNGOs

Mutual Insurances, Business org., Housing coops

Social Cooperatives

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Closeness to the notion of Social Enterprise (by EMES)

C. 5: % explicit social goal

Mutual Insurance Companies

NGOs, Social Integration Centres, Social Cooperatives,

Vocational Rehabilitation Facilities

Business support organizations

Cooperatives

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Closeness to the notion of Social Enterprise (by EMES)

C.6: org. launched by citizens, close relations with constituency

Foundations

SIC, VRF

Cooperative Savings-Loans Banks Cooperative Banks

Housing coops

Crafts&handiwork coops

"Farmers self-help" coops& other rural

Agriculture Circles' Coops, Associations

Business support organizations Handicapped

workers coops

Agricultural Production Coops

Users coops outside housing, agriculture

and food industry

Social coops

Workers coops

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Closeness to the notion of Social Enterprise (by EMES)

Matrix of EMES Criteria

0 1 2 3 4 5

N. of SOCIAL criteria fulfilled (by majority or by nature)

0

1

2

3

4N

. of E

CO

N. c

riter

ia fu

lfille

d (b

y m

ajor

ity o

r by

natu

re)

NPOs - associations, SICNPOs - foundations

VRFBusiness&prof. org.

Social Cooperatives

Cooperative Banks, Housing Coops, other

Workers coops, Agricult. Coops EMES "Virtual Social Enterprise"

Distilation of Potential Social Enterprise (PSE)

• Probability of „migration” of Third Sector towards core ofsocial economy – comparative analysis

3,6%8,7%

5,8%

38,6%

32,6%

14,3%17,4%

31,4%26,0%21,6%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Less than 1 ths.pln

1 ths. - 10 ths. pln 10 ths. - 100 ths.pln

100 ths. - 1 mln.pln.

1 mln. and more

All NGOs incomes in financial year 2005 PSE incomes in financial year 2005

Main challanges of SE in Poland – Terminological problems – the need for definition and self-definition of

social economy

– Need for specific identity of social economy in Poland

– The risk of overpromotion of the social economy concept – need for „ expectations management”

– Regulatory issues – what is needed, what is possible, and what is not possible

– Recognition of the social economy as potential driver for growth

– Inflow of EU funds – an opportunity or a trap?

– Need to create a clear vision of social policy that would include social economy

– Question of social economy compatibility with needs and attitudes of its potential beneficiaries

– The risk of rejection of social entrepreneurship idea within non-profit sector

– The role of other sectors and groups for social economy growth – need for consensus

– The danger of chaotic development of social economy (lack of models and lack of „theory of change / convergance)