State — Social Entrepreneur
Relationship: Accord or
Dissonance?
A.Moskovskaya
Higher School of Economics, Moscow
Informational base
Pilot research project in the activity of social
entrepreneurship organizations in Russia
(Оxfam Great Britain, 2009, research
supervisor – A. Moskovskaya)
Three-years’ experience in evaluating social
projects submitted to the competition held
by the Fund of regional social programs
“Our future”
Qualification criteria
The following criteria were considered as qualification
criteria:
• predominance of social goal over gaining economic
effect;
• solution (mitigation of urgency) of really existing social
problem, the organization activity is directed to;
• self-sufficiency and financial stability is ensured by
predominant sale of goods and services (and not
through obtainment of grants or any other form of
external charity providers’ assistance);
• availability of innovations in the achievement of the
result activities (social or economic innovation,
innovative combination of social, material, financial and
other resources).
Institutional frameworks
SE remains little known to the Russian audience both terminologically or
practically.
Weakness of institutional and socio-historical basis of the formation of both
non-profit sector and small business in Russia
On the side of small businesses – there are obstacles for market entry:
- growth of necessary start-up capital
- poorly developed financial infrastructure for small actors and start-ups,
high credit interests,
- control of local monopolists (blocking access to market to newcomers)
- shadow schemes of “power-business” relations
On the side of NPOs there is a weak development of civil organizations and
their infrastructure
- lack of state support for delivering social assistance as a substitution and/
or addition to state services
- little historical experience of activity of civil society organizations
- absence of tradition of a strong cooperative sector independent from the
state
Such pre-requisits could kill SEs in a first stage. But they live and try to adapt to
the circumstances
4 cases
Toy museum, Moscow, 1998
• interactive people’s toy museum for kids, where in game form the
teachers-guides give classes to kids in accordance with special
methods
School of farmers, Perm (Western Siberia), 2003
• socializing, adaptation to independent life and teaching farming to
orphans with a view of their subsequent employment as individual
farmers under guardianship of s.entrepreneur
Equestrian Centre, Syktyvkar (The Republic of Komi), 2003
• provision of hippotherapy services for kids and development of
equestrian sports for disabled adults
Autonomous NPO “Prologue”, Moscow, 2000-6
• preventing children’s psychological traumas while organizing school
performances, development of creativity through school theatrical
performances, application of stage elements in school teaching
The importance of the state
Why relations with the state is critical for
adaptation of SE to environment and to choice of
business model?
- State regulation of economic and social activity
- Tradition of state predominance in both spheres
- Shortage of resources of SE
- Demand for financial support on the stage of
start-up
- state is the principal subject of social policy and
the main owner of enterprises in social sphere/
services
4 models of embedding of social enterprises
into the existing environment
(1) “own game” in the field of the state
(2) “market isolationism”
(3) “non-market isolationism”
(4) waiving social entrepreneurship
THREATS:
• - less effectiveness
• - changing of social-purpose orientation in
further perspective