There was little evidence in the study of Social Economy members contesting the conditions of their work. There was much evidence of resistance but little positive comment reflecting lateral thought or action. There was rare comment about the sector as the guardian and innovator in the construction for a more civil society (interestingly enough this was mentioned by a number of government and for-profit participants!).

It may also be argued that Social Economy members’ powerlessness relates to issues of funding, for example, on an acceptance of current policy-ideology of the notion of market as interpreted by Governments who provide funding. There is a certain reaction, dependency, and acceptance of a “free-market” situation rather than a recognition and contestation of the politics of funding. The same situation occurs when members’ responses to Governments’ regulations reached an almost impassioned reactive negativity when issues of funding were raised. No mention was made that members influenced the formulation of government social policy (although it could be recognised that covert influence existed), and no comment indicated that members should be involved in policy formation that significantly affected their work operations and impact.

The responses to “innovative business models” supported this interpretation in that they were more a narrative about explanations of why innovation was so difficult in the sector; and not a more challenging stance to the adoption of innovative models in organisations.

Further evidence for this reactive stance may be found in the lack of measurement the need for which was recognised but practised rarely because of lack of knowledge and available measurement ”tools”.

Discuss this article on the forums. (2 posts)