We suggest that competition in the sector is essentially contract competition which is a neoliberal conservative meaning of the term which:

• Displaces benevolent spirit and motivating drivers of organizations  (acting in principle to achieve a social ‘good’) and democratization (the creation of a more civil society).
• Regulates mission (the purpose and idea that justifies the organization’s reason for being) with (funder) performance-based criteria (in a homeless youth support network expenditure of resources is justified in ‘saving’ one youth; yet in a highly competitive environment this is hardly impact of performance);
• Potentially devalues the work of volunteers (which we observed in the study);
• Threatens networks and capacity building (or the potential for their development);
• Tends to concentrate power in larger service providers (an observation made by respondents);
• Emphasizes administration and management at the expense of service delivery;

We have listed only some of these consequences or symptoms of contract competition. The argument here is that it is the particular conception of competition that is problematic for the sector. The basis for this conception is a notion of market (often read as a variant of ‘free-market’ that does not integrate with a notion of social mission and sociality ).

The argument is also that social economy members’ views of competition are based on an acceptance of current policy-ideology of the notion of market as interpreted by Governments of the day 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 social economy members’ responses to Government regulations reach an almost impassioned reactive negativity when issues of funding are raised.

Our observation is that values drive goals; Governments seek the best means for achieving these goals. Current Governments however appear to choose means based on notions of ‘free market’ and contract competition. What the sector needs is a concept of ‘freer market’ to guide its funding processes; a notion of market where the nature of intervention in the idea of market is appropriate to the needs and operating environment of the sector; where market vs social responsibility can be integrated within a competitive environment that does not spawn the kinds of dysfunctional effects and symptoms we observe. Our view is supportive of one participant in the study who states that:

All sectors including Government need to be on the same page and in total agreement.

While ‘complete agreement’ may be too ambitious, we need to ask the questions: How might the various sectors begin to get ‘on the same page’? How might social economy leaders and managers work more actively to influence policy guidelines of funders? And what are the long-term consequences if a lack of contestation and opposition to externally formulated policy-ideology conditions continue to result in the same kinds of consequences we observe?

The founder of capitalism, Adam Smith, was aware of the unwanted consequences of a ‘free market’ orientation adopted within most contemporary western economies and social economies including Australia; he counterbalanced his conception (which in contemporary economies has suffered slippage in meaning) with the idea of moral sentiment. How much have Smith’s ideas been distorted with a consequent impact on the Australian social economy? And what kind of ‘freer market’ as opposed to ’free market’ can be implemented within policy-ideology frameworks of government support?

We think that there is a need to understand better the nature of markets and competition for the Social Economy.In this study (as we intended according to the purposes of the research,) we have spotlighted the problems not solutions of competition in the sector. We believe that there is a need to focus more on solutions through the idea of disruptive markets driven by social mission and innovative ideas linked withthe social mission of organisations and programs.

Our conception of ‘disruptive markets’ is not dissimilar to the idea of disruptive technologies. Disruptive markets are a form of disruptive innovation, product or service that eventually overturns the dominant idea of market; or the dominant policy-ideology and status quo product or service in the market . The idea is also related to the idea of ‘intelligent markets’ (in contrast with market intelligence). The evidence from our study suggests a need for the sector to engage and shape markets more directly. The key question is: how can we civilize capitalism through markets ?

We also believe that better understanding of the idea of market for social economies is a necessary condition to shift  our thinking about the complex forms of  investment as a means to attract the many funding sources and agencies in both the private and public sectors.

There is a need for further research and policy-analysis which can develop a conception of market for the Australian Social Economy (whether this conception is named as ‘freer’ or ‘disruptive’); a conception that:

• civilizes capitalism;
• can be embraced by the policy-ideology of Governments;
• can be translated into practice; and that
• can define a conception of competition that supports collaboration and denies the dysfunctions we observe in this study.

In writing about competition, we referred in our introduction to the fact that leaders and managers, and governments may interpret the meaning of competition differently. That is, how they understand the underlying philosophical principles that give rise to one meaning of the nature of competition and not another. Hence, Marxists have a different understanding and conception of the meaning of competition from neoliberals; and they act accordingly.

The point we would make here is that the current conception of competition in the Social Economy does not appear to differ from that applied to the for-profit market economy. The question is should the interpretation of competition applied to the social sector be the same or different from that applied to the forprofit sector?

This is a question that demands more analysis. But we leave with one thought. The founder of capitalism, Adam Smith wrote that one way of increasing wealth is to expand the market. So why is there a concern in the sector (and outside of it) about the issue of too many small organisations when this represents an expansion of market?

Smith went one step further. He argued that in expanding the market two things must happen. Expansion of markets needs to be slow and gradual to avoid unwanted dysfunctions. (This slow expansion appears to be happening in the Social Economy). The second qualification to expansion of markets is ‘the rule of law’. This rule means that everybody should have an equal chance to create wealth. By and large, Australian Governments apply the same rules and regulations to the social sector as they do to the economy at large . So does the application or the ‘rule of law’ to a ‘free market’ economy and competition apply to a social market economy (the Social Economy)? Should it? And where are the leaders and managers in the Australian Social Economy with the competence and will to contest this matter?

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)