Advertisement

Social Entrepreneurship Through an Organizational Ecology Lens: Examining the Emergence and Evolution of the Voucher School Population in Milwaukee

  • Fredrik O. Andersson
  • Michael R. Ford
OriginalPaper

Abstract

The creation and introduction of new ideas and new organizations to address social challenges are central features in current social entrepreneurship research, and over the past two decades scholars have proposed a variety of approaches to understand and analyze these and other dimensions of social entrepreneurship. This article looks at social entrepreneurship from an ecological perspective and proposes that organizational ecology has much to offer this emerging filed. Specifically, the article draws from a unique dataset on voucher schools in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to analyze the emergence as well as dynamics of this nonprofit population.

Keywords

Social entrepreneurship Organization ecology Voucher schools 

Résumé

La création et l’introduction de nouvelles idées et de nouvelles organisations pour aborder les défis sociaux constituent les éléments centraux des recherches actuelles sur l’entrepreneuriat social, et les intellectuels ont proposé, au cours des deux dernières décennies, plusieurs approches pour comprendre et analyser ces dimensions de l’entrepreneuriat social, parmi d’autres. Cet article examine l’entrepreneuriat social du point de vue écologique et propose que l’écologie organisationnelle apporte davantage à ce domaine émergent. Plus précisément, l’article s’inspire d’un ensemble de données unique sur les écoles à chèques éducation à Milwaukee, dans le Wisconsin, pour analyser l’émergence ainsi que la dynamique de cette population du secteur à but non lucratif.

Zusammenfassung

Die Entwicklung und Einführung neuer Ideen und neuer Organisationen, um soziale Probleme anzugehen, stehen in gegenwärtigen Forschungen zum sozialen Unternehmertum im Vordergrund, und in den vergangenen zwei Jahrzehnten haben Wissenschaftler eine Reihe von Ansätzen vorgeschlagen, um diese und andere Bereiche des sozialen Unternehmertums zu verstehen und zu analysieren. Dieser Beitrag betrachtet das soziale Unternehmertum aus einer ökologischen Perspektive und stellt die Behauptung auf, dass die Organisationsökologie in diesem neuen Bereich viel zu bieten hat. Man stützt sich insbesondere auf einmalige Daten über sogenannte Voucher Schools in Milwaukee, im US-Bundesstaat Wisconsin [Schulen, die ein staatlich unterstütztes Gutscheinprogramm für Familien mit niedrigen Einkommen anbieten], um die Entstehung und Dynamik dieser gemeinnützigen Gruppe zu untersuchen.

Resumen

La creación e introducción de nuevas ideas y nuevas organizaciones para abordar los retos sociales son características centrales en la investigación actual sobre emprendimiento social, y a lo largo de las dos últimas décadas los eruditos han propuesto una variedad de enfoques para comprender y analizar éstas y otras dimensiones del emprendimiento social. El presente artículo analiza el emprendimiento social desde una perspectiva ecológica y propone que la ecología organizativa tiene mucho que ofrecer a este campo emergente. En concreto, el artículo se apoya en un único conjunto de datos sobre escuelas subvencionadas (mediante cheque escolar) en Milwaukee, Wisconsin, para analizar la emergencia así como también la dinámica de esta población sin ánimo de lucro.

摘要

创建和介绍新想法和新组织,解决社会问题,是当前公益创业研究的集中体现。在过去的二十年里,有学者曾经提出多种理解和分析这些元素及公益创业其他方面的方法。本文从生态学角度研究公益创业并认为组织生态学会在该领域大有作为。特别是,本文通过参考威斯康辛州密尔沃基市学券制学校特有的数据,对这一非盈利群体的出现和动力进行分析。

要約

社会的課題を示す新しいアイデアや新しい組織の形成と導入では、現在の社会起業家の研究における中心的な特徴であり、過去二十年以上にわたり、学者たちがさまざまなアプローチを理解しているが、これらおよびその他の社会起業家の分析を提案する。本論文では、生態学的な観点から社会企業家を分析して、組織生態学が新興国に貢献することを提案する。具体的には、ウィスコンシン州ミルウォーキーのサービスにおけるユニークなデータセットを提示して、非営利団体の人口動態を分析する。

ملخص

إبتداع وإدخال أفكار جديدة ومنظمات جديدة لمواجهة التحديات الاجتماعية هي السمات المركزية في أبحاث المشاريع الإجتماعية الحالية، وعلى مدى العقدين الماضيين إقترح العلماء مجموعة متنوعة من النهج لفهم وتحليل هذا وغيره من أبعاد المشاريع الإجتماعية. تنظر هذه المقالة في المشاريع الإجتماعية من منظور بيئي وتقترح أن البيئة التنظيمية لديها الكثير لتقدم هذا المجال الناشئ. على وجه التحديد، تختار المقالة من مجموعة بيانات فريدة من نوعها على مدارس خاصة يتم تمويلها من التبرعات في ميلواكي، ويسكونسن لتحليل ظهور وكذلك ديناميكيات هذه الفئة من المجموعات الغير ربحية.

References

  1. Abzug, R. (1999). Nonprofits in organizational sociology’s research traditions: An empirical study. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 330–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H. E. (1990). Using an ecological perspective to study organizational founding rates. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3), 7–24.Google Scholar
  3. Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Andersson, F. O., & Ford, M. (2014). Reframing social entrepreneurship impact: productive, unproductive and destructive outputs and outcomes of the Milwaukee school voucher programme. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship,. doi: 10.1080/19420676.2014.981845.Google Scholar
  5. Astley, W. G. (1985). The two ecologies: Population and community perspectives on organizational evolution. Administrative Science Quarterly, 224–241.Google Scholar
  6. Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beckmann, M., Zeyen, A., & Krzeminska, A. (2014). Mission, finance, and innovation: The similarities and differences between social entrepreneurship and social business. In A. Grove & G. A. Berg (Eds.), Social business. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Berman, E. M., & Wang, X. (2012). Essential statistics for public managers and policy analysts. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bilodeau, M., & Slivinski, A. (1998). Rational nonprofit entrepreneurship. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 7(4), 551–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bloom, P. N., & Dees, G. (2008). Cultivate your ecosystem. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(1), 47–53.Google Scholar
  11. Carroll, G. R. (1984). Organizational ecology. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll, G. R., Bigelow, L. S., Seidel, M. D. L., & Tsai, L. B. (1996). The fates of de novo and de alio producers in the American automobile industry 1885–1981. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Certo, S. T., & Miller, T. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts. Business Horizons, 51(4), 267–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1988). Politics, markets, and the organization of schools. The American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1065–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dougherty, J. (2004). More than one struggle: The evolution of black school reform in Milwaukee. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DPI. (2013). The Milwaukee parental choice program: Information for parents. Madison, WI: The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.Google Scholar
  21. Ford, M. (2011). School exits in the Milwaukee parental choice program: Evidence of a marketplace? Journal of School Choice, 5(2), 182–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in public education. In R. A. Solow (Ed.), Economics and the public interest. New Brunswick, NY: Rutgers Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 72(4), 11–32.Google Scholar
  24. Hager, M. A., Galaskiewicz, J., & Larson, J. A. (2004). Structural embeddedness and the liability of newness among nonprofit organizations. Public Management Review, 6(2), 159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hannan, M. T. (1995). Labor unions. In G. R. Carroll & M. T. Hannan (Eds.), Organizations in industry: Strategy, structure, and selection. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Haugh, H. (2005). A research agenda for social entrepreneurship. Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haugh, H. (2007). Community-led social venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(2), 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Henig, J. R. (1994). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hill, T. L., Kothari, T. H., & Shea, M. (2010). Patterns of meaning in the social entrepreneurship literature: a research platform. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jiao, H. (2011). A conceptual model for social entrepreneurship directed toward social impact on society. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(2), 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaufman, H. (1991). Time, chance, and organizations: Natural selection in a perilous environment. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Kava, R. (2013). The Milwaukee and racine parental choice programs. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau.Google Scholar
  34. Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Kitzi, J. (2002). Developing an Entrepreneurial Competitive Strategy. In J. G. Dees, J. Emerson, & P. Economy (Eds.), Strategic tools for social entrepreneurs: Enhancing the performance of your enterprising nonprofit (pp. 19–43). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Lasprogata, G. A., & Cotten, M. N. (2003). Contemplating enterprise: The business and legal challenges of social entrepreneurship. American Business Law Journal, 41(1), 67–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Light, P. C. (2006a). Reshaping social entrepreneurship. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 4(3), 47–51.Google Scholar
  38. Light, P. C. (2006b). Searching for social entrepreneurs: Who they might be, where they might be found, what they do. ARNOVA Occasional Paper Series, 1(3), 13–37.Google Scholar
  39. Lumpkin, G. T., Moss, T. W., Gras, D. M., Kato, S., & Amezcua, A. S. (2013). Entrepreneurial processes in social contexts: how are they different, if at all? Small Business Economics, 40(3), 761–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 28–39.Google Scholar
  42. McKendrick, D. G., & Carroll, G. R. (2001). On the genesis of organizational forms: Evidence from the market for disk arrays. Organization Science, 12(6), 661–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mirabella, R., & Young, D. R. (2012). The development of education for social entrepreneurship and nonprofit management: Diverging or converging paths? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23(1), 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nownes, A. J., & Lipinski, D. (2005). The population ecology of interest group death: gay and lesbian rights interest groups in the United States, 1945–98. British Journal of Political Science, 35(02), 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Romanelli, E. (1991). The evolution of new organizational forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruef, M. (2000). The emergence of organizational forms: A community ecology approach. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 658–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ruef, M. (2002). At the interstices of organizations: The expansion of the management consulting profession, 1933-97. In K. Sahlin-Andersson & L. Engwall (Eds.), Carriers of management knowledge: Ideas and their global circulation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Samuelsson, M., & Davidsson, P. (2009). Does venture opportunity variation matter? Investigating systematic process differences between innovative and imitative new ventures. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 229–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sandler, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship in education: Private ventures for the public good. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar
  50. Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2), 161–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spear, R., & Bidet, E. (2005). Social enterprise for work integration in 12 European countries: A descriptive analysis. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 76(2), 195–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Staff. (2014). Milwaukee parental choice program—September MPCP pupil headcount history by school, 1990-91 through 2013-14. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.Google Scholar
  53. Stecker, M. J. (2014). Revolutionizing the nonprofit sector through social entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Issues, 48(2), 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Twombly, E. C. (2003). What factors affect the entry and exit of nonprofit human service organizations in metropolitan areas? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(2), 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Slyke, D. M., & Lecy, J. D. (2012). Profiles of nonprofit startups and nonprofit entrepreneurs. Paper presented at the annual ARNOVA Conference, November 15–17, Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar
  56. Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) (2002). An evaluation: Milwaukee parental choice program, Submitted to the Wisconsin joint legislative audit committee.Google Scholar
  57. Witte, J. F. (2000). The market approach to education: An analysis of America’s first voucher program. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wollebaek, D. (2009). Survival in local voluntary associations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(3), 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yusuf, J. E. W., & Sloan, M. F. (2013). Effectual processes in nonprofit start-ups and social entrepreneurship: An illustrated discussion of a novel decision-making approach. The American Review of Public Administration. doi: 10.1177/0275074013509685.

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Helen Bader Institute for Nonprofit ManagementUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Public AdministrationUniversity of Wisconsin-OshkoshOshkoshUSA

Personalised recommendations