Do Hybrid Organizational Forms of the Social Economy have a Greater Chance of Surviving? An Examination of the Case of Montreal

Original Paper

Abstract

The objective of this article is to contribute to an understanding of the evolution of a population of social economy enterprises faced with the economic crisis, namely by referring to the case of Montreal. We apply a two-step approach. For one, we use an innovative discrete-time survival model that takes spatial heterogeneity into account. In a second step, this model is used to predict the survival of different forms of the social economy, according to various proposed typologies for identifying hybrid organizational forms. It is understood that certain organizational forms (professional social economy) have fared better than others (emerging social economy). Organizations combining several sources of financing and several forms of paid or volunteer work likewise have greater chances of survival.

Keywords

Survival analysis Social economy Hybrid organizational forms Discrete-time model Hybridization 

Résumé

L’objectif de cet article est de contribuer à une compréhension de l’évolution d’une population d’entreprises d’économie sociale confrontée à la crise économique, en nous appuyant sur l’exemple de Montréal. Nous mobilisons une approche en deux étapes. Nous utilisons un modèle novateur de survie en temps discret tenant compte de l’hétérogénéité spatiale. Ce modèle est ensuite utilisé pour prédire la survie de différentes formes d’économie sociale, suivant différentes typologies proposées identifiant des formes organisationnelles hybrides. On constate que certaines formes organisationnelles (économie sociale professionnelle) ont mieux survécu que d’autres (économie sociale émergente). De même, les organisations combinant plusieurs sources de financement et plusieurs formes de travail salarié ou bénévole ont eu plus de chances de survivre.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel dieser Abhandlung ist es, zu einem Verständnis über die Entwicklung einer Reihe von sozialwirtschaftlichen Unternehmen beizutragen, die von der Wirtschaftskrise betroffen sind, insbesondere unter Bezugnahme auf das Beispiel Montreal. Wir wenden ein zweistufiges Konzept an. Zunächst nutzen wir ein innovatives Überlebensdauermodell in diskreter Zeit, das die räumliche Heterogenität berücksichtigt. Anschließend prognostiziert man anhand dieses Modells die Überlebensdauer verschiedener Sozialwirtschaftsformen gemäß den unterschiedlichen vorgeschlagenen Typologien zur Bestimmung hybrider Organisationsformen. Man geht davon aus, dass es bestimmten Organisationsformen (professionelle Sozialwirtschaft) besser ergangen ist als anderen (neue Sozialwirtschaft). Organisationen, die mehrere Finanzquellen und verschiedene Formen bezahlter oder ehrenamtlicher Arbeit verbinden, haben entsprechend größere Überlebenschancen.

Resumen

El objetivo del presente artículo es contribuir a la comprensión de la evolución de una población de empresas de economía social enfrentadas a la crisis económica, haciendo referencia al caso de Montreal. Aplicamos un enfoque de dos pasos. Para uno de ellos, utilizamos un modelo de supervivencia discreto innovador que toma en cuenta la heterogeneidad espacial. En un segundo paso, este modelo se utiliza para predecir la supervivencia de diferentes formas de la economía social, de conformidad con diversas tipologías propuestas para identificar formas organizativas híbridas. Se entiende que determinadas formas organizativas (economía social profesional) se han comportado mejor que otras (economía social emergente). Las organizaciones que combinan varias fuentes de financiación y varias formas de trabajo pagado o voluntario tienen también mayores posibilidades de supervivencia.

摘要

本文通过蒙特利尔的例子旨在帮助人们理解面临经济危机的社会经济企业的发展过程,我们的方法分两步:第一步,运用一个新的、考虑到空间异质性的离散时间生存模型。第二步,根据各种提议的、用于识别混合组织机构形式的类型学,用这个模型预测不同类型社会经济企业的存活率。大家理解,某些形式的组织机构(专业的社会经济组织)会比其他一些形式的组织机构(新兴的社会经济组织)发展更好, 融资来源丰富而且采用多种类型的付薪工作或自愿性的工作的组织机构的存活率更高。

要約

本論文の目的は、モントリオールの事例を参照して、経済危機に直面している社会的経済企業の人口進化の理解に貢献することである。2段階のアプローチを適用する。1つ目は、空間的不均一性を考慮した革新的な離散時間生存モデルを使用する。2つ目のステップでは、ハイブリッド組織形態を識別する様々な提案型の類型に基づいて、このモデルを社会経済における異なる形態の残存の予測に用いる。ある特定の組織の形態 (プロ社会経済) が他 (新興社会経済) よりも実践されていることがわかる。同様に資金調達源と有償もしくは無償ボランティアの業務形態が組み合わさった組織では生き残るための大きなチャンスが残されている。

ملخص

الهدف من هذه المقالة هو المساهمة في فهم تطور عدد الأشخاص في مؤسسات الإقتصاد الإجتماعي واجهوا الأزمة الإقتصادية، أي بالإشارة إلى حالة مونتريال.طبقنا نهج من خطوتين. الخطوة الأولى، نحن نستخدام سلسلة زمنية مبتكرة لنموذج البقاء على قيد الحياة التي تأخذ بعين الإعتبار التنوع المكاني. في الخطوة الثانية، يتم إستخدام هذا النموذج لتوقع البقاء على قيد الحياة لأشكال مختلفة من الإقتصاد الإجتماعي، وفقا” لمختلف الأنماط المقترحة لتحديد الأشكال التنظيمية الهجينة. من المعلوم أن أشكال تنظيمية معينة (الإقتصاد الإجتماعي المهني) أفضل حالا” من غيره (الإقتصاد الاجتماعي الناشئ). منظمات تجمع بين عدة مصادر للتمويل والعديد من أشكال العمل المأجور أو التطوع لديهم أيضا المزيد من فرص البقاء على قيد الحياة.

References

  1. Aalen, O. D., Borgan, O., & Gjessing, H. K. (2008). Survival and event history analysis. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2006). Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica, 74, 235–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2011). Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 29, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ai, C., & Norton, E. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amin, A., Cameron, A., & Hudson, R. (2002). Placing the social economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Arandoa, S., Gagoa, M., Podivinsky, J. M., & Stewart, G. (2012). Do labour-managed firms benefit from agglomeration? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archibald, M. E. (2007). An organizational ecology of national self-help/mutual-aid organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4), 598–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(3), 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barron, D. N., West, E., & Hannan, M. T. (1994). A time to grow and a time to die: Growth and mortality of credit unions in New York, 1914–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 381–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bertotti, M., Han, Y., Netuveli, G., Sheridan, K., & Renton, A. (2014). Governance in South Korean social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(1), 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Besel, K., Lewellen, Williams C., & Klak, J. (2011). Nonprofit sustainability during times of uncertainty. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22(1), 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Billis, D. (Ed.). (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Birchall, J. (2013). The potential of cooperatives during the current recession; theorizing comparative advantage. Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, 2(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  15. Bontemps, C., Bouamra-Mechemache, Z., & Simioni, M. (2013). Quality labels and firm survival: Some first empirical evidence. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 40(3), 413–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Borgonovi, F. (2006). Do public grants to American theatres crowd-out private donations? Public Choice, 126, 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bouchard, M. J., Ferraton, C., Michaud, V., & Rousselière, D. (2008b). Base de données sur les organisations d’économie sociale. La classification des activités, Montréal, Chaire de recherche du Canada en économie sociale, Collection Recherche no R-2008-1.Google Scholar
  18. Bouchard, M. J., & Rousselière, D. (2010). Cité créative et économie sociale culturelle: Etude de cas de Montréal. Études Canadiennes/Canadian Studies, 68, 139–158.Google Scholar
  19. Bouchard, M. J., Rousselière, D., Ferraton, C., & Michaud, V. (2008a). Portrait statistique de la région administrative de Montréal, Montréal, Chaire de recherche du Canada en économie sociale et Conférence régionale des élus de Montréal, Collection Hors-série, HS-2008-01, mai, p. 81.Google Scholar
  20. Burger, R., & Owens, T. (2013). Receive grants or perish? The survival prospects of Ugandan non-governmental organisations. Journal of Development Studies, 49(9), 1284–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carter, D. B., & Signorino, C. S. (2010). Back to the future: Modeling time dependence in binary data. Political Analysis, 18(3), 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cazzuffi, C., & Moradi, A. (2012). Membership size and cooperative performance: evidence from ghanaian cocoa producers societies, 1930–36. Economic History of Developing Regions, 27(1), 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chaganti, R. S., Mahajan, V., & Sharma, S. (1985). Corporate board size, composition, and corporate failures in retailing industry. Journal of Management Studies, 22(4), 400–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chambré, S. M., & Fatt, N. (2002). Beyond the liability of newness: Nonprofit organizations in an emerging policy domain. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 31(4), 502–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chevallier, M. (2013). Les atouts des coopératives: stabilité et expérience. Revue internationale de l’économie sociale, 327, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chih-Hui, L. (2014). Can our group survive? An investigation of the evolution of mixed-mode groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 839–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ciampi, F. (2015). Corporate governance characteristics and default prediction modeling for small enterprises. An empirical analysis of Italian Firms. Journal of Business Research, 68, 1012–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Clément, M., Bouchard, C., & Jacob, L. (2008). Taux de survie des coopératives au Québec, Québec, Ministère du développement économique, de l’innovation et de l’exportation.Google Scholar
  29. Coombes, S. M. T., Morris, M. H., Allen, J. A., & Webb, J. W. (2011). Behavioural orientations of non-profits boards as a factor in entrepreneurial performance: Does governance matter? Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 829–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cornforth, C. (2004). The governance of co-operatives and mutual associations: A paradox perspective. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75(1), 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fernandez, J. J. (2008). Causes of dissolution among Spanish nonprofit associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Geroski, P. A. (1995). What do we know about entry? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4), 421–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goodman, L. A. (2007). On the assignment of individuals to latent classes. Sociological Methodology, 37(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goodstein, J., Gautam, K., & Boeker, W. (1994). The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gras, D., & Mendoza-Abarca, K. (2014). Risky business? The survival implications of exploiting commercial opportunities by nonprofits. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Greene, W. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River.Google Scholar
  37. Greene, W., Harris, M. N., Hollingsworth, B., & Weterings, T. A. (2013). Heterogeneity in ordered choice models. Journal of Economic Surveys, 28(1), 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Guo, S. & Fraser, M. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis. Statistical Methods and Applications. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences Series.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Hannan, M. T. (1998). Rethinking age dependence in organizational mortality. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 126–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hannan, M. T., Polos, L., & Carroll, G. R. (2007). Logics of organization theory: Audiences, codes and ecologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hansmann, H. (1996). The ownership of enterprise. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Helmig, B., Infergfurth, S., & Pinz, A. (2014). Success and failure of nonprofit organizations, theoretical foundations, empirical evidence, and future research. Voluntas, 25, 1509–1538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hsu, G., & Hannan, M. T. (2005). Identities, genres, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 16(4), 474–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hudson, R. (2009). Life on the edge: Navigating the competitive tensions between the ‘social’and the ‘economic’in the social economy and its relations to the mainstream. Journal of Economic Geography, 9, 493–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hung, C. K. R., & Ong, P. (2012). Sustainability of Asian-American nonprofit organizations in U.S. metropolitan areas. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1136–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hustinx, L., Verschuere, B., & De Corte, J. (2014). Organisational hybridity in a post-corporatist welfare mix: The case of the third sector in Belgium. Journal of Social Policy, 43(2), 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jenkins, S. P. (1995). Easy estimation methods for discrete-time duration models. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 57, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Klein, J. L., Tremblay, D. G., & Bussières, D. R. (2010). Social economy-based local initiatives and social innovation: A Montreal case Study. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lévesque, B. (2013). How the social economy won recognition in Québec at the end of the 20th century. In M.-J. Bouchard (Ed.), Innovation and the social economy: The Québec experience (pp. 25–70). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  52. Leviten-Reid, C. (2012). Organizational form, parental involvement, and quality of care in child day care centers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(1), 36–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Levy, P., & Lemeshow, S. (2008). Sampling of populations: Methods and applications. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Litchfield, J., Reilly, B., & Veneziani, B. (2012). An analysis of life satisfaction in Albania: An heteroscedastic ordered probit model approach. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81, 731–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Long, J. S. (2009). Group comparisons in logit and probit using predicted probabilities. Working paper draft 2009-06-25.Google Scholar
  56. Lumely, T. (2010). Complex survey. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Cardenas, J. (2012). Organizing for society: A typology of social entrepreneuring models. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 353–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Meng, X. L. (1994). Multiple-imputation inferences with uncongenial sources of input. Statistical Science, 9(4), 538–573.Google Scholar
  59. Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review, 26(1), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Núñez-Nickel, M., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2004). Ownership structure of cooperatives as an environmental buffer. Journal of Management Studies, 41(7), 1131–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Parente, C., Lopes, A., & Marcos, V. (2014). Social entrepreneurship profiles: Lessons from organizational and management dynamics. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 22–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pérotin, V. (2006). Entry, exit and the business cycle: Are cooperatives different? Journal of Comparative Economics, 34, 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Peters, S. (2000). On the use of the RESET test in micro-econometric models. Applied Economics Letters, 7, 361–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Prentice, R., & Gloeckler, L. (1978). Regression analysis of grouped survival data with application to breast cancer data. Biometrics, 34(1), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Quarter, J., Sousa, J., Richmond, B. J., & Carmichael, I. (2001). Comparing member-based organizations within a social economy framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 351–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Raftery, A. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rousselière, D., & Bouchard, M. J. (2011). A propos de l’hétérogénéité des formes organisationnelles de l’économie sociale : isomorphisme vs écologie des organisations en économie sociale. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 48(4), 414–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rousselière, D., & Joly, I. (2011). A propos de la capacité à survivre des coopératives : une étude de la relation entre âge et mortalité des organisations coopératives agricoles françaises. Revue d’études en agriculture et environnement, 92(3), 259–289.Google Scholar
  70. Rubin, D. B. (1996). Multiple imputation after 18 + years. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91(434), 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schenker, N., & Taylor, J. (1996). Partially parametric techniques for multiple imputation. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 22, 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Simons, T., & Ingram, P. (2004). An ecology of ideology: Theory and evidence from four populations. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(1), 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Smirnov, O. A. (2010). Modeling spatial discrete choice. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 40(5), 292–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Spear, R. (2011). Formes coopératives hybrides. Revue internationale de l’économie sociale, 320, 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Staber, U. (1993). Worker cooperatives and the business cycle: Are cooperatives the answer to unemployment? American journal of economics and sociology, 52(2), 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stekhoven, D. J., & Bühlmann, P. (2012). Missforest—Non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics, 28(1), 112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stiglitz, J. (2009). Moving beyond market fundamentalism to a more balanced economy. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 80(3), 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Valentinov, V. (2007). The property rights approach to nonprofit organization: The role of intrinsic motivation. Public Organization Review, 7, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. van Buuren, S., Brand, J. P., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C. G., & Rubin, D. B. (2006). Fully conditional specification in multivariate imputation. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 76(12), 1049–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Varum, C. A., & Rocha, V. C. (2010). The effect of crises on firm exit and the moderating effect of firm size. Economics Letters, 114(1), 94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Waljee, A. K., Mukherjee, A., Singal, A. G., Zhang, Y., Warren, J., Balis, U., et al. (2013). Comparison of imputation methods for missing laboratory data in medicine. BMJ Open, 3, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Walker, E. T., & McCarthy, J. D. (2010). Legitimacy, strategy, and resources in the survival of community-based organizations. Social Problems, 57(3), 315–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. White, I. R., Royston, P., & Wood, A. (2011). Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30, 377–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Williams, R. (2009). Using heterogeneous choice models to compare logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods & Research, 37, 531–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wollebaek, D. (2009). Survival in local voluntary associations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 19(3), 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wooldridge, J. (2012). Introductory econometrics, a modern approach. Mason, South-Western Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  87. Yang, Y., & Land, K. (2013). Age-period-cohort analysis: New models, methods, and empirical applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Organization and Human ResourcesUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Management and SocietyAGROCAMPUS OUESTAngers CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations