Social Entrepreneurship and Quality of Life of Beneficiaries

  • Neeti SinghEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


This chapter begins with two types of methodological issues. The first is the one which appears general in social entrepreneurship research, and the second is the one which appeared in the research analysis, as the effects of social entrepreneurship on the beneficiaries in India, a sociological perspective. The first type of methodological issues is existent in the social entrepreneurship literature and is widely accepted. The main focus of this chapter is on the second type, which is explained through the various stages of this research went through to understand and analyse the real changes in the life of beneficiaries. Knowing that social entrepreneurship research has multiple facets, hybridity, complexity, and ambiguity, the conventional strategies of conducting research are questionable. The capabilities approach is used as a qualitative method that overcomes such hurdles and provides an optimal base to this analysis.


Social entrepreneurship Sociological perspective Capabilities approach Functionings and capabilities Conversion factors 



I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Anand Inbanathan, for the advice he has provided me in preparing this chapter. I also thank the anonymous reviewer whose comments greatly improved this paper.


  1. Alkire, S. (2005). Why the capability approach? Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alkire, S. (2008). The capability approach to the quality of life (Research in progress (RP) series). Oxford: OPHI.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, S., Bhatt, A., Ganesh, U., & Kulkarni, N. K. (2012). On the path to sustainability and scale. Hyderabad.Google Scholar
  4. Banerjee, M. M. (2015). Applying Sen’s capabilities approach to understand work and income among poor people of India. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, XLII(3), 87–112.Google Scholar
  5. Bovin, J.-M. (2014). The potential of the capability approach for developing a sociology of democracy. XVIII ISA world congress of sociology (pp. 1717–1721). International Sociological Association, ISA: Yokohama.Google Scholar
  6. Brinkerhoff, M. B., Fredell, K. A., & Frideres, J. S. (1997). Basic minimum needs, quality of life and selected correlates: Explorations in villages in Northern India. Social Indicators Research, 42(3), 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Dawans, V., and Kim Alter. (2009). The four lenses strategic framework toward an integrated social enterprise methodology. USA.Google Scholar
  9. Fleurbaey, M. (2005). Freedom with forgiveness. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 4(29), 29–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gasper, D. (2007). What is the capability approach? Its core, rationale, partners and dangers. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36, 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuklys, W. (2004). Measuring standard of living in the UK: An application of Sen’s functioning approach using structural equation models, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
  12. Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, G. (2015). National policy for skill development and entrepreneurship, 64.Google Scholar
  13. Porritt, J. (2005). Capitalism as if world matters. London: Earth Scan.Google Scholar
  14. Robeyns, I. (2005). Selecting capabilities for quality of life measurement. Social Indicators Research, 74(1), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Robeyns, I. (2005a). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of human development, 6(1), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sen, A. (1999). Commodities and capabilities (2nd ed.). New Delhi: Oxford University Press, Delhi.Google Scholar
  17. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2010). Report by the Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. France: SSRN Electronic Journal.Google Scholar
  18. Strawn, S. (2006, July). Beyond capabilities: Case study of three artisan enterprises in India. Clothing and Textile Research Journal, 24(3), 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Ootegem, L., & Verhofstadt, E. (2012). Using capabilities as an alternative indicator for well-being. Social Indicators Research, 106, 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Verd, J. M., & López, M. (2011). The rewards of a qualitative approach to life-course research. The example of the effects of social protection policies on career paths. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 12(3), 1–17.Google Scholar
  21. Yujuico, E. (2008). Connecting the dots in social entrepreneurship through the capabilities approach. Socio-Economic Review, 6, 493–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ziegler, R. (2010). Innovations in doing and being: Capability innovations at the intersection of schumpeterian political economy and human development. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ziegler, R., Karanja, B. H. K., & Dietsche, C. (2012). Toilet monuments: An investigation of innovation for human development. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(3), 420–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Study of Social Change and Development (CSSCD)Institute for Social and Economic ChangeBengaluruIndia

Personalised recommendations