Abstract
Social enterprises (SEs) have sprouted in India over the past couple of decades, addressing several social and economic demands. But their emergence and evolution, partaking of the market and the state, has received little academic attention. Besides the compelling reason that the state has to and can play a major role in facilitating SEs that ensure inclusive development, there is an institutional imperative, a need to explore and explain the institutions (rules and norms) that are at the heart of social innovation and lead to the creation and growth of SEs. This chapter argues that the SEs embody a set of principles that are central to inclusive innovation. Here, the social entrepreneur’s capacity to question existing norms, rules and ways of working and find alternative norms that ensure social value and prosperity for the ‘excluded’ become the game changer. The analysis leads us to question what scale means to the SE, and whether and how the Indian state can enable an appropriate ecosystem for fostering and upscaling SEs.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Another concern voiced is that in India the middle class may now move towards the US model, showing faith in community-based services. Let us note that the not-for-profit sector is big in the US—accounting for nearly 10% of the GDP. For India, this is a move from the age-old European model of state support in social sector delivery and some private services, to the US model where the state funds several community based co-operative or private companies. The question is whether we are institutionally ready for this—in a civic space where even existing rules (for waste disposal and road safety) are flouted by all.
- 2.
The SGSY is in itself an innovation within the central government, meant to create and sustain microenterprises in rural India.
- 3.
This is perhaps to be expected. Though the state spends billions of rupees to support the social sector and to develop businesses—especially entrepreneurship, the two (social services and business) are distinct worlds and do not mingle even in the most obvious support offered by the DST (see, Indian Angel—investors and incubators supported by DST in a PPP mode) or the Ministry of Rural Development (see, Sahaj or Peepal Tree).
- 4.
The difference between Sattva and many others who help incubate, develop and sustain SEs is that they rely almost entirely on funding from and proactive engagement with the clients—the social entrepreneurs and in some cases the corporates and communities they serve. Later in this text, we will discuss issues of ownership and local accountabilities that are built into the business ecosystem with this strategic and direct partnership between the SE and the ecosystem and support services provider.
- 5.
The business development services offered by the state now have new attractions like the eBiz launched as a public–private portal, as gateway to obtain licenses, approvals, clearances, etc., to launch business ventures in India (Infosys 2013).
- 6.
It may be noted that some of these principles are included albeit worded differently in Murphy and Coombes (2009, p. 330).
- 7.
Durkheim’s sociology of knowledge gives us insights into how a certain moral code or norms shape the learning system and economic outcomes therefrom.
- 8.
The same set of systemic changes are needed in agriculture, education, etc., but the articulation of policy instruments for promotion of organic agriculture or universal education is sadly based on currently prevalent norms (yield per hectare or levels of reading and writing, as measures of success) of performance and delivery. Thankfully, the transition, seeking and experimenting with next generation institutions or norms are already out there in several agroecological alternatives, environmental justice and water literacy programmes in the civic space.
- 9.
Many refer to Akshayapatra as the benchmark for achieving scale. But as in rows 1 and 2 (Table 10.3), the articulation of the problem statement and business value by the state and the SE is what gave them the big push—the kind of push that many SEs dealing with ecological value or climate change will find difficult to achieve.
- 10.
What are the dichotomies when the state gives massive support (legal and illegal) and concessions to real estate developers and land grabbers, and does not even provide tax concessions for eco-friendly packing material for safe organic food? (asks Jayaram of Era Organics, Bangalore).
References
ADB. (2012). India Social Enterprise Landscape Report, Asian Development Bank: Manila.
Agenor, P.-R., & Canuto, O. (2012). Middle Income Growth Traps, Policy Research Working Paper No. 6210, World Bank: Washington, D.C.
Ashoka (2008). Leading social entrepreneurs. Ashoka: Arlington, VA.
Ashoka. (2012). Ashoka: The change maker (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2013/04/25/co-creating-our-future-one-big-idea-at-a-time/).
ASI. (2011). Annual Survey of Industries. New Delhi.
Bernier, L., & Hafsi, T. (2007). The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 488–503.
Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cheng, M. (2013). Then things I learned at Skoll World Forum. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2013/04/19/10-things-i-learned-at-skoll-world-forum-2013/.
CSM. (2011). Made in Bangalore. Centre for Social Markets: Bangalore.
Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Non-Profit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 411–424.
Das, K. (2010). Indian rural clusters and innovation: Challenges for inclusion. SIID Working Paper No. 9. New Delhi: Centre for Policy Research.
DST. (2009). Research and development statistics 2007–08. NSTMIS, DST: New Delhi.
Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (2008). Comparing national systems of innovation in Asia and Europe: Theory and comparative framework. In Edquist and Hommen (Eds.), Small country innovation systems: Globalisation, change and policy in Asia and Europe: Theory and comparative framework. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham. (accessed as CIRCLE Working Paper No. 2008/10).
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Frances Pinter.
Geels, F. (2005). Technological transitions and system innovations: A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Harish, S. V., Raghavan, S., & Sahu, A. K. (2012). Rural energy—Solar energy options (pp. 420–423). India S&T Report 2010-11, Foundation Books and CSIR-NISTADS: New Delhi.
Harwood, J. (2005). Technology’s dilemma: Agricultural colleges between science and practice in Germany, 1860–1934. Peter Lang: Bern.
Infosys. (2013). Press release: Ministry of commerce and industry. Infosys Jointly Launch EBiz Portal. http://www.infosys.com/newsroom/press-releases/Pages/government-business-eBiz-portal.aspx.
Intellecap. (2010). Beyond profit: Indian social enterprise landscape survey. Intellecap.
Leadbetter. (1997). The rise of the social entrepreneur. DEMOS: London.
Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter: London.
Lundvall, B.-A., Joseph, K. J., Chaminade, C., & Vang, J. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of innovation systems and developing countries—Building domestic capabilities in a global setting. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Mani, S. (2010). India, UNESCO Science Report. UNESCO: Paris.
Mody, A. (2005). Quest for inclusive growth: Continuity and constraints in Indian economic policies. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(37), 4052–4061.
MoRD. (2004). SGSY Guidelines, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India: New Delhi.
Murphy, P. J., & Coombes, S. M. (2009). A model of social entrepreneurial discovery. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(3), 325–336.
Nagaraj, R. (2008). India’s recent economic growth: A closer look. Economic and Political Weekly, 43(15).
Nelson, R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems—A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
NSTEDB. (2011). Developing ecosystem for knowledge to wealth creation—technology business incubators. NSTEDB Department of Science and Technology and MICA: New Delhi and Ahmadabad.
NSSO. (2014). Employment and unemployment Situation in India, 2011–12, NSSO 68th round, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India: New Delhi
Office of Advisor to the Prime Minister. (2011). Towards a more inclusive and innovative India-creating a road map for a decade of innovation. Strategy Paper, March 2011, Office of Advisor to the Prime Minister, Government of India: New Delhi.
Planning Commission. (2011). Report of the Working Group on Employment, Planning and Policy, for the Twelfth Five Year Plan 2012–17. Planning Commission, Government of India: New Delhi.
Planning Commission. (2012). Twelfth Five Year Plan 2012–2017, Planning Commission, Government of India: New Delhi.
Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our times. Boston: Beacon Press.
Qazi, F. S. (2015). Vocational education and training in India (Section 4, R. Raina & K. Mandal (Eds) “Rural India: S&T for skills and employment”). In S. Pohit et al. (Eds), India S&T Report (pp. 493–495). New Delhi: Foundation Press and CSIR-NISTADS.
Raina, R. S. (2000). Countering seasonal rural problems: Integrated participatory information system. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(37), 3335–3342.
Raina, R.S. (2011). Institutional strangleholds: Agricultural science and the state in India. In D. Narayana & R. Mahadevan (Eds), Shaping India–economic change in historical perspective (pp. 99–123). Routledge: New Delhi.
Raina, R.S. (2013) (mimeo) Innovation systems and development. Course Reader, AcSIR course material used in the AcSIR Ph.D. Programme 2013–15.
Raina, R. S. (2014). Beyond supply driven science. Seminar, 654: 69–74.
Robinson, J. (2010). Elites and institutional persistence. UNU-WIDER Working paper 2010/85. UNU-WIDER.
Rondinelli, D. (1993). Development projects as policy experiments: An adaptive approach to development administration. London: Routledge.
Tomich, T. P., Kilby, P., & Johnston, B. (1995). Transforming agrarian economies: Opportunities seized. Ithaca: Opportunities Missed, Cornell university Press.
Veblen, T. (1906). The place of science in modern civilization. American Journal of Sociology, 11(5), 585–609.
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. In R. KatzandBrockhaus (Ed.), Advances in entrepreneurship, emergence and growth (pp. 119–138). CT: Greenwich.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Annexure: Three Cases - The State and Social Enterprises
Annexure: Three Cases - The State and Social Enterprises
The three cases presented here and interviews with policymakers and other ecosystem actors conducted as part of this study are about SEs in health care and agri-business. The social, economic and ecological spaces and conversion into value-addition opportunities for society and for the enterprise are what we highlight in these brief case descriptions here. To avoid repetition, the case analyses have been incorporated thematically in the text, along with insights from interviews and focus group discussions. This annexure presents a minimal description of three cases.
Health Care (Case 1)
Why do the state and the public and private sector health services it supports address health care as services during illness? The state’s perception of health care as illness and not as well-being is a problem statement that needs to be studied carefully. This observation comes from a social entrepreneur Rajan Mehta, whose initiative Mycare Health Solutions is ushering in much more than a new business model for health care. This SE carries a key message on the legacy of state intervention and support for health care and demands an alternative epistemology of health care. The current ‘fee for service’ model of health care is tied to a curative approach; it is approached by people during times of illness and forgotten until the next episode of illness. Mehta’s concern as a social entrepreneur is to devise a business model that would make money and provide support or guidance in times of well-being.
Based on a profile of illness and people’s desire for well-being, Mehta conducted a survey of several business models, including the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) model. What he wanted was a model that would sustain well-being; in other words, generate a sustainable income for all based on ‘wellness’. He decided on a subscription-based and accountable system, where a SE would create and sustain integrated health (IH) which neither the state nor the private sector provides. When the economics worked out to a minimal subscription of Rs. 350 per person per month, and a sustainable scale of 25,000 members to start with, Mr. Mehta pulled in some of his own investments from the financial/stock exchange business he had just wound up, found a few well-meaning investors (friends and colleagues), and started the SE—Mycare Health Solutions in Mumbai in 2012. This SE—a business model for integrated health care, gives a clear message of personal care, well-being and accountability between the firm, its doctors and individual members.
Health Care (Case 2)
The founders of Swasth India—Sandeep Kapila and AnkurPegu, from IIT Mumbai—begin their conceptualization of problems and problem statement from the fact that every year over 32 million people move from above poverty line to below poverty line levels because of morbidity in the family (this WHO finding is quoted in their web page—www.swasthindia.in). How can a business model, a SE, support well-being of the poor, especially, the urban poor? Swasth India presents a model that provides affordable, easily accessible and quality health care to low-income households, so that ill-health, leading to impoverishment and further vicious cycles, is avoided.
Having seeded the idea that health care services for the urban poor needed a different approach, the SE model for Swasth India was tried out in 2011. The business model drew significantly from the context—basically four lessons that the team learnt over three years, providing technical backstopping for some donor-driven and state-supported health, insurance and social mobilization projects. For the poor, (i) Out Patient (OP) attention is crucial to avoid serious morbidity (note that villagers in locations where doctors or medical networks for OP care are limited end up with hospitalization three times more than villagers with doctors or medical networks for OP care); (ii) waterborne diseases are the root cause of 95% of infant and child morbidity, (iii) upper respiratory tract infections cause nearly 25% of total medical expenditure of the family, and (iv) a very small fraction of the unwell need surgery and hospitalization. The business was provision of primary health care and preventive health care for the urban poor, with about 20,000 families enlisted as customers, paying Rs. 700–1000 per family annually to access regular and quality OP care. Besides regular OP care which reduces annual medical bills by 30%, the model also ensured that when needed, the family gets Rs. 30,000 worth cashless hospitalization. But this model had problems—not every urban poor family was willing to pay for preventive health care. The strategy soon evolved to go beyond the micro-insurance based OP care model. The renewed business had to own the customer, reach out and promote the idea of well-being and preventive care, and needed social mobilization of a range of actors (besides the customer). The three pillars of this business are (i) preventive health care and primary health services; (ii) integrated approach to well-being; and (iii) technology as an enabler—in linking, monitoring, learning. The brand equity is promoting ‘good health’ and the core physical entities are ten Swasth India health care centres in the slums of Mumbai. The urban health monitoring in place now within these Swasth India centres, and their database are powerful inputs that can transform the health, medical expenses, livelihoods and skill base of the workforce in the city. The business model ensures that every rupee invested results in savings to the customer. No urban poor family must suffer economic and social deterioration because of morbidity!
Healthy Consumption (Case 3)
Systemic fault lines are abundant in the food we consume and the impacts it has on health—our bodies and our ecosystems. Using the market and the social fabric, to address these fault lines, Pristine Organics is a firm that produces a range of organic foods and nutritional supplements. K. C. Raghu, founder-director of the firm, embodies the byline on the firm’s web page, always willing to unlearn so as to enable learning. In separate interviews with the founder and individual employees (Uma, who handles marketing and brand equity, and Akshatha, a nutritionist who works with the NGOs, services and support system), it is the drive to ensure ‘organic linkages’ that comes across as the key to addressing the evident fault lines in our food production, distribution and consumption systems. Ownership with accountability is built into each of the units or partners that the firm works with. A Gandhian trusteeship is evident in its dealings. But that is what Pristine Organics is about; it has no qualms about running a business with Rs. 15 crore turnover annually, and is happy about the impacts that its products and services have on immunologically challenged people, farmers, NGOs, government schemes or programmes, other private enterprises, and on the organic movement in India. Starting off in 1992 with a small food testing lab, with a bank loan and some personal finance, Pristine focused on two segments in the food industry, nutraceuticals and animal nutrition products. Having gained a reasonable market, business clientele and reputation, within a decade, Pristine was thinking about the food system (soil, water, biodiversity, cultural and culinary diversity, etc.) and the need to bring traditional knowledge and diversity, organic wholesome, healthy, tasty, lively essence of food back to the table.And this it builds with a network of actors who share the economic prosperity and social/ecological benefits.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature India Private Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Raina, R.S. (2020). Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Nurturing the Institutional Sine Qua Non for the Informal Sector. In: Raina, R., Das, K. (eds) Inclusive Innovation. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3929-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3929-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-3927-7
Online ISBN: 978-81-322-3929-1
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)