Critical Literature review
In no more than 2,500 words write a critical review of the literature relevant to your doctoral research, starting by briefly (no more than 200 words) outlining your research topic.

Research Topic The research topic I have selected as a basis for a PhD thesis is social entrepreneurship, which can be viewed as a particular aspect in the multidisciplinary discourse of social enterprise. Social enterprise is being expressed in UK government policy literature as a progressive means to tackle social exclusion and social entrepreneurship is being articulated as a driving force for success. However there is still no meaningful consensus on a definition of social entrepreneurship and the critical individual and collective attributes of success are heavily contested in academic literature. This is simultaneously problematic in deliberating ways to encourage social enterprise and an opportunity to question critical assumptions about the role of social entrepreneurs in meeting social need. My research seeks to build on journal articles which I have previously published in this field (Lyne 2008, Ryan and Lyne 2008, Toner et al 2008).
Background to social enterprise in the UK Social enterprises are commonly expressed as ‘businesses with social goals’ and the term ‘double (or triple) bottom line’ is often used when seeking to define social enterprise as trading activity which uses revenue surpluses to satisfy social and / or environmental objectives (SEC, 2003: 8, DTI, 2002). In the past decade it has been increasingly expressed that public sector welfare provision in the United Kingdom has become outdated and unsustainable while charitable models of meeting social need have also been cited as inappropriate and ineffective. Social enterprise has therefore been expressed with increasing enthusiasm within UK policy literature as an essential component of the ‘third way’ way to deliver public services and meet a wide range of social policy objectives (Leadbeater, 1997, 2007, Dunn and Riley, 2004, Roper and Cheney, 2005: 95-96, Seyfang, 2006: 431-433, Shaw and Carter, 2007: 419).
The importance of ‘social entrepreneurship’ Social enterprise and the social entrepreneurship of individuals tend to be used interchangeably in UK social enterprise literature (Seanor and Meaton, 2007: 93) and the conception of social enterprise as part of a ‘third way’ to meet social policy objectives has been closely associated with the prevalent paradigm of social entrepreneurship which has originated largely from the USA (McBrearty, 2007: 68, Roper and Cheney, 2005: 96). The work of John Gregory Dees emanating from the USA Harvard Business School has been highly influential on the study of social entrepreneurship and Dees et al (2001: 3-4) express the importance of conventional entrepreneurship studies in understanding ‘social entrepreneurship.’ Firstly Dees et al draw from the conception of “higher productivity and greater yield” (value creation) expressed by the 19th Century economist Jean Baptiste Say. They add the exploration of new ways of doing things and seeking new outlets for goods (innovation) expressed by the 20th Century economist Joseph Schumpter and finally more recent conceptions of resourcefulness expressed in management theory by Pete Ducker and Howard Stevenson by articulating that “It’s the old question: “Is the glass half empty or half full””. Peredo and McLean (2006: 58) provide a good summary of Dees conception of the attributes of social entrepreneurship;
“(1) the recognition and “relentless” pursuit of new opportunities to further the mission of creating social value, (2) continuous engagement in innovation and modification and (3) bold action undertaken without the acceptance of existing resource limitations.” Charles Leadbeater (1997: 19-20) emphasises that social entrepreneurs use the skills and innovation associated with entrepreneurship to generate social profits. Rather than innovating purely to maximise financial returns social entrepreneurs seek to maximise social outputs such as “health, welfare and wellbeing.” They seek to do so by identifying “unmet needs” and mobilising “under utilised resources”, they are “ambitious and charismatic” and vitally;

“Their core assets are forms of social capital – relationships, networks, trust and co-operation – which give them access to physical and financial capital”.

The social capital of social entrepreneurship Drawing from conceptions of game theory and ‘prisoners dilemma’ the presence of social capital is typically expressed as ‘circles of reciprocity’ that result from the iterative interaction between individuals within civil society which establishes social norms of behaviour and the stake that people have in networks based on trust (Putnam, 1993: 177, Fukuyama, 2000). Following the work of Robert Putnam (1993) social capital theory became highly popular in development discourse and was heralded by the World Bank as the “glue that holds societies together” and as “the missing link in development” (Grootaert, 1998: 1).

Despite social capital having been heavily criticised as an effective policy tool because it depoliticises development, tends to underplay structural constraints and is frequently the capital resource of the non poor and even criminal gangs (Levi, 1996, Beall, 1997, Harris and de Renzio, 1997, Harriss, 2002, Fine 2001, 2007, Schuurman 2003, Cleaver 2005), references to social capital in accordance with the ideas of Putnam seem to remain as pervasive now in UK policy literature as they were a decade ago (Evans, 2008: 166-168). Specific references to social enterprise and social capital were made recently by the UK Government Minister for The Third Sector (HMRC cabinet office, 2008). In an Office of the Third Sector (OTS) ‘social enterprise think piece’ Westall (2007: 6-7) gives a similar emphasis to that of Leadbeater ten years earlier in terms of social enterprise “creating social capital” and “creating economic value out of previously discarded or under utilised resources.”

Social entrepreneurs as ‘leaders’ in UK policy literature The social entrepreneurship of individuals has been described by Dees et al (2001) as the ‘forceful engine’ which gives form to the social enterprise sector and drives it forward and it is largely this expression of the social entrepreneur as a ‘heroic individual’ which prevails in UK social enterprise policy literature (Seanor and Meaton, 2007: 90, Spear, 2006: 405-406, Humphries and Grant, 2005). In his recent ‘OTS think piece’ Leadbeater (2007: 7-8) expresses that when he authored “The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur” in 1997 it was becoming the conventional perspective that “policies were needed to increase the supply of social entrepreneurs”. While the number of social enterprises has steadily risen Leadbeater (ibid) emphasises that the growth of “a more sophisticated outcomes-based policy approach” now considers how the impact of social enterprise can be scaled up in its impact “through a wide variety of channels”. Leadbeater appears to retain social capital as a core attribute of individual social entrepreneurs but adds the requirement that policy prescription should open new markets and opportunities. Westall (2007:10) states that pressure induced by wider research has led to the inclusion of group activity into the definition of social entrepreneurship but emphasises that “this approach is still very much concentrated on individual dynamics”. In reality what Westall is recognising is that ‘organisational dynamics’ in the third sector need to be responsive to entrepreneurial endeavour. This position has also become pervasive in the public sector
National Health Service with entrepreneurs being encouraged as “a new breed of health service leader” (Exton, 2008: 208).
Social enterprise governance theory Significant attention has been given to the governance of social enterprise, as this has been seen as vital not only in ensuring that resources are used equitably in the provision of public services but also in providing the sector with legitimacy and trust. Central to this debate is whether stakeholder or stewardship models of governance are most desirable in ensuring accountability and also the legal forms that social enterprises should be encouraged to assume (Lowe and Chinnock, 2008, Ridley-Duff, 2007, Mason et al, 2006, Dunn and Riley, 2004). The continued emphasis on individual entrepreneurs is arguably reflective of a governmental ‘default position’ of stewardship governance in social enterprise; while there may be policy references to the ideal of democratic (stakeholder) control in practice policy statements fall back on a vision of “communitarian unitarism” characterised by elite groups of Board / Trustee organisations which allows dynamic or (‘heroic’) individuals to use their skills and innovation to drive the social enterprise sector forward (Ridley-Duff, 2007: 384-388, Mason et al, 2006: 290-296). The introduction of the Community Interest Company (CIC) following the 2002 UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) consultation entitled “Private Action Public Benefit” provides a good illustration of the default position of stakeholder governance. CIC’s were introduced to give a credible ‘brand’ for legitimate social enterprises (Dunn and Riley, 2004). However the specification that only a twenty five percent voting shares can be taken by external investors places a limit on the extent to which decisions taken by a CIC board of trustees can be controlled democratically and furthermore the fact that a CIC is directly accountable to the “CIC Regulator” brings raises political control over this vehicle for social enterprise as a concern (Ridley-Duff, 2007: 388).

The ‘isomorphic impact’ of structure Mair and Marti (2006: 38-39) argue for a shift of focus from “who is the entrepreneur” to an examination of “activities underlying social entrepreneurship as a process” (my emphasis). Drawing from Bourdieu and Giddens they express (ibid: 40-41) that the interplay between structure and agency helps us to understand how social entrepreneurs create structure by which in turn they may become constrained as they become too embedded to change rules and innovate value. The structures created by entrepreneurs are often reflective of isomorphic pressure from their surrounding environment and ‘institutional isomorphism’ is an approach to the impact of this pressure which draws from the modernisation theory of Max Weber expressing that bureaucratic favouritism for hierarchies induces resemblance between organisations over the long term, (Bode et al, 2006: 239-242). This pressure functions in a variety of ways, but notably it is: • Coercive (usually induced by legal constraints)

• Mimetic (organisational duplication)

• Normative (induced by ‘professional’ advice)

Institutional isomorphism pertains to circumstances where the same sets of environmental pressures are levied on different organisational structures and it has therefore been expressed that ‘intersectoral isomorphism’ would be a more appropriate way to view the effects of coercive, mimetic and normative pressure which ‘spill over’ to social enterprise from the private and public sectors (Bode et al, ibid). Aiken (2006: 267-269) elaborates on ‘isomorphism’ by expressing that variable isomorphic impact results from the resource mixes that social entrepreneurs derive from different sectors which act as “proxies for defining their market environment” (private investment, public contracts or funding, volunteer based ‘non monetary’ resources). While there may be problems where isomorphic pressure clashes with the organisational culture of social enterprise, Aiken (ibid) suggests that strategies to diversify resources and provide specialised niche services might allow a degree of independence and help to mitigate certain ‘negative’ effects of isomorphic tendencies. Isomorphic impact has been argued to be actually useful in the “legitimacy seeking activity” of social enterprise as examples of good governance and social commitment set by role models become internalised within the sector (Mason et al, 2006: 293-294). Furthermore Shaw and Carter (2007: 427-429) found in extensive interview analysis that ‘embeddedness in the local community’ is strong feature of social entrepreneurship and also that the nature of risk perceived by social entrepreneurs is in terms of the investment of reputation and integrity rather than financial investment, thus creating a strong distinction between social and private sector entrepreneurs. These findings could also be expressed as positive forms of isomorphic pressure.
Challenging negative isomorphic tendencies While certain forms of isomorphic impact can promote good practice and accountability, there is a strong cause for concern whereby the isomorphism of market-based thinking on social needs (commonly expressed as New Public Management (NPM)) becomes embedded in a way which undermines the social commitment of social entrepreneurs who are seeking investment and tendering for contracts (Seanor and Meaton, 2007, Ridley-Duff, 2007, Toner et al, 2008). It is Mair and Marti’s (2006: 40) observation that embeddedness within institutional structure simultaneously provides abilities to draw resources but constrains innovation and that “less embedded actors are more likely to engage in social ventures that challenge rules and norms”. Alternative forms of social enterprise structure which draw from the “logic of pluralism” in the European Social Economy (Ridley-Duff, 2007: 386-387) may provide a way to challenge the hegemonic influence of NPM. Notable examples are found in the delivery of “proximity services” which are locally designed thus enabling supply and demand to be jointly determined between service suppliers and users (Laville and Nyssens, 2000: 76), and also “work integrated social enterprises” (WISE’s) that can be considered as ‘social firms’ which engage in the political discussion access to subsidised employment by disadvantaged groups (Borzaga and Loss, 2006: 171-173).
Conclusion: The politics of social entrepreneurship Although there is a lack of “definitional consensus” on social entrepreneurship interested parties (researchers, politicians, development agencies, foundations and trusts) have been seeking to identify common attributes (Shaw and Carter, 2007: 422). However it is also evident that much of what is old in the study of entrepreneurship has been readily transferred from dominant business and managerial discourses which sidelines the concept of social enterprise as a specific form of social movement (Seanor and Meaton, 2007: 91-92, Parkinson and Howarth, 2007: 14-15). It can also be argued however that a Foucauldian emphasis on powerlessness and the domination of discourse underplays the realities of resistance that many social entrepreneurs create in the face of managerialist pressure (Parkinson and Howarth, ibid: 10-11). Thus while the “indecisive and porous” nature of social entrepreneurship might be seen as problematic (Peredo and McLean, 2006: 60-64), this can actually be viewed as an opportunity for inter disciplinary research which questions mainstreamed perspectives (Mair and Marti, 2006: 36-37). Thekaekara and Thekaekara (2007: 5-7) trace a history of global movements for social justice and emphasise that the social enterprise model has emerged as a form of resistance to market fundamentalism through the fair trade movement. In their view this represents a new approach to social justice in which the social entrepreneur plays a critical function. It is a model for social change which emphasises that political power is gained by the poor through independence from the powerful and empowers social entrepreneurship “to get the balance right- between the individual and the larger community of stakeholders, between the economics and the politics” (ibid: 10). Peattie and Morley (2008: 55) articulate that a key area for future research is the perseverance of core social values when set against the isomorphic pressures levied by (amongst other things) best practice, lenders requirements, the advice of business support and procurement practices. Drawing from the ‘political capabilities’ approach expressed within international development literature which seeks to transcend the liberal conception of social capital (Whitehead and Grey-Molina, 2005, Williams, 2004, Williams et al, 2003) it has been suggested that the specific alliances which are forged by certain social entrepreneurs to make claims on resources can be viewed as being “disaggregated” responses to specific ‘pro-poor’ policies (Toner et al, 2008: 11-12, Lyne 2008: 184-185). This approach to future work in the UK would seek to build on the conception of “Community Mediating Social Enterprises” expressed by Cornelius et al (2006) which can strive for social justice by recognising mutual obligations between communities and local authorities to deliver socially inclusive welfare services.
Bibliography

Aiken, M. (2006) Towards market or state? Tensions and opportunities in the evolutionary path of three UK social enterprises. In Nyssens, M (ed) Social Enterprise: At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society Routledge: London, pp.259-271.

Beall, J. (1997) Social Capital in Waste: A Solid Investment? Journal of International Development 9(7): 951-961.

Bode, I. Evers, A. Schulz, A. (2006) Work integration social enterprises in Europe: can hybridization be sustainable? In Nyssens, M (ed) Social Enterprise: At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society Routledge: London, pp.237-258.

Borzaga, C. and Loss, M. (2006) Profiles and trajectories of participants in European work integraton social enterprises. In Nyssens, M (ed) Social Enterprise: At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society Routledge: London, pp.169-194.

Cleaver F. (2005) The inequality of Social Capital and the Reproduction of Chronic poverty World Development 33(6): 893-906.

Cornelius, N., Wallace, J., Janjuha-Jivraj, S. and Woods, A. (2006) Capabilities and the Social Enterprise. Paper presented at Human Development and Capabilities Association International Conference Groningen University, Groningen, The Netherlands, 29/08/06.

Dees, J.G. Emerson, J. and Economy, P. (2001) Enterprising Nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs Wiley and Sons Inc: New York.

DTI (2002) Social Enterprises, A Strategy for Success Department of Trade and Industry: London.

Dunn, A. and Riley, C.A. (2004) Supporting the Not-for-Profit Sector: the Government’s Review of Charitable and Social Enterprise The Modern Law Review Limited 64(4): 632-657.
Evans, M. (2008) Who is for community participation? Who is community participation for? Exploring the wellbeing potential for involvement in regeneration Education, Knowledge and Economy 2(3): 163-173.
Exton, R. (2008) The entrepreneur: a new breed of health service leader? Journal of Health Organization and Management 22(3): 208-222.
Fine, B. (2007) Social Capital Development in Practice 17(4-5): 566-574

Fine, B. (2001) Social Capital versus Social Theory Routledge: London.
Fukuyama, F. (2001) Social capital, civil society and development Third World Quarterly 22(1): 7-20
Grootaert, C. (1998) Social Capital: The Missing Link? Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No.3. The World Bank Social Development Department: Washington April 1998. http://web.worldbank.org (accessed 22nd December 2008).

Harris, J. (2002) Depoliticising Development: The World Bank and Social Capital. Anthem Press: Herndon.

Harriss, J. and De Renzio, P. (1997) ‘Missing link’ or analytically missing?: The concept of social capital Journal of International Development 9(7): 919-937

HMRC Cabinet Office. (2008) Speech at the Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship, 26 March 2008: Transcript of a speech by Phil Hope MP, Minister for the Third Sector at the Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/about_the_cabinet_office/speeches/hope/skoll.aspx (accessed 11/12/2008).

Humphries, M. and Grant, S. (2005) Social Enterprise and Re-Civilization of Human Endeavours: Re-Socializing the Market Metaphor or Encroaching Colonization of the Lifeworld? Current Issues in Comparative Education 8(1): 1-10.

Laville, J.L. and Nyssens, M. (2000) Solidarity-Based Third Sector Organizations in the “Proximity Services” Field: A European Francophone Perspective International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 11(1): 67-84.
Leadbeater, C. (2007) Social Enterprise and social innovation: Strategies for the next ten years: A social enterprise think piece for the Office of the Third Sector HMRC Cabinet Office: Office of the Third Sector: London. November 2007.
Leadbeater, C. (1997) The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur. DEMOS paper No. 25 DEMOS: London
UB 04013158
Levi, M. (1996) Social and Unsocial Capital: a review essay of Robert Putnam’s Making Democracy Work Politics and Society 24(1): 45-55
Lowe, C. and Chinnock, C. (2008) Governance failure in Social Enterprise Education, Knowledge and Economy 2(3): 203-212.
Lyne, I. (2008) How can social enterprise really tackle social exclusion? A comparative study of children's welfare in the United Kingdom and Cambodia. Education, Knowledge and Economy 2(3): 175-190.
McBrearty, S. (2007) Social enterprise – a solution for the voluntary sector? Social Enterprise Journal 3(1): 67-77.

Mair, J. and Marti, I. (2006) Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction and delight Journal of World Business 41: 56-65.
Mason, C. Kirkbride, J. Bryde, D. (2006) From stakeholders to institutions: The changing face of social enterprise governance theory Management Decision 45(2): 284-301.
Parkinson, C. and Howarth, C. (2007) The language of social entrepreneurs Lancaster University Management School Working Paper 2007/032 Lancaster University Management School: Lancaster.
Peattie, K. and Morley, A. (2008) Social Enterprises: Diversity & Dynamics, Contexts and Contributions, A Research Monograph ESRC Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS) Cardiff University: Cardiff
Peredo, A.M. and McLean, M. (2006) Social Entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept Journal of World Business, 41: 56-65.
Putnam R.D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Ridley-Duff, R. (2007) Communitarian Perspectives on Social Enterprise Corporate Governance 15(2): 382-392.

Roper, J. and Cheney G. (2005) Leadership, learning and human resource management: The meanings of social entrepreneurship today Corporate Governance 5(3): 95-104.

Ryan, P. and Lyne, I. (2008) Social Enterprise and the Measurement of Social Value: Methodological Issues with the Calculation and Application of the Social Return on Investment (SROI) Education, Knowledge and Economy 2(3): 223-237

Schuurman F. (2003) Social Capital: the politico-emancipatory potential of a disputed concept Third World Quarterly 24(6): 991-1010.

UB 04013158
Seanor, P. and Meaton, J. (2007) Making sense of social enterprise Social Enterprise Journal 3(1): 90-100.

SEC (2003) There’s more to business than you think: A guide to social enterprise. The Social Enterprise Coalition: London.

Seyfang, G. (2006) Harnessing the power of the social economy? Time banks and UK public policy International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 26(9/10): 430-443

Shaw, E. and Carter, S. (2007) Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 14(3): 418-434.

Spear, R. (2006) Social entrepreneurship: a different model? International Journal of Social Economics 33(5/6): 399-410.

Thekaekara, M.M. and Thekaekara, S. (2007) Social justice and social entrepreneurship: Contradictory or complementary? Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Said Business School, University of Oxford: Oxford.

Toner, A. Lyne, I. Ryan, P. (2008) Reaching the promised land: Can social enterprise reduce social exclusion and empower communities? Education, Knowledge & Economy 2(1): 1-14.

Westall, A. (2007) How can innovation in social enterprise be understood, encouraged and enabled? A social enterprise think piece for the Office of the Third Sector HMRC Cabinet Office: Office of the Third Sector: London. November 2007.

Whitehead, L. Gray-Molina, G. (2005) Political Capabilities over the Long Run. In Houtzager, P. and Moore, M. (eds) Changing Paths: International Development and the New Politics of Inclusion University of Michigan Press: Michigan, pp.32-57.

Williams, G. Srivastava, M. Corbridge, S. and Véron R. (2003) Enhancing pro-poor governance in Eastern India: participation, politics and action research Progress in Development Studies 3(2): 159-178.

Williams, G. (2004) Towards a repoliticization of participatory development: political capabilities and spaces of empowerment In Hickey S. and Mohan G (eds) Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation Zed Books Ltd: London, pp. 92-107.