surat Call Girls 👙 6297143586 👙 Genuine WhatsApp Number for Real Meet
Controversies and agreements in the interface between social enterprise and health
1. Controversies and agreements in
the interface between social
enterprise and health
Cam Donaldson
Yunus Chair in Social Business & Health
Glasgow Caledonian University
Presented at Fuse Quarterly Research Meeting
26th January 2016
2. Outline
• Moving upstream:
• From third to fifth wave…
• …and in-between
• The place of social enterprise:
• Including a bit about Muhammed Yunus
• What is social enterprise?
• Why do we need to evidence it?
• ‘Evidencing’ it: Why? How? Challenges
• Social finance
6. ‘Banker to the Poor’
• 1965: Fulbright Scholar
• 1971: Economics PhD from Vanderbilt
• Post Liberation War: returns to Bangladesh to work in government under
Nurul Islam and then becomes Head of Economics, at Chittagong
University
• 1976: Lends $27 of his own money to inhabitants of Jobra Village
• 1983: Grameen Bank (Village Bank)
• Late 90s–early 00s: Grameen II
• 2006: Nobel Peace Prize jointly awarded to Yunus and Grameen
• Later in ’00s: Social Business
• 2010: Controversies…
• 2012…
8. Social enterprise: venturing a definition
• Primary purpose for the common good:
– addressing social vulnerability
• Trading is main source of income:
– actual or aspiring to
• Profits used for social/community benefit:
– not individual benefit
• Assets locked or held for common benefit
• Approach includes being a good employer, democratic,
empowering communities, co-operation, social justice
9. What we are not about
• Replacing the NHS
• Replacing public health
• Promoting benefit cuts
• Corporate social responsibility
But, ‘new relationship’ with government in:
• Not only service provision
• But also something much more pervasive than that
• May require subsidisation (e.g. HealthWORKS)
And recognising that:
• Again, long traditions in European countries
• The interest is in social vulnerability and ‘bottom-up’
11. Why do we need to ‘evidence’ it?
• Are organisations doing what they claim to
do?...
• …and what other wider societal benefit
might they engender?
12. Why do we need to ‘evidence’ it?
• Are organisations doing what they claim to
do?...
• …and what other wider societal benefit
might they engender?
• Seeking government attention…
• …and perhaps government resources
13. Why do we need to ‘evidence’ it?
• Are organisations doing what they claim to
do?...
• …and what other wider societal benefit
might they engender?
• Seeking government attention…
• …and perhaps government resources
But, most importantly…
• Communities themselves
14. How do we evidence it?
People and studies
• 3 to 35 people in 5 years; 11 PhDs:
– Staff, students and interns from Austria, Bangladesh, Canada, China, Egypt,
France, Greece, Italy, Malaysia, Poland, South Africa, Spain
• Studentships: University; international awards; self-funding
• Develop people and disciplines: social sciences, health sciences, humanities
• Smaller studies (funded by Scottish Funding Council) with specific social
enterprises (e.g. Theatre Nemo; WeeEnterprisers)
• Other small grants (£30,000 from Santander Bank; £38,000 from Glasgow
Council for the Voluntary Sector)
• Then some ‘biggies’:
– MRC/ESRC, £1.96m, ‘Developing methods for evidencing social enterprise
as a public health intervention’ (CommonHealth)
– European Commission, €3.17m [€333,425 to GCU], ‘Enabling the flourishing and
evolution of social entrepreneurship for innovative and inclusive societies’
(EFESEIIS)
– Chief Scientist Office of Scottish Government’s Health Department, £211,000, ‘Fair
credit, health and wellbeing: eliciting the perspectives of low-income individuals’
(FInWell)
18. A WORKING HYPOTHESIS
SOCIAL ENTERPRISE:
- social mission
- trading
- no share ownership
- etc.
ENGAGEMENT
COMMUNITY
Improved
health and
well-being
ASSETS AND DEFICITS
INDIVIDUAL
Social capital
Cohesive/
connectedness
19. Developing a working hypothesis:
Conceptual Framework (Mk 1)
Roy M et al. The Potential of Social Enterprise to Enhance
Health and Well-being: a Model and Systematic Review. Social
Science and Medicine 2014; 123: 182–193.
20. How do we evidence it?
• Conceptualisation
• Systematic review:
– Social enterprise:
• as a public health initiative (Roy et al. again!)
• as an alternative provider of (community health) services
• in specific roles (preventing homelessness and social isolation)
– Microcredit:
• short and longer-term impacts on health
21. How do we evidence it?
• Conceptualisation
• Systematic review:
– Social enterprise:
• as a public health initiative (Roy et al. again!)
• as an alternative provider of (community health) services
• in specific roles (preventing homelessness and social isolation)
– Microcredit:
• short and longer-term impacts on health
– Challenges of systematic review:
• lack of studies; heterogeneity; comparators
22. How do we evidence it?
• Conceptualisation
• Systematic review
• Populate the model:
– Qualitative research:
• Interviews with clients, employees, executives, policy-makers
• Embedded within organisations (‘Passage from India’)
• Financial diaries with microcredit clients
• Q methodology
– Comparative studies:
• How do social enterprise clients compare with those in other
settings? (homelessness; social isolation; community-based
chronic disease management)
23. How do we evidence it?
• Conceptualisation
• Systematic review
• Populate the model:
– Challenges with primary research:
• generalisability; comparator groups; retention
24. What is social finance?
• Monetary investment in a social policy objective
– Investor get financial return whilst public services are delivered
• Conventional view: trying to bring the discipline and resources of private
investment to more ‘social’ goods
• Associated with:
– debt crisis
– drive to greater efficiency
– outcomes-based financing
• Social investment market worth £190m in UK in 2010:
– Likely worth a lot more if we include earlier ‘Private Finance Initiative’
– ‘Big Society Capital’, ‘Inspiring Scotland’, ‘Social Investment Scotland’
– Win-win: “opening up serious resources to tackle social problems in new and innovative
ways” (Nick Hurd, UK Minister for Civil Society, 2012)
– Cabinet Office Centre for Social Impact Bonds
• Most famous example = HMP Peterborough:
– Short-sentenced prisoners (less than one year)
– Investor receives 2.5% return if 7.5% reduction in reoffending is achieved, relative to a
control group
– Higher rates of reduction trigger higher returns up to maximum 13.3%
– Met targets, but suspended!
25. Two papers by GCU Yunus Centre staff:
McHugh N, Sinclair S, Roy MJ, Huckfield L and Donaldson C.
Social Impact Bonds: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing? Journal of
Poverty and Social Justice, 2013; 21: 247-257.
Sinclair S, McHugh N, Huckfield L, Roy MJ and Donaldson C
Social Impact Bonds: Shifting the Boundaries of Citizenship,
Social Policy Review 26: Analysis and Debate in Social Policy
2014: 119–136.
26. Challenges
• Measurement and attribution of social outcomes
• Unintended consequences:
– Contract terms vs needs
– Provider types
• Size and ‘investment readiness’:
– ‘shadow state’
– ‘social enterprise readiness’
• Governance:
– One less link in democratic accountability
• Further questions about the role of the market
– Distortion of social priorities
• Everything is an ‘asset’: an ideological shift
• But…evidence…’Ways to Wellness’
27. Keeping in touch
Yunus Centre for Social Business & Health
– http://www.gcu.ac.uk/yunuscentre/
– Email: cam.donaldson@gcu.ac.uk
• Website:
– http://www.commonhealth.uk/
• Blog:
– https://commonhealthresearch.wordpress.com/