No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Social Enterprises in Postcolonial Economies: Articulating Neoliberalism in Practice for a Public Economic Geography
... Over the centuries, social entrepreneurship in India has demonstrated remarkable resilience and adaptability, evolving significantly. The term social entrepreneurship was coined in the early 1980s by U.S. philanthropist Bill Drayton after observing innovative interventions to address socioeconomic issues in India (Chopra 2024). During post-colonial India, essential movements like the Land Gift Movement and the Amul Dairy Cooperative laid the foundation for modern social enterprises (Swain and Patoju 2022). ...
There has been a recent surge in social entrepreneurship to address pressing social problems. Social ventures drive positive change and reshape traditional business norms by providing innovative solutions and fostering inclusive growth. Social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) is crucial to studying social entrepreneurship since it sheds light on the underlying motivations and factors that drive people to engage in social enterprise. The study examines empathy, moral obligation, perceived social support, social self-efficacy, risk-taking motive, and innovativeness as determinants of SEI. Data collected through an online questionnaire from 349 commerce and management students were analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). Results reveal a significant influence of social self-efficacy, perceived social support, risk-taking motive, and innovativeness on SEI. Notably, the results highlight an indirect influence of empathy and moral obligation on SEI mediated by social self-efficacy and perceived social support. The study also reveals how social vision and social proactiveness relate to social self-efficacy. The findings have significant implications for encouraging social entrepreneurship. Policymakers and educators may use these insights to develop specific activities that assist prospective social entrepreneurs by enhancing the attributes that affect their desire to establish social ventures.
There has been a recent surge in social entrepreneurship to address pressing social problems. Social ventures drive positive change and reshape traditional business norms by providing innovative solutions and fostering inclusive growth. Social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) is crucial to studying social entrepreneurship since it sheds light on the underlying motivations and factors that drive people to engage in social enterprise. The study examines empathy, moral obligation, perceived social support, social self-efficacy, risk-taking motive, and innovativeness as determinants of SEI. Data collected through an online questionnaire from 349 commerce and management students were analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). Results reveal a significant influence of social self-efficacy, perceived social support, risk-taking motive, and innovativeness on SEI. Notably, the results highlight an indirect influence of empathy and moral obligation on SEI mediated by social self-efficacy and perceived social support. The study also reveals how social vision and social proactiveness relate to social self-efficacy. The findings have significant implications for encouraging social entrepreneurship. Policymakers and educators may use these insights to develop specific activities that assist prospective social entrepreneurs by enhancing the attributes that affect their desire to establish social ventures.
Keywords: Social entrepreneurial intention, Social self-efficacy, Perceived social support, Empathy, Moral obligation, Innovativeness
The study of urban informality has exploded since Keith Hart theorized the term the 'informal sector.' This explosion has coincided with a growing interest among urban scholars who train their eyes toward the 'Global South.' Informality is used as shorthand for any number of urban experiences and realities ranging from the economy to governance, housing, the state, agency, political resistance, the urban form, and poverty. Much scholarship carefully illustrates different versions and modes of 'informality,' while equating the term's first use with the provenance of the practice itself. Despite the global heterogeneity of informality, its instantiation can be traced further back than the 1960s and 1970s. Nearly half a century since the advent of the term the 'informal sector,' we are still left with a deceptively simple question. If the creation and practice of informality predate African independence, where does it come from? This paper argues that the Zambian Copperbelt's early 20th-century history of urbanization and migration produced the informal/formal dialectic, establishing the grounds for inequalities that proliferate in the present. The structure of 'informality' finds its roots in colonial spatial strategies central to the formation of global capitalism. Through this dialectic, urbanization became a key mode of colonialism.
This article provides an introduction to the special issue on post-neoliberalism. It does so by considering challenges to the neoliberal order that have come, post-financial crisis, from the political right. It looks closely at the relation of neoliberalism to conservatism, on one hand, and libertarianism, on the other, in order to address the threat posed to the neoliberal order by paleoconservatism, neoreactionary politics, ordonationalism, libertarian paternalism, and different forms of sovereignty and elite power. The final section of this introduction reflects on the challenge to the neoliberal orthodoxy posed by the current COVID-19 crisis. For while events of 2020–21 have facilitated new forms of privatization of many public services and goods, they also signal, potentially, a break from the neoliberal orthodoxies of the previous four decades, and, in particular, from their overriding concern for the market.
This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge/CRC Press in THEORY OF SOCIAL
ENTERPRISE AND PLURALISM: Social Movements, Solidarity Economy, and Global South on May 2019, available
online: https://www.routledge.com/Theory-of-Social-Enterprise-and-Pluralism-Social-Movements-Solidarity/EynaudLaville-dos-Santos-Banerjee-Avelino-Hulgard/p/book/9780367260408
To cite this paper: Lucas dos Santos, Luciane; Banerjee, S. (2019), “Social enterprise: is it possible to decolonise this concept?”, in Eynaud P., Laville J.L., Lucas dos Santos L., Banerjee S., Hulgard H., Avelino F. (2019), Theory of social enterprise and pluralism: Social Movements, Solidarity Economy, and Global South. London, NY: Routledge, 3-17.
This article makes a case for paying greater attention to how informal relationships between government officials and civil society practitioners impact processes of public value creation. Drawing on data from a five‐year qualitative longitudinal study, we illuminate how civil society practitioners deviate from the formal objectives of social enterprise policies in order to create what they see as having public value. Through a process of theory elaboration, we demonstrate how government officials’ wilful ignorance of, or informal collaboration in, such deviance, precipitates forms of public value that are consistent with wider political objectives. Our analysis adds nuance and granularity to the debate on public value by drawing attention to the arcane ways it may be informally negotiated and created outside of the public sphere. This opens up new empirical and theoretical opportunities for understanding how deviance and ignorance might be symbiotically related in processes of public value creation.”
Focusing on the recent emergence of behavioral and experimental economics and its implications for the design and implementation of social policies, we demonstrate that geographies of marketization are not confined to the narrow study of the models of neoclassical economics. We structure our argument around what we perceive as key dimensions of marketization and their variegated geographies: First, we argue for renewed attention to the naturalization of abstract market knowledge and its methodological separation from real markets in the wake of the behavioral and experimental turn. We then turn to really existing markets, conceptualizing them as articulations of a variety of economic and social rationalities struggling over an apparent “moral market.” Third, we focus on the role of the nonhuman in marketization processes and discuss the work of market devices in making these market arrangements possible. In the fourth and final section we turn to the “human side” of marketization. Our argument is that market struggles connect with the formation of “quasi-subjects” that oscillate between attempts to reestablish autonomy and their dissolution in the disciplining webs of behavioral and experimental market devices. Throughout the text we illustrate our arguments on the so-called social impact bonds as a concrete example for the types of policy intervention informed by economic behaviorism and experimentalism.
Our age is celebrated as the triumph of liberal democracy. Old ideological battles have been decisively resolved in favour of freedom and the market. We are told that we have moved 'beyond left and right'; that we are 'all in this together'. Any remaining differences are to be addressed through expert knowledge, consensual deliberation and participatory governance. Yet the 'end of history' has also been marked by widespread disillusion with mainstream politics and a rise in nationalist and religious fundamentalisms. And now an explosion of popular protests is challenging technocratic regulation and the power of markets in the name of democracy itself. This collection makes sense of this situation by critically engaging with the influential theory of 'the post-political' developed by Chantal Mouffe, Jacques Rancière, Slavoj Žižek and others. Through a multi-dimensional and fiercely contested assessment of contemporary depoliticisation, The Post-Political and Its Discontents urges us to confront the closure of our political horizons and re-imagine the possibility of emancipatory change. © editorial matter and organisation Japhy Wilson and Erik Swyngedouw, 2014. the chapters their several authors, 2014.
The late Kalyan Sanyal's masterwork, Rethinking Capitalist Development, offers a profound meditation on the essence of contemporary capitalism in India. This review essay summarises the book's most novel qualities and then subjects Sanyal's arguments to a formal critique. It concludes that Rethinking Capitalist Development offers a provocative theory of postcolonial capitalism, one that advances the debate by forcing us to sharpen our conception of what Sanyal calls the "capital - not-capital" complex, a term he uses to charac terise the entire complex of capitalist and non-capitalist production activities which coexist in contemporary political economy. While Sanyal's text remains generative to think with, its limitations - particularly concerning its engagements with Marx's theory of capitalism - merit critical scrutiny.
This article situates the Marikana massacre, in which 34 mine workers were gunned down by police in South Africa, in the context of what the South African state has become, and questions the characterisation of the post-Apartheid state as a "developmental state". This contribution first highlights what is at stake when the post-Apartheid state is portrayed as a "developmental state" and how this misrecognition of the state is ideologically constituted. Second, it argues for an approach to understanding the post-Apartheid state by locating it within the context of the rise of transnational neoliberalism and the process of indigenising neoliberalism on the African continent. Third, it examines the actual economic practices of the state that constitute it as an Afro-neoliberal state. Such economic practices are historicised to show the convergence between the post-Apartheid state and the ideal type neoliberal state coming to the fore in the context of global neoliberal restructuring and crisis management. The article concludes by recognising that South Africa's deep globalisation and globalised state affirm a form of state practice beyond utilising market mechanisms that includes perpetrating violence to secure its existence. Marikana makes this point.
Our goal in this article is to remind readers what is unsettling about decolonization. Decolonization brings about the repatriation of Indigenous land and life; it is not a metaphor for other things we want to do to improve our societies and schools. The easy adoption of decolonizing discourse by educational advocacy and scholarship, evidenced by the increasing number of calls to “decolonize our schools,” or use “decolonizing methods,” or, “decolonize student thinking”, turns decolonization into a metaphor. As important as their goals may be, social justice, critical methodologies, or approaches that decenter settler perspectives have objectives that may be incommensurable with decolonization. Because settler colonialism is built upon an entangled triad structure of settler-native-slave, the decolonial desires of white, non-white, immigrant, postcolonial, and oppressed people, can similarly be entangled in resettlement, reoccupation, and reinhabitation that actually further settler colonialism. The metaphorization of decolonization makes possible a set of evasions, or “settler moves to innocence”, that problematically attempt to reconcile settler guilt and complicity, and rescue settler futurity. In this article, we analyze multiple settler moves towards innocence in order to forward “an ethic of incommensurability” that recognizes what is distinct and what is sovereign for project(s) of decolonization in relation to human and civil rights based social justice projects. We also point to unsettling themes within transnational/Third World decolonizations, abolition, and critical space-place pedagogies, which challenge the coalescence of social justice endeavors, making room for more meaningful potential alliances.
This chapter probes how Foucault’s work can contribute to a political understanding of social entrepreneurship. Concretely, building on Foucault’s work on the ‘art of governing’, social entrepreneurship gets reflected in its relationship to neoliberal governmentality. Conceiving social entrepreneurship as an answer to that little ‘something’ which has been kept vacant after the ostensible demise of the welfare system, I suggest that social entrepreneurship defines a ‘programmable reality’ in which entrepreneurial modes of self-fashioning become sensible, even mandatory. Delineating how ‘social entrepreneurship’ turns the social into a space of competition, individual responsibility and self-organisation by demanding entrepreneurial virtues and behaviours from people who until recently were not envisioned as entrepreneurs, the point is made that the formation of enterprising subjects is anything but an omnipotent and totalitarian process. The chapter hence concludes that studies of neoliberal governmentality need to go alongside qualitative inquiries of actual practices of self-formation, for it is only by studying how governing unfolds on the local level that the struggles and contradictory relationship between power and subjectivity can be grasped.
Part of what makes the current conjuncture so extraordinary is the coincidence of the massive economic meltdown with the implosion of the neoconservative Project for a New American Century, and the reappearance of US liberal internationalism in the guise of “smart power” defined in terms of Diplomacy, Development, and Defence. This essay engages these challenges through a framework that distinguishes between “Development” as a post-war international project that emerged in the context of decolonization and the Cold War, and capitalist development as a dynamic and highly uneven process of creation and destruction. Closely attentive to what Gramsci calls “the relations of force at various levels”, my task in this essay is to suggest how the instabilities and constant redefinitions of official discourses and practices of Development since the 1940s shed light on the conditions in which we now find ourselves.
The article by Brandon Finn titled ‘The structure of informality: The Zambian Copperbelt and the informal/formal dialectic' presents a discussion that, for me, needs to be had. I have always argued that some of these universally applied nomenclatures that have been used to label certain phenomena in the global South need revisiting. This is because they have been devised with a global North contextualization and do not adequately define the phenomena. Those seeking to define African informality most likely approach it from a Western context within which urbanization has evolved and developed to a level where systems and infrastructure work efficiently. My thinking on this issue is that ‘ what would happen if we stopped trying to force development of the Global South to fit into western stereotypes?’ There seems to be an expectation of global South urban development to follow in the footsteps of the West. Meanwhile the development of cities on the continent have taken a totally different trajectory from the textbook cases that we find ourselves trying to superimpose on the global South cities.
This commentary builds on Doreen Massey's thinking on the economy and relationality to ask: who gets to produce economic knowledge and whose lives does research make visible as economic matters of concern? These questions have been thrown into sharp relief as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the pandemic has highlighted the need for better infrastructures of care, it has also demonstrated that the mission of ‘saving the economy’ from the ravages of COVID-19 has not centred the concerns of those who have experienced the crisis most acutely. Drawing inspiration from the various economic subjects who continue to make, re-make, and articulate the economy through regular shocks and crises – workers, caregivers, and people marginalized by identity or geography – this commentary makes a case for a public economic geography that rethinks who is taken seriously as an ‘expert’ on the economy, and to what publics the field speaks. This, at its heart, is a radical rethinking of accountability, calling on economic geographers to ask: what should research do for whom, and how?
Scholarship on social entrepreneurship primarily reduces social enterprises in the Global South to geographic variations of an idealized concept of combining commercial imperatives with social missions. In the article, I see social enterprise practice in economies of the Global South, namely India and South Africa, as channels to engage in the ongoing theorization of the field. The article draws on the frame of actually existing neoliberalism, moving beyond macroperspectives and policy imperatives on social entrepreneurship to show how neoliberal rationalities are mobilized and regulated by emancipatory rationalities and agendas. The empirical focus is on social enterprises mediating enterprise formation to address employment concerns in the informal, noncapital domains of India and South Africa. I draw on data from the ethnographic fieldwork on mediating social enterprises collected during my doctoral research. The lived realities of practice of the two intermediaries considered in the article, Dhwani in India and EntShare in South Africa, show mediating social enterprises in ongoing negotiations with capital and noncapital domains. Understanding the negotiations explains the convergences and divergences in how neoliberal economic rationalities align with progressive and emancipatory agendas and values across India and South Africa. In doing so, the article provides an opportunity to enrich conceptual registers of postcolonial economic geography by tracing and articulating mediation processes between neoliberal and nonneoliberal rationalities not solely from one site but across contexts.
The South African critique of racial capitalism was developed during the struggle against apartheid, as Black South Africans engaged in urgent debates about how to understand the system they were fighting and how to win liberation for all. Rather than arguing that capitalism has always been racial, South African radicals developed a conjunctural analysis of racial capitalism with attention to time and space. In this article, we focus on the work of Neville Alexander to develop two arguments about the conjunctural critique of racial capitalism. First, we argue that the conjunctural analysis was closely tied to political praxis. The critique emerged as a theoretical framework that could inform political strategy in a context of struggle. Second, we demonstrate that the conjunctural analysis was always global, situating South Africa within a world historical moment and engaged in dialogue with radical intellectuals and anti-colonial, anti-capitalist, and anti-racist movements around the world.
This commentary explores the politics of writing about the economy in a culture, society, and discipline that tends to prioritize masculinist (and white) theories and definitions of economy over embodied experiences of people living their everyday lives. Inspired by Timothy Mitchell's problematization of the economy as an object of analysis, we press further on the seemingly singular unit of “the” economy and who is allowed to define it as such. We are animated by questions of who is considered an expert on the economy and how, or by whom, crises in the economy are recognized. Drawing from our own writing experiences during the pandemic and from social movements we research, we argue for alternate ways of thinking about experiences of and expertise on the economy. In reckoning with how social movements speak to power in a bid to transform economies, we consider the role of economic geography in the economy of writing and knowledge production surrounding “the economy” itself. We make the case for a more public economic geography grounded in the social and economic embeddedness of knowledge production, the material consequences of who gets to define what is economically “important,” and the potential for this expertise to be located anywhere.
In explaining the emergence of new strategic action fields, in which social movements’ and organizations’ logic, rules and strategies are forged, inter-field dynamics remain under-explored. The case of Social Enterprise and Entrepreneurship (SEE) shows how new fields can emerge through field encroachment, whereby shifts among overlapping fields create structural opportunities for the ascendency of new fields, which may adapt logics borrowed from adjacent fields to construct legitimacy. SEE leveraged the 1980s’ shift between first-order market and state fields to encroach on the political strategies of community organizing, birthing a neoliberal social movement to create a new field addressing social problems using market-based, profit-motivated approaches. With its borrowed veneer of justice, SEE rapidly developed a high academic and public profile over just three decades, despite little evidence its approach to solving social problems works. In encroaching on proven political strategies for solving social problems, it may further undermine democratic practices.
This article is about representations of poverty and governmental frameworks for addressing poverty in postapartheid South Africa. It is, therefore, also about “the poor,” about their place in society and the ways they intervene in the making of the present. The article returns to a South African metaphor—Thabo Mbeki's “two economies” thesis—focused on the problem of poverty, its causes, and the governmental approach to combating it. This discussion shows how the work of Partha Chatterjee helps us understand the governmental problems Mbeki's representations reframe and their relationship to forms of contemporary capitalism and governmentality, as well as the emerging practices through which the poor “invade” the political and impact the frameworks targeting them. But the essay also suggests that, in following these threads, we need to push beyond Chatterjee's conceptual framework, with implications for how we think about the state, its relationship to capitalist development, and the political practices of subaltern classes.
Everyday Sustainability takes readers to ground zero of market-based sustainability initiatives—Darjeeling, India—where Fair Trade ostensibly promises gender justice to minority Nepali women engaged in organic tea production. These women tea farmers and plantation workers have distinct entrepreneurial strategies and everyday practices of social justice that at times dovetail with and at other times rub against the tenets of the emerging global morality market. The author questions why women beneficiaries of transnational justice-making projects remain skeptical about the potential for economic and social empowerment through Fair Trade while simultaneously seeking to use the movement to give voice to their situated demands for mobility, economic advancement, and community level social justice.
Through the lens of South Africa’s informal settlements, this paper explores the intersections between plans, practices and materiality. These three arenas are each presented as uniquely agentic, contributing to plural configurations. In doing so, this work questions a prevalent tendency to frame governance/government solely as relationships between state and non-state actors. By reintroducing the agency and power of matter and materiality, not as adjunct or background, but as a critical technology of government and/in place, this work contributes to a growing debate within the (emerging) urban socio-technical systems literature.
The promotion of an enterprise culture and entrepreneurship in India in recent decades has had far-reaching implications beyond the economy, and transformed social and cultural attitudes and conduct. This book brings together pioneering research on the nature of India's enterprise culture, covering a range of different themes: workplace, education, religion, trade, films, media, youth identity, gender relations, class formation and urban politics.
The article documents some of the transformations to the women’s movement in India in the post-independence period. Given the empirical and ideological centrality of nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) in the terrain of Indian feminism, the article focuses on dominant feminist responses to ‘NGOization’ in the form of critiques of the alleged cooption and professionalization of the women’s movement and the loss of political autonomy, a key ideal amongst Indian feminists. As a response to these criticisms, I suggest that there is a need to go beyond the ‘NGOization paradigm’ in evaluating a new feminist landscape, especially after the Delhi rape of 2012. ‘NGOisation’ offers limited conceptual tools to make sense of the present moment if not entirely hiding from view the political possibilities that it offers for feminist reflection and (re)mobilization.
In this paper I rehearse the thinking steps J. K Gibson-Graham developed in order to theorize diverse economies and reveal a landscape of economic difference. Reading with and against Clifford Geertz’s 1973 essay “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” I discuss how “thick description” of diverse economic practices can be combined with weak theory to produce a performative rethinking of economy centered on the well-being of people and the planet. I discuss the difficulties of resisting the influence of “strong theory”—that is, powerful discourses that organize events into understandable and seemingly predictable trajectories. I outline the diverse economy, a reframing that allows for a much wider range of social relations to be seen to bear on economic practices including, to name just some, trust, care, sharing, reciprocity, cooperation, coercion, bondage, thrift, guilt, love, equity, self-exploitation, solidarity, distributive justice, stewardship, spiritual connection, and environmental and social justice. In the complexly overdetermined field of a diverse economy, we are invited to trace multiple dynamics at play. It is in the apprehension of these diverse determinations that ethnographic thick description comes into its own and leads the way toward rethinking the economy. For ethnographers today, no task is more important than to make small facts speak to large concerns, to make the ethical acts ethnography describes into a performative ontology of economy and the threads of hope that emerge into stories of everyday revolution.
One of the most dominant strands of research within cultural geography's ‘materialist turn’ is that of commodity stories. Through everything from phones to flowers, geographers have attempted to reveal the myriad connections between (Northern) consumers and (Southern) producers. Following commodities and tracing their networks, this research tends to privilege consumption as the primary site of social and cultural meaning within the global economy. Where producers are the focus, the theoretical framework for understanding their lives is typically a developmentalist one, foregrounding exploitation and/or empowerment. Thus, we learn little from commodity stories about the ordinary lives of Southern producers and the co-production of the sociocultural and the economic through their everyday practices. This paper argues that deeper sociocultural analysis of the processes of production is necessary to balance the current dominance of consumption-led commodity stories and, more importantly, to open up space for a re-imagining of Southern producers. Through the personal accounts of fourty beadwork producers in Cape Town, I explore how the everyday practices of craft production sustain existing social relations, generate new networks, and help to shape both a sense of belonging and a sense of self. This commodity story reveals Southern producers' lives to be both richer and more mundane than dominant constructions suggest.
This paper builds a critical geography of poverty finance with recourse to a relational comparison of the microfinance and subprime mortgage markets. It probes paradoxical claims about the nature of poverty, the poor, states and markets that have surfaced in the aftermath of the financial crisis. In doing so it aims to generate new understandings of neoliberal global finance with specific emphasis on 1) the social constitution of risk through racialised and gendered forms of difference; 2) the exercise of dispossession and imperialism by financial means; and 3) articulations of poverty finance with the social relations of debt in specific conjunctures. Each of these terrains of inquiry forms a subsection of the paper, following a preliminary section that poses the animating paradox in more detail. The paper concludes with some reflections on the conditions of possibility for democratising finance.
Preface and Acknowledgements. 1. Strategies. 2. Capitalism and Anti-essentialism: An Encounter in Contradiction. 3. Class and the Politics of "Identity". 4. How Do We Get Out of This Capitalist Place? 5. The Economy, Stupid! Industrial Policy Discourse and the Body Economic. 6. Querying Globalization. 7. Post-Fordism as Politics. 8. Toward a New Class Politics of Distribution. 9. "Hewers of Cake and Drawers of Tea". 10. Haunting Capitalism: Ghosts on a Blackboard. 11. Waiting for the Revolution. . . Bibliography. Index.
This paper examines how practices of leadership have been negotiated and have changed over time in the context of a grassroots health promotion project in Lima, Peru. Tracing these trajectories in the context of the evolution of women's organising in Peru informs a broader analysis of the changing role of grassroots women in development projects, feeding into debates around the professionalisation and depoliticisation of grassroots activism and providing new empirical material on gendered experiences of grassroots leadership. The paper recognises the increasing dominance of neoliberal management mechanisms but argues that the depoliticisation of grassroots women leaders is not simply a straightforward trickledown of neoliberal development practices but is produced through the interplay of local socio-political processes and personal biographies of activism with more macro-level development trends and discourses.
The term “neoliberalism” has come to be used in a wide variety of partly overlapping and partly contradictory ways. This essay seeks to clarify some of the analytical and political work that the term does in its different usages. It then goes on to suggest that making an analytical distinction between neoliberal “arts of government” and the class-based ideological “project” of neoliberalism can allow us to identify some surprising (and perhaps hopeful) new forms of politics that illustrate how fundamentally polyvalent neoliberal mechanisms of government can be. A range of empirical examples are discussed, mostly coming from my recent work on social policy and anti-poverty politics in southern Africa.
Following Kuhn, this article conceptualizes social entrepreneurship as a field of action in a pre-paradigmatic state that currently lacks an established epistemology. Using approaches from neo-institutional theory, this research focuses on the microstructures of legitimation that characterize the development of social entrepreneurship in terms of its key actors, discourses, and emerging narrative logics. This analysis suggests that the dominant discourses of social entrepreneurship represent legitimating material for resource-rich actors in a process of reflexive isomorphism. Returning to Kuhn, the article concludes by delineating a critical role for scholarly research on social entrepreneurship in terms of resolving conflicting discourses within its future paradigmatic development.
In this paper we explore the contours of a ‘method’ for postcolonial development geography,which makes it possible to imagine another ‘world-picturing’. We suggest three steps towards such a method. First, we propose that a postcolonial method involves thinking about why we are doing research in the south in the first place; how we come to and produce our questions; and how we analyze and represent our findings based on our subject positionings. Second, that we need to recognize theorization as an inherent part of method, rethink how we currently theorize and reconfigure our methods of theorization to address wider political aims. Problematizing theorization helps challenge the universalism of Eurocentric theories, thus enabling development geography to move towards more decolonized versions and visions. Finally, that this must be accompanied by firmer recognition of our multiple investments – personal, institutional and geopolitical – and how they frame the possibilities for change. These are some possible steps that we think can reconfigure the ‘scholarly track’ that postcolonial development geographers traverse.
Powers of Freedom, first published in 1999, offers a compelling approach to the analysis of political power which extends Foucault's hypotheses on governmentality in challenging ways. Nikolas Rose sets out the key characteristics of this approach to political power and analyses the government of conduct. He analyses the role of expertise, the politics of numbers, technologies of economic management and the political uses of space. He illuminates the relation of this approach to contemporary theories of 'risk society' and 'the sociology of governance'. He argues that freedom is not the opposite of government but one of its key inventions and most significant resources. He also seeks some rapprochement between analyses of government and the concerns of critical sociology, cultural studies and Marxism, to establish a basis for the critique of power and its exercise. The book will be of interest to students and scholars in political theory, sociology, social policy and cultural studies.
Policy makers increasingly rely on theories of social capital to fashion development interventions that mobilize local social networks in the alleviation of poverty. The potential of such theory lies in its recognition of the social dimensions of economic growth. This recognition has inspired some innovative approaches to development, such as the now-popular microfinance model. In assessing the implications of these recent developments for feminist objectives of social transformation, this paper evaluates prevailing ideas about social capital (rooted in rational choice theory) against the grain of three alternative approaches: Marxian social capital theories ( A la Pierre Bourdieu), neo-Foucauldian governmentality studies, and my feminist ethnographic research on the social embeddedness of economic practice in a merchant community of Nepal. The paper concludes by bringing these critical insights to bear on possibilities for designing microfinance programs - and practicing a kind of development more generally - that could engage women's solidarity to challenge dominant gender ideologies.
Thoughts on the new South Africa
- N Alexander
- Alexander N.
Alexander, N. 2013. Thoughts on the new South Africa.
Auckland Park, South Africa: Jacana Media.
South Africa: An unfinished revolution? The 4th Strini Moodley annual lecture University of KwaZulu-Natal 13
- N Alexander
Alexander, N. 2010. South Africa: An unfinished revolution?
The 4th Strini Moodley annual lecture, University of
KwaZulu-Natal, 13 May 2010. Accessed December 21,
2023. https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/alexander/
2010-unfinished-revolution.pdf
Social enterprise: Is it possible to decolonise this concept? In Theory of social enterprise and pluralism: Social movements, solidarity economy and the Global South
- L Santos
- S Banerjee
- Santos L.
Santos, L., and S. Banerjee. 2019. Social enterprise: Is it
possible to decolonise this concept? In Theory of social
enterprise and pluralism: Social movements, solidarity economy and the Global South, ed. P. Eynaud, 2-16. London
and New York: Routledge.
- Peck J.
South Asia in a globalising world: A reconstructed regional geography
- B Bradnock
- G Williams
Bradnock, B., and G. Williams. 2014. South Asia in a globalising world: A reconstructed regional geography. London
and New York: Routledge.
New subaltern politics: Reconceptualizing hegemony and resistance in contemporary India
- A G Nilsen
- S Roy
Nilsen, A. G., and S. Roy. 2015. New subaltern politics:
Reconceptualizing hegemony and resistance in contemporary
India. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
The powers of freedom
- N Rose
Rose, N. 1999. The powers of freedom. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Introduction: Two economies—Or one system of superexploitation
- P Bond
- Bond P.