Simone Baglioni

The dark side of social capital: an ethnography of sport governance.

This article extends the discussion on the ‘dark side’ of social capital in sport which has recently been increasingly conceptualized in civil society studies. We define the dark side of social capital as situations in which trust, social ties and shared beliefs and norms that may be beneficial to some persons are detrimental to other individuals, sport movements, or for society at large. Furthermore, we understand the dark side of social capital as attempts to manipulate and misuse trust to achieve a particular interest. We argue that the majority of studies using the notion of the dark side have investigated primarily sport practice rather than sport governance and have focused on either the macro- or micro-level, neglecting the meso-level. Additionally, previous studies have focused primarily on the exclusive role of bonding social networks at the expense of linking social capital and manipulation of trust. To contribute to reducing these gaps, our analysis draws on evidence gathered during a multi-sited ethnographic study of Czech and Italian sport associations governing football, handball and sailing.

Transcending Marginalization: The Mobilization of the Unemployed in France, Germany, and Italy in a Comparative Perspective

Mobilization by the unemployed was long considered highly improbable. The obstacles have been abundantly outlined in the literature and related to powerful forces of social and political atomization (Richards 2002). First of all, we are dealing with a very heterogeneous group of people with different biographies, diverse interests, and a range of identities and belief-systems. Mobilization is further hindered by the public stigmatization of the unemployed (Piven and Cloward 1977). This stigma impedes the formation of collective mobilizations and leads rather to social isolation (Wolski-Prenger 1996). Moreover, the job insecurity of the unemployed complicates the formation of stable networks, memberships, and organizations. Finally, scholars tend to argue since the path-breaking Marienthal study (Jahoda, Lazarsfeld and Zeisel 1971 [1933]) that unemployment, particularly long-term joblessness, drives individuals into apathy and fatalism, and leads to the erosion of social capital (e.g. trust, personal contacts, and organizational memberships). Most scholars have taken these sociological and psychological features and consequences of unemployment for granted and have thus tended to argue that the collective mobilization of the jobless is either improbable or even impossible. However, at least in the light of the recent rise of collective action by the unemployed in Europe, such analyses require substantial qualification.

Social Innovation and Social Policy – Promises and Risks

Social innovation (SI) is an increasingly prominent but contested issue in discussions of social policy reform. Although not yet a familiar concept, nor widely understood (least of all by policy makers), it has entered mainstream policy discourses. However whether SI marks a significant departure in either theory or in practice, or merely in rhetoric, remains to be determined. This Review Article, and the Themed Section as a whole, aims to set out some of the questions social policy analysts should ask about SI, and to help clarify whether or not it is a significant development which merits attention. The Review begins by considering some of the reasons for the recent interest shown in SI before clarifying the meaning of the concept and outlining some of the different forms SI has taken. This discussion is followed by a consideration of some of the practical and theoretical questions which SI raises for social policy analysis. The Review concludes that social policy analysts cannot afford to ignore SI, but that the most effective contribution the discipline can make is to apply a critical empirical perspective to test the significance, value and impact of SI.

The role of institutional and stakeholder networks in shaping social enterprise ecosystems in Europe

Purpose This paper draws upon prior research that built a theoretical framework for the emergence of social enterprise ecosystems based upon the biological evolutionary theory. This paper aims to extend this previous research by practically applying the said theory to the development of stakeholder and institutional networks across Europe. Design/methodology/approach Data from in-depth semi-structured interviews and focus groups were analysed using Constant Comparison Method. Data were generated from discussions with 258 key stakeholders in ten countries across Europe, exploring the historical, political, social, legal and economic factors that influence the patterns of a social enterprise seen in each country. Findings The results identify the emergence of four social enterprise ecosystem types (Statist-macro, Statist-micro, Private-macro and Private-micro). These are used to explain the differences found in each of the ten country’s social enterprise ecosystems. The results are discussed in relation to the evolutionary theory in social entrepreneurship and how “genetic” and “epigenetic” factors lead to the divergence of social enterprise ecosystems, and the impact that this has on the stakeholders and institutions that are present within them. Originality/value A typology of ecosystems is presented, which can be used by policymakers across Europe to understand how best to support their local social economies.

A comparative overview of social enterprise ‘ecosystems’ in Scotland and England: an evolutionary perspective

ABSTRACT Social enterprise has been identified as a culturally and socially constructed phenomenon; over recent years there has been increasing focus on how social enterprise ‘ecosystems’ differ across countries. There has been less focus on the differences in social enterprise ecosystems within countries, where regional differences in the cultural, political and social environment can lead to variations in the environment for support. Recent devolution within the United Kingdom has led to all four countries developing fairly diverse political and policy environments. This paper explores these differences through the lens of evolutionary theory which posits that within an ecosystem all organisms are a product of the evolution of that ecosystem and that socio-political and regulatory differences can lead to the rapid divergence of social enterprise ecosystems.

The Role of Civil Society Actors in the Contentious Politics of Unemployment

In the early 2000s, an Italian priest organized a hunger strike to protest against the dismissals of a factory in Ivrea, Northern Italy; in the same period, some thousands kilometers away, in the UK, the Archbishop of Canterbury called on the British government for a tougher action against unemployment. Contemporarily, in France, a group of activists organized the so-called requisitions d’emplois (jobs kidnappings), and in Switzerland groups of organized citizens protested against job reduction at the post office. These are examples of how various organizations and institutions of the European society can intervene with diverse types of actions and frames in the contentious politics of unemployment that is, “the relationships between political institutional approaches to employment policy and political conflicts mobilized by collective actors over unemployment in the public domain” (Giugni 2008a: 249).

Introduction: Social Innovation and Social Policy

This themed section discusses the conceptual development and related empirical applications of social innovation (SI), a concept acquiring a prominent position in both academia and the world of policy. When SI started being used in the early 1990s relatively few social scientists were familiar with it, mainly those interested in urban policy. Less than two decades later, not only is SI at the heart of the largest public research funding programme in Europe ( Horizon 2020 ), it is also constantly referred to in the discourses of senior level policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Mobilization of the Unemployed in Italy: The Case of Naples

The case of unemployed organizations in Naples shows that groups of resource-deprived people can organize themselves and make successful claims, overcoming their stigmatized identity. Furthermore, they are able to reverse the stigma and to organize the process that Elias (1994) defines as “counterstigmatization.” How did they achieve this? This chapter shows that this has been achieved by taking advantage of the availability of small and big political opportunities (Gamson and Meyer 1996) offered to collective action by local and national political powers, through a wise use of “compensatory” resources, as suggested by recent literature (Maurer 2000), as well as by their capability of establishing viable organizations and links and practices of cooperation with groups devoted to other issues, and finally by an important activity of “framing” (Cress and Snow 2000; Snow 2004).

Precarious Struggles in Italy

Although rare, protest over unemployment nevertheless does exist. Indeed, protest is the only resource through which the unemployed themselves occasionally enter the public sphere. For it to occur, however, as we show in the following sections, the precariat needs to accomplish the following: (1) develop a group identity that overcomes the stigma associated with precarity; (2) radicalize their repertoire of action in what we call here ‘dramatization’ of protest, to make their claims visible and keep pressuring political elites; (3) establish organizations and networks promoting their claims and placing their struggles within a larger framework of social change; and (4) seize opportunities provided by political elites and institutions.

Collaborator or competitor: assessing the evidence supporting the role of social enterprise in health and social care

ABSTRACT In many countries, social enterprise has been introduced into a competitive market-oriented environment as a substitute for publicly owned services, particularly in healthcare. In the United Kingdom, evidence for this move seems to derive from case studies where social enterprise operates in collaboration – as opposed to competition – with publicly owned services. Our systematic review demonstrates that there is no evidence to support the role of social enterprise as a substitute for publicly owned services. However, there is evidence to show that where social enterprise operates in a collaborative environment, enhanced outcomes can be achieved, such as connectedness, well-being and self-confidence.