Social Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship, Collectivism, and Everything in Between: Prototypes and Continuous Dimensions

• Author: Aaron Schneider
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12635
• Published date: 01 May 2017
• Date: 01 May 2017

Social Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship, Collectivism, and Everything in Between: Prototypes and Continuous Dimensions 421

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 77, Iss. 3, pp. 421–431. © 2016 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12635.

Aaron Schneider is the Leo Block Chair

and associate professor of international

studies in the Josef Korbel School of

International Studies at the University

of Denver and director of the Latin

America Center. Previously, he was the

Judy and Avram Glazer Chair of Social

Entrepreneurship at Tulane University in the

Political Science Department. His current

work explores the social and political

coalitions underlying international insertion

in emerging powers of Brazil and India, and

he has worked extensively on public finance

and state building in Central America.

E-mail: aaron.schneider@du.edu

Abstract : This article uses prototypes and continuous dimensions to place social entrepreneurship in relation to

other organizational forms. This approach is more fruitful than classical attempts to stipulate essential characteristics

and establish boundaries. A prototype and continuous dimension approach allows consideration of the way social

entrepreneurship functions similarly to and differently from related concepts, such as traditional entrepreneurship,

public social services, and collectivism. These categories can be distinguished according to the degree to which control

over the way value is created, allocated, and distributed occurs socially or entrepreneurially. This approach offers the

additional advantage of making the concept more precise, as subdimensions clarify the relationship to practices such

as volunteerism and theories such as antidevelopment. By mapping the network of organizational forms in which

social entrepreneurship can be located, we can focus on the viability and advisability of different ways of solving social

problems.

Practitioner Points

• An approach to organizational forms that uses prototypes and continuous dimensions is the best way to

understand the differences and relationships among important concepts such as social entrepreneurship,

entrepreneurship, public social services, and collectivism.

• The core dimensions that distinguish among these concepts are the creation, allocation, and distribution

of value, and conceptual categories can be distinguished to the degree that control of each dimension is

entrepreneurial or social.

• An improved conceptualization of key organizational forms can help us determine appropriate institutional

solutions to social problems.

Aaron Schneider

University of Denver

Social Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship,

Collectivism, and Everything in Between:

Prototypes and Continuous Dimensions

T his article seeks to provide some conceptual

order to the field of social entrepreneurship.

Researchers attach a startling diversity of

definitions and dimensions to the concept, and the

enthusiastic recent uptake and financial support by

foundations and universities has only exacerbated the

incentive to claim membership.

1 Some might consider

this a useful part of debate about a newly formed

field of inquiry and action, yet the proliferation of

meanings erodes precision and impedes our ability

to assess impacts.

To their credit, researchers and practitioners have

tried to be careful about their definition of social

entrepreneurship and the contexts in which they

study it. Yet grappling with the plethora of claimants

has produced a conceptual muddle. Dimensions

multiply; contradictory meanings coexist; other

concepts conflate; and positive normative values

gain status as part of core definitions. A survey of

the voluminous literature on social entrepreneurship

suggests that its use has been shaped by disciplinary

(Ridley-Duff 2007 ), regional (Williams and Aguilera

2008 ), institutional (Hammack and Heydemann

2009 ), temporal (Light 2009 ), and sectoral differences

(Bromberger 2008 ).

Many people, especially practitioners, may prefer to

ignore these debates and simply get on with their work.

This is reasonable, and conceptual debates can seem

like a distraction from addressing real and important

problems. Still, the current article suggests that

conceptual mapping can aid partnerships across different

kinds of entities, for example, when businesses ally with

nonprofits (Austin and Seitanidi 2012a, 2012b).

The issue of conceptual precision is also important as

governments seek to regulate, tax, and foster different

types of organizations. Of necessity, government

bureaucracies might stipulate alternative legal

definitions—nongovernmental organization,

not-for-profit, third sector—but this does not eliminate

the underlying problem, which is how to distinguish

different organizational forms and assist their ability