Over the years, the concept of social economy has gained enormous attention from various scholars. People have continually viewed the social economy from various angles. Social economy has perennially become the centre of discussion for scholars, with theorists developing numerous arguments regarding this vital phenomenon. However, notwithstanding theoretical approaches to this phenomenon, how people perceive social economy has aligned with various theories. In light of the growing need to end human suffering, Wright presents the social economy in two distinct dimensions (2013, p.1). First, specific institutional and social structures have triggered massive levels of human suffering, and second, social transformations have a greater capacity to end human suffering (Wright, 2013). In this regard, Wright’s approach to social economy posits the existing inequalities that define the current state of affairs in various dimensions. In addition to highlighting the concept of social economy and its implications for human suffering, Wright (2013, p.1) provides an ultimate solution to this problem.
While differences continue to spur across various economic dimensions, Wright’s theorization of this particular phenomenon is evident in distinctive settings. In context, Vaillancourt (2009, p.276) notes a critical disparity in societal developments across various economic paradigms. From this conceptualization, it is evident that societal differences play a critical role in social economies (Vaillancourt, 2009), with a notable disparity in societal developments across racial dimensions. In this regard, Vaillancourt’s argument (2009, p.276) aligns with Wright’s position on economic disparities based on specific social and economic parameters. However, although disparities have continued to exist between societal social economies, Wright (2013, p.1) provides possible remedies to these challenges. With proper social institutionalization, there is a possibility of alleviating these challenges and attaining a socially-balanced community (Wright, 2013). However, whereas these connections are vital, creating a balanced social economy may present critical setbacks in the current world.
The democratization of public policy (Vaillancourt, 2009) is a crucial prerequisite to attaining a balanced social economy. The balance between culturally differentiated individuals in social and economic settings requires substantial democratization. As theorized by Vaillancourt (2009, p.277), the’ democratizing’ impact has had numerous outcomes in public policy application. In essence, democratization plays a crucial role in highlighting the need for a socially-stable economy, which is the bases of Wright’s argument. The extent to which democratization identifies critical elements of equality is evident in these theories. However, the disparity in societal settings (Vaillancourt, 2009) has dramatically impacted how much a society can attain democratization. Over the years, democratization has proven to be fundamental in creating a balance in social economies. However, Vaillancourt (2009, p.278) notes a dire need to engage stakeholders in creating a socially-balanced economy. This argument aligns with Wright’s (2013) theories on democracy and the division of power.
However, Defourny and Develtere’s (2009) approach to democratization offers varied standpoints concerning Vaillancourt (2011). In this case, Defourny and Develtere (2009) theorize democracy as a balance in decision-making that gives individuals the freedom to choose. In connection to social economies, democracy posits two main differences (Defourny & Develtere, 2009), evident in organizational and non-profit settings. In an organizational setting, there is a critical emphasis on democracy, which is less evident in a non-profit setting (Roberts, 2004). Moreover, non-profit settings encounter critical redistributions (Defourny & Develtere, 2009), which have critical implications for democracy. In the current world, the concept of democratization has proven to be more rampant (Vaillancourt, 2009). The need to embrace a balanced economy has manifested in various settings, which has led to the theorization of this phenomenon in modern settings. Moreover, the need for social economies has driven the desire for democratization, with theorists developing these arguments over time.
Fine (2002) uses social capital to build a correlation between this crucial element and social economies. Using social capital, Fine draws insights from Max Weber’s capitalist theory (Fine, 2002), highlighting the need for workers to unite. Using Weber’s version of the capitalist theory, it is possible to connect ideas from a social capital approach to social economies. Kay agrees with this argument, stating social capital is one of the most crucial elements in community development and social economy (2006, p.1). In both instances, Kay and Fine agree that social capital has continually developed over the years to become one of the crucial elements of social economies. However, Fine’s theorization is elaborative. Although these arguments connect to the overall assertion on social economies, specific differences arise. Fine recognizes Pierre Bourdieu as the founder of social capital (2002, p.797). However, as Bourdieu’s contribution to social capital diminishes, his arguments are evident in other social capital theorists such as Coleman and Putman (Kay, 2006).
Social connectedness and civic engagements undoubtedly give rise to more robust social economies (Putnam, 2015). In the American context (Putnam, 2015), there is a critical nexus between social connectedness and economic development in various dimensions. Over the years, research has been directed at the need for cohesion. For decades, researchers have emphasized the need for connection at various levels, a crucial prerequisite for development. Even so, the diminishing conceptualization of social capital has become evident in recent years (Putnam, 2015). This decline has affected social cohesion and the overall social economy (Putnam, 2015). Max Weber (Fine, 2002) advocates for meaningful social connectedness, which is crucial in creating more robust economic progress. Moreover, the growing trends in globalization (Putnam, 2015) have triggered the need for social connections, which is needed for better social economies. However, these trends have a critical decline (Putnam, 2015), which is detrimental to social economies.
Historically, indigenous economies have dominated in various dimensions. Kuokkanen (2011) notes that traditional economies in indigenous communities stretch beyond economic provisions. The social economy is more than the ideal economic stability provisions for indigenous communities. For decades, there has been a growing concern over the nexus between traditional economies and indigenous community traits. The overall conceptualization of indigenous economies is evident in the management of cooperatives (Sengupta, 2015). In context, cooperatives have received minimal attention in Canada (Sengupta, 2015), which has continued to affect businesses in various dimensions. However, there is little attention directed to cooperatives, but there is a crucial interlink between these traditional forms of economies and colonization. Kuokkanen (2011) highlights the implications of traditional economies to colonization. Similarly, Sengupta (2015) highlights a crucial correlation between indigenous economies and colonization. The ability to make vital decisions (Vaillancourt, 2009) is based on the community’s freedom from oppressive economies which regard indigenous communities.
The social economy is vital in unchaining individuals from the confines of segregation. Dacks (1983) connects political oppression to the lack of proper social economies, which is a critical trigger to redundancy. Driving democratization requires all individuals’ critical involvement (Vaillancourt, 2009). Similarly, creating an avenue for revising the constitution (Dacks, 1983) may present numerous opportunities for communities to have a sense of belonging in any social economy. In this regard, the need for social connectedness (Putnam, 2015) cannot be overlooked. The economic implication of this growth may have far-reaching implications on individuals’ lives. Wright’s argument aligns with the need for proper social settings, which is the primary argument in Dacks’ (1983) theorization. In this argument, social connectedness is diminishing over time, which needs Dacks (1983) highlights the need for a prompt response. Similarly, Wright notes the need to address the gaps in social connectedness, which is crucial to developing proper social economies.
Addressing the existing disparities in social economies is one of the crucial areas of concern in various dimensions. However, while addressing the position of indigenous communities is vital, noting the position of women is equally fundamental. Defourny and Develtere (2009) theorize the position of women as a crucial endeavour towards economic development. In this argument, women play a crucial role (Defourny & Develtere, 2009) in development across various sectors. However, while substantial evidence supports women’s contribution to social economies, critical disparities arise in this realization. Redcliffe (2020) highlights the challenges that women face in various economies. From this argument, it is evident that women undergo crucial atrocities that halt their development in the economic realm. Similarly, Wright identifies gender bias in societal settings where women are denied specific benefits (Wright, 2013). However, despite these crucial disparities, Defourny and Develtere offer counterintuitive arguments, noting that women have a crucial role in social economies (2009, p.27). In this regard, Defourny and Develtere (2009) highlight the need for proper women’s inclusion in all aspects of economic development.
Berner and Phillips (2005) argue from a neo-liberal approach. From this argument, participation is a revolutionary process (Berner & Phillips, 2005) articulating the need to engage all individuals at the decision level. Theoretically, neoliberals have continually advocated for a proper understanding of the people’s needs (Berner & Phillips, 2005), where engagement becomes a critical concern. In this regard, participation is one of the critical elements to regard in the pursuit of stable social economies (Vaillancourt, 2009). However, where participation forms a vital basis for development, there must be a more excellent distribution of opportunities across the economic ladder. For the poor (Berner & Phillips, 2005), there needs to be more regard for participation in various aspects. From a broader perspective, cutting down costs may affect the government. Even so, the overall poverty index has a crucial correlation to the overall ability to make decisions that impact the lives of individuals (Wright, 2013). In this regard, activating social engagements that facilitate growth is essential.
In decolonizing the existing economic colonialism, various theorists have developed numerous explanations for this crucial element. The concept of indigeneity has traversed across various dimensions, critically impacting the overall impact (Roberts, 2004). Redcliffe (2020) theorizes decolonization as critical in attaining social economies. Over the years, the need to free people from economic entanglements has given rise to various theories and arguments regarding social economies. Wright’s (2013) argument on the need for democracy perfectly exemplifies this dire need for decolonization. Similarly, Defourny and Develtere (2009) argue from the basis of social economies and the need for liberalization. However, whereas there is a dire need to decolonize people from the chains of ethnic segregation and lack of social connectedness, critical challenges may arise. Based on specific assumptions, striking a balance in social economies has presented numerous challenges. For some theorists (Vaillancourt, 2009), understanding the needs of oppressed individuals may present new challenges that may take enormous time to articulate.
For decades, the overall perception regarding the position of women has created numerous disparities concerning social economies (Redcliffe, 2020). Whereas some theorists argue that women play a crucial role in creating opportunities (Defourny & Develtere, 2009), there is a notable disparity in women’s participation in various dimensions (Redcliffe, 2020). However, despite the growing disparities in women’s participation (Defourny & Develtere, 2009), the current developments must be considered. With the growing trends in globalization (Putnam, 2015), a remarkable social connectedness has facilitated numerous developments in women’s representation across various economic settings. In this regard, women have continually become fundamental in driving the change needed to boost social economies. Nonetheless, it is crucial to understand the existing disparities, thus creating a need for improvement. With improved social institutions (Wright, 2013), women can restore their social and economic position.
Moreover, social capital theories have continually remained fundamental in decolonizing social economies. Fine (2002) argues that social capital is elusive in providing essential tenets for developing social economies. Social capital is a fundamental element in creating an economically viable social economy. The increasing connectedness (Putnam, 2015) has enabled better economic development, with is crucial for social economies (Wright, 2013). However, whereas these connections may have far-reaching implications in social economies, critical disparities may be evident. The extent of application of these social connections may vary critically, which may be evident in the overall result. Additionally, other underlying parameters may affect these social connections, which may have critical implications for social economies. In this regard, various theories advocate for developing proper social connections that have a better ability to create better social economies.
Adam Smith’s capitalist theory (Kay, 2006) is a widely used theory in social economies. In this argument, Smith theorizes the need to create better environments for individuals. Creating a capitalist economy (Kay, 2006) is crucial in developing social economies. However, capitalism (Kay, 2006) may have crucial implications for political apparitions and colonialism (Redcliffe, 2020). Capitalism may activate colonial modernity (Redcliffe, 2005), impacting social economies. Nevertheless, the overall capitalist conceptualization is a multidimensional phenomenon which presents opportunities and challenges for social economies. Thus, highlighting capitalism implications is a crucial development which reconnects to social economies. Wright (2013) notes that the social economy is an amalgam of various elements that created the need for proper development. However, while arguing from a capitalist approach, it is essential to note the distinction between elements of colonial modernism (Redcliffe, 2020) and social economies.
While arguing from a social and economic standpoint (Wright, 2013; Defourny & Develtere, 2009), it is essential to regard the elements of this social-economic provision that impact the overall economic conceptualization. For decades, striking a balance in social economies has faced numerous challenges. While some evidence-based theories support the need to develop a better framework for a unified social economy, other theories note the existing framework for social economies. There has been a continuous need for improvements to capture a wholesome approach to these social economies. However, the need to engage minority groups and women in these approaches becomes inevitable. Over the years, these groups have undergone a series of challenges related to the indigeneity complex (Roberts, 2004), with indigenous communities getting undeserved priorities. Through this disparity, minority communities have faced numerous challenges related to imbalanced social economies, which have triggered the need for improvement. Therefore, developing other subsequent theories is vital as theorists build on existing arguments.
References
Berner, E., & Phillips, B. (2005). Left to their own devices? Community self-help between alternative development and neo-liberalism. Community Development Journal, 40(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi003
Defourny, J., & Develtere, P. (2009). The social economy: the worldwide making of a third sector.
Fine, B. (2002). They f** k you up, those social capitalists. Antipode, 34(4), 796-799.
Kay, A. (2006). Social capital, the social economy and community development. Community development journal, 41(2), 160-173. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi045
Kuokkanen, R. (2011). Indigenous economies, theories of subsistence, and women: Exploring the social economy model for Indigenous governance. American Indian Quarterly, 35(2), 215-240.
Putnam, R. D. (2015). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In The city reader (pp. 188-196). Routledge.
Radcliffe, S. A. (2020). Geography and indigeneity III: Co-articulation of colonialism and capitalism in indigeneity’s economies. Progress in Human Geography, 44(2), 374-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132519827387
Roberts, A. (2004). The state of socialism: A note on terminology. Slavic Review, 63(2), 349-366. https://doi.org/10.2307/3185732
Sengupta, U. (2015). Indigenous cooperatives in Canada: The complex relationship between cooperatives, community economic development, colonization, and culture. Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, 4(1), 121-152.
Vaillancourt, Y. (2009). Social economy in the co‐construction of public policy. Annals of public and cooperative economics, 80(2), 275-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2009.00387.x
Wright, E. O. (2013). Transforming capitalism through real utopias. American sociological review, 78(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412468882
write