Policy Design and Policy Diffusion: A Comparative Analysis of Social Enterprise Policy in China

• In Event: Social Enterprise Policy and Law

Abstract

Social enterprises have been widely studied all over the world. Many countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, South Korea and etc., have formulated supportive and instructive social enterprise policies at different levels and also introduced corresponding policy tools to promote the development of social enterprises (Kerlin, 2006; Hazenberg, Bajwa-Patel, Mazzei, Roy, & Baglioni 2016; Choi, Lee, & Ju 2012; Park 2012). Mainland China did not pay attention to the concept of ‘social enterprises’ until the beginning of the 21st century (Yu, 2011). Social enterprises have experienced a rapid growth in China over the past 20 years (Guan, Tian and Deng, 2021). However, no policies or regulations have been issued at the central government level so far, and the policy agenda is obviously lagging behind other countries. In fact, more and more local governments have begun to, through bottom-up approach, conduct social enterprise policy experiments to foster a friendly and supportive legal environment for the development of social enterprises. However, different characteristics and patterns were presented among these pilot sites in the process of policy diffusion. Social enterprise policies have quickly spread from one city to others horizontally and vertically while other cities get stuck and limited to local areas. This study therefore aims to explore how it comes for these differences and what are the key factors shaping the social enterprise policy agenda and policy diffusion process in China.

This study compares social enterprise policy agenda process in three cities in China to explore how factors shape the social enterprise policy diffusion process through an analytic framework (backgrounds, subjective factors, objective factors, and intermediary factors). Several types of data were collected during the field work to examine how different cities adopt and implement social enterprise policies. 8 in-depth interviews were conducted within local authorities (policy makers) from three participated cities. Policy contents were also been analyzed in this study.

This study fund that, firstly, the policy dominant authorities (policy elites) and the lobbying power of policy entrepreneurs are key factors that promote the adoption and implementation of social enterprise policy in China. The internal policy elites of local governments are actually the main initiators of such innovation, especially the power of ‘top leaders’ in the local areas had became the dominant factor in social enterprise policy adoption. Policy entrepreneurs builds a bridge for social enterprise policy diffusion through offering policy advice and suggestions and gaining the attention of local leaders. Secondly, the policy attributes of social enterprises hinder the diffusion process of social enterprises to a certain extent. Especially the policy ambiguity, policy incentives and policy observability (Rogers,2004)of social enterprise played an important role on the diffusion of social enterprise policies. Moreover, the mismatch between policy design and implemented policy tools has become another important factor hindering the development of social enterprises. This study is expected to provide some insightful suggestions on formulating social enterprise policy framework for those countries who are also aiming to cultivate the ecosystem for social enterprise.

References

Choi, Y. C., Lee, S. Y., & Ju, S. H. (2012). Creating jobs by social enterprises in Korea. Korean Local Autonomy Journal, 26(2), 231-43.

Guan, S., Tian, S., & Deng, G. (2021). Revenue diversification or revenue concentration? Impact on financial health of social enterprises. Public Management Review, 23(5), 754-774.

Hazenberg, R., Bajwa-Patel, M., Roy, M. J., Mazzei, M., & Baglioni, S. (2016). A comparative overview of social enterprise ‘ecosystems’ in Scotland and England: An evolutionary perspective. International Review of Sociology, 26(2), 205-222.

Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17, 246-262.

Park, C.U. 2012. The Institutional Embeddedness of Social Enterprises: The Case of South Korea with a Comparative Perspective. Korean Journal of Sociology 46(3): 33–57.

Rogers, E. M. (2004). A prospective and retrospective look at the diffusion model. Journal of health communication, 9(S1), 13-19.

Authors

• Shanshan Guan, Beijing University of Technology

• Guosheng Deng, Tsinghua University