Social entrepreneurship strategic grid: Visualizing classification, orientation and dimensionality in the strategic paradigms of governmental-scale social entrepreneurship (A literature-based approach)

Abstract

Social entrepreneurship (SE) strategic literature is in an under-theorized condition for large-scale strategy setting and classification. However, the research intends to fill the gap by proposing a literature-supported governmental-scale SE strategic grid. Thus, a systematic SE literature review was conducted up to getting four core strategic orientations of Externalism vs. Internalism, and Governmentalism vs. Volunteerism. Accompanied with a study of large-scale SE strategic partnerships by local, global, national and international social enterprises, four patterns of partnership (hence, dimensionality) within Localism vs. Globalism, and Nationalism vs. Internationalism were emerged. Later, the orientations and dimensions were corroborated based on the officially released documents of 15 governments, selected randomly in three economic classes, based on the recent UN’s triad economic classification. Next, four comprehensive SE strategic classifications of Global Citizen Strategy, Opened Door Strategy, Closed Door Strategy, and Country Citizen Strategy were recognized. Finally, combining the classified strategies with their orientations and dimensions on a visualized framework led to an ultimate comprehensive SE strategic grid. The implications of the grid are its potential consensus making effect not only among SE strategists on the governmental scale but also in the academic settings.

Keywords:

• strategic grid
• strategic classification
• strategic partnership
• governmental strategy

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

The role of government in our daily life and social welfare is pivotal. However, still there is not any consensus among public sector’s strategists and policymakers on the factors that should be taken into consideration for setting public welfare strategies. This paper not only paves the way for the formation of the consensus but also helps the public strategists to classify the social welfare strategies within a coherent grid to be able to set and customize far-reaching social entrepreneurship strategies according to public needs.

Competing interests

The authors claim that they have no conflict of interest to be cited here.

1. Introduction

Some of the world-renowned schools of public affairs and administration are now teaching some courses on SE and it has “a growing presence in U.S. public affairs programs” (Wiley & Berry, 2015, p. 381). Public affairs and their administration are embedded in a larger social structure. Social structure as, “patterned social relations—those regular and repetitive aspects of the interactions between the members of a given social entity” (Wilterdink & Form, 2018, p. 1) could be affected by macro-scale SE. Moreover, “social structure is often treated together with the concept of social change, which deals with the forces that change the social structure and the organization of society” (Wilterdink & Form, 2018, p. 1). SE, which could be defined as “a socially mission-oriented innovation which seeks beneficial transformative social change by creativity and recognition of social opportunities in any sectors” (Forouharfar, Rowshan, & Salarzehi, 2018, p. 33), has a capacity to be seen as core governmental strategy for promoting public welfare, eradicating or relieving social pains and changing the overall social structure for the better. Thus, social entrepreneurs as communal and urban change makers (Adetu, 2014; Dees, Emerson, & Economy, 2002; Drayton, 2002; Robinson, Joshi, Vickerie-Dearman, & Inouye, 2019) have the capability of contributing states to promote socially benefiting initiatives, innovations and enterprises under well-defined state strategies. However, public SE strategies are insufficiently theoretically studied and still do not have any well-formed strategic epistemology for classifying, setting and formulating (Forouharfar, 2018). Therefore, to fill the current gap the following research question is posed:

What recurring systematic SE-literature-reviewed components constitute a strategic grid to visualize classification, orientation and dimensionality in the current governmental-scale SE strategic paradigms?

Based on the research question a five-step process (literature review, conceptual development, corroboration, nature and relationship visualization, and ultimate grid composition) was carried out to reach the intended visualization of governmental-scale SE strategic classification, orientation and dimensionality. The steps start with the literature review in the following.

2. Literature

SE literature is “a rather fragmented literature without dominant frameworks” (Saebi, Foss, & Linder, 2019, p. 70). Not only strategic entrepreneurship is still “an emerging concept” (Kuratko & Audretsch, 2017, p. 1) but also social entrepreneurship is a “pre-paradigmatic” phenomenon (Lehner & Kansikas, 2013, p. 198) “in the stage of conceptualization” (Sekliuckiene & Kisielius, 2015, p. 1015). Thus, “SE strategies remain poorly understood” (Chandra, Jiang, & Wang, 2016, p. 1). Although, numerous attempts were made from “conceptual understanding” of SE itself (Choi & Majumdar, 2014, p. 363) to the conceptualization of social entrepreneurs’ behavioral characteristics (Weerawardena & Mort, 2006), there is not enough study on conceptualizing SE in the public sector. Mort, Weerawardena and Carnegie (2002, p. 76) “conceptualises social entrepreneurship as a multidimensional construct involving the expression of entrepreneurially virtuous behaviour to achieve the social mission, a coherent unity of purpose and action in the face of moral complexity, the ability to recognise social value‐creating opportunities and key decision‐making characteristics of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk‐taking.” However, a few have ever set forth to conceptualize strategic SE. A research gap that calls for strenuous efforts to be filled. Chandra, Jiang and Wang (2016, p. 1) believe, “Despite the burgeoning research on social entrepreneurship (SE), SE strategies remain poorly understood.”

According to Dharani (2014, p. xi) “conceptualization is the formation of an abstract principle in the mind of a researcher in order to answer the question under observation, basing it upon the available evidence.” By reviewing SE strategic literature we frequently face concepts such as social value making (Nicholls, 2008), social innovation (Mulgan, 2006), strategic social impact (Rawhouser, Cummings, & Newbert, 2019); social mission (Forouharfar, 2018); volunteerism (Gandhi & Raina, 2018); impact scaling (Dees, 2008), etc. Therefore, any literature-based conceptualization of strategic SE should be constructed upon the extraction of the most unanimous and frequent concepts in this realm. Although, numerous researchers have tried to conceptualize various strategic manifestations of entrepreneurship, e.g. from “developing a conceptual framework of strategic entrepreneurship” itself (Luke, Kearins, & Verreynne, 2011, p. 314) to “conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy” (Ireland, Covin, & Kuratko, 2009, p. 19), the realm of strategic SE is under-conceptualized. Thus, one of the attempts in the conceptualization of strategic SE was Customized SE Strategy, which intends the sustainable development of any country via customized and tailored SE practices, based on the priorities of each country’s social problems (Rowshan & Forouharfar, 2014).

On the other hand, in the strategic approach to SE, at least two levels are identifiable: a macro-level and a micro-level. According to Nicholls (2009) these arenas of SE embrace a vast spectrum from a macro interference to compensate the gaps in “institutional voids” (e.g. BRAC and Grameen Bank) or micro customized technical solutions to local communities (e.g. Kickstart’s East Africa low-priced marketing of water pumps). Concerning the macro-level, SE has the capability of a social movement or a strong force behind “societal cognitive frames” which are in “sub-optimal” (or below satisfactory) circumstances and makes a satisfactory change by generating innovation on “macro-political level” (Zald, 2000; Zald & Davis, 2005). According to Forouharfar (2018):

SE in the public sector is on a macro level. Governments have regulatory and policy-making roles and they could have a facilitating role for SE, as well. In other words, they pave the way for the not-for-profits, NGOs, social enterprises, benevolent entrepreneurs, etc. to play in the playground field, which is beaten and prepared by the governments. Therefore, two types of strategies could be seen in SE. One type is the macro-strategies, which are applied by the governments and the other are the micro-strategies used by the operational social entrepreneurs. (p. 192)

Replication strategies and Scaling strategies are two major classes of SE strategies (Bloom & Smith, 2010; Tracey & Jarvis, 2007). Replication is “the process by which a cell or DNA makes an exact copy of itself” (Longman Dictionary, 2007, p. 1341). In the strategic SE, it is letting the other SE enterprises exactly copy the successful approach and techniques of a recognized example of a previous SE. Scaling in strategic SE focuses on the amplification of the impact of SE, i.e. increasing the SE impact to be as equal as the social problem in degree and magnitude (Dees, 2008) to guarantee that great number of people will receive the social services (Ahlert et al., 2008). Researchers (e.g. Dees, Anderson, & Wei-Skillern, 2004; Grieco, 2015; London & Hart, 2011; Manton, 2005; Volkmann, Tokarski, & Ernst, 2012) have identified the following scaling and/or replication strategies:

(1) Dissemination Strategy, (2) Social Affiliation Strategies, (3) Social Joint Venture Strategy, (4) Social Licensing Strategy, (5) Social Franchise Strategy, (6) Social Price-Differentiation Strategy, (7) Social Cross-Subsidization Strategy, (8) Social Microfinance Strategy, and (9) Base-of-the-Pyramid Strategy.

Governments have a key role in operationalizing SE strategies on a large-scale public size with countrywide impact. Shockley and Frank (2011, p. 181) believe: “[…] little or no social change resulting from social entrepreneurship could have become ‘large‐scale’ without the enabling institutions, resources, and policies of government, even ones with reputations for inefficiency or corruption.” While discussing “government as problem solver,” Dees (2007, p. 25) truly accentuates that, “it has become clear that large-scale, top-down government programs have serious drawbacks.” Yet, governments should set national SE strategies and avoid propensity of socialist governments, that is too much intervention in SE affairs.

Volunteerism is a recurring occurrence in strategic SE; since “social enterprises often rely upon volunteers to serve key functions, such as board members, to help with fundraising or to provide professional services, or as staff to deliver their services on the ground” (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2012, p. 377). “Volunteering is any activity in which time is given freely to benefit another person, group or cause” (Wilson, 2000, p. 215). The ILO’s official manual defines it as: “Unpaid non-compulsory work; that is, time individuals give without pay to activities performed either through an organization or directly for others outside their own household” (International Labour Office [ILO], 2011, p. 3) and the United Nations [UN] (2003, p. 4) as “work without monetary pay or legal obligation provided for persons living outside the volunteer’s household”. Besides, social activism and volunteering are related concepts in sociology (Wilson, 2000) which add to the sociological aspect of strategic SE.

Moreover, a resource-based view in strategic management; hence strategic SE, looks inwards or internally. Too much insistence on strategic resource-based view would potentially lead to halo effect in strategic SE. Zander and Zander (2005, p. 1523) asserts, “Extensions of the resource‐based view suggest that the inward‐looking perspective has produced an overly narrow understanding of how firms may generate rents and secure long‐term growth.” Concerning SE, Cheah, Amran, and Yahya (2019, p. 607) believe “Internal oriented resources (i.e., entrepreneurial orientation, social salience and business planning)” under the moderating effect of “socio-economic context” could influence the social performance and financial achievement of social enterprises. In contrary, instead of looking inwardly, some countries benefit from international SE organizations (Forouharfar, 2018) and “international for-profit social entrepreneurs” (Marshall, 2011, p. 183). Usually governments have close cooperation and partnership in resources with the UN, UNHCR, UNESCO, UNDP, GEM, ECOSOC, World Bank, World Economic Forum, and world-famous SE organizations such as Ashoka, Schwab, Skoll, for the promotion of SE locally or globally. Bricolage as “a key theoretical frame for understanding how social entrepreneurs mobilize and deploy resources to create social value under situations of resource scarcity” (Langevang & Namatovu, 2019, p. 1) is one of the reasons behind SE strategic partnerships. These international SE organizations usually have a strategic usage of bricolage in order to mobilize their resources in the target countries (Desa, 2012).

3. Research design and methodology

This paper is a non-empirical secondary-data study of large-scale SE strategies with the intention of conceptualizing, classifying, and systematizing them in a visualized comprehensive strategic grid. As a conceptual paper the research goal is to go “beyond summarizing recent research, […] provide an integration of literatures, offer an integrated framework, provide value added, and highlight directions for future inquiry. […] not expected to offer empirical data” (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015, p. 127). Thus, by reviewing the highly cited literature on SE strategies, the study shapes integration of SE large-scale strategy literature in visualization. Hence, the integration to the authors means unification and consolidation of the large-scale SE in a logically literature-supported grid to provide conceptual value addition for the future classification and accordingly discussion of state-sponsored SE. As, a conceptual paper should be judged and formed at least based on seven criteria: “(a) What’s new? (b) So what? (c) Why so? (d) Well done? (e) Done well? (f) Why now? and (g) Who cares?” (Whetten, 1989, pp. 494–495); here, (a) the newness lies in systematizing the governmental-scale SE strategies; (b) it introduces a framework for the strategic classification of macro-scale SE; (c) the underlying logic is filling the current research gap in strategic SE studies; (d) the completeness of the conceptualized framework rests in its reliance on relevant highly-cited literature; (e) the paper is shaped gradually based on a methodological flowchart presented in Figure 1; (f) the timeliness and necessity of such a study lies in coordinating SE researches with facts on the ground, since “A literature review of research on social entrepreneurship reveals that academics and practitioners seem to be operating in separate spheres” (Hand, 2016); and finally, (g) the paper potentially not only contributes to the state policymakers in the matters relevant to SE, but also makes a linkage between SE and public administration, that is the type of SE strategies which could be applied in the realm of public administration.

Figure 1. Research implementation flowchart.

Generalization phase of the literature review process has a pivotal role in the research methodological flowchart. In reality, SE variables differ across regions and cultures. This characteristic of SE variables is called embeddedness. The small-scale variables of SE are deeply ingrained and embedded in the geographical locations and local communities (Kistruck & Beamish, 2010; Seelos, Mair, Battilana, & Tina Dacin, 2011; Smith & Stevens, 2010; Wang & Altinay, 2012). The Localism dimension of the grid intends to reflect this feature. However, large-scale variables of SE share some common unifying features, which are generalized in the strategic orientations and reflected in the ultimate strategic grid; otherwise, the formation of the grid was not possible. Such an approach systematically brings out and generalizes what Hill, Kothari, and Shea (2010, p. 5) have called “patterns of meaning in the social entrepreneurship literature.” On the other hand, logical pondering on the three closely related concepts of strategic management (strategy, policy and tactic) justifies the generalization approach (Table 1). According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (2002) strategy, derived from Strategia in Greek, is “the art of devising or employing plans or stratagem toward a goal (p. 1162); policy, derived from Politia in Latin, is “a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures, esp. of a governmental body” (p. 901); and tactic, derived from Tactica in Latin, is “a device for accomplishing an end” (p. 1200). These levels convert a totally abstract, relevant but general decision (strategy) to a semi-abstract principle (policy) through operationalized arrangements and maneuvering actions (tactics) to reach pre-defined strategic goals, missions and visions. The above concepts in this three-storied hierarchy of the conversion of abstract to concrete are more abstract and general, and comparatively the below concepts are more concrete and operational.

Table 1. The strategic conversional hierarchy: process of operationalizing abstract strategies to concrete tactics

Level	Decision	Scale	Explanation
Strategic level	Abstract and general	Large-scale	It covers mission, vision, and overall strategic direction.
Policy level	Semi-abstract	Mesoscale	It is an intermediary level between general concepts of strategy and particular and operational actions of tactic(s).
Tactical level	Concrete	Small-scale	It covers on the ground execution of the elements of strategy.

(Source: authors’ own work)

3.1. SE strategic orientations

The research data are secondary non-empirical data since they are collected by desk-based approach. The research question determined the literature context; hence, SE strategies. Furthermore, “strategic orientation is an important consideration since it impacts the activities and resource allocations of a venture that can influence its performance” (Scillitoe, Poonamallee, & Joy, 2018, p. 257). Thus, the literature on SE strategies was reviewed in five phases to reach SE strategic orientations (Table 2). The outcome was the generalization of the variables in the following orientations:

Table 2. Systematic approach in reviewing strategic SE literature

Literature Review
Method	Context	Process		Final Results
		Phase	Purpose
Desk-Based Approach	SE strategies	# 1: Desk-Based Literature Study	Acquisition of secondary data	Generalized large-scale variables for strategic SE
		# 2: Literature Compilation	Compilation of SE literature
		# 3: Literature Filtration	Filtration of the literature variables based on their relevance to strategic SE
		# 4:Variables’ Distillation	Extraction of the strategic and state-sponsoring SE variables
		# 5:Variables’ Generalization	Generalization of the extracted state-sponsoring SE variables

(Source: Authors’ own work)

(1) Governmentalism; (2) Volunteerism; (3) Externalism; and (4) Internalism.

Table 3 has summarized the complete literature review process to reach the grid “Generalized Variables”.

Table 3. Literature review process

Literature Review Process
Phases	Explanations	Derived Concepts	Reviewed Literature
Phase 1: Desk-Based Literature Study	Led to the second phase’s concepts.	1. Social Value 2. Social Innovation 3. Social Opportunity Seeking 4. Social Change 5. Social Welfare 6. Social Results 7. Strategic Social Impacts 8. Social Mission 9. Social Volunteerism 10. Governmental Social Intervention 11. International Social Cooperation 12. Internally-Oriented Social Services	The following highly-cited SE literature.
Phase 2: Literature Compilation	SE literature Compilation	Social Value	Nicholls, 2006; Dees, 1998b; Hibbert, Hogg, & Quinn, 2002; Austin et al., 2012; Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004; Mort, Weerawardena, & Carnegie, 2002; Sarasvathy & Wicks, 2003; Peredo & McLean, 2006; Anderson & Dees, 2002; Townsend & Hart, 2008; Newbert & Hill, 2014; Easter & Conway Dato-On, 2015; Srivetbodee, Igel, & Kraisornsuthasinee, 2017; Scillitoe et al., 2018;
		Social Innovation	van der Have & Rubalcaba, 2016; Mulgan, 2006; Nicholls & Murdock, 2011; Phillips, Lee, Ghobadian, O’Regan, & James, 2015; Dawson & Daniel, 2010; Goldsmith, 2010; Franz, Hochgerner, & Howaldt, 2012; Maclean, Harvey, & Gordon, 2013; Westley & Antadze, 2010; Nicholls & Murdock, 2012; Tapsell & Woods, 2010; Tapsell & Woods, 2008; Lisetchi & Brancu, 2014; Chalmers, 2013; Geobey, Westley, & Weber, 2012; Moore, Westley, & Brodhead, 2012.
		Social Opportunity Seeking	González, Husted, & Aigner, 2017; Żur, 2015; Christiansen, 1997; Ferreira, 2002; Timmons & Spinelli, 2003; Rwigema & Venter, 2004; Kuratko & Hodgetts, 1995; Berthon, McHulbert, & Pitt, 2004; Mair & Marti, 2006; Zahra, Rawhouser, Bhawe, Neubaum, & Hayton, 2008; Thompson, Alvy, & Lees, 2000; Perrini, Vurro, & Costanzo, 2010; Guclu, Dees, & Anderson, 2002.
		Social Change	Nicholls & Cho, 2006; Prabhu, 1999; Hoffman, Badiane, & Haigh, 2010; Choi & Gray, 2008; Cohen & Winn, 2007; Waddock & Post, 1991; Stryjan, 2006; Picot, 2012; Millar, Hall, & Miller, 2013; Zhao & Han, 2019.
		Social Welfare	Bugg-Levine, Kogut, & Kulatilaka, 2012; Scheuerle, Schües, & Richter, 2013; Alvord et al., 2004; Battilana, Lee, Walker, & Dorsey, 2012; Haigh & Hoffman, 2012.
		Social Results	Dees, 1998a, 1998b; Thake & Zadek, 1997; Emerson & Twersky, 1996.
		Strategic Social Impacts	Rawhouser et al., 2019; Ormiston & Seymour, 2011; Dees et al., 2004; El Ebrashi, 2013; Bacq, Ofstein, Kickul, & Gundry, 2015; Bacq & Eddleston, 2018; Jiao, 2011; Bloom & Chatterji, 2009; Westley & Antadze, 2010.
		Social Mission	Brouard, Hebb, & Madill, 2008; Lasprogata & Cotton, 2003; Mas-Machuca, Ballesteros-Sola, & Guerrero, 2017; Driver, 2012.
		Social Volunteerism	Adams, 2009; Greblikaite, Sroka, & Grants, 2015; Gandhi & Raina, 2018; Volkmann, Goia, & Hadad, 2018; Forouharfar, 2018; Austin et al., 2012; Weisbrod, 1977. Young & Grinsfelder, 2011.
		Governmental Social Intervention	Auvinet & Lloret, 2015; Adams, 2009; Hervieux, Gedajlovic, & Turcotte, 2010; Zietlow, 2002. Florin & Schmidt, 2011.
		International Social Cooperation	Galera & Borzaga, 2009; Nicholls, 2008; Munoz, 2010; Kerlin, 2006; Kerlin, 2010; Forouharfar, 2018; Huda et al., 2019; Zahra, Newey, & Li, 2014; Davis, 2016; Lough & McBride, 2013; Yang & Wu, 2015;
		Internally-Oriented Social Services	Cheah et al., 2019; Forouharfar, 2018; Gras & Lumpkin, 2012; Easter & Conway Dato-On, 2015; Diochon, 2013; Idris & Hijrah Hati, 2013; Korosec & Berman, 2006; Duarte Alonso, Kok, & O’Brien, 2019.
Phase 3: Literature Filtration	SE Literature filtration based on relevance to strategic SE	1. Social Volunteerism 2. Governmental Social Intervention 3. International Social Cooperation 4. Internally-Oriented Social Services 5. Social Mission 6. Strategic Social Impact
Phase 4: Variables’ Distillation	SE Literature distillation based on state-sponsoring variables	1. Social Volunteerism 2. Governmental Social Intervention 3. International Social Cooperation 4. Internally-Oriented Social Services
Phase 5: Variables’ Generalization	SE Variables’ generalization based on their strategic orientations	1. Volunteerism 2. Governmentalism 3. Externalism 4. Internalism

(Source: Authors’ own work)

3.2. SE strategic dimensions (partnerships)

Partnership is a pivotal concept not only in overall strategic management but also especially in SE strategies (Choi, 2015; Smith, Meyskens, & Wilson, 2014). “The value of networks and collaboration” is empirically proved to be a significant factor in strategic SE; largely for SE impact investment strategies (Ormiston, Charlton, Donald, & Seymour, 2015, p. 352). “Collective social entrepreneurship” accentuates cross-sectoral collaborations and alliances (Montgomery, Dacin, & Dacin, 2012, p. 375). Dimensionality in this research reflects the directionality of such large-scale partnerships and collaborations. I.e. in some cases at the operational level, there are some large-scale SE strategies, which simultaneously or singly pursue local or global, national or international goals through cooperation or partnership with local, global, national or/and international social enterprises (e.g. “for-profit and not-for-profit social enterprises” generally show “internationalization behavior” (Yang & Wu, 2015, p. 31). Dimensions on the grid could be pursued unidirectionally, bidirectionally, tridirectionally or in every four directions (dimensions). By reviewing the operational and active SE enterprises, summarized in Table 4, the following macro-scale dimensions (partnering tendencies) were emerged:

Table 4. Large-scale partnership examples

SE Enterprise Type	Examples	SE Strategies	Partnership (Dimensionality)
Local SE Enterprises	Namazi Hospital in Shiraz, Iran^1	Community-Focused Strategies	Community people = Localism
Global SE Enterprises/Subsidiaries	European Social Fund (ESF)^2	Job Provision Strategy Social Innovation Strategy	Partnering with the EU governments as well as local social enterprises in the EU^3 = Globalism
	UN’s subsidiaries, e.g.: UNESCO UNICEF FAO	Misery Relief Strategy	Partners: Nongovernmental/ intergovernmental/ private sector organizations^4^,^5^,^6 = Globalism
National SE Enterprises	Social Enterprise UK^7 Irish Social Enterprise Network^8 Social Enterprise Scotland^9	National Social Enterprise Promotion^10	National Social Enterprises = Nationalism
International SE Enterprises	Skoll Foundation	Large-Scale Impact Funding Strategy^11	International Enterprises: Sundance Institute National Public Radio Public Radio International HarperOne British Broadcasting Corporation^12= Internationalism
	Grameen Foundation	Microfinance Strategy^13	International Enterprises: Barr Foundation CISCOFoundation Citi Bank JPMorgan Chase & Co^14= Internationalism

(Source: Authors’ own work based on officially-stated strategies)

(1) Internationalism; (2) Nationalism; (3) Globalism; and (4) Localism

Since both the orientations, Governmentalism/Volunteerism and Externalism/Internalism, and the dimensions (partnerships), Localism/Globalism, and Nationalism/Internationalism, have contrary natures, and then they stand at either extreme, that is logically they must have inverse or negative correlative relationship. I.e., by the increase in one of the extremes there should be a decrease in the other. Therefore, the generalized variables must have logically inverse correlation, which could be presented on coordinate axes (Table 5).

Table 5. Grid development components

Visualization Development
Variables	Nature	Relationship	Form (Visualization)
Strategic Orientations
1. Governmentalism	Contrary	Logically inverse correlation	Coordinate Axis System
2. Volunteerism
3. Externalism	Contrary	Logically inverse correlation
4. Internalism
Strategic Dimensions (Partnerships)
1. Internationalism	Contrary	Logically inverse correlation	Oblique Coordinates
2. Nationalism
3. Globalism	Contrary	Logically inverse correlation
4. Localism

(Source: Authors’ own work)

3.3. Corroboration of the SE orientations and dimensions¹⁵

Entrepreneurship is an economic theory. Its social orientation, SE, also deals with the social economy of each geographical region or state. “The social economy is a sector of the market which operates between the public and the private sphere;” and “[…] a universally accepted definition of the social economy still does not exist” (Liger, Stefan, & Britton, 2016, p. 7). However, it includes a large group of organizations embedded within the national economies such as social enterprises, mutual societies, not-for-profit organizations, charities and the foundations, which are active in the third sector. Since the paper aims to introduce a SE strategic grid for the governmental-scale SE strategies, it needs reliable and comprehensive sampling of world economies to be able to corroborate the grid. To accomplish the task the authors relied on the recent UN report, the World Economic Situation and Prospects 2019. Although Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), as one of the most reliable global bodies in charge of global entrepreneurship study and statistics, has issued two reports in 2009 and 2016 on SE, they are dated for the year 2019, since economy is always in a state of flux. Based on the UN’s economic classification in the World Economic Situation and Prospects (2019, p. 169–170), 15 economies (5 from each class of “developed economies,” “economies in transition,” and “developing economies”) were selected. Then, the most recent official documents and publication of the 15 governments were read to complete Table 6. The main programs in the table were selected based on the officially-stated public budget spending on the SE/social welfare program(s). Collecting SE strategic corroborating data in Table 6 was easier in “developed economies”. These governments are mainly following Open Government Policy. Through this policy, e.g. in Canada, “In 2016, the Government of Canada announced its intent to revitalize the Access to Information Act in a two-phased approach; first through targeted legislative changes to improve the Access to Information Act, followed by a full review of the Act by no later than 2018, and every five years thereafter” (Departmental Plan, 2018-2019, p. 55). The governmental bodies/ministries or departments in charge of SE strategy setting and planning in these governments also follow the policy (e.g. in Canada, “ESDC¹⁶ is collaborating on the government-wide priority of revitalizing the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act reform” (Departmental Plan, 2018–2019, p. 55). The policy and data made corroboration step possible. Hence, to reflect the official SE strategic views, merely the data from the official government websites, publications of each governmental body, and the national and officially-approved and -funded studies were collected in Table 6.

Table 6. Corroboration of the emerged SE strategic orientations and dimensions

Developed Economies
U.S.A.
Department/agency in charge of SE	Social Security Administration^17
Main Programs in 2019	Main Programs in 2019 (based on Social Security Act)^18: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance; Disability Insurance; Supplemental Security Income
SE Strategy	Guaranteed Minimum Income Strategy
Strategic Orientations	Public Budget reliance/funded by U.S. Treasury General Funds = Governmentalism/Internalism
Strategic Dimensions	Partnership between two federal agencies: Social Security Administration & U.S. Treasury = Nationalism/Localism
UK
Department/agency in charge of SE	Office for Civil Society (OCS)^19
Main Programs in 2019	Social Investment Program^20
Program Information	Cooperating closely with Big Social Capital as a private sector company^21
SE Strategy	Civil Society Strategy^22
Strategic Orientations	“The Civil Society Strategy extends to England only” (HM Government, 2018, p. 26). = Internalism “People in charge are active mobilized citizens” (HM Government, 2018, p. 4). = Volunteerism
Strategic Dimensions	15 missions are officially defined (HM Government, 2018, p. 4–7): 1. A connected, resourceful society 2. People in charge (active, mobilized citizens) 3. Opportunities for young people 4. Local communities empowerment 5. Investment in local communities 6. The voice of civil society through social enterprises 7. Funding and financing the social sector 8. Leadership, support and regulation [for social enterprise] 9. A social sector confident with digital 10. Supporting responsible businesses 11. Social impact investment 12. Tech for good 13. A framework for collaborative commissioning (civil society, citizens, local government) 14. Funding the future of public services 15. Commissioning for social value (Strengthening the Social Value Act) = Localism
Canada
Department/agency in charge of SE	Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)^23 & Social Security Tribunal of Canada^24
Main Programs in 2019	Based on the Departmental Plan, 2018–2019^25: Canada Child Benefit program; Apprenticeship Incentive Grant for Women; Canada Pension Plan (CPP) enhancement; Social Development Partnerships Program; Children and Families Component; The Canada Disability Savings Program
Programs Information	“ … Starting in 2018–19; provided more flexible maternity, parental and caregiving benefits through Employment Insurance (EI); improved access to more affordable childcare; and continued to provide important support for seniors” (Departmental Plan, 2018–2019, p. 1). “ … To encourage careers in the trades with low female representation, and a new Pre-Apprenticeship program that will also benefit Indigenous peoples, newcomers and persons with disabilities” (Departmental Plan, 2018–2019, p. 1). “The CPP Enhancement will begin to be phased in as of January 2019, providing more money for Canadians when they retire” (Departmental Plan, 2018–2019, p. 2). “Through the Social Development Partnerships Program, ESDC aims to increase the social inclusion and participation of Canadians in society by providing grants and contributions to not-for-profit organizations, communities and other groups” (Departmental Plan, 2018–2019, p. 16). “Additional funding of $5 million in both 2018–19 and 2019–20 will be available through the Social Development Partnership Program-Children and Families Component to support projects related to innovation in the service delivery of Early Learning and Child Care […] and Social Development Canada 2018–19 Departmental Plan provide not-for-profit organizations, provincial/territorial entities and indigenous organizations across Canada with funding to tackle barriers faced by children, families and other vulnerable populations, and is part of the $7.5 billion investment over 11 years in Early Learning and Child Care announced in Budgets 2016 and 2017” (Departmental Plan, 2018–2019, p. 16–17). “The Canada Disability Savings Program, comprised of the Registered Disability Savings Plan, the Canada Disability Savings Grant and the Canada Disability Savings Bond, enables people with disabilities to achieve long-term financial security by helping them and their families save for the future” (Departmental Plan, 2018–2019, p. 23).
SE Strategies	Youth Employment Strategy; Homelessness Partnering Strategy; National Housing Strategy; Poverty Reduction Strategy; [federal] Social Innovation and Social Finance Strategy
Strategic Orientations	“Building on Budget 2016, which invested $111.8 million over two fiscal years, the National Housing Strategy announced an investment of $2.2 billion to expand and extend programming to support communities in preventing and reducing homelessness beyond 2018–19” (Departmental Plan, 2018–2019, p. 15) = Governmentalism “The Strategy [Poverty Reduction Strategy] will reflect on what we heard from Canadians, and will be grounded in Indigenous reconciliation, in line with the Government’s commitment to advance a renewed relationship that is based on the recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership” (Departmental Plan, 2018–2019, p. 16). = Governmentalism “The Strategy [Social Innovation and Social Finance Strategy] will aim to support greater growth and sustainability of social and other service-providing organizations, and improve the effectiveness of social interventions” (Departmental Plan, 2018–2019, p. 17). = Governmentalism
Strategic Dimensions	“To improve labor market outcomes for youth, as announced in Budget 2018, ESDC will engage with partners and stakeholders to continue laying the groundwork for a renewed Youth Employment Strategy with the goal of being responsive to the evolving needs of young Canadians” (Departmental Plan, 2018–2019, p. 33). = Localism “In 2018–19, through the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, ESDC will continue to work with communities to deliver investments and address local homelessness” (Departmental Plan, 2018–2019, p. 15). = Localism “Through the National Housing Strategy, ESDC is working with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporate to re-engage in affordable housing by bringing together the public, private and non-profit sectors” (Departmental Plan, 2018–2019, p. 16). = Nationalism
Japan
Department/agency in charge of SE	Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare^26
Main Programs in 2019	Social Welfare Programs based on Public Assistance Act (Act No. 144 of 1950^27, amended in 2006): Livelihood assistance; Housing assistance; Education assistance; Medical assistance; Long-term care assistance; Maternity assistance; Occupational assistance; Funeral assistance
Programs Information	“Article 1: The purpose of this Act is for the State to guarantee a minimum standard of living as well as to promote self-support for all citizens who are living in poverty by providing the necessary public assistance according to the level of poverty, based on the principles prescribed in Article 25 of the Constitution of Japan” (Public Assistance Act: Article 1, Ministry of Justice, 2019).^28
SE Strategy	Expense Compensation Strategy
Strategic Orientations	“Providing assistance for those who have trouble making a living despite utilizing all their assets and ability, depending on the level of necessity” (Public Assistance System, 2019, p. 2).^29 = a) Governmentalism, b) Internalism
Strategic Dimensions	= Nationalism
Germany
Department/agency in charge of SE	Federal Ministry of labor and Social Affairs (Bundesministeriums für Arbeit und Soziales- BMAS)^30 & Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend-BMFSFJ)^31
Main Programs in 2019	-BMAS has the following programs: Child benefit; Maternity protection; Employment promotion; Industrial democracy; Occupational accident insurance; Rehabilitation and participation of persons with disabilities; Health insurance; Long-term care insurance; Pension insurance; Social compensation; Social assistance; International social insurance (Official social security at a glance brochure, 2018).^32 -BMFSFJ’s programs fall within the following areas: Children and youth; Civic engagement policy; Family; Senior citizens; Equality; European and international cooperation.^33
SE Strategy	Welfare State Strategy^34, Federal Volunteering Strategy based on the following acts: - Youth Voluntary Service Act (Jugendfreiwilligendienstgesetz) - Federal Voluntary Service Act (Bundesfreiwilligendienstgesetz)
Strategic Orientations	“In the federal volunteer service women and men commit themselves to the common good, primarily in the social, environmental and cultural spheres, as well as in the fields of sports, integration, and civil protection and disaster relief. Federal volunteer service promotes lifelong learning (Federal Volunteer Service Act of 28 April 2011, Federal Law Gazette Part I, p. 687).^35 = Volunteerism
Strategic Dimensions	-BMFSFJ’s for its strategic visions has “European and international cooperation” as stated by its official website: “For the constant societal change in Germany to be successful and likewise to be harnessed as an opportunity, major challenges will have to be considered in contexts reaching beyond national borders with solutions to be developed at local, national and global level.”^36= a) Nationalism; b) Internationalism; c) Globalism
Economies in Transition
Russian Federation
Department/agency in charge of SE	Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation^37
Main Programs in 2019	Social protection programs; Labor protection programs
SE Strategy	National Action Strategy for Women
Strategic Orientations	Joint program with the EU: “The Council of Europe and Russian Federation are launching on Tuesday, 29 January 2019 at 11:00 the joint project “Co-operation on the implementation of the Russian Federation National Action Strategy for Women (2017–2022)”. “The financial support is provided by the European Union and the Council of Europe. The launch event will take place in the premises of the Council of Europe Program Office in Moscow.”^38= Externalism
Strategic Dimensions	= International partnership for national intensions = (a) Internationalism, b) Nationalism.
Armenia
Department/agency in charge of SE	Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs^39
Main Programs in 2019	Funding all social services through public budget: State social assistance programs; Social security programs; Social protection programs; State social insurance programs; Employment programs (European Commission, 2011). Family Living Standards Enhancement Benefits (FLSEB) after Family Benefits Program (European External Action Service, 2019).
Program Information	“FLSEB program is one of the largest social assistance programs implemented in Armenia. This program aimed at improving the living standards of beneficiaries is the successor of the Family Benefits Program that was effective until 1 January 2014. It encompasses family benefits for poor families with children and social benefits for poor families with no children” (European External Action Service, 2019, p. 93).
SE Strategy	Welfare State Strategy: Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS)
Strategic Orientations	“Currently an integrated social service system is implemented in the area of social protection […] Local social programs are designed by community heads with the support of territorial centers for complex social services (TCCSS) based on assessment of the community social needs” (European External Action Service, 2019)^40. = Internalism
Strategic Dimensions	= Localism
Ukraine
Department/agency in charge of SE	Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine^41
Main Programs in 2019	Some of the current programs in 2019 are: Pension Program; Volunteerism; Combating Human Trafficking Programs; Programs For Internally Displaced Persons.
SE Strategy	The National Drug Strategy
Strategic Orientations	“The National Drug Strategy of Ukraine for the period through 2020, which internally provides support to the employment and reintegration of drug addicts under rehabilitation” (Ronsandic & Smal, 2018, p. 16). = Internalism
Strategic Dimensions	“ … There are a few institutions offering microcredit to SMEs including social enterprises. There are some institutions filling the microfinance gap in Ukraine, such as: German-Ukrainian Fund (GUF)^42, a non-profit financial organization founded by the National Bank of Ukraine, the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine and the German KfW Development Bank to promote micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in Ukraine” (Ronsandic & Smal, 2018, p. 22). = Internationalism “A significant contribution to the promotion of social entrepreneurship in Ukraine was made by the Social Enterprise Support Centre, set up in October 2010 at the SESP Association,and the Resource Centre “Social Initiative” created in September 2012. These Centres were founded under the joint initiative of the British Council in Ukraine, East Europe Foundation, PricewaterhouseCoopers in Ukraine, Erste Bank and the International “Renaissance” Foundation (the project “Development of social entrepreneurship in Ukraine”)” (Ronsandic & Smal, 2018, p. 10). = Internationalism “Ukrainian Social Investment Fund mobilizes resources and directs them towards improvement of social- communal infrastructure and social services. Using partnership between national and local authorities, communities and private and public organizations, USIF solves local urgent needs in an effective and transparent way.” (Ronsandic & Smal, 2018, p. 21). = Localism “Active Citizens Ukraine: British Council in partnership with 68 local partner NGOs and youth organisations around Ukraine/Duration: November 2014—March 2018/Funding: £825,000” (Ronsandic & Smal, 2018, p. 23). = Globalism
Azerbaijan
Department/agency in charge of SE	The State Agency for Public Service and Social Innovations^43
Main Programs in 2019	The state program for poverty reduction and sustainable development; The state program for combating corruption^44; The project of ASAN School (volunteer experience school)^45.
SE Strategy	Cooperating strategy with volunteering local and international social enterprises (e.g. Heydar Aliyev Foundation^46)
Strategic Orientations	= Volunteerism
Strategic Dimensions	On 28/02/2018 a meeting held between Azerbaijani and South African delegations “to export the experience of Azerbaijan in the field of social and IT innovations to South Africa”.^47 = Globalism
Belarus
Department/agency in charge of SE	Ministry of Labor and Social Protection^48
Main Programs in 2019	State program on Social Protection and Promotion of Employment for 2016–2020^49; Family with Children Support Program (FCSP)^50
Program Information	FCSP: “Childcare benefits are paid to families until the child reaches the age of 3, regardless of employment and income of the parents.”^51/based on National Demographic Security Program of the Republic of Belarus, 2011–2015.^52^,^53
SE Strategy	Socio-Demographical Strategy
Strategic Orientations	“To stabilize the demographic situation in Belarus, a two-pronged strategy should be pursued: attracting select categories of immigrants to compensate for the population decline, while also maintaining and strengthening domestic human capital.” And also, “Improving population health and life expectancy at birth.”^54= Internalism
Strategic Dimensions	“The new approach should be based on the principle of partnership between the state and the public.”^55= Localism
Developing Economies
Algeria
Department/agency in charge of SE	Ministry of Employment, Labor and Social Security (MELSS)
Main Programs in 2019	National Employment Program
SE Strategy	National Employment Increase Strategy; National Neonatal Health Strategy
Strategic Orientations	“The National Employment Policy was drafted in 2008 and adopted by the government within the 2010–2014 five-year plan” the following national agencies cooperated with MELSS: National Employment Agency; National Agency for Supporting Youth Employment; National Unemployment Insurance Fund^56 = Governmentalism (with Nationalist dimension) “A national neonatal health strategy supported by UNICEF Algeria was finalized. Newborn children now benefit from improved health care services in hospitals and maternities targeted by the plan” (UNICEF, 2017).^57= Externalism
Strategic Dimensions	“UNICEF Algeria provided local health partners with enough vaccines to cover the yearly vaccination needs of 22,000 children … The vaccines were locally procured from the Institut Pasteur Algérie (IPA) as pre-approved by UNICEF Supply Division.” And “In 2014, a new partnership with the National Economic and Social Council (CNES) offered a space of exchange, knowledge and policy development around equity approaches.”^58 = Global partnership for Local intensions (Globalism/Localism).
India
Department/agency in charge of SE	Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MSJE)^59; Ministry of Women and Child Development; The Central Social Welfare Board (“The Central Social Welfare Board was established in 1953 by a Resolution of Govt. of India to carry out welfare activities for promoting voluntarism, providing technical and financial assistance to the voluntary organizations for the general welfare of family, women and children.”^60 = Volunteerism)
Main Programs in 2019	Scheduled Caste Welfare Programs of MSJE
SE Strategy	Welfare State Strategies^61; Gender Budgeting Strategy
Strategic Orientations	Welfare strategies’ mission statement: “Article 38: State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people”(Part IV of the Constitution, Directive Principles of State Policy). = Internalism “Gender Budgeting is an exercise to translate stated gender commitments of the Government into budgetary commitments. This is a strategy for ensuring gender sensitive resource allocation and enables tracking and allocating resources for women empowerment.”^62 = Internalism
Strategic Dimensions	= Nationalism
Brazil
Department/agency in charge of SE	Ministry of Women, Family and Human Rights^63
Main Programs in 2019	Child Protected Program 2019; The National Campaign against Violence against the Elderly 2019
Programs Information	“The Program [Child Protected Program 2019] consists of training and qualification of agents that are part of the Child and Adolescent Rights Guarantee System, with the proposal to strengthen the System and improve the care, assistance and protection of children and adolescents with violated rights.”^64 = Localism “The initiative [The National Campaign] is part of a global movement that alludes to the International Day of Awareness and Fight against Violence against the Elderly, remembered on June 15 [2019]. The Campaign aims to address measures to prevent and identify situations of violence, neglect and abuse against the elderly. Experiences and good practices will be shared, with contributions to a protocol of care proposal.”^65 = Globalism
SE Strategy	National Child Protection Strategy; National Elderly Violence Prevention
Strategic Orientations	“municipal governments”^66 = Governmentalism
Strategic Dimensions	Through a partnership with municipal governments, the Program aims to optimize opportunities for digital and social inclusion, ensuring the participation of the elderly, with the purpose of raising the quality of life. Actions include the areas of technology, education, health, and physical mobility.”^67= Localism
Oman
Department/agency in charge of SE	Ministry of Social Affairs and Labor^68
Main Programs in 2019	Social Assistance Program; Social Security Program
Programs Information	“It [Social Assistance Program] includes cash and temporary intangible assistances, special cases assistances, emergent cases assistances and assistances in cases of disasters and calamities to the needy families and individuals in pursuant with the assistances regulations issued by the Ministerial decision No. (72/2014)”.^69 “It [Social Security Program] is one of the components of the social safety network in the Sultanate. It is regulated by the social security law issued by the Royal Decree No (87/84) and its amendments. According to the law, monthly salaries are paid to specific groups who do not have sufficient income for living and do not have the bound breadwinner who is able to pay for their expenditures.”^70
SE Strategy	Welfare State Strategy
Strategic Orientations	State cooperation & partnership with: Omani Professional Associations^71; Omani Charities^72; Community Clubs^73 = Internalism
Strategic Dimensions	Partnership with local community and social enterprises to promote national goals = a) Localism, b) Nationalism
Turkey
Department/agency in charge of SE	Ministry of Family, Labor and Social Services^74
Main Programs in 2019	ADEM 2019 Project; Combating Violence against Women Program; Women’s Employment Program
Programs Information	1^st program: “Women who participate in courses in ADEMs can establish their own work place with grants and credits given by related institutions after vocational training.”^75= Governmentalism 2nd program: National Action Plan for Combating Violence Against Women 2016–2020^76 3rd program: Action Plan Focusing on Women’s Employment
SE Strategy	Women Empowerment Strategy
Strategic Orientations	“The Action Plan was developed under the project “More and Better Jobs for Women: Women’s Empowerment through Decent Work in Turkey” implemented jointly by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and İŞKUR with funding from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).”^77 = Externalism
Strategic Dimensions	Global partnership for the promotion of national interests = Globalism

(Source: Authors’ own work, based on consulting the official websites/publications of each governmental body, or national and officially-approved and -funded studies)

One of the major aspects of the concept of Governmentalism is the regulatory aspect of the governments. Regulatory aspects of the governments play a major role in determining the choice of entry and operations of social enterprises (Kelley, 2009) as well as their incubations (Bhamoriya, Sinha, & Golwa, 2014). Even the conception and perception of social enterprise and its social functions in the European and American contexts are different (Kerlin, 2006), and generally there is a universal “lack of a common understanding of social enterprise” (Galera & Borzaga, 2009, p. 210). Therefore, governments do not have universal regulatory measures toward social enterprises. Hence, Governmentalism, and its impact in the promotion of state social enterprises and SE, is a context-related orientation (e.g. there are multiple and different legal forms and definitions for social enterprises in the U.S. and Europe, and “ … at least fifteen European Union member states have specific laws for social enterprise” (Fici, 2016, p. 639). In sum, the state’s regulatory measures for social enterprises is a double-edged sword which could bring “opportunity or confusion” to the social enterprises (Snaith, 2007, p. 20).

4. Results and discussion

The Literature Review Process yielded the generalized variables of the research, which turned into the following strategic orientations and visualization (Figure 2):

Figure 2. Governmental-scale SE strategic orientations.

1. Degree of Externalism, i.e. how much the government intends to rely on international social organizations to implement its strategies.

2. Degree of Internalism, i.e. how much the government intends to rely on national organizations, resources and capabilities for the SE strategy implementation.

3. Degree of Governmentalism, i.e. How much the government intends to interfere and meddle with the SE implementation.

4. Degree of Volunteerism, i.e. how much the government lets the NGOs, SEOs and volunteers do the job.

After that, the study of the large-scale SE practices via partnerships, asserted by the governments and social enterprises (Table 3), shed light on the strategic dimensions. The following dimensions determine the types and visualization (Figure 3) of most recurring and potential partnerships (e.g. the potential strategic partnership between the orientations of Governmentalism and Externalism, would be Internationalism):

Figure 3. Social entrepreneurship strategic dimensionality.

1. Internationalism, i.e. a mutual collaboration between a governmental body and a foreign-based SE entity.

2. Nationalism, i.e. a mutual collaboration between a volunteering organization/people and a domestic SE entity.

3. Globalism, i.e. a mutual collaboration between a volunteering organization/people and a foreign-based SE entity.

4. Localism, i.e. a mutual collaboration between a governmental body and a domestic SE entity.

Moreover, based on the interplay of the two by two contrary in nature orientational variables, which logically in visualization were placed at either extreme, i.e. logically they must have inverse or negative correlative relationship, four classes of state-promoted SE are possible (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Classification of governmental-scale SE strategies.

The Horizontal axis (Governmentalism-Volunteerism axis) with Externalist orientation indicates promotion of SE within the state with extraterritoriality in resource-based view; that is benefiting from global/international resources for large-scale SE promotion. On the contrary, Governmentalism-Volunteerism axis with Internalist orientation seeks SE via intra-territorial view to the resources; i.e. benefiting from the local or national resources of the state. Therefore, the following “Opened Door Strategy” and “Global Citizen Strategy” indicate extraterritoriality in resources and partnership:

If a state pursues SE by close cooperation between the government and extraterritorially global or international organizations/governments to answer social problems, it is a state-sponsored SE strategy which could be called “Opened Door Strategy”. Such a state tries to compensate its weak points and benefiting from extraterritorial resources by some SE strategies, such as social licensing strategy, social franchising strategy and social joint venture strategy. In “Opened Door Strategy” the social licensor, franchiser or partner is a foreign organization, social entrepreneur or even a foreign government/state. The government pursing “Opened Door Strategy” has chosen cooperative positioning in relation to the international and foreign partners.

In the most optimal state strategy for the promotion of SE, “Global Citizen Strategy” government functions as SE regulator and facilitator. It tries not to interfere overly in SE activities and trusts SE organizations and social entrepreneurs. Moreover, it respects volunteering activities and accepts global NGOs and SE entities as its partners and contributors not its rivals. These states choose cooperative positioning in dealing with active social entrepreneurs and in some cases proactive in dealing with future or emerging social problems. The proactive positioning of the government provides opportunities for global scientific counseling with the SE experts and accepting their criticisms. Additionally, these states usually choose one or several of scaling strategy, replication strategy, dissemination strategy and affiliation strategies to promote, scale up and replicate SE.

On the other hand, the following “Closed Door Strategy” and “Country Citizen Strategy” indicate intra-territoriality in resources and partnership:

The third class of state-sponsored strategies could be called “Closed Door Strategy”. If a government completely or partially limits any volunteer activity by NGOs, national and international social entrepreneurs and organizations and on the other hand, tries to have a tight monopoly on any SE activities, it pursues a strategy based on Governmentalist and Internalist orientations. Such a state is not eager to accept any cooperation, or if it accepts, it is from a limited number of local SE practitioners. The positioning of the government is mostly aggressive and in some cases, a defensive one since it does not trust mostly global or international partners. Since the government looks at the global/international organizations as its rivals, it could sometimes show competitive positioning too. States with “Closed Door Strategy” potentially could apply social microfinance strategy and show socialism/communism propensities toward SE.

In “Country Citizen Strategy” the state accepts Volunteerism but within and from the internal social entrepreneurs and SEOs. The state’s positioning toward SE promotion is defensive and in some cases by aggressive measures that limit the activity of global/international social entrepreneurs. Moreover, such strategies inevitably rely heavily on the national resources for the promotion of SE. Social price-differentiation strategy, social cross-subsidization strategy, social microfinance strategy and base-of-the-pyramid strategy could be classified within this class with two conditions, first if the government only accepts internal volunteers and second if it limits its interference with their activities as much as possible.

Ultimately by adding: a) the strategic orientations’ coordinate axis system; b) the strategic partnerships’ (dimensionalities) oblique coordinates; and c) the classified governmental-scale SE strategies on a grid the SE strategic grid visualization was shaped (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Social entrepreneurship governmental-scale strategic grid.

The strategic orientations’ coordinate axis system is the undergirding foundation of the grid formation. Metaphorically, the coordinating axis functions as a strategic compass and the strategic orientations as its cardinal directions (N, S, E and W). Accordingly, the partnership oblique coordinates could be read as intercardinal directions (NE, NW, SE, SW) located halfway between each pair of SE strategic orientations. Finally, each rectangle on the grid defines the class of governmental-scale SE strategy or the destination that the pointer on the strategic compass shows.

5. Conclusion

Five steps of the research arranged in a way to narrow down the large stockpile of raw literature data on SE to a visualized SE strategic grid. The first step (literature review process) consisted of five systematic phases of variable study, compilation, filtration, distillation and generalization. The result of the initial step of the study was literature-supported generalized variables. Then operational large-scale SE partnerships were studied. The second step was carried out for conceptual development. To corroborate the acquired strategic orientations and partnerships (dimensions) with the facts on the ground, 15 economies and their governments in 3 economic classes were randomly selected in each class. In the third step, the official websites of each governmental body or agency in charge of the state-wide promotion of SE were carefully consulted in accordance with the previously derived orientations and partnerships. The corroboration step verified the results based on the governments’ released documents and their asserted active operations on SE. The fourth step visualized the relationships among the orientations together, and the partnerships with each other, and the two concurrently. This step made the classification of governmental-scale SE strategies possible. Ultimately, by the combination of the officially corroborated strategic orientations, partnerships and the author-defined strategic classifications on a single grid the finalized comprehensive SE strategic grid was visualized with 4 orientations, 4 dimensions and 4 SE strategic classifications. The four cardinal orientations of the grid (Governmentalism vs. Volunteerism, and Externalism vs. Internalism) define governmental intentions for the degree of reliance either on its own, or volunteers and external or internal resources and entities based on its defined missions and visions for fostering and promoting SE within the state. On the other hand, the four intercardinal dimensions (Internationalism vs. Nationalism, and Globalism vs. Localism) define the governmental nature of partnership with either international or national, and global or local active SE entities and enterprises unidirectionally or by taking the advantage of two or more simultaneous dimensions. Furthermore, the origin of the coordinating axes, where the axes meet, is the situation where a government has a passive role toward state SE. The non-existence of any orientations and dimensions indicates governmental SE passivism. The interplay of the orientations and dimensions help governments to define, formulate and set their SE strategies within the grid from a Global Citizen Strategy as the most cooperative, non-interfering and partnering strategy for the promotion of large-scale SE by governments to the least externally cooperative and full governmental meddling in the implementation of SE within a Closed Door Strategy. Additionally, the grid could contribute to the large-scale SE strategy fitting and customization based on the governmental plan for scaling or/and replicating SE impact within the state, the availability and compatibility of the government’s resources and facilities with the scale of the social work to be done and its successful operational accomplishment, and finally the degree of its reliance on partnering entities.

Acknowledgements

The authors like to show their heartfelt appreciation and gratitude for the editor, Dr. Pedro Lorca, and the scholarly comments and suggestions of three anonymous reviewers.

Additional information

Funding

The authors claim that there is no funding to be cited here.

Notes on contributors

Amir Forouharfar

Amir Forouharfar is a Ph.D. candidate in Public Administration. His research interests are in the areas of public administration, strategic management, entrepreneurship, and political philosophy. He has authored more than 20 refereed papers and several book chapters. His recent project is contributing to Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance with several entries.

Seyed Aligholi Rowshan

Seyed Aligholi Rowshan is associate professor of Public Administration at University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran. He is the author of more than 50 refereed papers and several books. His research interests are mainly Critical Theory, strategic management, philosophy and qualitative methods of research. His recent book is on critical management studies.

Habibollah Salarzehi

Habibollah Salarzehi is associate professor of Public Administration at University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran. His research interests are mainly social and corporate entrepreneurship.

Notes

1. http://namazi.sums.ac.ir/.

2. “It is funding tens of thousands of local, regional and national employment-related projects throughout Europe: from small projects run by neighborhood charities to help local disabled people find suitable work, to nationwide projects that promote vocational training among the whole population” http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=35&langId=en.

3. On 22/06/2018 “The European Investment Fund (EIF) signed a guarantee agreement for €50 million with seven member banks of the Erste Group … [to] support social entrepreneurship by providing financing to over 500 social enterprises in seven countries during the next five years, in the framework of the EU Program for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI).” http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=67&langId=en&newsId=9144.

4. https://en.unesco.org/.

5. https://www.unicef.org/corporate_partners/index_33855.html.

6. http://www.fao.org/partnerships/en/.

7. https://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/.

8. https://www.socent.ie.

9. https://www.socialenterprisescotland.org.uk/policy/online.

10. https://www.socent.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ISEN-Response-to-Strategy.pdf.

11. http://skoll.org/about/approach/.

12. http://skoll.org/community/partners/.

13. https://grameenfoundation.org/resource/leveraging-talent-reach-strategic-objectives.

14. https://grameenfoundation.org/meet-our-partners.

15. Via the SE data disseminated under Open Government Policies.

16. Employment and Social Development Canada.

17. https://www.ssa.gov/.

18. https://www.performance.gov/SSA/.

19. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-for-civil-society.

20. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-investment-and-social-entrepreneurship-in-the-uk.

21. https://www.bigsocietycapital.com/about-us/governance.

22. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/732765/Civil_Society_Strategy_-_building_a_future_that_works_for_everyone.pdf.

23. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development.html.

24. https://www1.canada.ca/en/sst/.

25. “The Departmental Plan is an expenditure plan for Employment and Social Development Canada. The reports provide details on the Department’s main priorities over the next three years by core responsibilities and departmental indicators. It is tabled in Parliament in the spring of each year by the President of the Treasury Board.” https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/corporate/reports/departmental-plan.html.

26. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/.

27. http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=24&vm=04&re=01&new=1.

28. http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id = 24&vm = 04&re = 01.

29. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/topics/social_welfare/dl/outline_of_the_public_assistance_system_20101004.pdf.

30. https://www.bmas.de/DE/Startseite/start.html.

31. https://www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/themen/engagement-und-gesellschaft.

32. https://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF-Publikationen/a998-social-security-at-a-glance-total-summary.pdf;jsessionid=CBD60405A5F59EF37CCD971A69A3C8CB?__blob=publicationFile&v=8.

33. https://www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/meta/en.

34. “The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state” (Article 20 (1) of the German Basic Law).

35. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bfdg/englisch_bfdg.html.

36. https://www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/meta/en.

37. http://government.ru/en/department/237/events/.

38. https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/azerbaijan/57244/council-europe-and-russian-federation-are-launching-joint-project-%E2%80%9Cco-operation-implementation_en.

39. https://www.gov.am/en/structure/16/.

40. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/armenia_development_strategy_for_2014-2025.pdf.

41. https://www.msp.gov.ua/en/.

42. http://www.guf.gov.ua/uk.

43. http://vxsida.gov.az/en.

44. http://vxsida.gov.az/en/page/reports-implementation-state-programs.

45. http://www.asanschool.az/#.

46. https://heydar-aliyev-foundation.org/en.

47. http://vxsida.gov.az/en/article/832.

48. http://www.mintrud.gov.by/en/about.

49. http://www.mintrud.gov.by/ru/min_progs/.

50. http://www.mintrud.gov.by/en/Family_policies/.

51. Ibid.

52. Republic of Belarus law on “Demographic Security” of 4 January 2002 (National Register of Legal and Regulatory Acts, 2002г, No. 7, 2/829).

53. http://www.mintrud.gov.by/en/national-demographic-security-programme-of-the-republic-of-belarus-2011–2015.

54. Ibid.

55. Ibid.

56. https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/m/B9D2DDCB571A894FC12580BC00560B19_CSP%202017-2020%20Algeria%20for%20External%20distribution_EN.pdf.

57. https://www.unicef.org/about/annualreport/files/Algeria_2017_COAR.pdf.

58. Ibid.

59. http://socialjustice.nic.in/.

60. http://www.cswb.gov.in/.

61. Part IV on Directive Principles of State Policy.

62. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment annual report 2017–2018, http://socialjustice.nic.in/ViewData/?mid=76658.

63. https://www.mdh.gov.br/.

64. https://www.mdh.gov.br/todas-as-noticias/2019/junho/ministra-assina-acordo-de-cooperacao-tecnica-para-a-implementacao-do-programa-crianca-protegida-em-santa-catarina.

65. https://www.mdh.gov.br/todas-as-noticias/2019/junho/ministerio-lanca-a-campanha-nacional-de-enfrentamento-a-violencia-con)tra-a-pessoa-idosa.

66. Ibid.

67. Ibid.

68. https://www.mosd.gov.om/index.php/en/home.

69. https://www.mosd.gov.om/index.php/en/social-care-3/social-aids.

70. https://www.mosd.gov.om/index.php/en/social-care-3/social-benefit.

71. https://www.mosd.gov.om/index.php/en/associations-and-clubs-2/professional-associations.

72. https://www.mosd.gov.om/index.php/en/associations-and-clubs-2/charitable-organizations.

73. https://www.mosd.gov.om/index.php/en/associations-and-clubs-2/community-clubs.

74. https://www.ailevecalisma.gov.tr/.

75. https://www.ailevecalisma.gov.tr/tr-tr/haberler/kadinlarimiz-adem-projemizle-meslek-ediniyor/.

76. https://www.ailevecalisma.gov.tr/tr-tr/yayinlar/raporlar/kadinin-statusu/.

77. https://www.ilo.org/ankara/news/WCMS_484712/lang–en/index.htm.