INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN IMPLEMENTING THE STATE POLICY OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Authors

  • Viktoriya GURA Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv image/svg+xml

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17721/2616-9193.2025/22-1/14

Keywords:

social entrepreneurship, state policy, state regulatory mechanisms, social enterprise ecosystem, international development, social economy, public policy, social innovation, sustainable development, regulatory framework.

Abstract

B a c k g r o u n d . It is devoted to the analysis of international trends and patterns in the implementation of state policies for the development of social entrepreneurship in different countries. It is revealed that countries with integrated policy approaches that combine legal recognition, financial support and capacity building demonstrate significantly better results in the development of social entrepreneurship. It is emphasized that the lack of standardized impact measurement systems and different definitions of social entrepreneurship in different jurisdictions create problems in policy evaluation and international comparison. An attempt is made to fill these gaps by analyzing implementation trends and identifying success factors in the development of social entrepreneurship policies in different national contexts.
M e t h o d s . The research employs a comprehensive methodological approach, combining: a comparative analysis of social enterprise policy frameworks across EU member states, quantitative analysis of sector development indicators, document analysis of legislative and policy frameworks, Google Trends analysis to track public interest in social entrepreneurship concepts, and an evaluation of fiscal support mechanisms. The study examines data from 2011–2024, drawing on official EU statistics, national databases, policy documents, and academic literature to ensure a robust analysis of implementation patterns and effectiveness measures.
R e s u l t s . The analysis reveals several key findings in social entrepreneurship policy implementation: (1) diverse legal
recognition patterns across European countries, with significant variations in implementation approaches and effectiveness; (2) comprehensive fiscal benefits system development, ranging from full tax exemptions to limited support measures across different countries; (3) notable disparities in support mechanisms between Western and Eastern European nations, reflected in both policy sophistication and implementation effectiveness; (4) varying levels of public awareness and engagement with social entrepreneurship concepts across regions, as evidenced by Google Trends analysis; and (5) emergence of integrated policy approaches combining legal recognition, financial support, and capacity building measures. The research identified critical success factors, including strong institutional frameworks and coordinated ecosystem support, while highlighting persistent challenges in cross-border operations and skills development.
C o n c l u s i o n s . The research demonstrates significant evolution in social entrepreneurship policy implementation across Europe while highlighting important regional variations in approach and effectiveness. Critical findings suggest that the successful implementation of policy requires a balanced approach to legal frameworks, financial instruments, and support mechanisms, with a strong emphasis on adapting to local contexts. Future policy development should prioritize: harmonizing approaches across regions while maintaining flexibility for local conditions, strengthening financial support mechanisms, and developing standardized impact measurement systems. The findings suggest that effective social entrepreneurship development requires integrated policy approaches that can address both immediate operational needs and long-term strategic objectives, supported by improved coordination between national and supranational initiatives. 

References

Arvidson, M., & Lyon, F. (2013). Social impact measurement and nonprofit organisations: Compliance, resistance, and promotion. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25, 869–886 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9373-6

Bandini, F., Gigli, S., & Mariani, L. (2021). Social Enterprises and Public Value: A Multiple-Case Study Assessment. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00285-8

Borzaga, C. (2020). Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe: Country report Italy. Publications Office of the European Union. https://euricse.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Italy_IT_Country-report_2020.pdf

Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203–1213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0620

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202–228. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508610810922703

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2017). Fundamentals for an international typology of social enterprise models. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(6), 2469–2497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9884-7

Defourny, J., Nyssens, M., & Brolis, O. (2021). Testing social enterprise models across the world: Evidence from the International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) project. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(2), 420–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020959470

Kotiranta, A., Puumalainen, K., Sjögrén, H., & Dana, L.-P. (2024). Digitalization as a growth driver for social enterprises. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 209, Article 123837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123837

Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002

Nguyen, N. T. T., Tang, C.-T., & Wong, C. Y. (2021). The Impacts of Social Enterprises on Labor Market Outcomes: Evidence from Vietnam. Sustainability, 13(19), Article 10864. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910864

Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00397.x

Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O'Regan, N., & James, P. (2015). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 428-461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114560063

Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Newbert, S. (2019). Social impact measurement: Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship & Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717727718

Sandal, J.-U. (2004). Sosialt Entreprenørskap. Lund Papers in Economic History, 96, 1–32. https://lucris.lub.lu.se/ws/files/4684935/4407245.pdf

Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1413-4

Schumpeter, J. A. (2008). The theory of economic development (R. Opie, Trans.; 14th ed.). Transaction Publishers. https://cruel.org/books/hy/shortschumpeter/SchumpeterTheoryofEconDev.pdf (Original work published1934)

Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217750826

Social Economy Action Plan. (2021, December 9). European Commission. https://surl.li/ngkbtt

Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Comparative synthesis report. Executive summary. (2020). Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/05369

Social impact measurement for the Social and Solidarity Economy: OECD Global Action Promoting Social & Solidarity Economy Ecosystems. (2021). OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, 5. https://doi.org/10.1787/d20a57ac-en

Stephan, U., Uhlaner, L. M., & Stride, C. (2015). Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(3), 308–331. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.38

Thompson, J. D., Alvy, G., & Lees, A. (2000). Social entrepreneurship – A new look at the people and the potential. Management Decision, 38(5), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740010340517

Zahra, S. A., & Wright, M. (2016). Understanding the social role of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 53(4), 610–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12149

Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.007

Downloads

Published

2025-12-31

How to Cite

GURA, V. (2025). INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN IMPLEMENTING THE STATE POLICY OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT. Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Public Administration, 22(2), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.17721/2616-9193.2025/22-1/14

Most read articles by the same author(s)