The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship”, by J. Gregory Dees
In consideration of the difficult nature of making a distinction between the difference in definition of “entrepreneurship” and “social entrepreneurship,” I believe Dees succeeds in doing so. I agree with the author in saying that this definition is “idealized” (Dees 4) and quite difficult to follow by those attempting to call themselves social entrepreneurs, but I believe that the definition succeeds greatly in certain aspects; mainly in proposing an set of guidelines to gauge the success of social ventures.
I continually find myself doubting the success of contemporary social ventures, product-based or not, mainly because of the tentative nature of gauging results. How can ‘success’ be measured when this ‘success’ exists as the solution to a multi-generational societal problem? I believe Dees makes a successful attempt at addressing this common qualm, stating” “the calculations are not only hard but also contentious… Even when improvements can be measured and attributed to a given intervention, social entrepreneurs often cannot capture the value they have created in an economic form to pay for the resources they use.” (Dees 3) The only reasonable way to concretely claim success of a social venture is to measure it across an extended period of time, or more specifically, to measure it across generations.
Reshaping Social Entrepreneurship, by Paul Light
Paul Light attempts to diagnose the problem of inherent exclusivity of the social entrepreneur in his article, “Reshaping Social Entrepreneurship”. By tracing the root of the problem all the way back to the definition of the term (evidently one similar to the definition provided by J. Gregory Dees in The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship) I believe that Light succeeds in implying that an extremely specific few are allowed to call themselves social entrepreneurs, and because of this, many possible proponents of change and social collaborators are shunned away from causes that can use all the help that they can get. Summarizing this problem, Light states “by focusing so much on visionary change agents, prominent advocates of social entrepreneurship have excluded large numbers of organizations that deserve the financial support, networking, and training now reserved for individuals who fit both the current definition of social entrepreneurship and the prevailing model of the self-sacrificing entrepreneur” (Light 4). I personally believe that the key to social success lies in the collaboration of those affected by and in acknowledgement of the problem, regardless of proximity.
Specifically, this situation brings to mind the nature of the Industrial Designer/Social Entrepreneur. The beauty in design thinking and approaching problems such as these from an outsider’s standpoint is the wealth of new knowledge that can brought to the table by those who are not completely permanently immersed in a project.
Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition, by Roger L. Martin and Sally Osberg
When comparing Martin and Osberg’s essay with Paul Light’s similarly themed essay, Reshaping Social Entrepreneurship, I personally find the latter more successful. Through explicit definition of whom and what does not qualify as social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurial ventures, the authors promote an exclusivity that I believe is extremely anti-progressive and inherently discriminative of many individuals and organizations with like-minded causes. By placing social entrepreneurship in one realm, and social service and social activism in another collaboration between the two seems useless and hindering. I could not disagree with this more. I personally believe that at the heart of any social venture, regardless of the specific nature of it, is an unfortunate and stable equilibrium as the motivator (Martin and Osberg 37).
Scale of impact is important in gauging the ultimate success of a social venture, but it is absolutely not a deciding factor in what defines social entrepreneurship. As I have previously stated, “ultimate success” of social entrepreneurship exists as a completely hypothetical situation, one that cannot be fully grasped or gauged over a limited time period. Limiting the amount of time a social venture has to reach “successful” levels of impact is incredibly limiting to the future and eventual possibility of social innovation itself.
