LSE - Small Logo
LSE - Small Logo

Kerryn Krige

December 18th, 2024

Lessons from 2024

1 comment | 1 shares

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

Kerryn Krige

December 18th, 2024

Lessons from 2024

1 comment | 1 shares

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes


As I celebrate my second year at LSE, I am slowly appreciating how much I have learned this year – mostly, by unlearning.

A constant question I still grapple with is…well…What IS social entrepreneurship?

This year, I have had the privilege to be able to explore this question together with colleagues from around the world. And the deeper I get into it, the more I find myself heading back in time.

Here are some of the ideas, insights and reflections

Lesson 1: The importance of local language in our understanding of social entrepreneurship and the social and solidarity economy

Frederik Claeyé and I analysed data from six very different African countries: Egypt, Nigeria, Zambia, the DRC, Kenya and Madagascar, exploring the social and solidarity economy in each country. Or is that social entrepreneurship? The study, commissioned by the ILO, deliberately focused on gathering in-country perspectives so that we could explore what it really means*.

What did we learn? That the endless definitional debate that we have as academics, policy makers and eco-system enablers is deeply rooted in western (often colonially rooted) logics. And then we entrench this position through our definitional debates – seeking out examples that confirm this narrative, rather than exploring it.

The good news is there is alignment: where Anglo-American countries talk social entrepreneurship, and European countries the social and solidarity economy, both reference systems of exchange rooted in solidarity, reciprocity and mutualism, either through collective or individually oriented action. But what we found is that the labels we prescribe to these activities – social entrepreneurship or social and solidarity economy – are imposed and not used by practitioners themselves.

Instead, there is a rich vocabulary that captures the diversity of socially entrepreneurial activity. Examples range from the reciprocity philosophies of ubuntu and harambee, to the savings group activities such as ajo, ebiombe and susu.

Why is this important?

It highlights the gulf between the narrative championed by legitimising institutions such as universities, development agencies and financiers, and the local phrases used by communities and individuals in their social work. It is an early indicator – and one of many – of how formal institutions have internalised the western ‘way’ as a ‘gold standard.’ But in doing so, make invisible, local practice. This amplifying of one way as

progressive at the expense of another, is problematic, especially as these legitimising institutions are supposed to reflect a thoughtful view that considers diverse realities.

There is an irony in that our research entrenches this position, as we seek out enterprises that mirror the ideal type: organisations that are registered, that have a declared social mission, governance statutes, and an ambition to scale etc etc; rather than challenge it. If we know that the dominant organisational form for enterprises is informal, micro, local entities, why would we expect it to be different for social enterprises?

As I said. This year has been very focused on unlearning.


SaveAct in South Africa is a non-profit that models the rotational stokvel savings practice, bringing financial stability and predictability to households. These examples of financial cooperation are richly described in local language in the practices of (amongst others) ajo, ebiombe, susu, but remain detached from mainstream social entrepreneurial debates, raising questions on a disconnect between policy and practice.  
 
Picture credit: SaveACT 

Lesson 2: Why legal form for social enterprise is a fraught policy goal

On the same theme. There is a steady push for introducing a legal form for social enterprises, and 2024 saw impressive policy goals for the social and solidarity economy in general, with a UN resolution and commitments from the African Union. This year is to be celebrated for how the international community came together to agree characteristics, values and definitions.

But the African study led by the ILO, highlighted how problematic the clarion call for a legal form is. The argument is that if the hybridity of social enterprise is legally (and politically) legitimised, resources will flow.

But what if it is not a new legal form that is needed, but rather the consultations of that legislative process, which would allow the local conditions to be understood and supported?

We were able to explore this thanks to the work of the on-the-ground research teams in Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, Zambia, the DRC and Madagascar, and their analysis of cooperatives.

Cooperatives have a long, legislative history in many African countries, which has brought both legitimacy, and clarity. Introduced in the early 1900’s, cooperatives supported settler communities in their trade between the colony and the ‘mother country’. When first introduced, local and indigenous people were denied the right to legally form cooperatives. For these reasons, early cooperative legislation is described as an example of economic colonialism, where indigenous practice was deliberately excluded as it didn’t serve the political and economic interests of the coloniser (Dos Santos & Banerjee, 2019).

But the later inclusion of local people into legislation, means that it [cooperative legislation] has never been developed from within its home country context. Mohamed

Dia (1996) wrote of the need for institutional reconciliation, of connecting the values, traditions and morals of African culture to its legal frameworks.

What we learn from this, is that the process of developing legislation is far more important than having a pre-determined legislative outcome.

It is also important, because a legal form may not bring the eco-system enabling results that are needed: primarily because top down, bureaucratically led effort has had limited success in the African context. This is mostly because the majority of social organisations, because they operate informally, draw their legitimacy and trust from local systems, rather than regulatory ones. I continue to admire the work of the Social Employment Fund in South Africa, which is one of the best examples I’ve seen of institutional bridging: a national government led initiative, focused on community level employment and empowerment. The strength of the SEF is that it doesn’t try to make social organisations conform, but instead uses a hub and spoke model that prioritises connecting. It is a remarkable first step towards institutional reconciliation.

Questions for 2025

The questions I have for 2025 are about solidarity, and what it means. There is a link here to slavery which through colonial trade-systems, morphs into forced labour. The question is always, solidarity of whom, for what?

I’m still working through the story of Lever Brothers (the forerunner of Unilever) told in Lord Leverhulme’s Ghosts, which highlights how forced labour and the financialisation of households decimated indigenous communities in what is now the DRC. The examples of coercion, exploitation and ‘moral influence’ in the name of economic upliftment and social change are stark.

Then there is the solidarity action at the turn of the century in London: trade unions championing worker’s rights, burial societies providing income on the death of a husband the early social reformers who funded low-cost housing as an early example of impact investment. My questions continue around what social change is, and what we mean by solidarity. What are the boundaries of exclusive inclusivity?


This archive picture shows dockworkers in London waiting to be selected for work at the turn of the century (late 1800s). Work was intermittent, poorly paid and seasonal. The Dock Strike of 1889 called for an increase in pay, minimum pay and overtime. Support from Australian dock workers, is credited with giving the union the funds they needed to sustain the strike.   
Source: London picture archive

I am looking forward to 2025 being another year of learning through unlearning.

Have a wonderful festive break and holiday.

*Publication pending

Bibliography

Dia, M. (1996). Africa’s Management in the 1990’s and Beyond: Reconciling Indigenous and Transplanted Institutions. The World Bank.

Dos Santos, L. L., & Banerjee, S. (2019). Social enterprise: Is it possible to decolonise the concept? In P. Eynaud, J.-L. Laville, F. Avelino, L. Hulgård, L. L. Dos Santos, & S. Banerjee (Eds.), Theory of Social Enterprise and Pluralism: Social Movements, Solidarity Economy, and the Global South (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429291197

Shenaz Hossein, C., & P.J, C. (2022). Community Economies in the Global South. Oxford University Press.

Strickland, C. F. (1935). The Co-operative Movement in Africa. African Affairs, XXXIV(CXXXIV), 106–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.afraf.a100891

About the author

Kerryn Krige

Kerryn joined LSE from the International Labour Organization where she led the development of the social and solidarity economy (SSE) policy in South Africa. She has contributed to various social entrepreneurship initiatives including the SSE strategy for the African Union, two mapping studies of social entrepreneurship in South Africa, and the development of South Africa's USD70 Social Employment Fund. Kerryn led the Network for Social Entrepreneurs at the Gordon Institute of Business Science from 2012 - 2017, is a former trustee for the corporate social investment board of the Momentum Metropolitan Foundation, and chaired the Industrial Development Corporations advisory Social Enterprise Fund. Kerryn is an Associate Editor for Emerald Emerging Markets Case Collection and has guest edited two Special Collections on social entrepreneurship in Africa. In 2016 she co-authored the book The Disruptors, social entrepreneurs re-investing in business and society. She designed and leads the delivery of the MBA-elective in social entrepreneurship and has a joint doctorate in social entrepreneurship from KU Leuven and the University of Pretoria.

Posted In: Development | Entrepreneurship | In the news | The Institute

1 Comments