1 / 17

Plenary 2:

ENHR conference 2011, Toulouse, France. Social enterprise and hybridity in housing organisations in Europe: a response to financial and regulatory challenges?. Plenary 2: International perspectives on social enterprise and hybridity in housing organisations.

naoko
Download Presentation

Plenary 2:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ENHR conference 2011, Toulouse, France Social enterprise and hybridity in housing organisations in Europe: a response to financial and regulatory challenges? Plenary 2: International perspectives on social enterprise and hybridity in housing organisations. Darinka CZISCHKE, in collaboration with Prof. Vincent GRUIS Dept of Real Estate & Housing, Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology (the Netherlands)

  2. The concept of social enterprise Wide variety of definitions: • “…a business with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally re-invested for that purpose in the business or the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profits for shareholders or owners” (DTI 2002) • “…nor-for-profit private organisations providing goods or services directly related to their explicit aim to benefit the community…” (Defourny et al 2008) • “…organisations that have been designed as private enterprises, operating in a market situation, that at the same time employ their means to fulfill a societal objective that is interwoven with (or parallel to) the common interests, that produces goods and services and that uses its profit entirely for the realisation of its societal objective.” (NTMO 2003)

  3. Social enterprises: Between the State, Market and Society Source: Brandsen et al. (2005), based on Zijderveld (1999) and Pestoff (1992).

  4. Social enterprises: Inherent hybrid nature The Conceptual Classification Framework – The Social Economic Continuum for NI and NW ROI (Crossan, 2009)

  5. Types of social housing providers in the EU Source: Czischke, based on Bauer (2011)

  6. Towards a typology of social enterprise in social housing in the EU Differences: Commonalities: Mission (social, not profit maximising) Continuity (permanent character) Long term strategic plan Stated values Defined target groups Legally ‘approved’ or self-defined social (housing) mission. • Legal status • Organisational forms • Size, structure • History The social enterprise model?

  7. Adaptative strategies to different institutional contexts and logics Organisational archetypes in the social housing sector (Gruis 2008)

  8.  How are housing organisations in different settings responding to current contextual developments? • Two cases: • The Netherlands • England

  9. The Netherlands Housing associations under increasing financial pressure from governmental taxes, reduced income from sales and tighter conditions for finance. EU / Dutch government ruling: Split between ‘social’ activities which may be funded with state aid and ‘commercial’ activities which may be not. Impact on financial architecture (and on funding levels?) Narrower target groups: income ceilings Impact on tenants’ profiles, sustainable communities, affordability?

  10. Responses by Dutch housing associations: 1. Narrowing scope of activities Average balance of pairs and possible priorities in 2007 & 2010 (Gruis 2008)

  11. Responses by Dutch housing associations: 2. Reducing demolition & development activities, increasing refurbishment of existing stock Source: Central Housing Fund (2011)

  12. Responses by Dutch housing associations: 3. From a transition to ‘social innovators’ to ‘social housing investors’ Source: Central Housing Fund (2011)

  13. Responses by Dutch Housing associations: 4. However - keep active role in society • Aim to maintain a wide network and cooperation with societal partner organisations to stay active in broader societal interests. • Regional specificities play pivotal role on housing association’s continuous role as social enterprises in the communities where they operate.

  14. England • Major changes to social housing policy and regulation coupled to wide-ranging welfare reform creating a new environment for housing associations: • Reduction in capital grants • Possibility for social landlords to charge higher social rents to new tenants (up to 80% market rents) • Housing benefit significantly cut • Localism bill, ‘big society’ discourse: emphasis on the role of third sector actors in service delivery • Government pledges 150,000 new social units in four-year term.  Challenges and opportunities

  15. Responses from English housing associations: • Less capital funding => more debt => higher risk • Financial strength and business strategy of each company determining new development levels • Most going for considerable lower development levels (caution) • Concerns about affordability (insider – outsider dilemma)

  16. Responses from English housing associations: Shifting position between the State, Market and Society?

  17. Conclusion • Social enterprises in housing significantly influenced by current financial and regulatory constraints. • However, in line with their social mission and their hybrid nature, still aiming to counterbalance these pressures with staying active in wider societal interests as much as possible. • Factors determining different responses (State, market or community orientations) include: financial strength, regional context (housing markets), leadership, consistency of core mission…

More Related