Exploring how institutional trajectories and political controversies influence policymaking for SE: the case of Norway

Abstract

PurposeThis study aims to analyse how top-level policymakers across the political left-right spectrum in a social-democratic welfare state understand social enterprise (SE), its relation to existing welfare institutions and their intentions of policymaking towards SE.Design/methodology/approachThis study conducted in-depth interviews explicitly focused on SE with policymakers at the national level in Norway. The informants collectively represented most political parties in Norway’s Parliament in 2017–2021. Data were analysed using a historical institutional perspective.FindingsCentre-right wing policymakers predominantly consider SE as commercial enterprises not requiring specific policies. Left wing policymakers prefer that SEs operate like voluntary organizations and advocate policies preventing extraction of profit and competition with public service providers. Hence, policymakers positioned SE within an overarching political debate on the privatization of welfare services. They expressed little interest in developing policies aimed at strengthening SE opportunity structures.Research limitations/implicationsPolicy inaction impedes recognition of SEs as different from commercial and voluntary organizations, as well as their ability to compete for tenders. Thus, SE will likely remain a rather marginal phenomenon in Norway. Further research is needed to establish whether and how Norway’s universal welfare state inhibits social entrepreneurship on the society-wide level.Originality/valueThis article details how SE is understood within a social democratic welfare regime and the likely consequences thereof for SEs. It contributes with new knowledge of why policymakers may be reluctant to develop policy dedicated to further SE, across different political party affiliations. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study in Norway to analyse how existing institutions and political controversies influence how policymakers at the national level approach SE.