METHODOLOGY OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH AND ITS INFLUENCE ON COUNTRIES WITH SMALL ECONOMY

Social entrepreneurship today is one of the most important directions in develop-ment of business. Commercial entrepreneurship is oriented to the market mecha-nisms and its main purpose is to receive profit, while purpose of the social entre-preneurship is to solve the social problems. The social entrepreneirship is compati-ble with the social economy, and is one of the forms of its realization. The value formed by a social enterprise is directly consumed by the society, serves to satisfy its interests. Direct responsibility o the state is to support socially sensitive groups, to form work places for them that can be reached by way of development of the social entrepreneurship. However, in modern scientific circles there exists no clear idea on the role and func-tions of the social entrepreneurship even more, there exists no deeply comprehend-ed from this viewpoint, single paradigm. Correct and uniform understanding of the “socia;l entrepreneurship” is not fully formulated in the scientific circles either. Quite iften the social entreprenership is identified with philanthropy, activity of NGOs in this sphere, which in its turn complicates formation of correct policy. Despite the fact that research of the social entrepreneurship started some ten years ago, by today these methods (quantitative and qualitative) are different, which are used in the process of their study and analysis. No single scientific approach exists from this viewpoint. The present paper analyses non-uniform understanding of the social entrepreneur-ship, experience of its methodological measurement and realization of its potentials in the countries with small economies.

Keywords:

social entrepreneurship, methodology of research different approach, importance in Georgia,

PDF

___

Bacq S., Janssen F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A re- view of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria // Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. Vol. 23. No. 5–6.
Dees J., Anderson B. (2006) Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship: Build- ing on two schools of practice and thought // Research on Social Entrepre- neurship: Understanding and Contributing to an Emerging Field. Vol. 1. No. 3.
Dees G. (1998).The meaning of «social entrepreneurship». Draft Report for the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. Stanford: Stanford Uni-versity
Drucker P. (1985).The discipline of innovation // Harvard Business Review. Vol. 63. No. 3.
Gartner W. (1989) «Who is an entrepreneur?» is the wrong question // Entrepre- neurship. Theory. Practice. No. 13 (4). P. 47–68.
Hébert R., Link A. (1988). The Entrepreneurs: Mainstream Views and Radical Critiques. New York: Praeger.
Kerlin J. (2009). Social enterprise: A global comparison. Hanover, NH: Tufts University Press
Kerlin J. (2010). A comparative analysis of the global emergence of social enterprise // VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Or-ganizations. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 162–179.
Lepoutre J., Justo R. (2013). Designing a global standar- dized methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor social entrepreneurship study // Small Business Economics. Vol. 40. No. 3.
Mair J., Martı I. (2004) Social entrepreneurship: What are we talking about?A framework for future research. IESE Business School, No. D/546.
Martin R., Osberg S. (2015). Getting beyond better: How social entrepreneurship works. Harvard Business Review Press.
Santos F.M. A positive theory of social entrepreneurship // Journal of Business Ethics. 2012. Vol. 111. No. 3. P. 335–351]
Short J., Moss T., Lumpkin G. (2009) Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities // Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. Vol. 3. No. 2. P. 161–194.]
Stevenson H. (1983). A perspective on entrepreneurship. Harvard Business School Working Paper.
Peredo A., Chrisman J. (2006). Toward a theory of community-based enterprise // Academy of Management Review. Vol. 31. No. 2. P. 309–328.