ANÁLISIS DE LA ENCUESTA APLICADA A DOCENTES

Even if the former government was committed to finding new or different ways of pro- viding social services, and encouraging private organisations to be involved, the legislative and regulatory environment in which social ventures operate in New Zealand is under-

developed. The main problem has been a lack of strategy, and support, to help social en- trepreneurs and enterprises to gain profile, attract investors, grow and potentially scale-up. Some of the reasons why are because of the inconsistent recognition and support so- cial entrepreneurship and enterprise have received in the past (Grant, 2008; Jeffs,2006, p. 15). This situation occurred partly because there were no organisations to advocate for social entrepreneurs, and central and local government did not have policy frameworks to recognise and help allocate resources to ventures (Jennings,2014, p. 7; Kaplan,2013, p. 13; Jeffs,2006, p. 5–8 ). As a result, New Zealand’s social enterprise sector became a patch- work of grant-financed community-led organisations. Examples include community asset ownership, community exchange initiatives, like time-banking, and small local social busi- nesses (Jennings,2014, p. 7). The majority of New Zealand’s social enterprises, like Rekin- dle and Ooooby, described in chapter 2, were well-established community-led, or based, non-profits (New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs,2013b, pp. 6–13, 20). From the 1990s, Treaty of Waitangi settlements enabled Māori, oriwiorganisations, to start social enterprises, to improve the wealth, wellbeing and self-sufficiency of Māori through educa- tion, health and employment initiatives (Jeffs,2006, p. 10).

The plight of social entrepreneurship and enterprise was not helped by the absence of a distinct legal form under which ventures could operate. New Zealand does not have leg- islation like the United Kingdom’s CIC law (see sub-section 2.4.5), which enables social enterprises to pay dividends to investors, and access charitable grants (New Zealand De- partment of Internal Affairs,2013a, p. 7, 16). Collective ownership, such as practiced by

iwi, has posed another legal barrier to accessing assets (Jennings,2014, p. 9).

Grant (2008, p. 9, 11; 2015, p. 4) believes New Zealand’s ‘culture of contracts’, influ- enced by the neoliberal reforms and Treaty settlements, can be harnessed to help develop institutions, and a policy framework, to support social entrepreneurship or enterprise . Community groups’ desire to stay independent of government, made possible by the value New Zealanders place upon ingenuity, self-sufficiency, charity and community, and New Zealanders’ capacity to stand up for just causes, such as anti-apartheid protests and nuclear- free legislation, represent cultural resources.

Social entrepreneurship and enterprise began to develop, to some extent, once central government formally recognised the contribution that social enterprise can make to the economy and society. In 2014, the National-led Government issued a position statement

ciation for what social enterprises have done for ‘collective impact’, through third party service delivery. The Government pledged to support the development of the sector, by removing legal and policy barriers. The Government hoped its endorsement of social en- terprise would encourage support from the private sector, too.

To progress these commitments, in 2015, the Minister of the Community and Volun- tary Sector convened a strategic group to investigate how to enhance social enterprise de-

velopment and social impact investment (Cabinet Social Policy Committee,2015a; Office

of the Minister of the Community and Voluntary Sector,2015). In April 2016, the strate- gic group recommended a number of ways to support high-quality ventures, and improve investment in social enterprises (Strategic Group on Social Finance and Social Enterprise,

2016). The Government acted on them by, for example: establishing a cross-agency work-

ing group to coordinate support for social enterprises; committing to collect data about the extent of social enterprise, and its contribution to the economy; funding social en- trepreneurship training; and stimulating investment, by clarifying the rules under which trusts can make social loans and are obligated to maximise returns (Cabinet Economic

Growth and Infrastructure Committee,2016; Office of the Minister of the Community

and Voluntary Sector,2016).

Even with recent changes, social entrepreneurs have not received much direct atten- tion from government, besides a broad endorsement of social enterprise. Only the New Zealand Productivity Commission (2015, p. 33), in its 2015 review of social services, has ar- gued trials of new ideas by social entrepreneurs, among others, could help to decide which interventions should receive public funding, and may provide more effective services for clients with particular needs.

More limited but consistent interest in and support of social entrepreneurship has come from from civil society. The primary mission of the Ākina Foundation, for example, formed by the environmentally-focused Hikurangi Foundation in May 2014, is to build the capacity of social enterprises. Ākina defines social enterprises as ‘purpose-driven or- ganisations that trade to deliver social and environmental impact’. Ākina trains and men- tors social entrepreneurs, as well as raising awareness and facilitating investment (Ākina Foundation,2017b).

Ākina has become an important part of central government’s strategy to develop social enterprise. The National-led Government invested NZ$1.27 million in Ākina to develop infrastructure to facilitate social enterprise. The Labour-led Government expanded Āk-

ina’s role further in November 2017, when it awarded Ākina NZ$5 million over four years to help grow New Zealand’s social enterprise sector (Henare,2017). Ākina and the Depart- ment of Internal Affairs is using this funding to develop New Zealand’s social enterprise market, by consulting with the sector about its needs, and researching the size, scale and value of the sector. The results will inform the development of future strategy (Ngaro,

2017).

The partnership with Ākina builds on previous collaboration between the government and the sector during 2017. The then Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sec- tor, Alfred Ngaro, hosted a ‘Social Enterprise Summit’ in July, the purpose of which was to build a common understanding of social enterprise (Nagro & Flavell, 2018; Ngaro,

2017). Further, in September 2017, Ākina hosted the ‘Social Enterprise World Forum’ in

Christchurch. Hosting the Forum was an opportunity to promote social enterprise in New Zealand (Ākina Foundation,2017a, pp. 4–5). As a result of central government’s invest- ment and these activities, Ākina now has the political and financial backing to advocate for social enterprise, and provide a level of institutional coordination and profile, that was missing.

In summary, New Zealand has a well-established and diverse social entrepreneurship

and enterprise sector (New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs, 2013b, p. 20). The

Government’s initiatives between 2014 and 2018 have begun to address long-standing problems with enabling social entrepreneurs and improving the status of social en- trepreneurship in New Zealand. However, more work is required to create an operating environment conducive to social entrepreneurship (Grant,2015, p. 19). While government initiatives should not preclude the sector from organising itself, the localised market pene- tration of social enterprises, and the fragmented nature of the sector, perhaps justifies more systematic investment by central government, and others, in the development and growth of the sector. Joint efforts between the social enterprise sector and the government may help more SEVs to flourish in New Zealand, including in the education system.