Wednesday, February 20, 2008

社企

Fellow free marketeer Ming wrote;

其實企業無恆利(profit is windfall),所謂盈利不過是資本家資金和企業家能力的回報,社企正由兩者放棄部分或全部收入回饋社會而成。政府資助在市場無法籌措資金的社企,無非是把公帑「回饋」社會,如此社企也不過是福利項目。

A deeper question is:

If the so called social enterprise can survive only through government subsidies, why the government does not just hand out the money to the recipients in the first place? Transactions costs considerations alone would certainly support my thesis that the goverment money should be handed out directly. Why not?

How different is a social enterprise from a state-owned enterprise if it has to pursue "social objective" on top of securing a decent return. When the two objectives clash, which one gets chosen (my guess is social objective) and by whom (my guess is the government which hands out the subsidy). If my hunch is correct, social enteprise may be more like an SOE than you think.

I have to admit that I am not familiar with the actual operations of social enterprise nor the literature covering the topic. My case against the idea of social enterprise is solely motivated by conceptual considerations.

Social enterprise advocates, convince me if I am wrong and I am ready to be convinced.

1 comment:

said...

在一個對社企的研究中,我曾經說過,社企跟一個企業把部分盈利捐出用作慈善,在數字上是沒有分別的(受助者心理上的分別應該是有的)。

社企最初的焦點,本來是放於企業家為弱勢社群創造市場(就如發現牦牛絨毛的市場價值, http://fiveminute-hket.blogspot.com/2007/03/blog-post_16.html#links)。相對富豪出錢,其實社企是企業家出力。

宣揚行善意念,出錢出力我都會舉腳贊成。可是,當政府宣布讓社企優先競投政府清潔合約時,便心知不妙。曾說笑講過,這種傾科政策,除了把所有清潔公司都變成社企外,不會有任何扶弱的效果。