Government failure Hoxby (1996) analyses the challenges of financing public schools Intervention in the education market does not necessarily result in the optimal consumption of education Inefficiencies typically present with government provision Free riding: as with any publicly provided good and especially by parents who do not have children Moral hazard: individuals will free ride when the government commits to providing a minimal amount of education- safety net
View full slide show




Entrepreneurship: is it good enough to be social? John F. McVea and Michael J. Naughton Introduction • The term Social Entrepreneurship has experienced a huge growth in influence over that last decade. The literature proposes a number of advantages to social entrepreneurship as a frame of reference: • Promoting innovation within non-profits • Leveraging and focusing scarce philanthropic resources • Faster response to strategic challenges • Infusion of business skills to non-business world • Involvement of non government assets in social problems • Creation of hybrid (blurred) organizations between for profit and non profit worlds. It is widely observed that practice has outpaced theoretical development leading to little agreement on definitions or frameworks for social entrepreneurship. We believe that widespread and unchallenged acceptance of the term Social Entrepreneurship masks some dangers and has contributed to confusion in the field. We believe that if we apply some insights from Catholic Social Teaching to the issue of social entrepreneurship we can move beyond the false dichotomy of Entrepreneurship/ Social Entrepreneurship and identify three specific entrepreneurial strategies which support a more robust discussion of the nature of the work that is entrepreneurship. We believe that the field would benefit from spending less time discussing social entrepreneurship and more time discussion the nature of the good entrepreneur. • • • • • The dangers of naïve acceptance of Social Entrepreneurship • • • The rhetorical risk: • Narrow definition: if S.E. is simply used to rebrand non-profits then much of the value of the new activities, hybrid design, stimulation of new resources and innovation is lost. • Implied dichotomy: if “good” ventures are termed “social” it can imply that other forms of entrepreneurship are “asocial” or “anti social” • Boundarylessness: In contrast, if all business activities are deemed “social”, to some degree or other, then the term loses all meaning focus on the distinctive phenomenon that is S.E. Despite these risks we are more concerned with a risk beyond rhetoric; the risk of undermining the meaning of work, particularly from the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching. While this perspective is drawn from the Catholic tradition, accepting the content of CST does not require acceptance of Catholic faith (Guitan, 2009). The three goods of social entrepreneurship • We are concerned by the side-effects of a concentration thesis that suggests that the moral responsibilities of entrepreneurship can be concentrated in a subset of businesses called social enterprises, presumably leaving other enterprise to simply concentrate on serving themselves. • We are concerned by the impact such a concentration thesis could have on the conception of the meaning of work beyond the world of social enterprise. • We are concerned with how such an approach can focus attention solely on the altruistic contributions of entrepreneurial ventures as the sole measure of their contribution to the Common Good • Instead we propose that, rather than trying to determine the difference between entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship, it would be more productive to focus on the questions “What is Good Entrepreneurship? What action and activities define that goodness?” • We further propose that, by apply the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching, we can identify three specific strategies through which entrepreneurial ventures may contribute to the Common Good thus suggesting that good entrepreneurship requires a focus on: 1. Good Goods. The primary way an entrepreneurial venture can contribute to the Common Good is by bringing into existence new products and services which are inherently good and which enrich lives and minimize any unintended harms. This can include what we call the “entrepreneurship of the mundane”, that is, the manufacture of the nuts and bolts and basic necessities of life as well as the creation of life saving treatments. However, inclusion of good goods as a primary moral contribution of entrepreneurship must also require of the entrepreneur analysis of what goods are not good, and what aspects of even good goods should be redesigned or rethought in order to minimize unintended consequences. We find, in our discussions, that this is a much under appreciated dimension of the good of entrepreneurship. 2. Good Work. The second way an entrepreneurial venture can contribute to the Common Good is through the nature of the work that is carried out by the venture. This dimension has several aspects both internal and external to the entrepreneur: • The development of good character in the entrepreneur. This aspect of the good is derived from the subjective dimension of work, that is, just as how-we-work ends up changing the world, so working-on-the-world changes us. Most professionals spend the majority of their waking hours at work. As habits, character and wisdom are developed through experience and activity, for the entrepreneur, doing good work is an important opportunity to develop character. Society as a whole is better off for having good, successful entrepreneurial leaders who, through that calling, can become leaders of character. This dimension of the entrepreneurial good is widely unappreciated even by entrepreneurs themselves • Good relations with employees, customers and other stakeholders. Value creation and trade creates opportunities for the building of social relationships. The central question is “Are you in good relation with those with whom you create value?’ Do your employees have opportunity to develop as people? 3. Good Wealth. The third way the good entrepreneur can contribute to the Common Good is through the creation of good wealth. Good wealth requires a balance of reward for labor/ creativity with the provision of a living wage to all. Good wealth is often captured by individual action but has social strings attached. From the CST perspective the creation of good wealth implies a particular solidarity with the poor. One way to contribute to the common good is to donate altruistically to those in need. But even here, altruism is only one of a number of possible strategies. Good entrepreneurs may also contribute by donating their time or their particular skills. Indeed, since the donation of time and work often requires physical interaction with those in need, it often generates a solidarity of far greater integrity. Finally, it must be emphasized that altruism, for the entrepreneur, is always dependent, indeed subsequent to the creation of good wealth in the first place. Literature cited Alvord, Sarah, David L. Brown, and Christine W. Letts, 2004. “Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation: An Exploratory Study,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 40:260. Benedict XVI, Caritas et veritate,   Boschee, Jerr. 1998 “What does it take to be a social entrepreneur?” National Centre for Social Entrepreneurs (www.socialentrepreneurs.org/whatdoes/html), 5pp.   Cannon, Carl. 2000. “Charity for profit: how the new social entrepreneurs are creating good by sharing wealth” National Journal, June 16: 1898-1904.   Christie, Michael and Benson Honig. 2006. “Social entrepreneurship: New research findings.” Journal of World Business. 41: 1-5.   Dees, Gregory, J., 1998. “The Meaning of ‘Social Entrepreneurship,’” Original Draft: 10/3.   Drucker, P.F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.   Fowler, Alan. “NGDOs as a moment in history: beyond aid to social entrepreneurship or civic innovation?” Third World Quarterly, 21(4): 637-654.   Gregg, S. and G. Preece: 1999, Christianity and Entrepreneurship (The Centre for Independent Studies Limited, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia).   Hibbert, Sally A., Gillian Hogg and Theresa Quinn. “Consumer response to social entrepreneurship: The case of the Big Issue in Scotland.” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. 7(3): 288-301.   Johnson, Sherrill, 2000. “Literature Review on Social Entrepreneurship,” Canadian Center for social Entrepreneurship. (http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/ccse/Publications/).   John Paul II, Pope.: 1992 Laborem Exercens (On Human Work): 1981, in D. J. O’Brien and T. A. Shannon, (eds.), Catholic Social Thought (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY).   John Paul II, Pope.: 1992 Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Concern): 1987 in D. J. O’Brien and T. A. Shannon, (eds.), Catholic Social Thought (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY).   Kennedy, R., G, Atkinson, and M. Naughton, (eds.): 1994, Dignity of Work: John Paul II Speaks To Managers and Workers (University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland).   Mair, Johanna and Ernesto Noboa, 2003. “Social Entrepreneurship: How Intentions to Create a Social Enterprise get Formed,” IESE Business School.   Mair, Johanna and Ignasi Marti, 2006. “Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight,” Journal of World Business. 41: 36-44.   Melé, D.:2001, ‘A Challenge for Business Enterprises: Introducing the Primacy of the Subjective Meaning of Work in Work Organization’, (http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/cst/mgmt/le/papers/mele.htm) Conclusions We have argued that, while there is great promise in the contemporary social entrepreneurship movement, there are also a number of important dangers. We propose that, if we confront rather than acquiesce to these dangers, we can use the perspective of Catholic Social Teaching to broaden the scope of entrepreneurial ventures that we study, to enrich the moral dimension of entrepreneurial strategy and to deepen the teaching of entrepreneurship as a whole. We recommend the following to move toward these contributions: • Incorporate social entrepreneurship into entrepreneurship in a way that enhances the three goods of entrepreneurship. Specifically we propose replacing the questions “What is social entrepreneurship?” with the questions “What does it mean to be a Good entrepreneur?” From this perspective we can then apply what we have called the three goods of entrepreneurship as a means of supplying critical challenge and inspiration to all forms of entrepreneurship such that the true moral dimension of this critical force in our lives comes into fruition. • Encourage research within the entrepreneurship discipline that addresses traditional social entrepreneurial issues such as micro lending, fair trade products, etc. • Develop bridge courses such as Theo/Cath 306 which help students understand and experience the meaning of the good entrepreneur as well as connect students to the spiritual and moral principles of a good entrepreneur. • Expose entrepreneurship students to so-called social entrepreneurs as well so-called conventional good entrepreneurs so they can see the spectrum of entrepreneurial activities. © File copyright Colin Purrington. You may use for making your poster, of course, but please do not plagiarize, adapt, or put on your own site. Also, do not upload this file, even if modified, to third-party file-sharing sites such as doctoc.com. If you have insatiable need to post a template onto your own site, search the internet for a different template to steal. File downloaded from http://colinpurrington.com/tips/ academic/posterdesign. Acknowledgments I am indebted to Michael Naughton and Laura Dunham for their reflections and thoughts on this paper.
View full slide show




Safety terminology Term Definition Accident (or mishap) An unplanned event or sequence of events which results in human death or injury, damage to property, or to the environment. An overdose of insulin is an example of an accident. Hazard A condition with the potential for causing or contributing to an accident. A failure of the sensor that measures blood glucose is an example of a hazard. Damage A measure of the loss resulting from a mishap. Damage can range from many people being killed as a result of an accident to minor injury or property damage. Damage resulting from an overdose of insulin could be serious injury or the death of the user of the insulin pump. Hazard severity An assessment of the worst possible damage that could result from a particular hazard. Hazard severity can range from catastrophic, where many people are killed, to minor, where only minor damage results. When an individual death is a possibility, a reasonable assessment of hazard severity is ‘very high’. Hazard probability The probability of the events occurring which create a hazard. Probability values tend to be arbitrary but range from ‘probable’ (say 1/100 chance of a hazard occurring) to ‘implausible’ (no conceivable situations are likely in which the hazard could occur). The probability of a sensor failure in the insulin pump that results in an overdose is probably low. Risk This is a measure of the probability that the system will cause an accident. The risk is assessed by considering the hazard probability, the hazard severity, and the probability that the hazard will lead to an accident. The risk of an insulin overdose is probably medium to low. Chapter 11 Security and Dependability 33
View full slide show




Hazard Communication Labels – NFPA 704 – hazards and severity ratings White = Other Special Flammabili Blue = Health Hazards ty Hazard Hazards 0= normal material that W= reactivity to water poses no health Yellow = Instability Red = Flammability Health Instabilit OX = oxidizer Hazards Hazard 1 = slight hazard yHazards Hazard SA = simple asphyxiant 0= normally stable 0=2will not burn hazard = moderate 1 = slight hazard Other 1 =3flashpoint = extremeabove hazard 2 = moderate hazard Special 200°F 4 = deadly hazard Hazard 2 = flashpoint between 3 = extreme hazard 100 – 200°F 4 = deadly hazard 3 = flashpoint below 100°F 4 = flashpoint less than Source: OTIEC PPT 10-hr. General Industry – Hazard Communication 30 Created by OTIEC Outreach Resources Workgroup
View full slide show




Public Goods Private goods are produced through the market because they are divisible and come in units small enough to be afforded by individual buyers. Private goods are subject to the exclusion principle, the idea that those unable and unwilling to pay are excluded from the benefits of the product. Public goods would not be produced through the market, because they are indivisible and are not subject to the exclusion principle. National defense is a public good that is there for all of the U.S. people. Government paid for that through tax revenue. Those who receive benefits without paying are part of the so-called free-rider problem. Private producers would not be able to find enough paying buyers for public goods because of the free-rider problem. Therefore, public goods are not produced voluntarily through the market but must be provided by the public sector and financed by compulsory taxes. Quasi-public goods are those that have large positive externalities, so government will sponsor their provision. Otherwise, they would be underproduced. Medical care, education, and public housing are examples. Public and quasi-public goods are purchased through government, by group, or collective, choice. In a representative democracy that means voting for the candidate whose priorities for spending most closely match your own. According to the survey result, Americans rate education as their number one priority during the last presidential campaign in 2000. Therefore, candidates tried to emphasize their education policies to get more votes. Resources are reallocated from private to public use by levying taxes on households and businesses, thus reducing their purchasing power and using the proceeds to purchase public and quasi-public goods. This can bring about a significant change in the composition of the economy’s total output. Benefit – cost analysis is a technique in decision making process of the public sector. The concept involves comparing the marginal benefit (MB) of extra public goods with the marginal cost (MC) of providing the additional public goods. The rule to follow is that marginal benefit should equal or exceed the marginal cost. If the marginal cost exceeds the marginal benefit, that project should not be selected. When several projects whose MB exceeds or equal to MC are available, the project with the highest total benefit will be selected.
View full slide show