LE NÉOLIBÉRALISME ET LA MARCHANDISATION DE L’ÉCONOMIE SOCIALE AU ROYAUME-UNI:
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Return to the true origins of the third sector makes redundant the concept of social innovation Neglect of earlier antecedents from the 1970s onwards has miscast the role of social enterprise and undermined the legitimacy of earlier socially innovative third sector organisations. Many current academic contributions on social innovation overlook the emergence of essentially innovative third sector structures during the 1970s and 1980s, many of which have been more recently been “colonised” by academic discourses for conversion into vehicles for low cost public service delivery. Many earlier third sector organisations, including worker cooperatives, in which the author was involved, community enterprises and local regeneration structures, were intrinsically socially innovative in the face of massive job losses through large scale deindustrialisation. “Employment in most was back to the level of the 1940s and some to levels not experienced since before the Second World War” (Cripps 1981) The author contests recent interpretations of social innovation, which describe UK Cabinet Office funding initiatives for outsourcing and fragmentation of public service provision (Edmiston 2016). In contrast the author supports earlier interpretations, including “the (re)introduction of social justice into production and allocation systems” (Moulaert, Ailenei 2005); “to establish a collective well-being and recreate social bonds between the people within their communities” (Lipietz, 2003); ”to seek solutions for the crisis of employment by the creation of enterprises d’insertion and of worker-owned co-operatives (Mellor et al., 1988); and a ‘third sector’… that combines: formal and informal elements at the level of organisation (market, state, volunteering, self-help and the domestic economy), market and nonmarket-oriented production and valorisation of goods and services, monetary and non-monetary resources at the level of funding”( Levesque et al. 1999) Apart from Jessop, most UK contributions neglect the “regulationist approach” to de industrialisation and Post Fordism, when during the 1980s Lipietz was developing the concept of a “third sector” (Lipietz 1989). Meyer later describes (p124) “third sector and social economy programmes that aim to compensate for the simultaneous fragmentation of the traditional structures of market and state” (Mayer 2003). Pierson (Pierson 1996) describes (p151) how “maturing social programs develop new bases of organized support that have substantial autonomy from the labour movement.” The author’s paper will provide many examples of socially innovative emerging structures across the UK, funded by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (Thomas 1996, Hewison, Holden 2006), local communities (Gostyn et al. 1981), “established community/voluntary organisations” (Keltie, Meteyard 1991) and the comprehensive CENTRIS Report (Knight 1993). Many developments in the UK were similar to those in Canada. "While the economic recession of the 1980s speeded the shift in the centre of gravity of Québec’s community movement from mobilizing political demands to providing autonomous services, it was only in the 1990s that the term ‘social economy’ entered the policy lexicon”. (Graefe 2005) In summary, the author’s paper seeks to restore 1970s and 1980s structures to their rightful place in the social innovation hierarchy, since these were formed in times when without social innovation, their contribution could not have been made.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,021 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».