Presentation given to members of Ideell Arena.

1. Responding to Marketization:
Reinforcing or Resisting?
Angela M. Eikenberry
School of Public Administration
University of Nebraska at Omaha
US-UK Fulbright Award Recipient, 2014-2015
University of Birmingham Third Sector Research Centre

2. “Doing something wonderful never tasted so good!”
– Sweet Charity Cupcakes
Sprinkles’ Cupcakes for Charity

3. Defining Marketization
• A framework of market-oriented principles,
values, practices, and vocabularies;
• A process of penetration of essentially market-type
relationships into arenas not previously
deemed part of the market;
• A universal discourse that permeates everyday
discourses but goes largely unquestioned.
(Simpson & Cheney, 2007, p. 191)

4. Growth of Marketization
• Influence of global neoliberalism
– Faith in the market & business-based approaches
(Dart)
– Deregulation & privatization to boost economic
growth.
– Growing reliance on non-governmental approaches.
• Hollow state (Milward & Provan); shadow state (Wolch),
contract state (Boston), submerged state (Mettler),
voluntary state (Nickel & Eikenberry); third-party
government (Salamon); government by proxy (Kettl); or
network governance (Sorensen & Torfing).

5. Marketization of NGOs
• Need for NGOs (and consumption) to “replace”
government in the provision of public goods.
• Pressures on NGOs to take on market-like approaches
to gain funding.
• Pervasive normative ideology surrounding market-based
solutions and business-like models.
• NGOs increasingly look to market-like strategies to
operate.
– Commercial activities/contracting
– Social enterprise
– Cause-related marketing

6. Problems with Marketization
• The ideology of the market is essentially anti-social,
based on self-interest rather than disinterest or the
public good (Anderson, 1990; Hjorth, 2009).
• The market erodes social ties other than purely
economic ones and/or converts social relationships
into instrumental ones (Bull et al., 2010).
• Marketization de-politicizes the public realm
through economic and managerial discourses
(Clarke, 2004; Curtis, 2008; Nickel, 2012; Dey &
Steyeart, 2012).

7. Social Enterprise
• As an idea, discourse and practice has gained
prominence in the past decade (or more)
within the governance context.
• Clearly been linked to government
downsizing/third-way efforts in the UK,
Australia, US and elsewhere.

8. Social Enterprise
• No clear consensus on the definition and meaning has
shifted over time (Teasdale, 2012)
• Involves the use of market-based strategies to achieve
social goals (Kerlin, 2009).
• Innovative, social value creating activity that can occur
within or across the nonprofit, business, or
government sectors (Austin, Stevenson & Wei-Skillern,
2006)
• Capacity for social innovation, particularly innovations
that redistribute power and wealth to create a social
economy (Alvord et al., 2004).
• Combines economic, social and political/governance
elements (Pestoff, 2013).

9. Social Enterprise
Competing discourses between those who
practice it and those who set policy and fund it.
– Practitioners: preoccupation with local issues,
collective action, geographical community and
local power struggles
– Policy makers/funders: to promote efficiency,
business discipline and financial independence.

10. Social Enterprise
• Claims of benefits are wide and varied—from the UK Cabinet Office of the Third
Sector:
– Tackle some of society’s most entrenched social and environmental
challenges
– Set new standards for ethical markets, raising the bar for corporate
responsibility
– Improve public services, shaping service design and pioneering new
approaches
– Increase levels of enterprise, attracting new people to business
• Little research on actual impact or efficacy beyond such claims (Peattie & Morley,
2008; Bertotti et al., 2012; Teasdale, 2010).
– Provide goods & services
– Develop skills; create employment & experience
– Use environmentally friendly practices
– Develop new markets
– Can build social capital, infrastructure, and engagement; but in tension with
economic development outcomes

11. Social Enterprise
Challenges/Problems
•Generator of relatively low-skilled & low-wage jobs; creaming (Blackburn &
Ram, 2006; Peattie & Morley, 2008; Teasdale, 2012).
•Emphasize individual over collective—”messiah-like” figure of the social
entrepreneur (Dey & Steyeart, 2010).
•Can run counter to more positive social and economic outcomes (Dey &
Steyaert, 2010).
•Introduces a de-politicized image of social change (Curtis, 2008; Dey &
Steyeart, 2010; Grenier, 2009; Nicholls, 2010).
•Focus on symptoms rather than root causes (Edwards, 2008)

12. Cause-Related Marketing
• Firms contribute to charity while also increasing
their bottom line by tying contributions to sales.
– Transactional model: for each unit sold, a business or
corporation contributes a share of proceeds to a
particular cause.
• e.g. Susan G. Komen pink products or Product (RED)
– In U.S., CRM expenditures almost zero in 1983; an
estimated $1.78 billion in 2013.
• Benefits
– Corporations
– Charities
– Consumers

13. Cause-Related Marketing
Problems/Challenges:
•Individualizes solutions to collective
problems.
•Makes virtuous action easy,
thoughtless & self-satisfying.
•Consumers have little incentive to
understand impetus for the problem
being addressed through consumption.
•Lulls people into a false sense of doing
good, even as they are potentially doing
more harm.

14. Creating Spaces for Democratic Discourse
• “We must imagine, foster, and publicize
democratic movements that reject the dominant”
market discourse, “and pursue more just, more
humane, and more social cooperative” futures
(Purcell, 2008).
– More people of diverse backgrounds participate in
organizational and societal governance;
– Make participation meaningful by emphasizing
relationships and engaging individuals “routinely in civic
relationships over time” and that build social capacity;
– Provide equal opportunities for individuals to participate
in agenda setting, deliberation and decision-making.

15. Is Democratizing NGOs Enough?