The non-profit sector as a foundation for the interaction among the social economy, the public sector and the market

Salustri, Andrea and Viganò, Federica (2017): The non-profit sector as a foundation for the interaction among the social economy, the public sector and the market.

Abstract

The paper introduces a theoretical model to show how in a territorial framework characterized by spatial inequalities, the availability of goods and services decreases moving from central to peripheral areas. Specifically, private firms and public administrations might supply an insufficient level of goods and services in socially and/or physically remote areas due to lack of market size and higher distance costs. Peripheralization, therefore, often implies economic marginalization and political exclusion. Against this backdrop, non-profit organizations can foster local development rebalancing, or at least narrowing, economic and social inequalities, but a territorial dualism between a core linked to global patterns of development and marginalized peripheries left to autarchic forms of subsistence might emerge. To avoid territorial polarization and revive equitable and sustainable development, it is important to empower cooperative and social enterprises, as the latter exert a productive and distributive function that at the same time improves workers’ employability, facilitates market access for local initiatives, and raises the factor productivity of market activities.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: marginalized places, distance costs, non-profit institutions, spatial inequalities
• Subjects: J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J5 - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining > J54 - Producer Cooperatives ; Labor Managed Firms ; Employee Ownership; L - Industrial Organization > L3 - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise > L33 - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprises and Nonprofit Institutions ; Privatization ; Contracting Out; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R1 - General Regional Economics > R11 - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R1 - General Regional Economics > R12 - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity

References

Becchetti L., Castriota S., Tortia E. C., (2012), “Productivity, wages and intrinsic motivations”, Small Business Economics, 41(2), 379–399.

Bel G., Costas A., (2006), “Do public sector reforms get rusty? Local privatization in Spain”, Journal of Policy Reform, 9, 1–24.

Bel G., Fageda X. and Warner M. E. (2010), Is Private Production of Public Services Cheaper Than Public Production? A Meta-Regression Analysis of Solid Waste and Water Services, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, 553–577.

Bel, G., & Mur, M. (2009). Intermunicipal cooperation, privatization and waste management costs: Evidence from rural municipalities. Waste Management, 29, 2772–2778

Champion T., Hugo G. (eds.) (2004), New Forms of Urbanization: Beyond the Urban – Rural Dichotomy, Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants

Dijkgraaf E., Gradus, R. H. J. M. (2003), Cost savings of contracting out refuse collection. Empirica, 30, 149–161.

Frey B. (1997), Not just for money. An economic theory of Personal Motivation, CheltenhamBrookfield 1997

Krugman P., (1991), “Geography and trade”, MIT press, Cambridge Massachussets.

Krugman P., Venables A. J., (1995), “Globalization and the Inequality of Nations”, n. w5098, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Krugman P., (2011), “The new economic geography, now middle-aged”, in “Regional Studies”, vol. 45(1), pp.1-7.

Kühn M. (2015), Peripheralization: Theoretical Concepts Explaining Socio-Spatial Inequalities, European Planning Studies, 23:2, 367-378.

Leete, L. (2000), ‘Wage equity and employee motivation in nonprofit and for-profit organizations,’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 43(4), 423–446.

Martin R., (1999), “Critical survey. The new ‘geographical turn’ in economics: some critical reflections”, in “Cambridge journal of Economics”, 23(1), pp.65-91.

Narcy, M. (2011), ‘Would nonprofit workers accept to earn less? Evidence from France,’ Applied Economics, 43(3), 313–326

North D.C., (1992), “Institutions and economic theory”, in “The American Economist”, v. 36(1), pp.3-6.

North D.C., (2003), “The role of institutions in economic development”, UNECE Discussion Paper Series, n. 2003/2.

Sala-i-Martin X, Samans R, Blanke J. (2016), “The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017”, World Economic Forum, Geneva.

Sen, A. (2007) “Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny”, Penguin Books, India.

Von Thunen, J., H. (1826), “The isolated State [English Edition 1966]”, Oxford, Pergamon.

Warner M. E. Hefetz A. (2003), Rural Urban Differences in Privatization: Limits to the Competitive State. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 21 (5): 703-18.

Warner M. E. Hefetz A. (2008). Managing markets for public service: The role of mixed public/private delivery of city services. Public Administration Review, 68, 150–161.

Warner M.E. (2011), Competition or cooperation in urban service delivery?, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 82(4).