Timisoara grew a lot in the last years but probably nothing developed as much as the food, beverage and event industries. With so many bars, cafes, bistros, pubs, I became interested in some of them that stand out through their focus more on social aspects than individual financial prosperity. So, when the opportunity arose during my master class of Social Development in Regional Context, I chose to research this segment of social economy. More exactly, I was interested in discovering how did these initiatives of social economy arrived in Timisoara, and from where.
I started my research by discussing with a representative from Agentia Judeteana pentru Ocuparea Fortei de Munca Timis that pointed me towards several social economy businesses in Timisoara. Further, I conducted three interviews with social economy entrepreneurs from Timisoara, asking them about their social economy businesses. The interview guides were based on a research design that encompassed research questions, hypotheses and operationalization of concepts. In presenting my findings, I will refer to these three social economy businesses as Organization 1, Organization 2 and Organization 3.
Before doing any fieldwork and asking people about the beginnings of their businesses, I read a bit about how did these processes occur. With the help of my professor, I reached a typology of transfer conceptualized by Sahlin and Wedlin. We agreed that it was a topic worth pursuing and, under the assumption that there may be also other alternatives that deserve consideration, I began to work on it. Sahlin and Wedlin assert that these processes of transfer occur through imitation. This imitation can appear in three modes. The first one is called broadcasting and refers to the situation when one specific model is imitated by multiple actors in local practices. The second one is named chain and occurs when an idea is imitated and then this imitation is further imitated. The third one, mediated mode, requires other actor to mediate the transfer between the imitated and the imitating.
I asked the social economy entrepreneurs how did they discover social economy, if they had a model that they based their social economy business upon and how did they find out about that model.
Organization 1 described itself as an associative café that has mainly handmade merchandise from local producers and offers jobs for people belonging to vulnerable groups.
Organization 2 described itself as having two components. The first is a Bistro focused on offering healthy food and fair-trade coffee. The second one is offering free meeting rooms for gatherings and a free working place. This business also offers jobs for people belonging to vulnerable groups and has its headquarters in an old industrial site.
Organization 3 did not identify as belonging to social economy, but as an artistic organization that works with vulnerable groups. I argue that this organization is not a social economy initiative since it does not conduct commercial activities. This requirement is mandatory for social economy initiatives. As the entrepreneur stated, access to artistic performances conducted by this organization are free of charge, at most at the audience’s willingness to donate. At most I can characterize this organization as a social initiative, but not a social economy initiative.
In the cases that I interviewed I noticed that none of the three organizations presented a singular imitation mode. They displayed a combination of the three imitation modes presented above or I could not identify the imitation mode at all. For example, the entrepreneurs from Organization 1 were recruited by NESsT, a foundation that helps social economy entrepreneurs. Moreover, they participated in projects with CRIES, a NGO that promotes community supported agriculture, fair-trade, co-responsibility and responsible consumption. CRIES organized workshops and work exchange programs in France and Portugal, where entrepreneurs got to observe social initiatives with various social purposes. As Organization 1 states, they were influenced by multiple elements from social initiatives from France and Portugal but did not imitate one in particular. Consequently, I state that CRIES acted a mediator between the foreign models of social economy and, as I cannot state that the social initiatives from France and Portugal were the first forms of social economy that were imitated by multiple businesses, I characterized this form of imitation as chain and not broadcasting.
Organization 2 started as a local initiative that found out along the way that they met the criteria for entering Trans Europe Halles which is a network of cultural centers that conducted their activity from rehabilitated industrial sites. Organization 2 entrepreneur stated, during the interview, that their social economy initiative was not based on a certain model but rather on what they identified as the local needs of the population. The partnership with Trans Europe Halles exploits only one dimension of this organization – that of conducting its activity from an industrial site. Further on, I do not consider that I have enough information to characterize this organization as belonging to one of the three imitation modes.
The entrepreneur from Organization 3 stated that he does not consider his initiative as belonging to the social economy segment, since they identify as an artistic organization that has a social component – working with people from vulnerable groups. Nevertheless, I applied the same interview questions as for the previous organizations and found out that this case presented two modes of imitation, broadcasting and mediation. This entrepreneur went to France, in a training program organized by Erasmus, that reunited artists from multiple countries – mediated. Among these artists there was a Brazilian director that elaborated and taught the method of Theatre of the Oppressed. Organization 3 imitated one branch of the Theatre of the Oppressed entitled Forum Theatre – broadcasting.
Regarding the end result of the imitation processes, the first organization imitated multiple elements from the models observed in France and Portugal. From the idea of associative café, promoting local producers and healthy handmade products to helping people from vulnerable environments, the entrepreneur stated that, unlike the social initiatives from France that had only volunteers – mainly retired people from the neighborhood, this would not be possible, in the present times, in Timisoara. Consequently, Organization 1 developed some particularities in aspects related to structure and repertoires of action.
Organization 2 developed as an original initiative starting from local community needs rather than a certain model.
Organization 3 replicates a certain model of theatre that was imitated from the original source but developed also a part of cultural event hosting for artists that use in their work social themes related to vulnerable groups.
As a conclusion, what emerged interestingly was the mediated mode of imitation that was present in two of the analyzed organizations. For me, this highlights the importance of networking in the transfer of ideas from international to local environments. Another unexpected result was the case of Organization 2 that could not be included in any of the imitational modes. This thought me that not everything can be explained through one theoretical framework and each research has its limitations. Furthermore, empirical research proved invaluable for me as a grad student and I would describe it as a mandatory experience for all students.
References
Sahlin, K., and L. Wedlin (2008), “Circulating Ideas: Imitation, Translation and Editing”, In R. Grenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational institutionalism (pp. 218–242), London: SAGE Publications.
