Comments, questions & answers to the case studies Too much focus on the supply side (investors, donors). How would SIB work in underdeveloped The way SIBs work in UK and Portugal is ecosystem (not like UK)? more focus on different. It needs to be adjusted to every legal/political ecosystem is needed. SIB single case. shouldn’t be referred to as a tool for social Added value for public sector: focus on enterprises but rather a tool for investors. outcomes and better allocation of resources i.e. in municipalities, enhancing private partnership (breaking sectoral silos). In Finland it’s seen as a way to make good use of so called money’, which is in ‘lazy society and can be mobilised. However it is a question of what the needs are in a specific society and also a question of culture. Outcome for society is crucial and also learning how to use money in a different way. Lack of comparison of SIB with other existing SIB is just one of the possibilities. It should instruments. be rather seen as complementary to, not replacing, existing funding or philanthropy. The concept of social enterprises is to The donors at the end are also the ‘recycling’ reinvest most of the income how does it go money / return. – along with private investment based on principle of return and low risk? Risk of contradiction with state aid SIB protects the government from failure. regulations, question of unequal competition Regarding state aid, internal controls are in if we treat social enterprises preferably. place, and objective criteria for public procurement, so all is done in competitive process (Portugal). In Finland there is a 0 return on ESF projects. It’s more about the ‘recycling’ funding. There might be a confusion of social It might be a language issue or different economy, welfare state reform and social nomenclature used by the Member States. policies. Social economy should refer to a new business model, and not be confused with welfare state reform or social policies. The discussion was followed by work in three groups, during which participants went into deeper discussions around the financial ecosystem, innovations and SIBs, e.g. trying to find an answer to the questions posed at the beginning of the peer review: who should be an intermediary, what is the role of specific actors (incl. public administration should they be –
Comments, questions & answers to the case studies Too much focus on the supply side (investors, donors). How would SIB work in underdeveloped ecosystem (not like UK)? more focus on legal/political ecosystem is needed. SIB shouldn’t be referred to as a tool for social enterprises but rather a tool for investors. The way SIBs work in UK and Portugal is different. It needs to be adjusted to every single case. Added value for public sector: focus on outcomes and better allocation of resources i.e. in municipalities, enhancing partnership (breaking sectoral silos). In Finland it’s seen as a way to make good use of so called ‘lazy money’, which is in society and can be mobilised. However it is a question of what the needs are in a specific society and also a question of culture. Outcome for society is crucial and also learning how to use private money in a different way. Lack of comparison of SIB with other existing instruments. SIB is just one of the possibilities. It should be rather seen as complementary to, not replacing, existing funding or philanthropy. The concept of social enterprises is to reinvest most of the income – how does it go along with private investment based on principle of return and low risk? The donors at the end are also ‘recycling’ the money / return. Risk of contradiction with state aid regulations, question of unequal competition if we treat social enterprises preferably. SIB protects the government from failure. Regarding state aid, internal controls are in place, and objective criteria for public procurement, so all is done in competitive process (Portugal). In Finland there is a 0 return on ESF projects. It’s more about ‘recycling’ the funding. There might be a confusion of social economy, welfare state reform and social policies. Social economy should refer to a new business model, and not be confused with welfare state reform or social policies. It might be a language issue or different nomenclature used by the Member States. The discussion was followed by work in three groups, during which participants went into deeper discussions around the financial ecosystem, innovations and SIBs, e.g. trying to find an answer to the questions posed at the beginning of the peer review: who should be an intermediary, what is the role of specific actors (incl. public administration – should they be