Developing the Potential for Change: Challenging Power Through Social Entrepreneurship in the Netherlands

The paper challenges agentic, entrepreneur-centered accounts of social entrepreneurship by positioning social enterprises within ongoing interactions with governmental power and policy. Contrasting the extensively studied UK neoliberal context, it investigates the Dutch institutional setting—characterized by strong public sector involvement and the participatiesamenleving—to ask how social entrepreneurs in metropolitan Amsterdam contest visible, hidden, and invisible forms of government power. The study’s purpose is to illuminate power–counterpower dynamics, identify spaces for change, and clarify how these dynamics shape the potential of social entrepreneurship for civic participation and societal innovation.

Prior work often emphasizes neoliberal discourses and marketization in the UK, drawing on Foucauldian perspectives and discourse analysis. The Netherlands differs: despite rhetoric of civic self-sufficiency, the state remains deeply involved, sometimes acting as a “greedy government” that colonizes the lifeworld (Habermas’s system–lifeworld). Hazenberg et al. distinguish ecosystem types: private-macro (UK, market-oriented, investor finance, limited inclusive labor policies) versus private-micro (Netherlands, local focus, mixed finance from regional associations and local government, broader labor integration policies). Gaventa’s power cube (visible, hidden, invisible power; closed, invited, created spaces) is adopted to conceptualize power forms and spaces for counterpower. Kerlin’s comparative perspective underscores contextual specificity of social enterprise models.

Interpretive qualitative study focused on meanings and counternarratives rather than objective causality. Conducted 21 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with social entrepreneurs in metropolitan Amsterdam (two waves, 2015 and 2016). Respondents were identified via initial purposive sampling against a loose social enterprise definition and expanded through snowball sampling; all held critical organizational roles. Interviews were carried out by 2–3 postgraduate sociology students and transcribed; anonymity ensured via pseudonyms. Analysis used ATLAS.ti; initial deductive coding applied Gaventa’s forms and spaces as sensitizing concepts, followed by inductive coding to elaborate tactics, motivations, and struggles. From code clusters, three typologies were constructed: successful hybrids, antagonistic organizers, and autonomous entrepreneurs. The qualitative, interpretative design precludes generalization and causal claims.

• Identified three ideal-typical responses to state power:
  1. Successful hybrids: combine invited and created spaces; accept visible power (funding, regulation) while negotiating hidden agenda-setting power as “happy infiltrators.” They pursue symbiotic collaboration with government to open new participatory spaces and challenge invisible hegemonies; examples include Waterside, Y side, and Wastelab.
  2. Antagonistic organizers: seek created spaces outside institutional frameworks; detest visible power and confront hidden agendas. Often in conflict with governmental logic (requirements, categorization), face paralysis due to dependence on subsidies and multiple, conflicting government agendas; examples include communal garden and neighborhood restaurant initiatives.
  3. Autonomous entrepreneurs: pursue market-based independence, circumventing visible and hidden power by selling clear products/services, enabling innovation agendas and distancing from subsidy dependence; exemplified by The Enterprise. Market viability hinges on having commodifiable offerings; services with nebulous “added societal value” remain reliant on public funding.
• Government leniency and flexibility in visible power (e.g., relaxing onerous reporting or certification demands) can enable hybrid success.
• Antagonism, while sometimes meeting objectives, tends to impede enterprise development due to sustained conflict and limited support.
• Success is contingent on the ability to access markets while maintaining societal missions; many effective actors blend hybrid and autonomous tactics.

Findings demonstrate how Dutch social entrepreneurs navigate and contest visible (regulations, funding conditions), hidden (agenda-setting and blueprint framing), and invisible (hegemonic discourses) forms of power. In a context of strong public sector involvement, hybrids and autonomous actors create or expand spaces for participation and innovation: hybrids steer policy from within invited spaces while opening created spaces; autonomous entrepreneurs bypass state power through market mechanisms, sustaining development and innovation. Antagonistic tactics highlight genuine frustrations with colonizing system logics but risk stalemate. The analysis reframes social entrepreneurship in the Netherlands as a vehicle for organizational autonomy and civic innovation rather than straightforward marketization, emphasizing the importance of negotiated collaboration and market discipline to challenge invisible power and strengthen lifeworld agency.

The study advances theorization of power–counterpower in social entrepreneurship by contextualizing Dutch dynamics and applying Habermas’s system–lifeworld with Gaventa’s power cube. It delineates three typologies—successful hybrids, antagonistic organizers, autonomous entrepreneurs—showing varied strategies to contest state power and open spaces for civic participation. Antagonism exhibits least potential for sustained emancipatory impact; converting antagonism into hybrid or autonomous approaches is crucial for unlocking social entrepreneurial capacity. Future research should corroborate and refine typologies, examine additional types, and compare different local and national contexts to map commonalities and differences in power dynamics and ecosystem conditions.

Qualitative, interpretative design limits generalizability and precludes causal inference. The study is context-specific to Amsterdam and the Dutch institutional environment; reliance on interviews conducted by student teams and purposive/snowball sampling may introduce selection and reporting biases. Some enterprises’ market viability depends on commodifiable offerings, constraining applicability across service-oriented social value cases.