Scholarlink

<p>Combining logics of the market and entrepreneurship with logics of charity and social welfare, street paper projects are generally characterized by a&#xa0;high degree of institutional complexity. Drawing on interviews and focus groups with street paper buyers, vendors and project managers, the article explores the question of how each of these groups relate to business and charity logics, trying to combine them in a&#xa0;meaningful way. The analysis provides insights regarding the perspective of “resource and product consumers”, which has hardly been considered in the previous discourse on institutional complexity in the field of social welfare. The findings raise questions about the chances of realizing social inclusion and gains in recognition by arrangements that typically imply some element of paternalism and a&#xa0;specific economy of charity. At the same time, it becomes obvious that the buyers’ views often differ both from the street paper vendors and the people involved in the projects behind them. The question of how these views are related to each other is particularly relevant, because the realization of the promise of inclusion inherent in street paper projects decisively depends on spreading the “good news”.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Zur Rezeption institutioneller Komplexität

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月27日

查看全文
  • Hannu Turba

摘要

Combining logics of the market and entrepreneurship with logics of charity and social welfare, street paper projects are generally characterized by a high degree of institutional complexity. Drawing on interviews and focus groups with street paper buyers, vendors and project managers, the article explores the question of how each of these groups relate to business and charity logics, trying to combine them in a meaningful way. The analysis provides insights regarding the perspective of “resource and product consumers”, which has hardly been considered in the previous discourse on institutional complexity in the field of social welfare. The findings raise questions about the chances of realizing social inclusion and gains in recognition by arrangements that typically imply some element of paternalism and a specific economy of charity. At the same time, it becomes obvious that the buyers’ views often differ both from the street paper vendors and the people involved in the projects behind them. The question of how these views are related to each other is particularly relevant, because the realization of the promise of inclusion inherent in street paper projects decisively depends on spreading the “good news”.