Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Economics, Competition and Coopetition of the Italian Private Welfare State: A Cluster Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Eurasian Economic Perspectives

Part of the book series: Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics ((EBES,volume 8/2))

Abstract

At crisis times, Public Welfare States are not more enough in order to support the growth of the social and nonprofit economy. This article addresses pivotal and different roles of the Welfare State of private grant-makers in Italy, when competition is not more useful in order to solve allocation of scarce public and private resources. Thanks to coopetition by means of networks, partnerships with several stakeholders, pooling of resources and project leadership, the Private Welfare State of Italian Foundations of banking origin (IFBOs) will be clustered for 2012s performances. Economic performances concern financial assets, which affect solvency, gains and philanthropy. According to reports coopetition is estimated for intensification from pure grant-making and resource pooling to partnerships. Six profiles are significant. When investments are modest, these foundations are profitable and solvent, though coopetition is not optimized. Increasing investments are combined with increasing philanthropy and coopetition. The article concludes that profiles experience a different intensity of coopetition. Findings constitute practical insight into the issue of philanthropic best practices in crisis times.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • ACRI, Associazione delle Casse di Risparmio italiane. (2014). Rapporto ACRI [Reports of Association of Italian Savings Banks]. Milan: Vita Nonprofit Magazine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armingeon, K., & Beyeler, M. (Eds.). (2008). The OECD and European Welfare States. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, J., Galli, E., & Padovano, F. (2013). Decentralization as a constraint to Leviathan: A panel cointegration analysis. Public Choice, 156(3-4), 491–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. E. (2000). The collaboration challenge: How nonprofits and business succeed through strategic alliances. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, N. (1987). The economics of the Welfare State. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing-insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beamish, P. W., & Lupton, N. C. (2016). Cooperative strategies in international business and management: Reflections on the east 50 years and future directions. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 163–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becattini, G., Bellandi, M., & De Propis, L. (Eds.). (2009). A handbook of industrial districts. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Ner, A. (1994). Who benefits from the nonprofit sector? reforming law and public policy towards nonprofit organizations. Yale Law Journal, 104(3), 731–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Ner, A. (2002). The shifting boundaries of the mixed economy and the future of the nonprofit sector. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 73(1), 5–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, K., & Whittam, G. (2008). The third sector and the regional development of social capital. Regional Studies, 42(3), 437–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birchall, J. (2013). The potential of co-operatives during the current recession; theorizing comparative advantage. Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, 2(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommert, A. (2010). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International Public Management Review, 11(1), 15–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonel, E., Pellizzari, P., & Rocco, E. (2008). Coopetition and complementarities: Modeling coopetition strategy and its risks at an individual partner level. Management Research: The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 6(3), 189–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonoli, G., George, V., & Taylor-Gooby, P. (2000). European welfare futures: Towards a theory of retrenchment. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borzaga, C., Depedri, S., & Tortia, E. C. (2011). Organizational variety in market economies and the role of cooperative and social enterprises: A plea for economic pluralism. Journal of Co-operative Studies, 44(1), 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borzaga, C., & Tortia, E. C. (2010). The economics of social enterprises: An interpretive framework. In L. Becchetti & C. Borzaga (Eds.), The economics of social responsibility: The world of social enterprises (pp. 15–33). London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken, R. B., Gats, J., Kraus, S., & Bogers, M. (2015). Coopetition: A systematic review, synthesis and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science, 9(3), 577–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouncken, R. B., & Kraus, S. (2013). Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The double-edged sword of coopetition. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2060–2070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brakman, R. D., & Dean, S. A. (2014). Creative financing for social enterprise. Stanford Social Innovation Review, (Summer), 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (2011). Co-opetition. New York: Crown Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (Eds.). (2005). Clusters, networks and innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caroli, M. (2015). Modelli ed esperienze di innovazione sociale in Italia [Models and experiences of social innovation in Italy]. Milan: Franco Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2011). Complexity and hybrid public administration: Theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review, 11, 407–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czernek, K., & Czakon, W. (2016). Trust-building processes in tourist coopetition: The case of a Polish region. Tourism Management, 52, 380–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira de, F. G., & Tavares, J. (2012). Government size versus government efficiency in a model of economic growth. EBES - Eurasian Business and Economics Conference Papers and Proceedings, 1–3 November, Warsaw, Poland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of social entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggers, W. D., & Macmillan, P. (2013). The solution revolution: How business, government, and social enterprises are teaming up to solve society’s toughest problems. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evers, A. (2007). Mixed welfare systems and hybrid organizations: Changes in the governance and provision of social services. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9), 737–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, I. (2009). The political economy of the Welfare State’ briefly revisited. Working Paper 09-10 of the European Research Institute. University of Bath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grassi, W. (2012). Business models of social enterprise: A design approach of hybridity. Journal of Social Enterpreneurship Perspectives, 1(1), 37–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, J. (2002). The divided Welfare State: The battle over public and private social benefits in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hairs, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, H. (2013). All firms are co-operative, and so are governments. Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, 2(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K. (1985). An application of clustering for strategic group analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 6(1), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, J. F. L., & Snell, R. S. (2015). Knowledge development through coopetition: A case study of a Japanese foreign subsidiary and its local suppliers. Journal of World Business, 50(4), 769–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickul, J., Griffiths, M. D., Gundry, L., & Bacq, S. C. (2011). Entrepreneurial bricolage and innovation ecology: Precursors to social innovation? Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 31(19), 659–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. (2003). For all these rights: Business, labor, and the shaping of America’s public-private Welfare State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korpi, W. (2003). Welfare State regress in Western Europe: Politics, institutions, globalization and Europeanization. Working Paper 5/2003 of the Swedish Institute for Social Research. Stockholm University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhnle, S. (Ed.). (2000). Survival of the European Welfare State. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lado, A., Boyd, N., & Hanlon, S. (1997). Competition, cooperation and the search for economic rent: A syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 110–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibfried, S. (Ed.). (2001). Welfare state futures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of world business, 41(1), 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustafa, G., & Lines, R. (2012). Paternalism as a predictors of leadership behaviors: A bi-level analysis. Eurasian Business Review, 2(1), 63–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okura, M. (2007). Strategies of Japanese insurance firm. A game-theory approach. International Studies and Management and Organization, 37(2), 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palier, B., & Sykes, R. (2001). Challenges and change: Issues and perspectives in the analysis of globalization and the European Welfare States. In B. Palier, P. M. Prior, & R. Sykes (Eds.), Globalization and European Welfare States: Challenges and change (pp. 1–16). Palgrave: Basingstoke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitlik, H. (2007). A race to liberalization? Diffusion of economic policy reform among OECD-economies. Public Choice, 132, 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragioneria generale dello Stato. (2014). Relazione illustrativa del conto del bilancio [Comments to Reports according to Auditing Standards] [Online]. Accessed April 11, 2015 from http://www.rgs.mef.gov.it

  • Ritala, P., & Tidstroem, A. (2014). Untangling the value-creation and value-appropriation elements of coopetition strategy: A longitudinal analysis on the firm and relational levels. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(4), 498–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert, F., Marques, P., & Le Roy, F. (2009). Coopetition between SMEs: An empirical study of French professional football. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 8(1), 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seaman, B. A., & Young, D. R. (2010). Handbook of research on nonprofit economics and management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. (2008). Collaborative destination marketing understanding the dynamic process. Journal of Travel Research, 47(2), 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, E. C., & Alvi, E. (2011). Relative efficiency of government spending and its determinants: Evidence from East Asian Countries. Eurasian Economic Review, 1(1), 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L. F. S., & Han, T. D. (2015). Better governance matters optimal privatization policy. Eurasian Economic Review, 5(2), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 15, 317–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, R. R., & Ruefli, T. W. (1995). Necessary conditions for the predictive validity of strategic groups: Analysis without reliance on clustering techniques. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1635–1656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Business and Law, IULM University, Milan, Italy

    Angela Besana

Authors
  1. Angela Besana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela Besana .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Political Sciences, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin

  2. MUFG Union Bank, San Francisco, California, USA

    Hakan Danis

  3. Faculty of Tourism, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ender Demir

  4. Eurasia Business & Economic Society, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ugur Can

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Besana, A. (2018). Economics, Competition and Coopetition of the Italian Private Welfare State: A Cluster Analysis. In: Bilgin, M., Danis, H., Demir, E., Can, U. (eds) Eurasian Economic Perspectives. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, vol 8/2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67916-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation