Imacs 2016 imecs 2016 Proceedings (Preliminary version) of the 4
SOCIAL BUSINESS: PUBLIC AND NON-PUBLIC PROVIDER OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Download 2.73 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 25.1 Problem Formulation
- 26.2 Empirical Research
- 2.3 Methodology and characteristics of a sample
- 2.4 Assessment and analysis of research results
- 27.2.5 Summary of research conclusions
SOCIAL BUSINESS: PUBLIC AND NON-PUBLIC PROVIDER OF SOCIAL SERVICES23.Oľga Bočáková – Darina KubíčkováAbstract Nowadays, we meet with the correlating welfare state which is replaced by a private sector. This is reflected also in the field of social services. The private sector is increasingly expanding at the expense of the welfare state, the social services are becoming the subject of social entrepreneurship. The sample used in our paper is selected by a quota selection in terms of age, education and residence in particular regions. It is about 1250 respondents who have citizenship of the Slovak republic. In terms of used methods, we applied a questionnaire method, as well as analysis and comparison of results. The conclusions and results stemming from the paper will be directed to find out whether the citizens trust more the public or non-public providers of social services, whether the amount of incomecorrelates with a view to the privatization of social services facilities, even if in case of need, they would choose public or non-public provider of social services for themselves or for their close relatives, where they see the strengths and weaknesses of public and non-public providers of social services. The importance for a practice is in a recommendation of what public providers of social services should do in order to be able to compete with the non-public providers of social services. Key words: Social services, Public provider, Nonpublic provider, Public sector JEL Code: H830, M190 24.IntroductionThe following paper carries the title “Social Business: Public and Non-Public Providers of Social Services”. The issue of social business is still a more and more up-to-date topic in connection with the failing state. Social services are being offered not only by the public, but also by the non-public providers. Our paper has been divided into two parts. The first part has a theoretical character and deals with the mentioned issues in the theoretical sense of the word. The second part has empirical character and contains evaluation of the questionnaire. 25.1 Problem FormulationAfter 1989 we have become witnesses of social, economic and political transformation. Liberalisation of economy took place, from the original planned economy into the market or mixed economy. In spite of the fact that after 1989 we got to the democratic road of development, it is possible here and there to observe antidemocratic and intolerant tendencies in our society. (Mihálik, 2015) New opportunities have appeared, by this we mean doing business in which there appears also a private sector next to the public (state) sector. Entrepreneurs exist probably in every country but the level of entrepreneurial activity is different. (Roper, 2012) The difference between a private and a public sector is that the first is focussed on profits, whereas the state sector provides its services and distributes assets without entitlement to profits. (Čemez, 2015) The reason, why these places take place is that someone wants to change some social services into private business and wants to have profits from them. Also the right-liberal principle applies here, i.e. that the private sector provides better quality than the public sector. However this is connected with a higher price, therefore not every client can afford social services that are being provided by a private sector. To a certain degree the quality is connected with several aspects. Some authors emphasise high quality education for performance of profession of future employees. (Dudžáková, Slovák, 2015) Other authors emphasise human resources. (Mura, Horváth, 2015) The concept of social business has been emerging lately. The public, non-profit and private sectors have been transformed by the social entrepreneurship. (Keohane, 2013) Social business as such has not been precisely delimited and it is necessary to set borders, according to which the business entity may be understood as a social enterprise. To a great extent the social enterprise is being financed from its profits. (Krechovská, Dvořáková, 2014) Social entrepreneurship belongs to one of the most interesting issues in public and non-profit sectors. (Guo, Bielefeld, 2014) The social entrepreneurship and its development is connected with the economic development at the international, national and local level. (Ridley-Duff, Bull, 2015) In this connection it is necessary to emphasise that what we miss in the conditions of Slovakia in comparison with the western countries is education and informing the public about social business. (Pongrácz, 2014) In the context of social business the principle role is played by social capital, which is a catalyst of innovations. (Dana, Light, 2012)
2.1 Aim of ResearchThe aim of research is finding out, what the public providers of social services should do to be able to compete against the non-public providers. 2.2 Research TasksIn our research we have set ourselves the following tasks:
2.3 Methodology and characteristics of a sampleIn our research we are going to use a questionnaire method. The sample, which has been used in our paper has been selected by quota selection from the point of view of age, sex and the place of residence in individual regions. Our sample includes 1250 respondents with the citizenship in the Slovak Republic. In addition to the questionnaire method we are also going to apply the analysis of results and their comparison and also correlation as well. In order to analyse obtained data we used statistical methods and comparative method. We inserted obtained data into the tables and we calculated percentage of each category. Using percentage we were able to compare data between the public and non-public provider in tables 2, 3 and 4. From the facts we have ascertained the correlation coefficient using the function Correl in the programme MS Excel. According to table 5 the respondents were supposed to assess, to what extent they agree with privatisation of social services facilities from 1 (I completely disagree) to 5 (I completely agree). According to table 1 we have divided the respondents according to the income amount into 5 categories from 1 to 5. 2.4 Assessment and analysis of research resultsIn table 1 we can see, how our respondents are diversified from the point of view of net income per month. We can see that the respective group of respondents grows numerically with the decreasing income, so that 29.36% of respondents are included in the group that is earning less than 500 Euro, on the other hand only 7.8% respondents are included in the group with income above 1.500 Euro. Table Net income of respondents per month
Source: authors’ calculations Table 2 is signalling to us, that the majority of respondents (47.12%) provided a statement that a non-public provider provides social services in higher quality. Table Opinion of respondents about, who provides a higher quality of social services: public or non-public provider
Source: authors’ calculations According to Table 3, if the respondents should select a provider for themselves, so they would select a non-public provider. Table Hypothetical selection of social services provider for themselves
Source: authors’ calculations Table number 4 displays which provider the respondents would choose not for themselves, but for their closest relatives. From the results we can see that they would prefer selection of a non-public provider. Table Hypothetical selection of social services provider for their closest relatives
Source: authors’ calculation The table number 5 shows up to what extent the respondents agree with privatisation of social services facilities and they were supposed to provide the assessment from 1 (I completely disagree) to 5 (I agree completely). From the provided numerical data it can bee seen that the number of respondents from 1 to 5 has a sinking tendency, i.e. the more negative assessment, the more respondents. The respondents that have provided assessment from 1 to 5 are represented in the number of 1070. However in reality there were more of them, but because of the fact that some of them did not provide the amount of their income (which we are going to use later) so they are irrelevant for us and they have been included into the group of respondents, who did not provide their assessment. Table Opinions of respondents on privatisation of social services facilities graded from 1 (I completely disagree) to 5 (I completely agree)
Source: authors’ calculations As table 6 is signalling to us, on the whole we have 8 items here, which were planned to be assessed by the respondents of the public provider of social services. Positive assessment prevailed in case of three items above the negative assessment and negative assessment prevailed in five items above the positive assessment:
Table Opinions of respondents on individual aspects in social services facilities provided by a public provider
Source: authors’ calculations The Table 7 below shows that positive assessment of social services provided by non-public providers prevails in all cases with the exception of the category “other”, where negative assessment prevails.) Table Tab. 7: Opinions of respondents on individual aspects in social services facilities provided by a non-public provider
Source: authors’ calculations It results from tables 6 and 7 that in case of a public provider five from eight items have been positively assessed (62,25 %) and in case of a non-public provider there were seven from eight items (87,5 %) that were positively assessed. For the public provider to be able to compete against the non-public provider it should improve these items: accommodation, staff attitude, management attitude and amenities. According to table 1 we have divided the respondents according to the income amount into 5 categories from 1 to 5. According to table 5 the respondents were supposed to assess, to what extent they agree with privatisation of social services facilities from 1 (I completely disagree) to 5 (I completely agree). From the mentioned facts we have ascertained the correlation coefficient. After having used the function Correl in the programme MS Excel the correlation coefficient reached the value of 0.331272, so we can talk here about direct and average dependence between the amount of income and attitudes to privatisation of public facilities of social services, i.e. the lower the income, the stronger the opinion in favour of privatisation of social services facilities. This was based on the data from the table 8 below. We have operated with only 1070 respondents, because 180 respondent have not provided information about the amount of their salary (see table 1).
Source: authors’ calculations 27.2.5 Summary of research conclusionsIn our research we have arrived at the following conclusions:
28.ConclusionIn the end it is possible to state that from the point of view of trustworthiness a non-public provider of social services successfully competes with a public provider. This can be explained by higher quality of provided services. The main aim of our paper was to identify, how the public provider should change to order to attract more clients on its side in competition with a non-public provider. The answer to this question is increasing of quality of accommodation and amenities in the facilities but also improvement of attitude of the staff and attitude of management to the clients. 29.ReferencesČemez, A. (2015). Sociálny štát a kapitalizmus. In Bočáková, O., Habánik, T. (eds.) Sociálne problémy súčasnej spoločnosti a možnosti ich riešenia. Nemšová: Jozef Kubaščík, s. 32 – 31. Dana, L.P. & Light, I. (2012). Toward a Theory of Social Capital in Entrepreneurship. International Journal of Social Sciences, I(1), p. 35 – 54. Dudžáková, A., Slovák, V. (2015). Importance of the concept of education in first aid in helping profession. In International multidisciplinary scientific conference on social sciences and arts SGEM 2015. Albena: STEF92 Technology Ltd, p. 493 – 500. Guo, Ch., Bielefeld, W. (2014). Social Entrepreneurship: An Evidence-Based Approach to Creating Social Value (Bryson Series in Public and Nonprofit Management). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 304 p. Keohane, G. L. (2013). Social Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century: Innovation Across the Nonprofit, Private, and Public Sectors. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Education, 272 p. Krechovská, M. & Dvořáková, L. (2014). Nejistota v sociálním podnikání. In Majtán, Š. (ed.) Aktuálne problémy podnikovej sféry. Bratislava: Ekonóm, p. 178 – 183. Mihálik, J. (2015). The support for radicalism and extremism among young people in Slovakia. In International multidisciplinary scientific conference on social sciences and arts SGEM 2015. Albena: STEF92 Technology Ltd, p. 435 – 442. Mura, L., Horváth, P. (2015). Some aspects of human resource management. In International multidisciplinary scientific conference on social sciences and arts SGEM 2015. Albena: STEF92 Technology Ltd, p. 863 – 869. Pongrácz, E. (2014). Education as a key factor for the development of social entrepreneurship. In Rotschedl, J., Čermáková, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th International Academic Conference. Praha: International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences, 2014, p. 415 – 421. Ridley-Duff, R., Bull, M. (2015). Understanding Social Enterprise: Theory and Practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 438 p. Roper, S. (2012). Entrepreneurship: A Global Perspective (Routledge Masters in Entrepreneurship). Oxford: Routledge, 168 p. Contact
doc. PhDr. Oľga Bočáková, PhD. University of St. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava Faculty of Social Sciences Bučianska 4/A, 917 01 Trnava, Slovakia olga.bocakova@ucm.sk
University of St. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava Faculty of Social Sciences Bučianska 4/A, 917 01 Trnava, Slovakia darina.kubickova@ucm.sk
Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2015 2015 -> Police Militarization 2015 -> 2015 ihbb championships: hs history Bowl Round 4 – Prelims First Quarter 2015 -> Wrtp/big step · 3841 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, wi 53208 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 December 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Darton College 2015 -> Training Workshop on Planning and Implementation of Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MsDP) in Bihar Date : 6th 2015 -> Rao bulletin 15 June 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 September 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 August 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Science, and transportation united states senate Download 2.73 Mb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||