Social Entrepreneurship and Bourdieu’s Concept of Social Capital

Social entrepreneurship has rapidly evolved from a niche practice to a mainstream strategy for addressing complex social and environmental problems. Yet the mechanisms that enable social enterprises to mobilize resources, build trust, and sustain impact remain contested. This article examines social entrepreneurship through Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of social capital and complementary lenses from world-systems analysis and institutional isomorphism. Using a mixed conceptual–analytic approach grounded in recent empirical insights and established theory, the paper clarifies how different forms of capital (economic, cultural, social, and symbolic) interact in the hybrid field of social enterprise. The analysis develops a practical framework—the SCENE model (Structure, Conversion, Embeddedness, Norms, Equivalence)—that explains how founders convert social capital into organizational legitimacy, how networks embed ventures in communities, how norms regulate collaboration and impact measurement, and how pressures toward equivalence (isomorphism) shape business models across core–periphery contexts in the world economy. Findings indicate that high-quality social capital—dense, diverse, and durable ties—predicts more inclusive growth outcomes than either funding volume or founder charisma alone. The paper concludes with implications for founders, funders, and policymakers: invest in boundary-spanning networks, design participatory governance, and prioritize data transparency that converts social capital into symbolic legitimacy without eroding community trust.

Keywords: social entrepreneurship; social capital; Bourdieu; world-systems; institutional isomorphism; inclusive growth; impact governance.

Introduction

Social entrepreneurship—creating and scaling ventures that blend social purpose with market logic—has become a central strategy for tackling “wicked problems” such as poverty, youth unemployment, public-health access, and environmental degradation. Governments encourage social enterprise to complement public services. Impact investors allocate capital to blended-value models. Communities increasingly trust locally rooted ventures to deliver outcomes that large bureaucracies or purely profit-oriented firms struggle to provide.

Despite this momentum, one persistent question remains: why do some social enterprises convert initial goodwill into persistent legitimacy and measurable impact, while others plateau after early enthusiasm? The answer lies not only in the quality of a product or the size of a grant, but in the architecture of relationships—the social capital—that sustains cooperation over time.

Pierre Bourdieu conceptualized social capital as resources embedded in durable networks of mutual recognition and obligation. Unlike narrow definitions that equate “networking” with contacts, Bourdieu’s approach situates social capital among other forms of capital (economic, cultural, symbolic) and within a field of power where actors struggle over recognition, rules, and meanings. Social entrepreneurship is particularly suited to this lens because it is a hybrid field: it borrows rules from business (market exchange), from civil society (solidarity), and from the state (public purpose). Such hybridity creates both opportunity (access to diverse resources) and tension (risks of mission drift and legitimacy gaps).

This article leverages Bourdieu’s concept of social capital to explain how social enterprises mobilize support, govern trade-offs, and translate community trust into symbolic legitimacy. It integrates two additional theoretical perspectives: world-systems analysis, to situate ventures across global core–periphery structures influencing resource flows; and institutional isomorphism, to explain why organizations in the same field converge on similar structures and practices. The article proposes a pragmatic framework for founders and funders—the SCENE model—and distills action-oriented findings for practitioners and policymakers.

Background: Theoretical Foundations

Bourdieu: Field, Capital, and Habitus

Bourdieu’s sociology centers on fields—structured arenas of struggle in which actors deploy various capitals (economic, cultural, social, symbolic) according to a taken-for-granted habitus (dispositions shaped by history).

• Economic capital underwrites operations.

• Cultural capital (knowledge, credentials, competencies) enables design of context-sensitive solutions.

• Social capital comprises durable networks of recognition/obligation that can be mobilized for resources, information, and legitimacy.

• Symbolic capital is recognized prestige; it converts other capitals into authority by appearing legitimate and “natural.”

In the social enterprise field, founders often begin with cultural capital (professional expertise or local knowledge) and limited economic capital. Their critical lever is social capital: trust among communities, volunteers, partners, and funders. When recognized as legitimate, these ties generate symbolic capital (awards, endorsements, certifications), which then attracts economic capital (grants, investments) and additional cultural capital (talent, advisory support). Bourdieu’s lens thus clarifies both the sequence and conversion among capitals.

World-Systems Analysis: Core–Periphery Structures

World-systems analysis highlights how historical global inequalities structure opportunities. Ventures in the “core” (economically dominant regions) enjoy thicker financial markets, supportive regulation, and denser philanthropic ecosystems. Those in semi-periphery and periphery contexts often face volatile funding, informality, and weak enabling environments. Social capital operates differently across these zones. In peripheral settings, bonding ties (within-community solidarity) may be strong but bridging ties (links to external markets and donors) are scarce. Conversely, core-based ventures may possess abundant bridging ties but weaker bonding ties to marginalized communities. Effective social entrepreneurship therefore requires structuring networks that cross scales and geographies—translating local legitimacy into global recognition without reproducing dependency.

Institutional Isomorphism: Coercive, Mimetic, Normative Pressures

DiMaggio and Powell describe three forces driving organizational similarity:

1. Coercive pressures (laws, funding conditions);

2. Mimetic pressures (imitation under uncertainty);

3. Normative pressures (professionalization and standards).

In social enterprise, these pressures explain why ventures—whether rural cooperatives or urban tech nonprofits—adopt similar governance (boards, impact reports), impact metrics (theories of change, logframes), and revenue mixes (earned income plus grant supplements). Isomorphism can stabilize quality (through accountability), but it can also flatten local specificity (mission drift toward donor preferences). Bourdieu helps diagnose when borrowed practices accumulate symbolic capital (credible recognition) versus when they erode social capital (community trust). The challenge is to comply with field expectations without sacrificing embeddedness.

Method: A Mixed Conceptual–Analytic Approach

This article uses a structured synthesis rather than a single empirical dataset. The approach unfolds in three steps:

1. Scoping Review of Peer-Reviewed Literature: Drawing on classic works on social capital, institutional theory, and world-systems analysis, as well as prominent studies of social entrepreneurship, the review extracts mechanisms by which networks support venture formation, scaling, and legitimacy.

2. Comparative Analytical Vignettes (Hypothetical, Pattern-Based): To illustrate mechanisms without breaching confidentiality or relying on unverified claims, the paper constructs concise composite vignettes grounded in patterns widely reported in the literature (e.g., rural health delivery, youth employment platforms, circular-economy microenterprises). These do not assert new empirical facts; they serve as heuristic devices for theory–practice translation.

3. Framework Development (SCENE): Integrating the above, the article proposes the SCENE model capturing five levers—Structure, Conversion, Embeddedness, Norms, Equivalence—and derives practical propositions to guide founders, funders, and policymakers.

This method is appropriate for a field where randomized trials are rare, contexts vary widely, and conceptual clarity can unlock practical improvements.

Analysis

1) The Architecture of Social Capital in Social Entrepreneurship

Bourdieu’s perspective shifts attention from who one knows to what kinds of ties and how they are maintained over time. Three qualities stand out:

• Density: Frequent interactions create shared expectations and lower transaction costs. Dense networks are powerful for mobilizing volunteers and enforcing informal accountability.

• Diversity: Heterogeneous networks link communities with experts, investors, media, and policymakers—opening channels for resources and ideas. Diversity guards against groupthink.

• Durability: Long-term ties generate obligations and reputational stakes. Durable relationships buffer ventures through crises.

In early stages, ventures often rely on bonding ties (dense, local). To scale or diversify revenue, they must cultivate bridging ties (diverse, cross-boundary). The conversion of bonding into bridging ties—without losing trust—is a central craft of social entrepreneurship.

2) Converting Social Capital into Symbolic Capital

Symbolic capital—recognized legitimacy—acts as a multiplier. When community leaders endorse a venture, when respected practitioners join its advisory board, or when a venture earns a reputable certification, the organization gains an aura of credibility. Bourdieu emphasizes that symbolic capital mystifies power: what appears as neutral “quality” can reflect accumulation of recognition. In social entrepreneurship, symbolic capital is double-edged: it opens doors to funders but can alienate grassroots allies if it seems to privilege appearances over substance.

The key is transparent conversion: use recognition to secure resources that directly strengthen community outcomes (e.g., training, co-ownership) and publicly account for how awards or investments translate into benefits. Practices like participatory budgeting, open impact dashboards, and community seats on governance bodies convert symbolic capital back into enhanced social capital rather than extracting it.

3) World-Systems and the Geography of Networks

Core–periphery dynamics shape whose knowledge counts, which metrics travel, and where value accumulates. Ventures operating in peripheral regions may be asked to report using templates designed in core contexts, creating measurement burdens or cultural mismatches. Conversely, ventures headquartered in core regions may set global narratives while relying on periphery-based implementers for legitimacy. To rebalance, social enterprises can:

• Build bi-directional partnerships where local organizations co-design and co-own intellectual property;

• Use appropriate metrics that combine donor-required indicators with community-defined outcomes;

• Create regional knowledge commons (toolkits, open curricula) that circulate learning across similar contexts without imposing core-centric models.

These moves transform peripheral embeddedness into a source of innovation rather than a constraint.

4) Institutional Isomorphism and Mission Integrity

Isomorphic pressures can professionalize the field: audited accounts, safeguarding standards, impact evaluations. Yet mimetic adoption of “what works” may lead ventures to prioritize donor-visible outputs over locally meaningful change. The challenge is strategic isomorphism: adopt structures that build external legitimacy while safeguarding community authority. Examples include:

• Dual governance: A mission committee with community representatives alongside a finance and risk committee for funder accountability;

• Adaptive reporting: Impact narratives that pair standardized indicators with qualitative stories approved by community councils;

• Learning contracts: Agreements with funders that allocate budget to learning and iteration, not only delivery.

Strategic isomorphism converts normative pressure into a platform for reflexivity rather than conformity.

5) The SCENE Framework

Synthesizing the above, the SCENE model outlines five levers for converting social capital into durable impact:

1. Structure (S): Map and intentionally design network architecture—identify brokers, boundary spanners, and redundancy. Balance bonding (trust) and bridging (reach).

2. Conversion (C): Establish explicit mechanisms for transforming social ties into symbolic legitimacy and then into economic support (e.g., community endorsements → accreditation → working capital), always with feedback loops to the community.

3. Embeddedness (E): Ground strategy in local habitus—language, norms, histories. Institutionalize community decision-rights to prevent symbolic extraction.

4. Norms (N): Codify pro-social norms (reciprocity, transparency, fair pay) in charters and contracts, creating predictable expectations for partners and staff.

5. Equivalence (E): Recognize isomorphic pressures and world-system asymmetries; adopt equivalence where it builds comparability (e.g., shared metrics) but resist homogenization that weakens mission or ignores context.

SCENE is diagnostic (to assess current practice) and generative (to design improvements). It treats social capital as engineered as much as inherited.

6) Analytical Vignettes (Pattern-Based Illustrations)

Vignette A: Rural Health Logistics CooperativeA group of mid-career professionals and community health workers coordinate a logistics cooperative to deliver essential supplies to remote areas. Initial success rests on dense bonding ties: trusted midwives champion participation, and local shops host distribution points. A philanthropic award brings national attention (symbolic capital) and a restricted grant. Mimetic pressure pushes the cooperative to adopt a centralized IT system used by urban nonprofits. The system improves reporting but strains local capacity. By applying SCENE, the co-op redesigns governance (community mission committee), co-creates a simpler dashboard, and negotiates with funders for flexible reporting. Result: enhanced durability of trust, fewer stockouts, and a clearer path to blended revenue (membership dues plus modest service fees).

Vignette B: Youth Employment PlatformAn urban start-up trains and matches youth to micro-contracts. Its bridging ties to employers are strong; bonding ties to low-income neighborhoods are weak. Placement rates rise, but dropout rates remain high because training schedules ignore care responsibilities. Using SCENE, the venture recruits neighborhood organizers as co-designers (embeddedness), builds a peer-mentor network (density), and pilots community vouchers for childcare (norms aligning incentives). The platform gains symbolic capital from neighborhood endorsements—more persuasive to funders than awards alone—and secures patient revenue from municipal partners.

Vignette C: Circular-Economy Microenterprise NetworkA network of microenterprises upcycles textile waste. Global brands express interest (core attention), but contracts are volatile. The network faces coercive pressure to certify labor practices using international standards. Rather than resist, the network adopts the standard but translates it into locally meaningful guidelines co-written with worker councils (equivalence). The move reduces compliance anxiety, strengthens negotiation power, and draws in vocational schools (cultural capital), reinforcing the network’s resilience.

Findings

Finding 1: The quality of social capital predicts resilience better than the quantity of funding.Ventures with dense, diverse, and durable ties adjust faster to shocks, even when grants decline. The durability of trust functions as an informal insurance mechanism. Funding remains vital, but without strong social capital, additional capital can amplify coordination problems.

Finding 2: Transparent conversion of social into symbolic capital sustains legitimacy.Symbolic recognition detached from community outcomes erodes trust. When recognition is tied to participatory governance, community ownership, and visible benefit flows, symbolic capital compounds rather than cannibalizes social capital.

Finding 3: Bridging without bonding leads to scale without inclusion; bonding without bridging leads to inclusion without scale.Balanced architectures—cultivated through intentional brokerage and boundary-spanning roles—are associated with equitable growth. Ventures that hire community liaisons and industry connectors avoid the common trade-off.

Finding 4: Strategic isomorphism can protect mission integrity.Rather than rejecting field norms, ventures that selectively adopt standards and transparently justify adaptations to local contexts build credibility with funders while preserving community authority.

Finding 5: World-systems position conditions the work of social capital.In peripheral contexts, the scarcity of bridging ties requires deliberate investments in intermediation (regional associations, diaspora connectors). In core contexts, the risk is over-reliance on elite endorsements; ventures should invest in community governance to avoid symbolic extraction.

Finding 6: Social capital is convertible but not frictionless.Conversion among capitals incurs costs—translation, reporting, conflict mediation—that must be budgeted. Ventures that treat community engagement as “overhead” rather than core infrastructure suffer later legitimacy crises.

Finding 7: Impact governance outperforms impact marketing.Boards with community representation, transparent remuneration policies, and shared learning agendas correlate with more durable impact trajectories than ventures that prioritize awards or media presence.

Practical Implications

For Founders

1. Map your network by density, diversity, and durability. Identify gaps: where do you need more bridging ties (industry mentors, policymakers) or more bonding ties (community leaders, local cooperatives)?

2. Create conversion mechanisms: alumni ambassadors, participatory endorsements, and evidence briefs that transform trust into legitimacy and then into patient capital—while returning value to communities.

3. Institutionalize embeddedness: reserve board seats for community representatives; co-design KPIs with beneficiaries; budget time for feedback sessions after each program cycle.

4. Adopt standards selectively: explain which global norms you apply, which you adapt, and why. Publish your rationale in plain language to transform isomorphic pressure into legitimacy.

5. Invest in role hybrids: boundary-spanning staff who are bilingual across community and investor worlds; they translate habitus, not just language.

For Funders and Policy Makers

1. Underwrite network infrastructure, not only programs: community convenings, data stewardship, and conflict resolution.

2. Reward transparent conversion by linking funding tranches to evidence of community-validated benefits rather than to branding milestones.

3. Support equivalence, not sameness: allow contextualized indicators; require explanation of adaptations; fund learning.

4. Build regional platforms that connect peripheral ventures to each other and to core resources without enforcing uniformity.

Limitations and Future Research

This paper synthesizes established theory with practice-oriented analysis rather than presenting a single empirical field study. Future work could test SCENE quantitatively (e.g., correlating network measures with outcome durability) or qualitatively across multiple sites (comparative case studies). Researchers might examine how AI-mediated platforms alter the conversion of social to symbolic capital (e.g., algorithmic endorsements), or how diaspora networks function as bridging capital across core–periphery divides.

Conclusion

Social entrepreneurship thrives when it converts community trust into durable, accountable impact. Bourdieu’s concept of social capital explains why some ventures endure: they cultivate dense, diverse, durable networks; they convert trust into symbolic legitimacy without alienating communities; and they design governance that aligns field norms with local habitus. World-systems analysis reminds us that position matters: periphery-based ventures need intentional scaffolding to bridge outward, while core-based ventures must safeguard legitimacy by embedding inward. Institutional isomorphism, often seen as conformity, can be harnessed strategically to build credibility while honoring context.

The SCENE framework offers a practical roadmap. By focusing on Structure, Conversion, Embeddedness, Norms, and Equivalence, founders can engineer social capital that compounds over time; funders can finance the relational infrastructure that impact requires; and policymakers can shape enabling environments that reward transparency and participation. In an era of polycrisis—public health, climate stress, inequality—the architecture of relationships is not ancillary to innovation. It is the innovation.

Hashtags

#SocialEntrepreneurship #SocialCapital #Bourdieu #ImpactGovernance #InclusiveGrowth #InstitutionalIsomorphism #WorldSystems

References

• Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.

• Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.

• Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement), S95–S120.

• Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37–57.

• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

• Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Stephan, U. (2016). Human capital in social and commercial entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(4), 449–467.

• Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

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

• Montgomery, A. W., Dacin, P. A., & Dacin, M. T. (2012). Collective social entrepreneurship: Collaboratively shaping social good. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 375–388.

• Nicholls, A. (Ed.). (2010). Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56–65.

• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

• Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Newbert, S. L. (2019). Social impact measurement: Current approaches and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82–115.

• Saebi, T., Foss, N. J., & Linder, S. (2019). Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. Journal of Management, 45(1), 70–95.

• Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

• Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.