This is the second year report of the two-year collaborative research entitled 'A study on alternatives promoting social enterprises for re-vitalizing rural areas and creating jobs in rural areas. This study consists of four sub-research subjects and this is the fourth subject above mentioned.
Government has implemented various policies for promoting vitalization of rural areas. However, rural areas have collapsed due to the decrease of rural population and economic status, and the deficit of fundamental social services. Big businesses, which got benefit from opening market, cling to the pursuit of their profit maximization and close eyes on social responsibility. Recently, several departments of government are implementing various community development policies.
Interests about the social enterprise as a third alternative have been escalated for the betterment of structural retardation of rural areas, community vitalization, and the increase of people's quality of life. In particular, social enterprise promotion policy of the Ministry of Employment and Labor(MOEL) focused on job creation added "the type of community contribution" to it's policy purpose. According to this addition, social enterprise will contribute to the development of rural community. However, similar policies propelled by several Ministries such as the promotion of village corporation, community business, and farming and fishing community corporation resulted in the problems of efficiency, complexity, and moral hazard of latent beneficiaries. The purposes of this study are to depict the problems of the promotion policy of social enterprise, to find out policy amendment directions, and to suggest alternatives promoting social enterprise in rural areas.
We found out several problems which are needed to be amended in order to promote social enterprise in rural areas. Included are as follows: MOEL's monopolistic certification system, inefficiency resulted from overlapping similar policies, ignorance of social economic conditions, the shortage of the diversity of supports, the ignorance of spacial distribution, the unsystematic intermediary support organizations, diffused implementation system, and the lower policy capacity of local governments. We suggested several alternatives to amend the policy system. Included are fostering project localization, applying different and various policy approaches to rural social enterprises, admitting general use of the name of 'social enterprise', preparing the second stage support system, differentiating supports from the business types and locations of social enterprises, depicting more social purposes, strengthening security and function of intermediary organizations and the establishment of their legal foundation, and establishing independent institution for social enterprise.
We also develop some alternatives for developing social enterprises in rural areas. Included are as follows: national and regional networking and combing regional resources, affirmative market for social enterprises, establishment of special investment funds for rural social enterprises, the expansion of partnership between general businesses and social enterprises, the establishment of advertising system, and the establishment of supporting system for education, consulting, and technology development. These alternatives are focused on the development of social enterprises in rural areas.


Researchers: Lee, Gyu-Cheon; Chang-Ho Kim
E-mail address: gclee@krei.re.kr