Commons initiatives emerge as entrepreneurial community movements responding to member marginalization.

Evidence

Lounsbury (1998) argues that collective entrepreneurship emerges due to two different factors: the marginality of the members and a broad social movement. Many commons initiatives emerge as community-based enterprises because individuals feel marginalized by public policies and welfare services (Morrow 2019). However, commons organizing initiatives adopt this entrepreneurial approach because they aim to cope with social and environmental challenges (De Angelis 2017). Commons organizing thus becomes a collective movement that supports the development of a social movement (Bollier and Helfrich 2015). At the local level, it involves forms of community-based enterprises which support collective entrepreneurship as a larger movement. According to Bollier and Helfrich (2012, pp. xv–xviii), commons represent a “generative paradigm” that fosters experimenting with new forms of organizing that are originally promoted at the community level but can expand to large networks. — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing, 173

Categorization

• QUESTION: The claimed causal pairing of ‘marginality’ plus ‘broad social movement’ driving commons entrepreneurship invites comparison with how urban regeneration or mutual-aid movements arise from the same pair of pressures.
• XREF: Connects to moral-panic and sacrifice literatures where marginalized groups organize collectively rather than individually — echoes of the community-as-insurance logic in ‘On Sacrifice’. — connects to: Communities can act collectively as a single entrepreneur and enterprise. — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing: Embedding Common…, 71; Community energy cooperatives across Europe form a decentralized renewable-energy commons challenging utility markets. — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing: Embedding Common…, 150; Finance commons challenge private capital accumulation through community banks and local currencies. — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing: Embedding Common…, 178 (+2 more)
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing: Embedding Common…, 173

Related

• Communities can act collectively as a single entrepreneur and enterprise. (similarity 0.85)
• Commons organizing differs from social enterprises by prioritizing communal flourishing over financial sustainability. (similarity 0.83)
• Prosocial organizing spans CSR, social enterprises, hybrids, and community ventures. (similarity 0.82)
• Community-scale commons experiments can scale outward into large networks. (similarity 0.81)
• Finance commons challenge private capital accumulation through community banks and local currencies. (similarity 0.80)
• Digital voluntary communities can produce collective goods unmet by states and markets. (similarity 0.79)
• Commons organizing generates tensions with markets, regulations, and economic sustainability. (similarity 0.79)
• Community energy cooperatives across Europe form a decentralized renewable-energy commons challenging utility markets. (similarity 0.79)
• Commons organizing fuses ethical common-good production with peer sharing. (similarity 0.79)
• Commons organizing names the process by which communities jointly produce and govern common goods. (similarity 0.78)