I know you are probably burning out when it comes to the debate on the potential of social enterprise. I think the debate is distracting and does not help us move forward. In fact, persons sitting on the outside of the social enterprise world are so bombarded with negative and confused commentary (Today the gov’t says it loves social enterprise, Tomorrow an editorial slams social enteprise).
However, I did see a nice roundup of the issue just recently at Audeamus. (Audeamus is typically globally focused on social / charitable activities) However, this roundup was particularly well researched, ending with what was one of the more salient points:
I also don’t see why it has to be one or the other: government vs. charity. I see the "Third Sector" more as a bridge between government assistance and private assistance, doing things better than government can do at times, while government doesn’t need to be supplanted. While I was in India I saw a lot of cooperation between social enterprise and government working well, especially where enterpreneurship and trying new ideas teaches government how to better function. Bureaucracy too often becomes inflexible, so social enterprises could be that greased wheel in a lot of cases.
But, this commentary continues to shape the debate around government services as social enteprises. Why? Probably because 90% (my guess) of new social enterprises are newly outsourced or government gap filling organisations. Why? I propose it is in large part down to the persons starting the social enterprises. In Yorkshire, Huddersfield University is the only place with a masters degreee in social entrepreneurship and they are seeing a great deal of the students from ex-council positions who are thinking about starting a social enterprise. Perhaps there is a bunch of entrepreneurs not going through the program, ok. But, this class demographic does concern me. Not because I don’t want ex-council workers starting social enterprises, I would be happy to see them all successful, but rather because it will likely perpetuate the social enterprise as gov’t gap filling organisation. We do need these. But, to make the biggest social impact, we need robust organisations building value and producing capital for spending in a socially beneficial context.
Where are the passionate entrepreneurs (I dare say like myself) that know they can make more (and have) in the private sector–but choose to add more value by cutting a path as a social entrepreneur? Why is it just coffee shops and a few fashion outlets. Why don’t we see social entrepreneurs mirroring lots of ethically run private business models for the good of their particular social mission? Does the social mission have to be at the heart of the business model? In other words, do you have to provide your social mission as the product or service? I don’t think so. 
What if entrepreneurs started lining up to create valuable social enterprises in all sectors, pushing tons more money at mission. You then feed that money to social benefit via these government service social enterprises. This would solve the liquidity problem, potentially make a big impact in ethical business practices, and certainly take the debate away from the "are you good enough?" to be a social enterprise and put it back onto the important items like how do we run a successful organisation that can benefit society.
Related posts:
