16

1-272014 7

1

E-mailadan@homeland.org.tw

2005

1

2 16

Special Issues: Cross-Sector Collaborations

The Transformational Process of

Turning A Community-based NPO into

A Social Enterprise

Chia-Chan Liao

The co-founder of the Newhomeland Foundation

Abstract

The central problem for the high risk global age is how to find a sustainable

development model for local industries and organizations. In the Past 20 years, the

Taiwans civil society was full of life, especially during the 921 earthquake

reconstruction. Now we must to deliberate how to develop an integration and

transformation strategies for making collective actions. Based on the past experiences,

the role and function of the community-based nonprofits organization were very

important, especially it had charity and nonprofit characteristics. According to the

ideals of the social enterprises and community experience study, the Newhomeland

Foundation had been adjusted its organizations mission, structure, and function in

2005. It expected to achieve promoting community collaboration governance and

making local economic regeneration.

Key Words:Nonprofit Organization, Social Enterprises, Community Industry,

Newhomeland Foundation

http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/ccd=WToqDO/search?q=aue=%22Chia-Chan%20Liao%22.&searchmode=basic

3

1993

2008

1996

NGO

1998

1999 2

9 921

2003

2008

20011602005108

2004200620072007

20082012

20042006

4 16

organization

transformation

2007103-104

2008578

1.Unfreezing

2.Movement

3.Refreezing

OECD

5

OECD, 1999

1

EMES

Defourny&Nyssens, 2006:5-6

DTI, 2002:13Defourny&Nyssens

2006: 12

social aimeconomic aim

social ownershipBorzaga & Defourny, 2001

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

OECD, 1999

1

2002

2

2002

3

2003

Kerlin, 2006.

6 16

2

200515

921

921

1999

2,415 29

11,305 51,711 53,768

1999 10 9

1.

2.

2003

7

1

1

41

1

1994

921

19994

921 60

63 60 1 4

1OURs

3460

8 16

2002 2 921

921

20041

921

2009105

2002

7

empowerment200621-23

2

200621-22

9

2

2007130-13

NPO

NPO

NPO

10 16

5 921

1982

1997

921

2008

921 10

2000 1

2000 4

5

18 23

78%56 37%

2001

4

11

Green Economic

2011

2

2002 2

15

30 16

28 2 5 13

921

2013 1

384.8% 921

87.2%61.9%

2006

2009

2 5%

10%DIY 5%

3

- (II) NSC 100-2621-M-260-001-MY2 100 8 102 7

12 16

12

1.2.3.

4.

2010

1.

1990

20032006

3

13

6

3

1999 7,659,720 51% 7,369,053 49% 15,028,773

2000 3,280,000 13% 22,488,166 87% 25,768,166

2001 20,400,641 84% 3,878,815 16% 24,279,456

2002 24,211,405 93% 1,790,107 7% 26,001,512

2003 12,591,158 100% 0 0 12,591,158

2004 16,347,730 100% 0 0 16,347,730

2005 12,384,653 91% 1,200,000 9% 13,584,653

2006 150,000 100% 0 150,000

2007 1,900,000 24% 6,000,000 76% 7,900,000

2008 4,711,000 31% 10,280,800 69% 14,991,800

2009 5,707,705 92% 500,000 8% 6,207,705

2010 1,584,369 100% 0 0 1,584,369

2011 2,349,850 100% 0 0 2,349,850

2012

14 16

2.

921

2006 2

921

200410-11

201089

2005

3.

2005 1 921

10

58 Paper Dome

Paper Dome

921

Paper Dome

20083

Paper Dome 10

9 2000

Paper Dome

15

2005

2005 5 4

2012

20052007

1.

2.3.

1.2.

3.4.

5.

16 16

1.

2.3.4.

2012

2012

1. NPO

2.

3.

2011

17

200820122012

2010

18 C

2010

4

4 1960 1970

2 1960

18 16

2011 18 20

10

2011

NGO 3

3

340

1999

2011

19

NPO

3 2

3

2014

2014

10 2011 4

1 2012 3 120 220

53%2013

40

2013

20 16

2013

4

2013

Butterfly

21

42013

10

2000

Intentionality

2012

NPO

1999 921 15

5

2005

22 16

5

+

/

/

/

/

/

1996

1999.

2.4

2002

2005

2009

23

Molly S, Cate()2011

2008

26(1)87-141

2013

2003

2007

199944-5

2010-

2003

31-28

20072012 1 22

http://www.tri.org.tw/research/impdf/814.pdf

2008--

7(1)63-67

2007

2006

2005 39

2009 6 24

http://www.cesroc.org.tw/e_paper_detail.php?sn=165#5

2008--

33(1)82-107

http://readopac.ncl.edu.tw/cgi/ncl3/detail?A03047284http://readopac.ncl.edu.tw/cgi/ncl3/detail?A03047284http://readopac1.ncl.edu.tw/nclserialFront/search/guide/search_result.jsp?la=ch&dtdId=000042&search_index=JT&search_value=%E5%B0%B1%E6%A5%AD%E5%AE%89%E5%85%A8$http://www.cesroc.org.tw/e_paper_detail.php?sn=165#5http://readopac1.ncl.edu.tw/nclserialFront/search/search_result.jsp?la=ch&search_type=adv&dtdId=000040&sort_index=PD&sort_type=1&search_index=AU&search_mode=&search_value=%E9%82%B1%E6%80%A1%E8%96%87$http://readopac1.ncl.edu.tw/nclserialFront/search/guide/search_result.jsp?dtdId=000042&search_index=JT&search_mode=&search_value=%E7%A5%9E%E5%AD%B8%E8%88%87%E6%95%99%E6%9C%83$&la=ch

24 16

2012

303-330

2011.12.27 A18

2008

2012

95-122

2001--

29(2)160-167

2006

667-105

2005 10-11

20021939-51

2004921

1-2

2005--

148103-130

2006----

2004

20071

93-100

2009921

10 921 96-107

2008.1.2

2012

25

2010

2009

10 921 118-141

2007

127-139

2007

2006--

2004

2005

2002--

2003

257-263

2009

10 921 262-271

2008 Paper Dome

Borzaga, Carol and Defourny Jacques (2001). The Emergence of Social

Enterprise. London and New York: Routledge.

Defourny, Jacques and NyssensMarthe (2006). Defining Social Enterprise.

MartheNyssens with the assistance of Sophie Adam and Toby Johnson(ed.),

Social Enterprise: At the Crossroad of Market, Public policies and Civil Society

(Pp. 3-26). New York: Routledge.

DTI(Department of Trade and Industry) (2002). Social Enterprise: A Strategy for

26 16

Success. London: Department of Trade and Industry. Retrieved August 03,2012,

from the World Wide Web:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/me

dia/cabinetoffice/third_sector/assets/se_strategy_2002.pdf.

Kerlin, Janell A.(2006). Social Enterprise in the United States and Europe:

Understanding and Learning from the Differences. Voluntas, 17, 247-263.

OECD (1999). Social Enterprise. Paris: OECD Publishing.

27

2000-2001

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2 921

3

4

5