The beginning of February occasioned a media coverage of notion of entrepreneuriat social thanks to the launching of the movement of the social businessmen and of events of the living room of the businessmen.

This notion questions directly the associative world. It is apparently a matter here of social business in the context of a sharp crisis of capitalism. Problems become clear with regard to broad economic positions which hold associations: are they concerned by the social entrepreneuriat and its objectives of renovation of the capitalist economic system?

During the Beddings of CEGES in October, 2009, the academic Marthe Nyssens, of European research network EMES, introduced two big existent conception today. It is indeed necessary to differentiate the American north context of "not benefit" (associations and foundations) of European context of "not for benefit" (associations and cooperatives).

The concept of social firm would be born in the United States due to a sensitive reduction of the public financings granted in the sector, of a weak taking care by the authorities of production and of management of social welfare and therefore of appeal augmented in the market, while in Europe we attend an evolution of modalities and in forms of the public financing, rather than in a reduction in volume. At the same time, (or reform of the State), of almost markets by the bet in competition of operators of public policies develops everywhere, in the right descendants of new public management . Difference is here important between North American conception and that, European, who stresses social innovation more (cf. Italian cooperatives and new legal forms in Europe, problems of amenities notably in insertion by economic activity, etc.) and take conductor's role. To be more definite still, the school of commercial recipes becomes divided into two depending on whether it promotes the sales and marketing person not benefit of associations or the approach of the commercial company with social purpose. This last favours the point of view of " the businessman " and the importance of impacts rather than of resources. Today, in France, both schools tend to merge their approach. What is one of the sources of confusion for the associative sector.

The approach offered by the Movement of the social businessmen in France is of European inspiration in the fact that she wants to anchor the notion of social entrepreneuriat in the tradition of social economy. Where from reflexion hired on criteria of the social firm: an economic plan with a significant level of risks but a primacy granted in social purposes. Asks here the crucial question of profitable purpose, (everyone or limited?) and of the mode of gouvernance participative not to say democratic. Movement worked out a first beam of necessary and registered criteria, plinth for the development of a shared quality-label. It is a question he can measure precisely weight and impact of the social firms, found public policies in their favour, give them more visibility and legibility to the general public and economic circles or else avoid recoveries (" socialwashing "). The quality-label is so introduced expressly in reference to the field of social and united economy.

However this conception questions the researchers about social and united economy. The intervention of nadine Richez-Battesti during 29th meetings of co-operative Credit manifests it: If there is well a bankruptcy of social and united economy, it is neither its plan nor its model of organisation: it is his inability, untill today, to inject on the whole of the society these basic principles that the big groups adapt now around notions as social business . Some people do not hesitate to put nearness forward between it social business and social and united economy. I see an absolute ignorance of social and united economy, a misappropriation of its principles and some recovery there, of which I hope that you are aware.

It puts forward here the democratic and participative dimension of the plan of social and united economy registered in its statuary functionings. This deep criticism is based on the official report of the failure of legibility of the actors of social and united economy and of visibility of their results. It is precisely this structural weakness of social and united economy that put forward the promoters of the social entrepreneuriat. Social and united economy would not tell difference to change things and more still, it would have willy-nilly no proof of its political ambition.

Jean-Louis Laville shows in the last work, Politics of the association , that in the opposite the social firm has big ambition according to one of its prophets, M.M.YUNUS for whom the flood of creativity [of social business] aura the faculty to transform the world . Jean-Louis Laville reminds while in this frame where converge the social investors and the individual businessmen the association is led to become a convert in social firm, then approached as a firm in the sense full of term " ( ) . While the first objective of social business well is to introduce the competitive into the social field, the researcher delivers his analysis of displacement in the associative world of such notion: nothing amazing in it than this vision wins in audience for a period when capitalism tries to restore its coat of arms. She indeed offers to spread logic up to the non-profit-making organisations. It is therefore all their political dimension which is evacuated, solicitude of the well-off and capitalism with the bare feet enough to eradicate poverty.

Apparently the notion of social entrepreneuriat questions the French associative model based notably on a partnership with authorities not being recovering from logic of markets. This model, apparently reasserted during the last conference of the community life, is put therefore under high pressure by the evolution of the practices of the State "animator" and of European regulations.

That is why CPCA worked during more than a year with dozens association Офис-holders any sectors merged to succeed in who reasserts key principles of associative economy and his social and citizen's gain.

To undertake him associative produces a real, creative economy of thousand million euro dozens of consequences, employers of about 2 million persons. It is first an economy of plan before being an economic plan, in this direction it is based on a not willy-nilly individualised and collective entrepreneuriat. This unprofitable economy, only capable of mobilising voluntary work, is apparently located by the population which, opinion poll after opinion poll, supports an increase of the economic weight of associations in the French society. Modes of gouvernance of associations as their capacity of socioeconomic innovation are more than ever today resources to renew the sociology of the firm, sciences of management and of management.

To be comprehensible, the debate on the social entrepreneuriat must therefore question apparently the entrepreneurial world classical, that is to say capital-intensive and profitable. Located apparently on this economic and commercial field, he indeed renews a debate on the recognition of various forms to undertake to avoid that free market becomes a society of the market. This new news (x) must be introduced and received as supplementary in existent forms of social economy and not the disqualifiante or subsidiary. The association, it is necessary to remind of it, is a major form to undertake in the service of general interest, of voluntary grouping in commercial activities.

To discuss it, CPCA organised an event opened to all, on Thursday, February 18th, 2010.