NZ
N.M. Zaat
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
1 records found
1
Investing in Social Impact
How Social Impact Investment Funds create social impact through placemaking projects: the Dutch case of Stadmakersfonds
This thesis investigates how Social Impact Investment Funds (SIIFs) create social impact for beneficiaries by supporting social entrepreneurs engaged in placemaking projects. The goal of this research is to gain more insight into what is established as social impact and how SIIFs contribute to creating this.
Using the Dutch Stadmakersfonds (SMF) as the central case in an embedded single-case study, two supported placemaking initiatives (Huis Miereveld and Roodnoot) are analysed to understand how financial instruments, governance structures, and local ecosystems shape impact creation. As a hybrid fund, SMF functions as a mechanism to activate both public and private capital for the public purpose of generating social impact.
A qualitative multi-method design was applied, including document analysis, semi-structured interviews with ecosystem and project actors, and Capability Approach-based reflective conversations with beneficiaries. This last method is grounded in Sen and Nussbaum’s Capability Approach. The conversations assess experienced outcomes rather than organisational outputs, enabling systematic inclusion of beneficiary perspectives in impact evaluation.
The findings show that SMF generates social impact not merely through subordinated and patient capital, but through embedded non-financial support such as strategic guidance, mission safeguarding, and ecosystem building. These relational functions strengthen organisational resilience and stabilise socially programmed real estate. The fund’s additionality lies in both financial risk absorption and institutional capacity building that enables social entrepreneurs to execute their social programmes.
Impact pathways differ substantially between projects: Huis Miereveld demonstrates neighbourhood-level capability enhancement, whereas Roodnoot’s social impact is more internally oriented. The study further reveals a mismatch between output-driven measurement tools and beneficiaries’ lived experiences.
Although socially effective, SMF is not yet structurally financially independent. Its reliance on public funding and the limited revenue generated through a revolving loan model make it difficult to sustainably finance the relational and advisory functions that are central to its impact creation. This highlights the need for hybrid financial models that structurally recognise and fund both capital provision and non-financial support. ...
Using the Dutch Stadmakersfonds (SMF) as the central case in an embedded single-case study, two supported placemaking initiatives (Huis Miereveld and Roodnoot) are analysed to understand how financial instruments, governance structures, and local ecosystems shape impact creation. As a hybrid fund, SMF functions as a mechanism to activate both public and private capital for the public purpose of generating social impact.
A qualitative multi-method design was applied, including document analysis, semi-structured interviews with ecosystem and project actors, and Capability Approach-based reflective conversations with beneficiaries. This last method is grounded in Sen and Nussbaum’s Capability Approach. The conversations assess experienced outcomes rather than organisational outputs, enabling systematic inclusion of beneficiary perspectives in impact evaluation.
The findings show that SMF generates social impact not merely through subordinated and patient capital, but through embedded non-financial support such as strategic guidance, mission safeguarding, and ecosystem building. These relational functions strengthen organisational resilience and stabilise socially programmed real estate. The fund’s additionality lies in both financial risk absorption and institutional capacity building that enables social entrepreneurs to execute their social programmes.
Impact pathways differ substantially between projects: Huis Miereveld demonstrates neighbourhood-level capability enhancement, whereas Roodnoot’s social impact is more internally oriented. The study further reveals a mismatch between output-driven measurement tools and beneficiaries’ lived experiences.
Although socially effective, SMF is not yet structurally financially independent. Its reliance on public funding and the limited revenue generated through a revolving loan model make it difficult to sustainably finance the relational and advisory functions that are central to its impact creation. This highlights the need for hybrid financial models that structurally recognise and fund both capital provision and non-financial support. ...
This thesis investigates how Social Impact Investment Funds (SIIFs) create social impact for beneficiaries by supporting social entrepreneurs engaged in placemaking projects. The goal of this research is to gain more insight into what is established as social impact and how SIIFs contribute to creating this.
Using the Dutch Stadmakersfonds (SMF) as the central case in an embedded single-case study, two supported placemaking initiatives (Huis Miereveld and Roodnoot) are analysed to understand how financial instruments, governance structures, and local ecosystems shape impact creation. As a hybrid fund, SMF functions as a mechanism to activate both public and private capital for the public purpose of generating social impact.
A qualitative multi-method design was applied, including document analysis, semi-structured interviews with ecosystem and project actors, and Capability Approach-based reflective conversations with beneficiaries. This last method is grounded in Sen and Nussbaum’s Capability Approach. The conversations assess experienced outcomes rather than organisational outputs, enabling systematic inclusion of beneficiary perspectives in impact evaluation.
The findings show that SMF generates social impact not merely through subordinated and patient capital, but through embedded non-financial support such as strategic guidance, mission safeguarding, and ecosystem building. These relational functions strengthen organisational resilience and stabilise socially programmed real estate. The fund’s additionality lies in both financial risk absorption and institutional capacity building that enables social entrepreneurs to execute their social programmes.
Impact pathways differ substantially between projects: Huis Miereveld demonstrates neighbourhood-level capability enhancement, whereas Roodnoot’s social impact is more internally oriented. The study further reveals a mismatch between output-driven measurement tools and beneficiaries’ lived experiences.
Although socially effective, SMF is not yet structurally financially independent. Its reliance on public funding and the limited revenue generated through a revolving loan model make it difficult to sustainably finance the relational and advisory functions that are central to its impact creation. This highlights the need for hybrid financial models that structurally recognise and fund both capital provision and non-financial support.
Using the Dutch Stadmakersfonds (SMF) as the central case in an embedded single-case study, two supported placemaking initiatives (Huis Miereveld and Roodnoot) are analysed to understand how financial instruments, governance structures, and local ecosystems shape impact creation. As a hybrid fund, SMF functions as a mechanism to activate both public and private capital for the public purpose of generating social impact.
A qualitative multi-method design was applied, including document analysis, semi-structured interviews with ecosystem and project actors, and Capability Approach-based reflective conversations with beneficiaries. This last method is grounded in Sen and Nussbaum’s Capability Approach. The conversations assess experienced outcomes rather than organisational outputs, enabling systematic inclusion of beneficiary perspectives in impact evaluation.
The findings show that SMF generates social impact not merely through subordinated and patient capital, but through embedded non-financial support such as strategic guidance, mission safeguarding, and ecosystem building. These relational functions strengthen organisational resilience and stabilise socially programmed real estate. The fund’s additionality lies in both financial risk absorption and institutional capacity building that enables social entrepreneurs to execute their social programmes.
Impact pathways differ substantially between projects: Huis Miereveld demonstrates neighbourhood-level capability enhancement, whereas Roodnoot’s social impact is more internally oriented. The study further reveals a mismatch between output-driven measurement tools and beneficiaries’ lived experiences.
Although socially effective, SMF is not yet structurally financially independent. Its reliance on public funding and the limited revenue generated through a revolving loan model make it difficult to sustainably finance the relational and advisory functions that are central to its impact creation. This highlights the need for hybrid financial models that structurally recognise and fund both capital provision and non-financial support.