Preparing for Social and Solidarity Economy 2.0 in South Korea: Meaning and Direction

 In my previous posts, I discussed how the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) was adopted as a national policy agenda by the current government of South Korea and explored the reactions from the field. In that context, I mentioned that Korea is entering a period of preparation for “SSE 2.0.” In this article, I would like to reflect on what SSE 2.0 means and what direction it should take moving forward.

 

👉Related Articles

Social and Solidarity Economy Adopted as a National Policy Agenda by South Korea’s Current Government (Part 1)

How Is the Field Responding After ‘Social and Solidarity Economy’ Was Adopted as a National Policy Agenda? (Part 2)

 

From my perspective, the government’s decision to adopt the promotion of the Social and Solidarity Economy as a national agenda presents an opportunity for Korea’s SSE to take a new leap forward. It was in this context that I referred to the idea of “SSE 2.0.” Whether this expression will remain merely a policy slogan or lead to tangible changes in the field is difficult to determine at this stage. What is clear, however, is that Korea’s Social and Solidarity Economy is currently at a turning point.

 

😆The 1.0 Phase of Korea’s Social and Solidarity Economy

 

The previous phase of Korea’s SSE can be described as the 1.0 stage. If summarized in one phrase, it was a period of quantitative growth.

 

From a policy perspective, the enactment of laws such as the Social Enterprise Promotion Act, the Framework Act on Cooperatives, and the Village Enterprise Promotion and Support Act laid the institutional foundations for growth. Public budgets and support programs expanded accordingly. In response, a wide range of organizations—including social enterprises, village enterprises, cooperatives, self-support enterprises, and social ventures—were established and began to grow.

 

As the ecosystem expanded, Korea’s SSE gradually became more visible and institutionalized. Until a few years ago, indicators such as the number of organizations, employment rates, and business survival rates were widely used as benchmarks for evaluating progress. Over time, SSE came to occupy a space between the public and private sectors, performing complementary roles within the broader economy.

 

However, quantitative growth inevitably encountered limitations. Changes in government policy direction led to reductions in new establishment and operational support, directly affecting the field. The long-discussed Framework Act on the Social and Solidarity Economy was not enacted. In addition, different types of SSE organizations were administered separately by different government ministries, creating structural fragmentation. These factors revealed clear structural constraints within the system.

 

😎Now Entering the Era of SSE 2.0

 

Today, Korea appears to be entering the era of SSE 2.0. If SSE 1.0 represented a stage of quantitative expansion, SSE 2.0 should represent a stage of qualitative development.

 

Rather than merely creating conditions for increasing the number of organizations, the focus must shift toward designing a stable institutional foundation and ecosystem that enable existing and future SSE organizations to operate sustainably. This requires moving beyond short-term project-based support and toward long-term structural design.

 

In the past, growth opportunities were often closely tied to government support. In the 2.0 era, however, government support should be combined with strengthened internal capacities of organizations, enabling them to enhance self-reliance and long-term sustainability. At the same time, SSE’s core strength—addressing social problems while engaging in economic activities—should be further developed. Even small, persistent social issues that continuously surface in society can be addressed through this model.

 

Of course, we are still at an early stage of setting direction. How SSE 2.0 will be implemented in practice, and what kind of growth structure will ultimately emerge, remains uncertain. Nonetheless, the adoption of SSE promotion as a national policy agenda signals the possibility of a different path of development compared to the past.

 

Ultimately, SSE 2.0 does not represent a completed state, but rather a guiding question about the future. Will Korea’s Social and Solidarity Economy remain primarily within the realm of government policy, or will it establish itself as a distinct economic sector dedicated to solving social problems? The answer will unfold over time. What is important, however, is that SSE 2.0 should not be understood as a simple numerical upgrade, but as a meaningful shift in values, structure, and direction.