In this thesis we have examined the social economy, both as a concept and as organizations and activities, in Sweden and Japan. Social economy, as used in this study, refers to organized activities which primarily aim at serving the community, are being built on democratic values, and are organizationally independent of the public sector. These social and economic activities are run mainly by associations, cooperatives, foundations and similar groups.

　Over the past two decades an increased interest in social economy activities has been seen in both Sweden and Japan. In Sweden, this interest was further enhanced by the EU membership in 1995. With the EU membership a number of subsidies directly targeting social economy activities became available. In Japan, the interest in social economy activities saw a dramatic development through the attention given volunteer activities in the aftermath of the great Hanshin earthquake in 1995. More than 1.3 million volunteers and a large number of non-governmental organizations converged on the devastated area to offer relief and assistance to the victims of the earthquake

　In the analyses of local activities and organizations, in the Swedish county of Jmtland we found that the social economy development was most evident in the establishment of new cooperatives during the 1980s and 1990s. These new cooperatives were characterized by being small with close relations to their members, providing social or medical services that the public sector traditionally was the sole provider of, and that they were deeply rooted in the local community. In the Japanese prefecture of Iwate we found that, rather than new cooperatives were started, traditional cooperatives were found to include or expand their fields of activity in order to meet their members’ needs. We argue that this way to develop social capital in cooperatives would further enhances the cooperative idea and is an indication of the common values that cooperatives share with other parts of the social economy.

　EU membership did not result in a significant increase in the growth of either cooperatives or local development groups. However, what the EU membership did contribute to was an increased notion and appreciation of activities performed by social economy organizations. This was further promoted by the work of the cross ministerial working group that presented a definition and description of the Swedish social economy. By involving not only representatives from the government, but also researchers, and more important representatives from the social economy organizations, a common understanding and notion of the social economy term and activities was achieved. Through the work in partnerships with public and private bodies on community development and other local projects the roles of social economy actors, county level organizations and local governments have become transparent, and a clear understanding of the abilities and disabilities of each sector or group was achieved.

　In Japan, as discussions and research on the social economy was pursued by a limited group of people who had strong ties to cooperative studies, neither the social economy concept nor its Japanese rendering “nonprofit and cooperative” gained public acceptance. We conclude by suggesting that discussions in Japan on a unifying concept should be taken up again, this time including a larger audience. It would thus enhance the cooperative links between organizations in Japan that are involved in social economy activities. It could also help these organizations realize that the social economy concept places them on common ground. Furthermore, an extensive discussion on the values and functions of social economy organizations and their activities would result in greater insight and recognition by government officials and by ordinary citizens of the great variety of forms and methods available to organizations that fall under the social economy label, thus facilitating a better utilization of Japan’s vast reserve of volunteer and cooperative energy.

　この20年間、スウェーデンと日本においては、ソーシャル・エコノミー活動 への関心が高まっている。 スウェーデンではＥＵ加盟にともない、この関心はさらに進んだ。そして、 ＥＵ加盟後ソーシャル・エコノミーをターゲットにしたＥＵからの援助・補助金が利用可能となった。 日本では、特に阪神大震災の約130万人のボランティアや非政府組織の救援活動により、多くの人々は ＮＰＯやソーシャル・エコノミーへの関心を高めるようになった。

　こうした分析にもとづき、スウェーデンのイェムトランド県におけるソーシャル・エコノミーの 発展が、特に1980年代から90年代にかけて新しい協同組合の設立として現れていることを明確にした。 これらの協同組合の特徴は、第１に、組合員と地域社会との密着な関係を保ち、小規模であること、 第２に、近年まで公的部門以外で行っていなかった社会的及び医療サービスを提供していることである。 一方、岩手県の事例分析から言えることは、むしろこれらの領域において既存の協同組合が組合員の 多様なニーズに応えるために新たな活動分野を拡大しているのが特徴的である。

　スウェーデンにおいてＥＵ加盟と関係して協同組合や地域発展グループの増加は見られていないが、 ＥＵ加盟後ソーシャル・エコノミーに対する関心や認識は明らかに向上した。この認識や関心をさらに 向上させたのが、スウェーデン政府により設立されたソーシャル・エコノミーを定義し説明することを 目的としたワーキング・グループであった。これらは、複数の省庁の他、多様な分野の研究者と ソーシャル・エコノミーの代表者によって構成された。その結果、ソーシャル・エコノミーに関する知識 や認識は大きく普及した。さらに、地域づくり等を目標としたソーシャル・エコノミーと公的部門や私的 部門との共同プロジェクトによって、それぞれの役割や可能性が明らかになった。

　日本でのソーシャル・エコノミーに関する議論は主として協同組合関係者によって行われたもので あるので、ソーシャル・エコノミー（社会的経済）やその邦訳「非営利・協同」の概念はそれほど普及 していない。こうしたことから、日本においてはソーシャル・エコノミーについての総合的な概念の議論を より多くの関係者の参加によりもう一度取り上げる必要性があることを提言したい。この様な議論によって、 ソーシャル・エコノミー活動を行う様々な組織間の連携、組織や機関の共通点と相違点も明確になると考える。 そしてさらに、広範囲にわたる総合概念の議論によってソーシャル・エコノミーに含まれる多様な組織に 関する行政や市民の認識も高まるものと考えられる。このことによって、日本におけるボランティアや協同の エネルギーがさらに発展することであろう。