En un peu moins de trente ans, les modalités de financement du système de retraite ont été complètement bouleversées. Les nouvelles règles en vigueur se caractérisent non seulement par leur instabilité et leur complexité, mais elles ont en outre eu pour effet d’écarter le système de retraite de sa logique initiale. Alors que l’organisation administrative et financière mise en place à la Libération avait pour objectif de concrétiser une vision essentiellement contributive, corporatiste et équitable de la prise en charge du risque « vieillesse », les réformes intervenues depuis le début des années 1990 s’inscrivent dans une toute autre logique, davantage fondée sur l’idée de redistribution, d’universalisme et d’égalité en droit. La présente étude vise à démontrer que les modalités de financement du système de retraite ne sont pas neutres. Des mesures qui apparaissent au premier abord comme étant essentiellement techniques et comptables vont en réalité pouvoir renforcer les principes sur lesquels repose la prise en charge du risque « vieillesse » ou au contraire, les affaiblir. Au-delà, c’est toute une conception politique et idéologique de la retraite qui est en jeu. Avant de mener l’indispensable réforme du système de retraite, il est donc important de prendre conscience de la signification et de la portée des différentes techniques financières qui existent. Ce n’est qu’à cette condition que pourra être engagée une réforme cohérente, capable de garantir l’équilibre des comptes sociaux tout en respectant un cadre normatif et idéologique clairement posé et assumé. / In just under thirty years, the means of financing the retirement pension system have completely changed. The rules currently in force are characterised not only by their instability and complexity, but also by the fact that they suppose a total departure from the original rationale behind said system. Whereas the administrative and financial structure set up during the Liberation sought to instil an essentially contributive, corporativist and equitable scheme to cover the risk of “old age”, the reforms introduced since the beginning of the 1990s respond to an entirely different logic, more based on the concept of redistribution, universalism and equality in the eyes of the law. The present study aims to show that the means of financing the pension system are far from neutral. Provisions that at first glance can seem to be of a quintessentially technical or accounting nature in fact serve to reinforce, or even to weaken, the underlying principals of how to cover the risk of “old age”. Thereafter, there is a entire political and ideological vision of retirement in play. Before carrying out the much-needed reform of the pension system, it is therefore vital that we are aware of the import and scope of the various financial techniques that currently exist. Only by doing so can we pave the way for a coherent reform of the system, which is able to guarantee the balance of social accounts whilst also adhering to a regulatory and ideological framework that is clearly implemented and assumed.

Over the past decade, Social Impact Investing (SII) has garnered increasing attention among public policy makers as a solution for multigenerational, complex, intractable social and environmental problems, or as some advocates like to say, ‘wicked’ problems. The growing interest in SII aligns with the expansion, since the 1980s, of a set of public sector reforms that make use of new public policy instruments to achieve public objectives. Neoliberal economists and New Public Management (NPM) theorists have long argued for these reforms to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government bureaucracies. These reforms have led to a paradigm shift that Lester M. Salamon has labeled ‘New Governance’, characterized by public policies that make use of market mechanisms, partnerships with new actors, networks and flexible rules. Public administration scholars have suggested focusing on public policy instruments instead of the traditional focus on programs and institutions to gain an understanding of the dynamics of the ‘New Governance’ paradigm and to address important questions that go beyond the dimensions of effectiveness and efficiency. This dissertation draws on Lester M. Salamon’s framework for analyzing public policy instruments combined with a conceptual framework developed by the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). The thesis uses this framework to assess the SII market by examining three cases of Canadian federal public policy instruments designed and implemented to achieve socio-economic objectives. These policy instruments provide either a cash transfer or a tax incentive to create investment funds mandated to invest with a purpose of making a return and achieving a positive social outcome. The dissertation employs a qualitative research approach and case study method to explore questions of equity and effectiveness to produce findings and recommendations useful to pubic administration scholars who focus their research on public policy instruments and to public policy makers who are considering policy options for structuring and growing the SII market. Data was collected through an extensive document review and 19 semistructured interviews. A dimensional analysis, SII analysis and discourse analysis of the data were undertaken. The researcher made the choice of undertaking a discourse analysis in order to fill a gap in the public policy instrument literature and inform the debate on SII. This dissertation contributes to the body of knowledge on public policy instruments and SII by presenting the results of a comparative analysis of three public policy instruments that created investment funds mandated to produce socio-economic outcomes.

Over the last three decades, scholars in management, policy, and geography have examined the growing economic, social, and spatial impact of the financial sector. Venture capital firms have been a focus, generating a contested but deep literature around the roles of such "value-adding" capital providers in supporting the growth of firms, industries, and various territorial innovation models. In parallel, there has been substantial government support-financial, regulatory, and otherwise-of these private sector financial intermediaries, despite scepticism. The past twenty years have seen the emergence and rapid growth of analogous funders in the third sector, itself the realm of substantial experimentation and growth. These new intermediaries, "venture philanthropists", have become important players in shaping, structuring, and channelling funding to the third sector. The activities and effects of venture philanthropists are underexplored, as are their growing interactions with governments-despite intentional and striking similarities between the evolution of venture capital and that of venture philanthropy. This dissertation addresses these gaps by systematically examining the emergence, evolution, and operational practices of two influential British venture philanthropy funds: the first such fund in Europe (Impetus Trust) and the first fund in the world co-created with the state (Inspiring Scotland). The two venture philanthropy organisations (VPOs)-one with roots in venture capital, the other with roots in the voluntary and government sectors-both conducted the venture capital-inspired operational model of venture philanthropy in similar ways. That said, the VPOs reflected the logics and practices of their founders and funders. Impetus Trust more closely resembled early-stage venture capital, with a reliance on London-based networks, funders, and service providers-and a heavily London-focused portfolio. Inspiring Scotland evidenced the logics of government rather than charity in several instances, with substantial original research into social issues, heavily structured portfolios on set timelines, and regionally-distributed staff. This approach broadened access, allowing support of SPOs and their clients across various (and underserved) geographies, but limited options for opportunity-driven or expressive functions of philanthropy. I surveyed the CEOs of most organisations supported by the two venture philanthropy funds (82 of 98 charities and social businesses), supplemented by interviews of selected CEOs and the founders and staff of the two funds. I find that, overall, the two VPOs each engaged in seven core activities of venture capital, intentionally adapting them to the third sector: sourcing and selection, due diligence, an engaged relationship, provision of funding, provision of non-financial support, creation of network linkages, and intentional exiting of relationships. As in venture capital, this process had broader effects: providing signals of investee quality, preparing investees for subsequent funding, and expanding networks. The combination of long-term relationships and high formal reporting requirements imposed significant costs for SPOs-and also created a virtuous cycle of trust and collaboration between VPOs and SPOs. The venture philanthropy model also had broader societal effects, creating data regarding individual organisations and the efficacy of responses to social issues, which in both cases informed policy. As intermediaries, venture philanthropists decreased power differentials and improved the flow of (oft-anonymized) information amongst funders, statutory bodies, and funded organisations, facilitating several types of collaboration. SPO managers indicated that they received, on average, approximately ten different types of non-financial support-like strategy consulting, human resources support, or legal counsel. These managers reported in interviews and surveys that the non-financial services provided by venture philanthropists were highly valued, on average. Further, managers believed these services provided more value than it cost the VPOs to provide them. Likewise, managers highly valued most forms of new networking connections (though not all services or linkages were found to be valuable). Smaller SPOs valued services and network links more highly than larger SPOs, although all sizes of SPOs indicated both were valuable, on average. Importantly, this data was provided by SPO managers and focused on the SPO-VPO dyad-rather than provided by VPOs and focused at the portfolio or trust level. This filled an important gap in the literature: academics and practitioners often lament that the voices of charities supported by foundations are not often enough heard, which limits our understanding of many aspects of organizational philanthropy and its effects-in particular the burdens and benefits for recipient organisations. I documented the co-creation of the first government-supported venture philanthropy fund through eleven interviews with founding managers and government officials. This model, in which state, private, and civil society actors collectively founded and funded a value-adding capital provider, militates against neoliberal assumptions of an ever-diminishing state, as does the leveraging of private resources in alignment with state aims-though it raises concerns around democratic processes, accountability, and local control. This work helps inform the changing nature of the voluntary sector and its relationship with the state. I focus on the increasing interaction of actors between and across systems-sometimes in new roles and coordinated by new intermediaries-in the allocation of resources and delivery of services in the public interest. These new interactions inform broad bodies of work that seek to understand changing sectoral roles, most notably discourses surrounding neoliberalism(s), financialisation, and public management. Overall, I find privately- and publicly-funded venture philanthropy playing a role in the third sector analogous to the role of venture capital in the private sector, with similar practices and concomitant effects in data generation, network formation and strengthening, facilitating partnerships, and signalling the quality of supported organisations. By examining two such emerging models of capital provision, I contribute grounded understanding of the way such systems are created and function across the private, public, and third sectors.