The social economy has gotten expanding strategy consideration in ongoing many years, especially with the respect to its commitment to business. Much has been expounded on the expected function of the social economy as an answer for joblessness. It has been assessed that social economy associations (SEOs) comprehensively characterized as co-agents, mutual, affiliations and establishments, together record for 6.5% of total work in the European Union (Monzon and Chavez, 2012). Anyway later strategy consideration has all the more barely centered around the part of SEOs in work coordination for helpless gatherings, (for example, the drawn out jobless, or those with physical or emotional well-being issues). At the same time, little is thought about working conditions inside SEOs, especially for these defenseless people.

The social economy is something of a challenged idea, and intra-public contrasts in phrasing and use make it hard to infer a steady definition. There is anyway a few agreements, especially among mainland European nations, that the social economy incorporates cooperatives, affiliations, mutual and establishments. This gets from the French legalistic way to deal with characterizing the social economy, first utilized during the 1970s (Monzon and Chavez, 2012). An ongoing Worldwide Labor Organization (ILO) report (Fonteneau et al., 2011, p. vi) depicted the social and solidarity economy as "an idea that alludes to ventures and associations, specifically cooperatives, common advantage social orders, affiliations, establishments and social undertakings, which explicitly produce merchandise, administrations and information while seeking after monetary and social points and encouraging solidarity." Notably, the European Commission (2010) have characterized the social economy as counting co-agents, shared social orders, non-benefit affiliations, establishments and social undertakings. There is by all accounts some agreement that it is the standards by which the social economy works – as opposed to its exercises as such – that distinguish its constituent associations. Moulaert and Nussbaumer (2005), for example, highlight the significance of vote based co-activity, correspondence and uniformity as key standards inside the social economy. Fonteneau et al. (2011) in the interim recommend that a portion of the working standards normal to this area are: interest, whereby individuals or clients have a function in proprietorship as well as dynamic; solidarity or consideration; development, which emerges from their responsiveness to consistently evolving needs; willful inclusion and self-governance; and a system measurement, including individuals meeting up to address recognized requirements.

The social economy: building comprehensive economies proposes that "what is basic about the possibility of the social economy is that it tries to catch both the social component just as the monetary component, inalienable in those associations which occupy the space between the market and the state. The distribution proceeded to express that 'the fundamental contrast among SEOs and revenue driven endeavors is the general point of their exercises, which on account of SEOs has an express social measurement, as opposed to just the quest for benefit, and its dispersion to proprietors, being the extreme objective.

It ought to be noticed that the standardizing approach doesn't plan effectively into the legalistic definition. In certain nations affiliations and establishments specifically have no equitable dynamic measure. For the reasons for this report the more legalistic meaning of the social economy utilized in past OECD distributions was received. Concerning hierarchical structure, the social economy was supposed to be included affiliations, co-agents, common associations and establishments, and accordingly, these are the kinds of associations remembered for the current examination.

Author: Xhudi Nasto, LDA Albania