In 2006, AARP was one of the largest, most well known nonprofit organizations in the United States. Its membership base exceeded 38 million individuals, by far the largest nonprofit membership base in the country. In recent years, it had influenced major federal legislation on issues including Medicare, Social Security, and pension reform through a coordinated effort of professional lobbyists and grassroots volunteers numbering close to one million. In addition, AARP Services Inc, the organization's wholly owned, taxable (earned income activities) subsidiary, managed relationships with AARP-endorsed businesses that generated over $500 million in royalties from health insurance, life insurance, mutual funds, and other products--making it one of the largest social enterprises in the country. With activities in the commercial, charitable, and political arenas, AARP had adopted a truly cross-sector approach to achieving its mission to "enhance the quality of life for all as we age." Despite its size, influence, and visibility, AARP felt the public did not fully appreciate or understand the organization. In the face of growing public interest and media fascination with the application of business practices and market principles in the social sector--under the rubric of social entrepreneurship--AARP received relatively little attention from journalists, thought leaders, and academics for its enterprising approach. The organization also faced a public relations challenge over the fundamental principles of its cross-sector model. Left unchecked, AARP knew that such allegations, regardless of their validity, could undermine its ability to achieve its long-term goals. The organization also faced competitive challenges and the problem of increasing internal cooperation and synergy across the entire organization in order to improve its competitiveness and execute its social impact and member value agendas.

Circus Oz was Australia's premier international circus, having performed in 26 countries on five continents. In early 2002, Circus Oz enjoyed its strongest financial position since its founding in 1977, making a profit and sitting on a surplus of AUD$1,169,313. Although in recent years the company had increased the percentage of revenue generated from the box office, more than 60% of its funding still came from the Australia Council, its largest government sponsor. Linda Mickleborough, general manager of Circus Oz, was pondering how to respond to a recent offer by the Australia Council to fund a new position, director of development, at Circus Oz. The Australia Council was strongly encouraging the circus to hire development professionals to expand its funding from corporate donors. As an enticement, the council offered to underwrite the cost of the position for two years. Mickleborough had found the ideal candidate. The decision, however, was still a difficult one. Circus Oz had relatively flat salaries, reflecting deeply held egalitarian and democratic values. These values were central to the company's creative process, culture, and aesthetic. The suggested salary of the development director position was more than two times the highest salary currently paid to any employee at Circus Oz. Such a large salary disparity might wreak havoc on the company's morale and culture.

In the most basic sense, a market failure occurs whenever the production or allocation of goods or services by a market is suboptimal. On one hand, this can mean that the output, price, or distribution of products is either inefficient in the sense that the overall level of economic value or social welfare could be increased. On the other hand, it can mean that the resulting allocation is inequitable or inconsistent with values of justice or fairness. From a public policy perspective, such failures are of concern because the public interest or overall social welfare is lower than it could be if the market were functioning more efficiently. Traditionally, societies have looked to government intervention to correct these market failures. Sometimes, charitable organizations got involved. However, private businesses were rarely called upon (or expected) to respond to breakdowns in efficient market operations by modifying their behaviors in a free-market system. However, a new class of actors has recently gained recognition. These individuals often found and manage organizations drawing on innovative ideas, using entrepreneurial skills, and leveraging market principles, but with one important difference from traditional entrepreneurs: they prioritize social impact over the creation of wealth. These "social entrepreneurs" have discovered and implemented new ways of creating social and environmental value by serving the needs of poor, disadvantaged, and neglected communities. Examines the insights, aspirations, and impact of three leading social entrepreneurs, their organizations, and their efforts to correct a diverse array of classical market failures.

Seattle's theatre industry had a rich, 38-year history of producing top-quality plays and musicals. In a typical year, the theatres collectively sold over 1 million tickets and pumped over $8 million into the local economy. Historically, the five major theatre companies--Seattle Repertory Theatre, A Contemporary Theatre, The Empty Space Theatre, Intiman Theatre, and Seattle Children's Theatre--each had a clearly defined mission statement and unique artistic focus. However, by the close of the 2001 season, the theatres' strategic and artistic identities had blurred as each company pursed growth. Some attributed theatregoers' and donors' waning interest and declining support to this homogenization in addition to the slumping U.S. economy. Others argued that there was too much capacity in the industry and that to survive, the stronger theatres had to expand their niches and even drive smaller, weaker players out of business. The vibrant Seattle theatre industry appeared to face monumental challenges to remain both critically acclaimed and financially sound.