Experimental governance? The emergence of public sector innovation labs in Latin America

Abstract

Public sector innovation labs are becoming an increasingly visible instrument in public sector innovation and experimentation. Proponents of these labs claim they can play an important role in addressing pressing social challenges, changing government structures and thereby shaping ideas and practices of future governance. Whilst some research has been carried out on public innovation labs, the focus of inquiry has been primarily on the emergence, models and activities of labs in Europe and North America. This paper attempts to contribute to this growing body of research by bringing forth some of the particularities of this phenomenon as it emerges in Latin America. Using as starting point three experimental interests identified in the available literature, namely increasing flexibilization of public procedures, developing methods for citizen engagement and experimental development of public policies, the paper presents insights and observations from a study of ten public sector innovation labs in Latin America. In particular, our focus is on how these interests are confronted with different realities and therefore what kind of challenges the labs face. Experimentation in Latin America seems to concern not only flexibilization, engagement and public policies; it also includes juggling with the tensions arising from budgetary constraints, the need to weave networks of regional labs to collaborate and finally the need to align their agendas to those of other institutions, while being accountable to different levels of society. This places Latin American labs in a different light than their European and North American counterparts.

Mapping design activities and methods of public sector innovation units through the policy cycle model

“…Scholars have studied PSI units by distinguishing them under categories such as organisational models, government levels, institutional relationships, approaches used, and operational modes (Gryszkiewicz et al, 2016;Rodríguez, 2018;Schuurman & Tõnurist, 2017;Tõnurist et al, 2017;Williamson, 2015a). Moreover, PSI units have been investigated according to their geographical sphere in areas such as Europe (Fuller & Lochard, 2016), Australia and New Zealand (McGann, Lewis, et al, 2018), and Latin America (Acevedo & Dassen, 2016;Ferreira & Botero, 2020). While the examined labs employ different methodological approaches, a generic "design-led" or "designerly" approach reflects in some of these characterisations Vaz & Prendeville, 2019).…”

“…While initially design consultancies worked with the public sector mainly in developing service design projects (Bason, 2018, pp. 171-178), in a second evolutionary phase innovation units were created to work on more profound public units, these have received multiple labels 1 as innovation labs (Bason, 2010;Gryszkiewicz, Lykourentzou, & Toivonen, 2016;Tõnurist et al, 2017;Vibeke Carstensen & Christian, 2012), public sector innovation labs (PSI labs) (Ferreira & Botero, 2020;, policy labs (Fuller & Lochard, 2016;Vaz-Canosa, 2021), public innovation labs (Junginger, 2014a), government innovation labs (Bason & Schneider, 2014;Selloni & Staszowski, 2013), innovation teams (i-teams) (Puttick, Baeck, & Colligan, 2014) and public sector innovation units (PSI units) . Moreover, scholars have concluded that design's major contribution to policy happens in the implementation of public services and programs (Bason & Schneider, 2014;Hermus et al, 2020;.…”

Canadian government policy innovation labs: An experimental turn in policy work?

“…Labs face challenges in moving their agenda forward to implementation. This is often a consequence of tepid or changeable senior level bureaucratic or political support (Ferreira and Botero 2020: 156; Lewis 2020: 6; Tõnurist, Kattel, and Lember 2017: 1468‐69; Olejniczak et al 2020).…”

“…In the case of Latin American labs, it was observed that the need to be “aligned with administrative mandates” (Ferreira and Botero 2020: 160). PIL autonomy is seen as a critical lab characteristic in overcoming deep‐seated government risk aversion.…”

Evaluating experimentation in the public sector: learning from a Brazilian innovation lab

“…There are recent efforts being made to evaluate the work of labs, but there is still little research in the Brazilian and broader Latin American context. According to Ferreira and Botero (2020), labs in Latin America face particular complexities and challenges, such as the needs to work under budgetary constraints, to weave regional networks, and to pay attention to institutional agendas and transitions in public administration, while also being accountable to different levels of society. Additionally, a research conducted on Latin American labs by Acevedo and Dassen (2016) pointed out that a distinctive feature of these labs, in comparison to other regions, is the emphasis given to actions related to transparency and citizen participationdemands arising from democratization processes after periods of dictatorship and less focus on carrying out team impact assessments.…”