Social Innovation: A Sympathetic and Critical Interpretation

Abstract

The effort to strengthen social cohesion and lower social inequalities is among Europe's main policy challenges. At the urban level, these great challenges become visible and tangible, which in many senses makes cities a microcosm of society. It means that local welfare systems are at the forefront of the struggle to address this challenge-and they are far from winning. While the statistics show some positive signs, the overall picture still shows sharp and sometimes rising inequalities, a loss of social cohesion and failing policies of integration and inclusion. When we focus on specific groups in society (e.g. migrants), the situation is even more dire. It is clear that new ideas and approaches to tackle these very wicked problems are needed. Contrary to what is sometimes thought, a lack of bottom-up innovation is not the issue in itself. European cities are teeming with new ideas, initiated by citizens, professionals and policymakers. There are by now many examples of innovation, paraded by think tanks and policymakers as tomorrow's answers. This is certainly promising. Yet this altogether too rosy picture obscures some of the drawbacks,

On the trail of local welfare innovations in rural Finland

“…During the past decades, the concept has been increasingly applied within the political mainstream discourse both at the EU and national levels. In this context social innovation has gained a more functionalist meaning as cost-efficient solutions that are sought for responding the socially recognized needs in times of crises (e.g., Bock, 2016;Brandsen et al, 2016;Häikiö, Fraisse, Adam, Jolanki, & Knutagård, 2017). The division is naturally simplified, but it demonstrates that regarding social innovation there are various and partly contradictory desires and expectations which according to Montgomery (2016) also reflect a broader conflict between neoliberalism and its opponents.…”

“…However, while the reductionist interpretation lays more emphasize on the 'product' dimension of social innovation defining them as "new ideas that work in meeting social goals" (Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, & Sanders, 2007, p. 8), the holistic approach focuses on both the dimension of process and outcome (e.g., Brandsen et al, 2016;Moulaert, MacCallum, Mehmood, & Hamdouch, 2014;Nicholls & Murdock, 2012). Under the circumstances, the interpretations differ how much attention they pay to the way the outcome is achieved and the more structural causes that lie behind the social needs.…”

Innovation and Social Investment Programs in Europe

“…These criteria included conformity to the research definition of Social Investment, implemented at sub‐national level, and involved social innovation. The operational definition of social innovation, following Bransden, Evers, Cattacin and Zimmer () was “ideas translated into practical approaches; new in the context where they appear.” Examples included new forms of partnership working, co‐production, and different and innovative forms of financing and/or intervention. The proposed cases were then considered as a whole, ensuring the overall sample included variety in terms of type of intervention, funding source, type of innovation, and service model adopted.…”

Social services, welfare states and places: an overview

“…Parallel to the above top-down restructuring processes, the last thirty years have also witnessed a blossoming of bottom-up initiatives at the local level, which aimed either at improving the way social services were supplied or at providing services in instances where they were not supplied or had been curtailed. These local collective initiatives -characterised by practices of users' participation, co-production and social economy -have been studied in the context of social innovation theory (Moulaert et al, 2005;Nicholls et al, 2015;Brandsen et al, 2016). The subject has become quite fashionable in the last ten years, even more so after the financial crisis of 2008, and significant expectations are being attached to 'socially innovative' initiatives as a means to reduce public outlays and involve communities in the provision of social services (Murray et al, 2010;Mulgan, 2012 and empower, social groups that are excluded from certain services and decision-making processes, they cannot and should not compensate for a retrenching welfare state Martinelli, 2012a).…”