Social Innovation: The Promise and the Reality in Marginalised Rural Areas in Europe

Abstract

In this paper, we explore the idea of social innovation as both a conceptual and practical means of delivering positive social, economic and environmental outcomes in marginal rural areas. Definitions are critically appraised, and the dual contemporary origins of the term social innovation (in management sciences and critical social science) are explored. There has been much conceptual confusion, in particular about the extent to which civil society agency is central or desirable in social innovation. Social innovation can be seen to be closely connected to a range of theories that inform both innovation and rural development, but it lacks a singular theoretical “home”. Social innovation can also have a dark side, which merits scrutiny. Three case studies illustrate social innovation processes and outcomes in different parts of Europe. Where committed actors, local enabling agency and overarching policies align, the outcomes of social innovations can be considerable. If rarely transformational, social innovation has shown itself capable of delivering positive socioeconomic and environmental outcomes in more bounded spatial settings. It seems questionable whether social innovation will survive as an organising and capacity-building concept alongside more established principles, such as community-led local development, which, although not exactly social innovation, is very similar and already firmly embedded in policy guidance or whether it will be replaced by new equally fuzzy ideas, such as the smart village approach.

“Wanna Be Provoked”: Inner Peripheries Generators of Social Innovation in the Italian Apennine

“…As far as the actor dimension is considered, several scholars have argued about the relevant role performed by social enterprises or cooperatives in promoting and shaping SI in IP. They often take on the key functions that the market or the state do not fulfill anymore [6,14]. As Bock has also underlined [2], it is the need to reorganize and reinvent local service provisions in inner peripheries that has somehow promoted the development of the social enterprise organizational model, where novel forms of collaboration between citizens, businesses, third-sector organizations, and the government are represented [44,45].…”

“…The reasons are due to the need for social change, which, according to the author, is perceived as very urgent in rural communities, where problems of marginalization, welfare retrenchment, primary sector dominance, and demographic transition are usually common [1,2]. While it is widely known in research and policy making that SI seeks to indicate changes in social relations, people's behaviors, and norms as a pre-requisite for solving deep social problems and creating a public value in areas where markets and traditional socio-economic policies have failed [3], the idea that SI initiatives and practices can also make a relevant contribution to fighting deep, territorial problems, such as peripherality, marginalization, and shrinkage, is less widespread [4][5][6]. In other words, SI has been frequently coupled with concepts of empowerment, social capital, and social inclusion, and less with others such as territorial cohesion, place-based development, or spatial justice.…”

Unlocking Social Innovation in XR for Healthcare in Coastal Communities

“…There is, however, a body of research that stresses the place-based nature of social innovation, and the need to contextualise social innovation within specific societal groups and geographies. Slee et al [34] detail how there is no 'theoretical home' for social innovation, with multiple interpretations and definitions across a range of disciplines [34]. Yet, social innovation has thrown 'light on complex processes of socioeconomic and spatial restructuring that have emerged at multiple levels in developed Western economies, especially as responses to the challenges confronting marginalised rural areas' [11].…”

Exploring Justice in the Process of Redesigning Local Development Strategies for LEADER: Representation, Distribution, and Recognition

“…In Germany, the federal organization of the state resulted in every federal state having its own deal with the European Commission, which for example concerned agreements related to co-financing either provided by the respective federal state or by the municipalities and districts [3] (p. 381). Scientists have evaluated the method and its impacts at the regional and national level (for Germany, e.g., [3,4]), from internationally comparative perspectives [5][6][7][8] and more recently also at the village level [9]. Scholars in the fields of geography, planning and European policy have investigated questions related to democratic principles [10], to multi-level governance [11], to social innovation [8,12] or the 'smartness' of regions [13].…”