Theorizing multi-level governance in social innovation dynamics

Coproduced game-changing in transformative social innovation: reconnecting the “broken city” of Rio de Janeiro

“…This convergence is crucial for TSI processes, as has been frequently discussed (Pradel Miquel et al 2013). Indeed, the case appears to be an example of what has been called "bottom-linked" development (Eizaguirre et al 2012, Moulaert et al 2013 or "cocreation with citizens" (Voorberg et al 2015).…”

Empowering policies for grassroots welfare initiatives: Blending social innovation and commons theory

“…They see these initiatives as bearing an empowering potential (Moulaert, 2010). However, since these grassroots welfare initiatives face important material, legal and universalistic limitations (Martinelli, 2013) that limit their empowerment, social innovation scholars have argued that the initiatives should be articulated with public welfare through a bottom-linked approach (Moulaert, 2010;Pradel-Miquel et al, 2013). The benefits of this approach to the empowerment of grassroots welfare initiatives has been questioned by critical urban scholars that uphold that a bottom-linked approach may also lead to co-optation processes (Arampatzi, 2021;Bragaglia, 2020;Swyngedouw, 2005).…”

“…Rather than exclusively embracing only one of these perspectives, this article takes a more nuanced stand, a stand that already appears in the academic literature on social innovation. It posits that grassroots welfare initiatives cannot represent the only solution to the new forms of social, economic and territorial exclusion -because they suffer from a series of economic, legal and universalistic limitations (Martinelli, 2013)-but that they do have the potential to improve welfare production, by diversifying and innovating welfare production and by empowering communities, especially if they are interweaved with public welfare through a "bottom-linked" approach (Moulaert, 2010;Pradel-Miquel et al, 2013). This approach recognises "the centrality of initiatives taken by those immediately concerned, but stresses the necessity of institutions that would enable, gear or sustain such initiatives through sound, regulated and lasting practices and clearer citizen rights guaranteed by a democratic state-functioning" (Moulaert, 2010: 9).…”

“…In light of such limitations, social innovation scholars are calling for the local state to support these initiatives materially and legally, and encourage more of them to emerge (Kazepov et al, 2020) within a framework that has been defined as a bottom-linked approach to social innovation (Moulaert, 2010;Pradel-Miquel et al, 2013). According to this approach, state support for grassroots social innovation initiatives should be inscribed within a broader vision that rethinks the governance of welfare institutions, where the relationship between these initiatives and public welfare is defined in a more imbricated way: together they co-produce, co-learn and negotiate more democratic welfare institutions (Oosterlynck et al, 2020).…”

Transforming welfare institutions through social innovation and action research in Denmark

“…Going further back in the history of critical theory, the American sociologist C. Wright Mills focused on researchers having a democratic obligation to provide knowledge to citizens so that the latter may be able to hold the power elite accountable for decisions and to identify alternative solutions (Mills 1958, p. 173). In The Sociological Imagination (Mills 1959) Mills argued that research should analyse how everyday "troubles" at the individual level (such as everyday life in a nursing home) are linked to overall societal "issues" (political, economic and institutional frameworks and conflicts at the macro level) (Mills 1959, p. 211). Ordinary people's "little story" (people's experiences and handling of their living conditions in everyday life), should be linked to the macro development of the society's "big story": transformations of the political, economic and cultural macro context.…”