Understanding social innovation processes in rural areas: empirical evidence from social enterprises in Germany

Abstract

Purpose Against the background of increasing infrastructure loss in many rural areas, this study aims to contribute conceptually and empirically towards better understanding of rural innovation processes related to provision of public goods. Design/methodology/approach The nationally focused understanding of innovation processes leads the debate on rural development into a dilemma that this study seeks to sidestep via the concept of social innovation. Community cooperatives – a type of social enterprise that has increasingly emerged in rural areas of Germany in the past decade – offer the opportunity to examine social innovation processes. This cross-case study reveals the broad range of activities in which such cooperatives are active and analyses their social innovation processes. Findings The study shows that the social innovation governance framework enables examination of social innovation processes. Although macro-level policy has appeared to be an important instrument for financing social innovation, public actors at the micro-level seem barely able to initiate social innovation processes unless they are also private actors and, therefore, can pursue additional incentives. The social innovations studied here seem to differ in terms of their actor constellations and resource-allocation patterns, depending on whether they are concerned with the establishment or maintenance of local infrastructure. What they have in common, however, is the initiation of formalised collective-action processes that serve to legitimise social innovation. Originality/value By applying an analytical framework that is new to the literature on social innovation, the study provides insight into the activities and decision-making processes of actors involved in social innovation in rural areas. In this context, community cooperatives have rarely been studied as an interface between public, private and civil society actors or as a platform for mobilising human, social and financial capital.

Digitalization and Social Innovation in Rural Areas: A Case Study from Indonesia*

“…Digital economies that are more complex or narrower in scope require higher literacy and skills. As rural communities disproportionally suffer from disadvantages in digital inequality and inability, the use of more complex digital technologies is generally more problematic, particularly in the Global South (Martens, Wolff, and Hanisch 2020;Neumeier 2017). Nevertheless, at the same time, it provides room for expedited learning and urges them to fight collectively.…”

“…Social innovation is progressively regarded as a means as well as an end in overcoming the problems faced by rural communities (Bock 2012;Martens and Wolff 2020). Previous studies have provided comprehensive overviews of conceptual arguments regarding the term "social innovation."…”

“…We can expect that the stronger the motivation to participate is, the higher the level of commitment and intention to be involved in collective action is (Meerstra-de Haan et al 2020). Both top-down and bottom-up initiatives can stimulate rural social innovation, although some believe that top-down initiatives are less effective at stimulating innovative practices among rural communities (Martens et al 2020;Neumeier 2017). Agents in the third sector, such as activists, tend to have the ability to stimulate changes in a bottom-up way, often as a reaction to the failure of the government to provide social services to the community (Mulgan 2006).…”

Training of communities of sustainability practice through science and art

“…Table 1 shows the five categories used to evaluate this laboratory as a social innovation in terms of university training aimed to practice sustainability in its environment. Based on the literature review, the weighting of the categories was proportional (Bazan et al , 2020; Gupta et al , 2020; Martens et al , 2020; Tabares, 2020; Silvestre and Ţîrcă, 2019). The social innovation factor was calculated using a weighted average.…”

“…The training of this university communities involves the scientific research, from the design to the production of contents for the public communication of science in the public, productive and social sectors. The central assumption was defined as follows: this training model is a social innovation for sustainability training of practice communities because it promotes self-knowledge, social solidarity and digital competences through science and art, and their participatory action-research approach transcends the university walls (Bazan et al , 2020; Gupta et al , 2020; Martens et al , 2020; Martzoukou et al , 2020; Lorenzo et al , 2020; Tabares, 2020; Silvestre and Ţîrcă, 2019). Based on the effects of the innovation impact on the performance of sustainability – environmental, economic and social dimension (Kuzma et al , 2020), this experience in the sustainability training was evaluated as social innovation – critical interaction, shared values, social responsibility, digital competences and sustainability practice; furthermore, the direct and indirect contributions of their projects on SGDs were analysed.…”