Introduction
Social innovation (SI) is an increasingly prominent but contested issue in discussions of social policy reform. Although not yet a familiar concept, nor widely understood (least of all by policy makers), it has entered mainstream policy discourses. However whether SI marks a significant departure in either theory or in practice, or merely in rhetoric, remains to be determined. This Review Article, and the Themed Section as a whole, aims to set out some of the questions social policy analysts should ask about SI, and to help clarify whether or not it is a significant development which merits attention. The Review begins by considering some of the reasons for the recent interest shown in SI before clarifying the meaning of the concept and outlining some of the different forms SI has taken. This discussion is followed by a consideration of some of the practical and theoretical questions which SI raises for social policy analysis. The Review concludes that social policy analysts cannot afford to ignore SI, but that the most effective contribution the discipline can make is to apply a critical empirical perspective to test the significance, value and impact of SI.
The emergence of social innovation
The current interest in SI transcends both national borders and political divisions. The European Commission's Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union states that ‘innovation is the overarching policy objective . . . all policy instruments measures and funding are designed to contribute to innovation’ (2010: 2). The European Commission President reiterated this interest, declaring that ‘The financial and economic crisis makes creativity and innovation in general, and social innovation in particular, even more important’ (Social Innovation Exchange, 2010: 5). This enthusiasm is shared by President Obama, who established an Office for Social Innovation and Civic Participation in 2009. In the UK, the Minister for Public Service Reform in the previous government stated that ‘innovation must now become the key force of change in the years ahead’ (Cabinet Office, 2009: 4), while the current government's Open Public Services White Paper (Cabinet Office, 2011) has the stated aim of encouraging more innovative models of service delivery.
A principal driver of the current interest in SI is the view that ‘In times of transformation, not only do new problems arise; old ways of looking at things become problems themselves’ (Jacques, Reference Jacques1996: ix). Among the ‘compelling social challenges’ confronting governments and social welfare systems, which advocates of SI argue require new responses, are continuing economic stagnation and the austerity measures introduced to respond to public budget deficits; changing demand for welfare support due to demographic trends such as population ageing and household diversity; the impact of globalisation and intensified economic competition, and the imperatives of environmental sustainability (Caulier-Grice et al., Reference Caulier-Grice, Davies, Patrick and Norman2012: 5). Whether SI contributes anything distinctive to understanding or responding to the challenges facing social welfare is the kind of question which social policy analysts are able to address. Is SI significantly different from social enterprise; does it offer anything more than older and more familiar concepts, such as the mixed economy of welfare? The papers in this Themed Section provide answers to such questions, but, irrespective of their conclusions, there are two pragmatic reasons for considering SI. The first is that, whether justified or not, SI is an idea which has entered the policy mainstream, particularly the terminology and thinking of the European Union. Secondly, actually existing and operating social innovations (SIs) are now sufficiently widespread that they cannot be ignored, even if the significance of their impact remains disputed. The first step in resolving this dispute is to clarify the meaning of ‘social innovation’.
Defining social innovation
As the Social Innovation Exchange has observed (2010: 14), SI ‘is an emerging field: it remains ill-understood and poorly researched’, and there is still confusion about what SI is (Mulgan et al., Reference Mulgan, Caulier-Grice and Pulford2010). The term has been associated with a range of activities, including social enterprise, community initiatives, new forms of delivering public service, the ‘Big Society’ (whatever, if anything, that might be taken to mean), and some of the measures in the UK government's 2011 Localism Act. Some SI advocates have suggested that such elasticity has the advantage that it may encourage a range of organisations and sectors to embrace and engage with an idea which is free of orthodoxy and doctrinal rigidity (Caulier-Grice et al., Reference Caulier-Grice, Davies, Patrick and Norman2012). However the current lack of clarity surrounding SI is not helpful; it risks ‘concept stretching’, where the practical value of an idea is reduced by over-extension (Sartori, Reference Sartori1970). To determine whether SI is anything more than a discursive fad requires greater precision and being able to identify and evaluate examples of it in operation.
Among the many diverse projects and reforms referred to in the SI literature are kindergartens, the hospice movement, the cooperative movement (including the Rochdale Pioneers in 1844 and credit unions which date to the 1850s), microfinance, fair trade, distance learning (such as the UK's Open University) and restorative justice programmes, to provide just a few examples. While the term itself only came to prominence in the 1990s, it is evident from these examples that SI refers to a much longer heritage. The practice of SI can be traced to Robert Owen's experiments in co-operative production, Proudhon, and other nineteenth-century social entrepreneurs, while different aspects of the theoretical background to SI can be traced back to Schumpeter, Weber, Adam Smith and Cantillon. According to Phillips et al. (Reference Phillips, Deiglmeier and Miller2008: 39), ‘social innovation can be a product, production process, or technology (much like innovation in general), but it can also be a principle, an idea, a piece of legislation, a social movement, an intervention, or some combination of them’. The question is: what, if anything, do such diverse examples have in common?
The first potential confusion to resolve is that despite the association between ‘innovation’ and ‘novelty’, SI is not be an entirely new development, as is evident from the fact that some examples of SI are over 160 years old. SI can involve a distinctive combination of existing features or the application of a familiar technology or process in a new way or to a new issue. However, such changes cannot be merely incremental developments nor ‘simply a rebranding of current programmes’ (BEPA, 2010: 40), but must have a transformational impact or aspiration. SI entails a paradigm shift in the organisation or delivery of provision, a reform ‘that profoundly changes the basic routines, resource and authority flows or beliefs of any social system’ (Social Innovation Generation, Canada, 2010).
Three other features common to many definitions of SI are summarised by Moulaert et al. (Reference Moulaert, Martinelli and Swyngedouw2005) as the content/product, process and empowerment dimensions. The content dimension refers to the fact that SI has a social orientation and addresses an unmet need, rather than being motivated by profit, although in some cases a SI may apply business practices to achieve its objectives. The process dimension describes how these responses transform social relations, in particular how SI can operate in an inclusive and empowering way, involving the participation of service users and deprived communities, in delivery and/or governance. This relates to the empowerment dimension of SI: initiatives develop capacity and enhance capability by creating new collaborations and partnerships which strengthen social assets and relationships (Gerometta et al., Reference Gerometta, Haussermann and Longo2005). A final attribute of SI, which features in many definitions, is that it should have a practical impact; this is related to the widespread view that diffusion and uptake is an important quality of SI. For example, Conger (Reference Conger1996) distinguishes between a social invention (an idea, technical development or procedure) and SI, which is the adoption, implementation and impact of that invention.
A definition which summarises these features is that SI is a distinctive and effective response to address unmet needs motivated by a social purpose which enhances social assets and capabilities. This is similar to one of the most common definitions in the SI literature: ‘Social innovations are new solutions (products, services, models, markets, processes etc.) that simultaneously meet a social need (more effectively than existing solutions) and lead to new or improved capabilities and relationships and better use of assets and resources’ (Caulier-Grice et al., Reference Caulier-Grice, Davies, Patrick and Norman2012: 18). In this respect, SI covers a much broader range of activity than social enterprise or social business (although examples of these could be SIs). SI is also distinct from both technological innovation and private enterprise, although both might offer potential insights to understand the content, process, empowerment, diffusion and impact of SI. Finally, SI can occur in the public as well as the third sector and civil society. Some commentators distinguish between SI undertaken by entrepreneurs in the third sector or civil society and public sector intrapreneurs and reformers (Bason, Reference Bason2010). The bulk of the existing SI literature has focused on developments in the third sector, but innovations in governance and public services will be of particular interest to social policy analysts, given the substantial research undertaken by the discipline in this sphere, and analysing public sector SI is a particular feature of this Themed Section. Whether SI processes and outcomes differ between public and civil society sectors is just one of the several questions about SI to which social policy can contribute.
Social innovation and social policy analysis
SI is currently a field where the ‘wisdom of practice’ is more advanced than theory. Hawkins described this situation as those ‘times in human history when there is much more wisdom in practice than in the academy, when gamblers know more about probability than statisticians, and when sailors know more about the heavens than astronomers’ (Hawkins, Reference Hawkins, Schulman and Keislar1966: 3). This situation is often encountered in areas characterised by bottom-up development, where state-of-the-art knowledge is held by community entrepreneurs and practitioners initiating innovations at the front line, sometimes on an ad hoc basis or in response to specific local challenges. This situation is changing as more analysts and commentators study SI, and this is a necessary development as only limited progress is possible without theoretical analysis. Theory is required in order to establish the significance of a particular SI: its likely impact and viability beyond its specific origins and possible dependence upon particular circumstances, communities or charismatic entrepreneurs. Theory is also required in order to understand the connections between factors and to hypothesise about which relationships between variables are significant and which are merely incidental.
There is still much that remains unknown about SI, and basic questions which still require answers. At the current stage of development of SI, the most effective strategy for providing such answers and advancing theory is to develop what Merton (Reference Merton1949) called middle range theories, i.e. to investigate specific questions, and propose hypotheses concerning particular aspects of SI which can be researched and tested empirically. There are five sets of questions which require middle range theories to advance understanding of SI.
1. Origins and contexts of social innovation
What circumstances and conditions lead to SI? Does it emerge from common social conditions or develop in unique circumstances in response to specific events? Can governments or other agents create conditions to stimulate SI? Are there particular legal or regulatory environments which either encourage or inhibit the development of SI? Is SI generated primarily by charismatic individuals and dependent upon the actions of community entrepreneurs? What is the relationship between SI and social capital: is social capital a necessary precondition for SI, or can SI initiatives themselves cultivate social capital?
2. The impact of social innovations
‘Too often, the benefits of SI as adduced by its enthusiasts may be more of a claim based on anecdotal evidence rather than on scientifically proven fact. In addition, the potential costs are often minimised or ignored altogether’ (BEPA, 2010: 42). What evidence (if any) is there of the impact and added value of SI? For example, do SI initiatives enhance community efficacy and/or political capabilities? Do any impacts produced by SI persist over the longer term? If so, how are such effects sustained and are there particular supporting mechanisms which assist this?
3. Expanding and transferring social innovations
Can successful local SIs be scaled up to produce greater effects or help a wider range of beneficiaries? How is this achieved (Mavra, Reference Mavra2011)? It has been noted that ‘the literature on social innovation is full of case studies of individual programs or initiatives with little attention being paid to the fundamental issue of replicability’ (Borzaga and Bodini, Reference Borzaga and Bodini2012: 8). The transferability of experiments and experience is a particularly important issue for social policy, and the value of SI depends upon whether it can lead to more than interesting case studies and can have wider applicability. Are there standardised SI models which can be shared or franchised across contexts, or are there cultural or other barriers preventing successful transfers? The papers by both Ruddat and Schönauer and Lucas et al. in this Themed Section consider the relative receptiveness of different political and institutional contexts to SI. A particular issue discussed by Roy et al. in this Themed Section is whether SI originating in the developing world can be transferred to more developed countries.
4. Theories of change
Every social policy is based on some theory of the causes of the problem they address and how the intervention will resolve or ameliorate these; this applies equally to SI. These theories may be implicit, but it is necessary for those evaluating SIs to articulate and assess the assumed relationship posited between actions and outcomes. Identifying the theory of change underpinning a particular SI is necessary in order to understand how effects are thought to come about so that these hypotheses can be tested; without some model of how impacts occur an intervention is merely a stab in the dark. A specific theory of change also enables reflection, e.g. upon the aspects of the innovation that can produce particular effects, and whether these can be replicated in other contexts. Specifying the underlying theory of a SI also reveals the view of the world upon which it is based; i.e. beliefs about the social forces which determine circumstances.
5. Mainstreaming social innovations and relations with the private sector
Ought SIs aspire to becoming mainstream service providers, and if so, how could this be accomplished? Should SIs develop strategic partnerships with private sector organisations and move such relationships beyond those based on charity or corporate social responsibility? One implication of institutional theory is that third sector organisations adopt the behaviour favoured by their dominant funder: would collaboration between SIs and private partners lead to co-option and change their fundamental character (Teasdale, Reference Teasdale2011)?
These are important questions about the facilitating conditions, functioning and effects of SIs. However from a social policy perspective the questions asked about SI should be more than merely practical matters of impact and efficacy (‘what works’?); there are deeper questions concerning what SI implies about measures to promote wellbeing. Three such issues are particularly worth noting: the distributional implications of SI, what SI means for the status of those receiving support and how existing providers of social and welfare services respond to the challenge of the SI discourse.
Every social intervention generates a ‘who, who?’ question (rather than Lenin's ‘who, whom’?), i.e. who pays and who benefits? Analysis is required of the distributional implications of SI. For example, SI could be used to legitimise service reductions, enabling governments to off-load their responsibilities and privatise social services (Greenhalgh, Reference Greenhalgh2011: 5). One lesson from the papers in this Themed Section is that it is important to take a critical approach towards SI and inquire how the term is used and with what effect.
It is also important to examine the accountability implications of SI. What are the implications for citizenship rights if a previously public welfare service is replaced by a SI? An entitlement is distinguishable from charity by being an enforceable right, juridified by law and justiciable (Veit-Wilson, Reference Veit-Wilson2012). What rights will those receiving a SI possess: will any support they receive from a SI be equivalent to a legally enforceable public service with corresponding appeal systems and redress procedures? What apparatus of oversight and enforcement will be required to support users’ rights, and are these compatible with SI initiatives?
A final theme evident from the articles in this Themed Section, in particular in Lucas et al.'s comparative analysis of care services, is the highly politicised nature of the SI discourse and how it can be captured by the public bureaucracies potentially threatened by the changes it implies, and redefined to preserve the status quo and serve their own interests (Conger, Reference Conger1996; Thomas and Davies, Reference Thomas and Davies2005).
It is beyond the scope of this Review Article, and indeed the Themed Section, to answer all of these questions and others which might be asked about SI. The aim instead has been to encourage a debate within social policy about the significance of SI by identifying some of the key issues and questions which it raises. This is a necessary first step in producing research evidence and analyses which replace claims and anecdotes with an empirical foundation.
Conclusion
Social policy analysts are right to be sceptical before accepting that a new concept is necessary or legitimate, and the purpose of this Themed Section is to help clarify whether SI marks a significant departure and to consider its potential implications. SI is subversive of existing practice in both a potentially positive and threatening way. It is one of a number of concepts with potentially progressive and regressive implications; other such concepts include ‘resilience’, ‘asset approach’, ‘localism’, and ‘social capital’. Each of these terms could be applied to justify contrasting diagnoses of and prescriptions for social problems. For example, SI could be used as a basis for providing responsive and user-led services which offer a participatory and empowering response to social problems; such an interpretation could cultivate community capacity and enhance resilience. On the other hand, the SI discourse could be used to promote a Smilesean idea of self-help and a justification for reducing or withdrawing public services; similarly, groups or communities which do not appear to develop innovative responses to the challenges they face could be blamed for their lack of initiative (Mooney, Reference Mooney2010).
Even if it is possible to ensure that SI is used in a progressive way to empower rather than condemn those who experience social problems, there is a wealth of social policy analysis cautioning about what might be expected of the potential impact of such initiatives. Many of the social problems which SIs address lie beyond the boundaries and power of even the most imaginative and energetic communities, social entrepreneurs and public intrapreneurs. The conditions such activists are dealing with are in many cases symptoms of structural forces and macro-economic factors which must be understood and reformed at a much higher level (Alcock, Reference Alcock2005). In the view of the President of the European Commission, ‘Social innovation is not a panacea but if encouraged and valued it can bring immediate solutions to the pressing social issues with which citizens are confronted’ (BEPA, 2010: 14). There is reason for cautious support of the SI discourse and some of the measures it embraces, but its limitations must be recognised and it is no substitute for more fundamental and far-reaching social reforms.
