Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:53:02.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Innovation: a Novel Policy Stream or a Policy Compromise? An EU Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2014

Matteo Bonifacio
Matteo Bonifacio*
Affiliation:
University of Trento, Department of Engineering and Information Science (DISI), Via Sommarive 5, 38123 Povo di Trento, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Spurred by the recent global economic crisis, Social Innovation (SI) has gained increasing attention in the European Commission (EC) agenda. However, it remains a heterogeneous and ill-defined concept, whose boundaries are unclear. Currently, within EC discussions, it encapsulates a variety of concepts from social enterprises to societal change. Adopting an ethnographic methodology, this analysis provides insight into the contrasting official ‘front-stage’ and ‘back-stage’ views, constraints and practices by which SI has been adopted and promoted by the EC. While the ‘front-stage’ perspective is more intentionally based on the official situations, documents, and statements, the ‘back-stage’ is informed by both the ethnographic analysis and its relationship with the ‘front-stage’ perspective. The main finding of the analysis is that SI might presumably be seen as the only way to align the Commission's conservative-liberal policy, which is rooted in the Lisbon Agenda, with the pressing social demands that stem from the 2008 financial crisis. However, this analysis also indicates that, rather than a novel policy stream, SI can also be seen as a policy compromise that can be used to detract from debates around the need to develop a fully-fledged EU Social Policy; more deeply, it can detract the policy debate from facing a thorough reflection on our society and development model. The analysis here will also provide an overview of the risks associated with current thinking viewed from the perspective of EU players operating in the socio-political domain.

Type
European History and Society
Information
European Review , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 145 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Nussbaumer, J. and Moulaert, F. (2007) L'innovation sociale au coeur des débats publics et scientifiques. In: J.-L. Klein and D. Harrisson (eds). Presses de l'Universite du Quebec, ISBN 2-7605-1374-2, Article no. 3.Google Scholar
2.Liddle, R. and Lerais, F. (2007) Europe's social reality. Consultation paper. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/ citizens_agenda/social_reality_stocktaking/docs/background_document_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
3.Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (2008) Renewed Social Agenda: Opportunities, access and solidarity in 21st century Europe. Brussels, 2.7.2008, COM (2008) 412 - final.Google Scholar
4.EC 2000 European Council Conclusions (March 2000) (Lisbon).Google Scholar
5.Communication to the Spring European Council (2005) Working Together for Growth and Jobs. A New Start for the Lisbon Strategy. Communication from President Barroso in agreement with Vice-President Verheugen. COM (2005), {SEC (2005) 192} {SEC (2005) 193}, 24 - final.Google Scholar
6.Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), pp. 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Di Maggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp. 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.European Commission (2011) Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union. Bureau of the European Policy Advisers, European Commission.Google Scholar
9.OECD (2010) SMEs, Entrepreneurship and Innovation (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
10.Harris, M. and Albury, D. (2009) The Innovation Imperative. Why Radical Innovation is Needed to Reinvent Public Services for the Recession and Beyond. The Lab, Discussion Paper (London: NESTA).Google Scholar
11.National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (2007) Innovation in Response to Social Challenges. Policy Briefing, National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (London: NESTA).Google Scholar
12.Phills, J. A. J., Deiglmeier, K. and Miller, D. T. (2008) Rediscovering social innovation. Social Innovation Review (Stanford: Stanford Graduate School of Business).Google Scholar
13.Nicholls, A. (ed.) (2006) Social Entrepreneurship: New models of Sustainable Social Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Defourny, J. and Nyssens, M. (2008) Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. and Mulgan, G. (2008) How to Innovate: the Tools for Social Innovation (London: NESTA).Google Scholar
16.Services for the Recession and Beyond (2009). The Lab, Discussion Paper (London: NESTA), March.Google Scholar
17.Noya, A. (2009) The Changing Boundaries of Social Enterprises (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
18.Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (eds) (2001) The Emergence of Social Enterprise (London and New York: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Mulgan, G. (2007) Ready or Not? Taking Innovation in the Public Sector Seriously. NESTA Provocation, Nr. 3 (London: NESTA).Google Scholar
20.Jouen, M. (2009) Service Public, le Défi de l'Innovation. Futuribles, 359.Google Scholar
21.Hämäläinen, T. and Heiskala, R. (2007) Social Innovations, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Edited in association with SITRA, the Finnish Innovation Fund (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Becker, G. S. and Murphy, K. (2000) Social Economics: Market Behaviour in a Social Environment. President and Fellows of the Harvard College.Google Scholar
23.Kahneman, D., Krueger, A., Schikade, D., Schwartz, N. and Stone, A. (2004) Toward national well-being accounts. American Economic Review, 94(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Stiglitz, J., Sen, A. and Fitoussi, J. (2009) Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.Google Scholar
25.Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness (New Haven and London: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
26.Vale, A. (2007) Silver Lining to Climate Change - Green Jobs. United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
27.Chesbrough, H. W. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
28.Defourny, J. (2001) From Third Sector to Social Enterprise. In: C. Borzaga and J. Defourny (eds) The Emergence of Social Enterprise (London and New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
29.Mulgan, G., Caulier-Grice, J., Kahn, L., Pulford, L. and Vasconcelos, D. (2010) Study on social innovation. A paper prepared by the Social Innovation eXchange and the Young Foundation for the Bureau of European Policy Advisors.Google Scholar
30.Duflo, E. (2004) Scaling Up and Evaluation. Papers of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Department of Economics).Google Scholar
31.OECD (2011) Fostering Innovation to Address Social Challenges Workshop Proceedings (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
32.Aho, E. (2006) Creating an Innovative Europe. Report of the Independent Expert Group on R&D and Innovation appointed following the Hampton Court Summit and chaired by Mr. Esko Aho (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).Google Scholar
33.Facing the Challenge. The Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Employment – Nothing New under the Sun. Report from the High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok for the European Commission, November 2004.Google Scholar
34.Lisbon Strategy Evaluation Document, SEC (2010), 114 – final.Google Scholar
35.Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J., Ou, S.-R., Robertson, D., Mersky, J., Topitzes, J. and Niles, M. (2006) Effects of a School-Based, Early Childhood Intervention on Adult Health and Well-being: A 20-Year Follow Up of Low-Income Families (ECRC Paper Series).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.Rifkin, J., Carvalho, M. and Bonifacio, M. (2008) Leading the way to the third industrial revolution and a new social Europe in the 21st century. The European Energy Review, cover story in the Special Edition also distributed at the European Energy Review as a mini edition at the Poznan Summit on Climate change.Google Scholar
37.Jackson, T. (2009) Prosperity Without Growth (Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Earthscan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Latouche, S. (2004) Degrowth economics: why less should be much more. Le Monde Diplomatique.Google Scholar
39.Hoegen, M. (2009) Statistics and the Quality of Life: Measuring Progress – A World Beyond GDP (Bonn: Inwent).Google Scholar
40. An Inter-Service group is a group that gathers EC officials to deal with matters that are transversal to the traditional domains of action of a single Directorate General.Google Scholar
41.Nordhaus, W. D. and Boyer, J. (2000) Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42.Stern, N. (2007) The economics of climate change. The Stern Review (London: HM Treasury).Google ScholarPubMed
43.EC (2009) The World in 2025. Contributions from an Expert Group. European Commission, European Research Area, 69.Google Scholar
44. Synergies between the EU Seventh Research Framework Programme, the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme and the Structural Funds. EP 2006, European Parliament, Policy Department, Economic and Scientific Policy (IP/A/ITRE/FWC/2006-87/LOT3/C1).Google Scholar
45.Agar, M. (1996) Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction To Ethnography, 2nd edn (New York: Academic Press).Google Scholar
46.Genzuk, M. (2003) A synthesis of ethnographic research. Occasional Papers Series. Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research (eds). Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
47.Yin, R. K. (1989) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).Google Scholar
48.Fetterman, D. M. (1998) Ethnography: Step-by-Step, 2nd edn (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).Google Scholar
49.Van Maanen, A. (1973) Observation on the making of policemen. Human Organization, 32(4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50.Orr, J. E. (1996) Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job (New York: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
51.Harris, M. and Johnson, O. (2000) Cultural Anthropology, 5th edn (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon).Google Scholar
52.Douglas, J. D. (1976) Investigative Social Research (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage).Google Scholar
53.Bourdieu, P. (1979) Algeria 1960. The Disenchantment of the World: The Sense of Honour. The Kabyle House or the World Reversed: Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
54.Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55.Nell, E. J. (1998) Transformational Growth and the Business Cycle (London, UK: Routledge).Google Scholar
56.Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57.Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58.March, J. (1991) How decisions happen in organizations. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, pp. 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59. Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing the European Institute of Innovation and Technology.Google Scholar
60.Taleb, N. N. (2010) The Black Swan, 2nd edn (New York: Random House Inc.).Google Scholar
61. For confidentiality reasons, the author cannot disclose the names of the members of the lobby as they are still active and they would surely not be happy to be named as a lobby. He just stresses their strong political entanglement with the worlds of business, entrepreneurship and Social Innovation.Google Scholar
62. The author entertained friendly and informal relationships with both, and attended many of their meetings as an EC observer.Google Scholar
63. An Inter-Service group is composed of members of different EC Directorates when a dossier is transversal and requires the contribution (albeit only the endorsement) of different sectors of the Commission. The results of an Inter-Service group might feed the leading directorate, such as BEPA in this case, in producing a Report or a Communication from the Commission.Google Scholar
64.Fay, S. B. (1950) Bismarck's Welfare State. Current History, XVIII, pp. 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65.Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, XLVII, pp. 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66.Palle, R. (2009) Education and Social Innovation: Concepts, Themes and Materials (Brussels: NESSE Network).Google Scholar
67.Reinhart, C. M. and Rogoff, K. S. (2007) This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Follies (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar