Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:47:06.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of social innovation policy in social service sector reform: Evidence from Hong Kong

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2021

CHEE HON CHAN Open the ORCID record for CHEE HON CHAN [Opens in a new window] ,
CHERYL HIU-KWAN CHUI Open the ORCID record for CHERYL HIU-KWAN CHUI [Opens in a new window]  and
YANTO CHANDRA Open the ORCID record for YANTO CHANDRA [Opens in a new window]
CHEE HON CHAN
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences, The University of Hong Kong email: [email protected] Address: 2/F, 5 Sassoon Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
CHERYL HIU-KWAN CHUI
Affiliation:
Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong email: [email protected]
YANTO CHANDRA
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article illustrates how the term “social innovation” is used in the public policy domain in Hong Kong in relation to the new public management (NPM) reform of the social service sector, which originated in the early 2000s. Through document reviews and interviews, the role that social innovation policy has played in instigating changes in the contemporary social service field in the post-NPM era is identified. This includes facilitating emergence of “new” forms of social entrepreneurial activities to fill unmet social needs, empowering new actors in entering the social service sector, and reinforcing the government’s position in the NPM reform. Adopting historical institutionalism as the analytical framework, multiple path-dependent characteristics arising from the historical legacies of the incumbent social service environment – such as the longstanding partnership between the state and non-profits – are highlighted. These historical factors have weakened the efficacy of the policy efforts aimed at enacting institutional change. Overall, this article demonstrates how historical context matters in the emergence and framing of social innovation policy. It contributes to the theorisation of the role of social innovation in social service sector development in East Asia.

Keywords

social innovationsocial service reformnew public managementinstitutional changenon-profit sectorHong Kong
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2022 , pp. 346 - 364
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Alexander, J., Brudney, J. L. and Yang, K. (2010), Introduction to the symposium: Accountability and performance measurement: The evolving role of nonprofits in the hollow state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 565–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelini, L., Carrino, S., Abou Khaled, O., Riva-Mossman, S. and Mugellini, E. (2016), Senior Living Lab: An Ecological Approach to Foster Social Innovation in an Ageing Society. 8(4), 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttonen, A. and Karsio, O. (2017), How marketisation is changing the Nordic model of care for older people, in Social services disrupted. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Ayob, N., Teasdale, S. and Fagan, K. (2016), How Social Innovation ‘Came to Be’: Tracing the Evolution of a Contested Concept. Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 635–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béland, D. (2005), Ideas and social policy: An institutionalist perspective. Social Policy and Administration, 39(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béland, D., Rocco, P. and Waddan, A. (2016), Reassessing policy drift: Social policy change in the United States. Social Policy and Administration, 50(2), 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benneworth, P., Amanatidou, E., Edwards Schachter, M. E. and Gulbrandsen, M. (2015), Social innovation futures: beyond policy panacea and conceptual ambiguity. TIK Working Paper, Oslo Centre https://ideas.repec.org/p/tik/inowpp/20150127.html Google Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, D. (2013), Social innovation: An exploration of the barriers faced by innovating organizations in the social economy. Local Economy, 28(1), 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, C. H., Chui, C. H.-K., Chan, K. S. T. and Yip, P. S. F. (2019), The role of the social innovation and entrepreneurship development fund in fostering social entrepreneurship in Hong Kong: A study on public policy innovation. Social Policy and Administration, 53 (6), 903–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, K. T., Kuan, Y. Y. and Wang, S. T. (2011), Similarities and divergences: comparison of social enterprises in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(1), 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandra, Y. and Wong, L. (2016), Social Entrepreneurship in the Greater China Region: Policy and Cases: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, N. and Majumdar, S. (2015), Social innovation: towards a conceptualisation. In Technology and innovation for social change (pp. 7–34): Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dearing, T. C. (2017), Social Services, Social Justice, and Social Innovations: Lessons for Addressing Income Inequality. Religions, 8(5).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defourny, J. and Kim, S.-Y. (2011), Emerging models of social enterprise in Eastern Asia: a cross-country analysis. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(1), 86–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defourny, J. and Nyssens, M. (2010), Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghys, T. (2017), Analysing social innovation through the lens of poverty reduction: five key factors. EPSIR, 2(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, J. S. (2004), Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. American Political Science Review, 98(2), 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howaldt, J., Schröder, A., Kaletka, C., Rehfeld, D. and Terstriep, J. (2016), Mapping the world of social innovation: a global comparative analysis across sectors and world regions, D 1.4 SI-DRIVE Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change.Google Scholar
Immergut, E. M. (1998), The theoretical core of the new institutionalism. Politics and society, 26(1), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerlin, J. A. (2010), A comparative analysis of the global emergence of social enterprise. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(2), 162–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, D. and Hansen, R. (1999), Experts at work: state autonomy, social learning and eugenic sterilization in 1930s Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 29(1), 77–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lau, M. and Gordon, D. (Eds.) (2017), Poverty in a Rich Society: The Case of Hong Kong. Sha Tin, N.T., Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv2n7q0f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E. W. (2005), The renegotiation of the social pact in Hong Kong: Economic globalisation, socio-economic change, and local politics. Journal of Social Policy, 34(2), 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E. W. (2012), The new public management reform of state-funded social service nonprofit organizations and the changing politics of welfare in Hong Kong. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(3), 537–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. C. Y. (2016), Social innovation and entrepreneurship in Hong Kong: a public policy dimension. In Social Entrepreneurship in the Greater China Region (pp. 62–83): Routledge.Google Scholar
Loogma, K., Tafel-Viia, K. and Ümarik, M. (2013), Conceptualising educational changes: A social innovation approach. Journal of Educational change, 14(3), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. (2000), Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and society, 29(4), 507–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. (2009), Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, C. (2017), Social enterprise in Australia: The need for a social innovation ecosystem. AQ-Australian Quarterly, 88(3), 25.Google Scholar
Mee-Hyoe, K. (2013), Social economy on the rise in South Korea: insights from Ashoka Korea, Forbes Magazine, http://www.forbes.com/sites/meehyoekoo/2013/09/30/social-economy-on-the-rise-in-south-korea-insights-from-ashoka-korea/ Google Scholar
Moberg, L. (2017), Marketisation of Nordic Eldercare – Is the Model Still Universal? Journal of Social Policy, 46(3), 603–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulaert, F. (2010), Social innovation and community development. In Moulaert, F., Swyngedouw, E., Martinelli, F. and Gonzalez, S. (Eds.), Can Neighbourhoods Save the City?: Community Development and Social Innovation (pp. 4–17), London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, G. (2007), Social Innovation. What it is, Why it Matters and How it Can Be Accelerated, London: The Young Foundation.Google Scholar
Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K. and Miller, D. T. (2008), Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1996), The new politics of the welfare state. World politics, 48(2), 143–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pol, E. and Ville, S. (2009), Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? The Journal of socio-economics, 38(6), 878–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, L. M. and Toepler, S. (2015), Government–nonprofit cooperation: Anomaly or necessity? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(6), 2155–2177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, V. (2009), Comparative institutional analysis. In Landman, T. and Robinson, N. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of comparative politics (pp. 125–143), London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, D. and Li, F. (2017), Social Innovation and Social Transition in East Asia. Stanford Social Innovation Review (SPRING), retrieved from http://stanford.ebookhost.net/ssir/digital/45/ebook/1/download.pdf Google Scholar
Sinclair, S. and Baglioni, S. (2014), Social innovation and social policy–Promises and risks. Social Policy and Society, 13(3), 469–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, K.-L. (1998), Colonial state and social policy: Social welfare development in Hong Kong 1842-1997: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Tang, K. L., Fung, H. L., Au, K. Y., Lee, J. K. C. and Ko, L. S. (2008), Social enterprises in Hong Kong: Toward a conceptual model. Final report submitted to Central Policy Unit of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region of the People’s Republic of China.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. (2004), How institutions evolve, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Have, R. P. and Rubalcaba, L. (2016), Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies? Research Policy, 45(9), 1923–1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woerdman, E. (2004), Path-dependent climate policy: the history and future of emissions trading in Europe. European Environment, 14(5), 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar