Social Innovation

Social Innovation Second edition

SOCIAL INNOVATION. SECOND EDITION SOCIAL INTEGRATION IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Unless stipulated by law, it is hereby prohibited to reproduce, distribute, publicly communicate and transform this work in any fashion without authorisation from the intellectual property holders.Infraction upon the aforementioned rights may constitute a crime against intellectual property rights (articles 270 and subsequent articles thereof of the Penal Code). ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2016, as per the first edition in Spanish, by © of the edition: INAP Publisher: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública (National Institute for Public Administration) www.inap.es ISBN: 978-84-7351-488-0 (paper format); ISBN: 978-84-7351-489-7 (electronic format) NIPO: 635-16-013-4 (paper format); NIPO: 635- 16-014-X (electronic format) Legal Deposit: M-3998 - 2016 Previous image: © James Thew For this publication, chlorine-free recycled paper was used, as per the environmental criteria of the public procurement.

Manuel Arenilla Sáez Ricardo García-Vegas

Social Innovation Social Integration in Public Administration

El INAP The Public Administration is a key part of an advanced society, and a modern, agile and efficient Public Administration is a determining factor if we wish to obtain a society with greater degrees of well-being and quality of life. The desire of INAP (National Institute for Public Administration) (Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública) is to be a leading institution in generating knowledge, with the goal of stimulating organisational learning for teams in the public sector, and thereby create a good Administration, oriented toward the common good and in harmony with society’s needs and expectations. Its mission is to create transforming knowledge in the public sector through transversal teams able to draw ideas, people and innovative projects in hiring and training processes to attain high-quality democracy and citizens. To this end, INAP will draw its base on the following principles: efficacy in team learning, being oriented toward citizens, transparency, being exemplary, rendering accounts, independence, responsibility and social cohesion.

The authors Manuel Arenilla Sáez holds a doctorate in Political Science and Administration from the Complutense University of Madrid, and is professor of Political Science and Administration at the University Rey Juan Carlos. Since 2012, he has been Director of the National Public Administration Institute (INAP). He was director of the Public Law I and Political Science department at the University Rey Juan Carlos, and vice-dean of the Faculty of Political Science and Sociology at the University of Granada. He is trustee of the Bequal Foundation and member of the Board of Management at the International Institute of Administrative Science. His research work lies in administrative innovation and social innovation. His most recent publications are: Arenilla, M. and García Vegas, R. (2015) Innovación social: claves y casos, A Coruña: Consello Social Universidad de Coruña; Arenilla, M (Dir.) (2014) Administración 2032. Teclas para transformar la Administración española. Madrid: INAP; Arenilla, M. (Dir.) (2012) La reforma de la Universidad española. Santa Cristina: Netbiblo; Arenilla, M. (Dir.) (2012) Ciudad, gobernanza y planificación estratégica. Aportes de la experiencia de Móstoles. Madrid: Dykinson; Arenilla, M. (Dir.) (2011), Crisis y reforma de la Administración pública; and Arenilla, M. (2010) Concepts in Democratic Theory, in S. French, S. and D. Ríos e-Democracy: A Group Decision and Negotiation Perspective, Springer.

Ricardo García-Vegas holds a Doctorate in Government and Public Administration from the Complutense University of Madrid (Spain); a Master’s Degree in Applied Political Studies from the International Foundation and for Latin America in Administration and Public Policies (FIAPP) (Spain); International Cooperation Project Manager for Sustainable Development from the Complutense University of Madrid; and Specialist in Public Management by the Institute of Advanced Studies in Administration (IESA) (Venezuela). Since 2014, he has acted as academic coordinator of Goberna Experiencia at the University Research Institute of Ortega y Gasset. Since 2008, he has worked as a researcher at the Public Law I and Political Science Department at the University Rey Juan Carlos (Spain). He is visiting professor at the École Supérieure des Sciences Commerciales d’Angers (ESSCA) in France. He has participated in different competitive research projects and coordinated technical assistance projects in the public sector. He has led and collaborated in different publications, some of the most recent being the following: “Innovación social: claves y caos”; “Innovación Social, la integración social en la Administración pública”; “El riesgo en la Universidad Española. Un análisis desde su gobernanza”; “Ciudad, gobernanza y planificación estratégica. Aportes de la experiencia de Móstoles”; and “Crisis y reforma de la Administración pública”. He is an expert member of the Sectorial Council of Associations in the city of Madrid.

Innap Innova Public Administration is a key part of an advanced society, as it is entrusted with meeting many of its needs and expectations by means of a series of public policies oriented toward attaining social integration and cohesion and a high-quality democracy. Modern, agile, efficient and accurate public management is a determining factor in order to achieve a society with greater degrees of well-being and quality of life. Its commitment to democracy should be oriented toward activating citizens in their responsibility toward society and toward political institutions, so it should be ethically exemplary and promote political and social knowledge amongst citizens. In this fashion, the distance between citizens and politicians and the Administration may be closed. The idea is for citizens to have greater power and freedom to create social and political trust, indispensable for social and economic progress. The Public Administration must take on a leadership role in innovation by improving public services and by being oriented toward citizens and companies and operational efficiency. In this regard, public innovation must be understood as applying new ideas and practises within the scope of public management so as to create social value. The objective of the National Institute of Public Administration (Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública) ( (INAP) is to select public employees who can guarantee rights and freedoms to citizens through its actions, especially in guidelines, in innovation and change, and research the main phenomena affecting the Administration so as to transform it. In order to fulfil this important responsibility, INAP must have solid principles and values upon which to base its action. As such,

we have taken on the principles of efficacy, team learning, citizen-orientation, transparency, an exemplary nature, independence and responsibility. At INAP, we believe that the future is built as of today, and that the new future, what lies ahead, is already inside of us; in order to discover it, we must carry out an exercise in reflection and participation. This is what INAP has done over the past years by drawing up its first Strategic Plan, the fruit of which is a clear orientation toward the innovation and the change we want to transmit to our surroundings, and that drives us to carry out a leadership role in Spanish Administrations and to be an international point of reference in creating and disseminating innovative, transformational knowledge and learning, so as to promote a good Administration oriented toward the common good. If innovation in the private sector is oriented toward improving competitiveness, and thereby creating economic value, public innovation seeks to attain public policies that best meet social needs and public services of a higher quality. Therefore, the mission should be to build an innovative, open Administration that offers society quality, efficient, effective and secure services. To this end, it should collaborate with its environment, driving or encouraging citizens to take action within the public scope, with people acting as protagonists for change. In order to contribute toward creating an innovative culture in Public Administration, INAP has promoted the creation of an editorial series, called Innap Innova, whose purpose is to publish educational books in pocketbook format, multimedia materials to sensitise regarding innovation in its different facets, as well as events to share innovative ideas. Manuel Arenilla Sáez Director of INAP

Contents Foreword........................................................................ 13 1. The framework of social innovation...................... 17 1.1. The crisis as a detonator. State and civil society...... 18 1.2. The concept of social innovation............................ 22 1.3. The challenge of social problems............................ 26 1.3.1. Complexity...................................................... 28 1.3.2. Dynamism ...................................................... 29 1.3.3. Diversity.......................................................... 30 1.4. Levers for change................................................... 31 1.4.1. The growing progress of democracy................ 33 1.4.2. The value of knowledge.................................. 34 1.4.3. Development of technologies.......................... 35 1.5. Against new challenges: new capacities................. 38 1.5.1. Administrative capacity................................. 40 1.5.2. Relational capacity........................................ 41

2. A new way of looking at the public realm............ 45 2.1. The historical journey of the concept of social innovation.................................................... 46 2.1.1. Crisis and new ideas........................................ 47 2.1.2. The power of social movements...................... 49 2.1.3. Rising citizen participation............................... 50 2.1.4. Social transformations: new roles.................... 52 2.1.5. Social innovation on the public agenda........... 53 2.2. The role and scope of the public sphere................. 56 2.3. Efficacy and legitimacy of public action.................. 60 2.4. The progressive involvement of society in the common good................................................. 63 2.5. The Government and governance networks........... 65 2.5.1. Operation of governance networks................. 66 2.5.2. Multiple agents in the social sphere................. 68

3. Social innovation and public action....................... 73 3.1. Re-thinking public action........................................ 74 3.1.1. Diagnostic and generation of the ideas............ 76 3.1.2. Initiative development: prototypes and pilot tests........................................................ 78 3.1.3. Evaluation and analysis of results.................... 79 3.1.4. Dissemination and replication.......................... 81 3.1.5. Learning and evolution.................................... 84

3.2. Advantages for public organisations....................... 86 3.3. The co-production of public services....................... 87 3.4. The co-production of public services and the citizen.. 89 3.5. Fields of society’s greater commitment to the common good................................................. 92

4. An action plan for social innovation...................... 99 4.1. What is expected of public organisations?.............. 100 4.1.1. Leading a common-development project......... 101 4.1.2. Promoting the co-production public goods and services.................................................... 102 4.1.3. Creating institutional arrangements to foment collaboration....................................... 104 4.1.4. Supporting the development of institutional capacities........................................................ 105 4.1.5. Facing fear of failure....................................... 107 4.2. The importance of the four “C’s”........................... 109 4.2.1. Confidence..................................................... 109 4.2.2. Communication.............................................. 112 4.2.3. Coordination................................................... 113 4.2.4. Collaboration ................................................. 115 4.3. Barriers to social innovation.................................... 116 4.4. Factors that promote social innovation................... 118

5. Bibliography and Web references..........................

121

Content

Foreword

14

Social Innovation

I

t is an unalloyed pleasure to contribute a word of modest welcome to this book: a fresh, clear and operational masterwork on Social Innovation and the role of public administration. Social Innovation is a complex and emerging field of practice and theory. So most people who use the term apply it most of the time quite poorly: to a random set of what they see as socially desirable ends and more or less innovative means. The result is a dangerously tangled and uneven literature, in which optimistic newcomers will quickly lose their way, and cynics will see a case for innovation. The authors here, in contrast, have produced a broad and coherent account of the concept, backed up with equally broad and clear examples of good practice. Nor have they skipped over the myriad pitfalls and challenges that bedevil social innovators in all countries and sectors. I like to think that, in the decade ahead, societies across the world will see more frequent social innovation endeavours. This will require the overarching application of some key practices that are touched on in the present work, and which very much emerge from European Commission practice in recent years. First and foremost, governments and public administration institutions can only reliably empower social innovation if they are open, accountable, transparent, participative and coherent1. Despite decades of discourse, this is not always and everywhere the case, even among mature democracies. Efforts are needed, in country and in regions, through OECD, or the Open Government Partnership2. The European Commission’s 1

See: Communication from the Commission of 25 July 2001 ”European governance - A white paper” [COM(2001) 428 final - Official Journal C 287 of 12.10.2001]. 2

See: .

Foreword

15

May 2015 vision of better governance3 is the best ever platform for making progress in this direction within the European Union. All actors, and not only political and public officials, will have to spend time now on making this vision a reality. We all get the government we deserve. While any government that is open and participative will, I believe, deliver better results, we will see the full benefits of open government only when public processes also become agile4. Social innovation cannot thrive if its public counterparts operate at nineteenth century speeds, and on multi-year business cycles. Social innovation is experimental, iterative and needs not only a public sector that “gets this”, but can play the same game. This requires not only new rules of public procedure, but the training and development of strengths which the ”traditional official” represses or reserves for private life. Finally, social innovation will most frequently succeed where it not only delivers normal processes and partnerships in response to a given challenge but does so with the help available from powerful, new technological tools; whether off-the-shelf, customised or purpose-built. Under the label of “Collective Awareness Platforms”, a fascinating flotilla of experimental projects has been launched with support from the EU research programme, Horizon 20205. We need to think about a social innovation “extension scheme” which will put 3

See: ”Better regulation for better results - An EU agenda”, European Commission, [19 May 2015] . 4

See: ”A Call for Agile Governance Principles”, WEF -World Economic Forum [January 2016] . 5

See: and .

16

Social Innovation

the newest and best options within reach of all those contemplating a social innovation adventure of their own. Social innovation can start from anywhere. As this book makes clear, public administrations must be exemplary in their readiness to play the game and must offer agile governmentas-a-platform for all. But entrepreneurs6, as well as the third sector, should also put down this book with the sense that they too are potential social innovators. Robert Madelin Senior Innovation Adviser European Commission

6

See, for example: ”Reinventing Organisations”, Frederic Laloux, [Brussels, 2014].

Chapter 1

The framework of social innovation

18

Social Innovation

1.1. The crisis as a detonator. State and civil society The economic and financial crisis that began in 2008 highlighted the difficulty that many governments had in implementing effective formulas to counteract its devastating effects on the lives of citizens. According to the International Labour Organisation, just two years after the crisis began, close to 27 million people worldwide had lost their jobs, or another high number of workers had accepted a modification in their professional relationships, either in reducing working hours or salary. The general perception is that there is a reduction in public organisations’ capacity to improve or implement regulatory frameworks to guarantee economic and financial stability, to adopt measures to protect the most vulnerable groups in the population and to promote economic growth levels that are harmonious in regards to profit distribution and sustainability over the course of time. In 2012, the World Economic Forum highlighted the global risks and growing loss of trust in political institutions. Most citizens hold a negative vision of the upcoming future, and distrust the efficacy of those governing them to face current challenges. We might also say that, for citizens, public institutions are no longer effective. In other words, their politicalsocial criteria to resolve society’s problems is incorrect. The crisis was nothing more than a detonator for a reality that has been taking shape over the past decades. This was not only a phase of economic shrinkage, which may be overcome with an improvement in macroeconomic indices and market stability. Rather, it brought the skills and resources that have traditionally been used to solve problems affecting the population into question.


19

The crisis was nothing more than a detonator for a reality that has been taking shape over the past decades. This was not only a phase of economic shrinkage, which may be overcome with an improvement in macroeconomic indices and market stability. Rather, it brought the skills and resources that have traditionally been used to solve problems affecting the population into question.

The years preceding the crisis were characterised because the structural problems of the political-administrative and social system were offset by generalised prosperity. Since then, the necessary connection between political representatives, public decision-makers and citizens has been left unattended. Over the past few years, these problems have taken on a new appearance due to the conjunction of important changes, such as: progress in globalisation, accelerated scientifictechnological developing, the transformation of economic models, the expansion of democracy or the modification of citizen behavioural patterns (Bepa, 2011: 21; Howaldt and Schwarz, 2010: 4). Incorporating different interests and representatives into the decision-making core of Governments had palliates or postponed the weaknesses of a model that was designed after the Second World War. The characteristics of this model include politicians connecting with reference points from the majority of society, demonstrating limited diversity and is sufficiently represented in public institutions, the Public Administration interpreting general interest, the State universally heeding to society’s interests, and citizens, in exchange, legitimising public action. This model is clearly called into question.

20

Social Innovation

Emphasis on efficiency and the central role of the citizens as a client of public activities and services since the 1980s was not enough to palliate deterioration in the relationship between public power and the recipients of goods and services. On the other hand, the always-limited extent of mechanisms for citizen participation has shown that the problem of the political system’s exhaustion is not essentially due to the “how,” how to obtain performance, but rather to the “for what,” the end goal being sought. Finally, public decisions have been the result of variable coalitions of interests, but more or more, they are facing difficulties to represent the great diversity present in society, even though they include government institutions. The method for facing public complexity was based on an ensemble of measures bureaucratic in nature, from the private sector and from governance focuses. Along with these measures, the crisis has brought about “efficientist” solutions in the form of structural adjustments and cutbacks not founded on reflection, public debate or an appropriate review of the public sector’s portfolio of services. An effective way to delimit the guaranteed core of citizen rights in regards to public services and activities has not been proposed, either. Just as in the business sector, profound changes have taken place in society as well. There is a trend toward greater social involvement in public issues; a democratic citizen has arisen with a growing desire to co-define society along with public power, and the demand for reference points for action in the public field and its leaders to clearly align with its needs and expectations. For our purposes, in the business scope, the progressive importance of social responsibility criteria for companies proves highly important. In this fashion, they take on part of the Government’s mission in engaging with social principles and


21

the community’s progress. This attitude has spread over the past years and is transcending the internal scope of business action, playing a role in meeting social needs. We are therefore facing the existence of new social demands that the Government cannot easily meet in an isolated fashion, the weakening of public action, citizens accustomed to a certain level of public-based health, decreasing or nongrowing public resources, citizens who wish to play an active role in society and the public system and social and business development with a nascent orientation toward producing services for the community. The social innovation focus arises within this ecosystem. The current debate and the main challenges in transforming the Government and society adhere to the delimitation between both spheres, to the purpose for which public institutions are oriented, to how power is exercised in society, to the articulation of social groups, to the determination of social preferences and to the relationship between citizens and public power. Just as in many other moments throughout our history, the debate lies in the delimitation between freedom and equality, and how the citizen contributes to community life. Finally, everything seems to indicate that we now find ourselves in an era emphasising effective articulation between persons, social groups, society and the Government.

Everything seems to indicate that we now find ourselves in an era emphasising effective articulation between persons, social groups, society and the Government.

22

Social Innovation

1.2. The concept of social innovation The challenges the Government and society must now face have made it necessary to reconsider the concept of well-being and how to achieve said well-being for citizens. We must also make effective improvements as to how social problems are faced and resolved. The idea is to reach a turning point in regards to approaches used in the past. This interruption in how things have been done up until now is cultural in nature, and means introducing new principles and values for action, reorganising or eliminating some of them that currently exist, and modifying our approach with agents taking part in shaping and providing well-being and achieving the public good. Emphasis must be placed on the behaviours of organisations and people, having them act differently to reach different results. Therefore, we propose adopting new collaborative models based on talent management, social diversity, knowledge and innovation in order to transform public action and provide a solution to social problems in a sustainable fashion. This is the first framework for social innovation.

Emphasis must be placed on the behaviours of organisations and people, having them act differently to reach different results. Therefore, we propose adopting new collaborative models based on talent management, social diversity, knowledge and innovation in order to transform public action and provide a solution to social problems in a sustainable fashion. This is the first framework for social innovation.


23

The collaborative model requires involvement and contribution not only from public authorities, but also effort and initiatives coming from a broader network of interdependent agents, including: companies, the third sector, communities, families and citizens themselves. This model involves creating coalitions with variable interests and agents to face social problems. With these coalitions, the Government need not permanently hold a dominating position, given that, in many cases, the Government will not be the agent with the most resources or legitimacy. Notwithstanding, the Government must take on a leadership role, and in any event, a role of responsibility, whenever public interests are at play, in order to guarantee citizen rights and freedoms and the legitimacy of public action. Producing public value/social value, the will of agents involved in coalitions of policy networks to solve a social problem, articulating different agents based on a common objective that is more or less stable over time, exchanging resources in defining or implementing public policy, and creating learning and knowledge communities are some of the characteristics that define the new action model within the social and public sphere. This reflection is the second framework for social innovation. The definition of social innovation in literature is evasive, and often confusing. Borders with other similar concepts are not well-defined, and anything that resolves a problem in a new way tends to be labelled as social innovation. Social innovation references meeting emerging human or social needs, or needs not being attended to, either due to scarce resources, political opportunity or because they are not perceived as important for the private sector or the public sector. Furthermore, social innovation implies the following notes: meeting non-covered human needs, seeking out effective

24

Social Innovation

solutions for problems and challenges in society that create innovation, improving upon previous conditions, creating social value, presenting a series of changes in governance, increasing participation, especially with the most vulnerable groups, increasing social-political capacity and accessing the resources necessary to foment citizen empowerment and the predomination of the bottom-up process. Social innovation may come about in the public sector, in the private sector, in the third sector or in citizen communities. It seeks out innovative, effective solutions for society’s problems and challenges, and attempts to improve base conditions and create social value. It implies a change in social relations, especially in regards to governance, increasing participation levels in general and especially for society’s most vulnerable groups. It implies an improvement in society’s capability to take action by creating opportunity structures that empower citizens and create spaces for dialogue to reinforce basic rights and freedoms. Social innovation is only possible in an environment with open, collaborative models that foment the exchange of knowledge and information, making the citizen the epicentre of the innovative process, not only in its role as a potential beneficiary of the ideas being developed, but also as a promoter for social change. These notes aid in profiling the still-open definition of social innovation, due to the novelty of programmes and projects of this nature being developed around the world. Notwithstanding, there are two features that aid is in determining if we have social innovation: if its purpose is to handle main social problems or challenges, and if a network of agents participate whose efforts are focused on overcoming these problems and challenges.


25

Social innovation is only possible in an environment with open, collaborative models that foment the exchange of knowledge and information, making the citizen the epicentre of the innovative process, not only in its role as a potential beneficiary of the ideas being developed, but also as a promoter for social change.

Approach toward social innovation is enriched with different focuses. As such, the political science perspective analyses which type of social innovations must be put into practise to improve well-being and social development, as well as power relations at play. The sociocultural focus shows the importance of the social, political, cultural and territorial context wherein we intend to implement social innovation, since this may condition failure and success. The governance focus highlights the need to study the interaction between agents, institutions and resources involved, in order to make social innovation viable. Finally, from a managerial focus, emphasis is placed on the role of entrepreneurs as key agents in guiding efforts in social innovation. Generally speaking, these focuses coincide in that the concurrence of different agents in solving problems and social needs bestows a new role on the government. As such, the latter recognises the capacity of social agents and citizens to independently make decisions, although these decisions are in line with public action programmes wherein they participate. It drives and facilitates pathways and platforms for participation through which the different social agents and collectives

26

Social Innovation

may contribute with their creative proposals for innovation. In short, it recognises that meeting social needs falls on the community, and not on the Government alone.

1.3. The challenge of social problems The purpose of social innovation is to meet the needs and problems affecting the population, regardless of the territorial scale where they are taking place. Problems that affect people’s day-to-day, and which, due to their nature, require arduous processes of reflection and knowledge exchange to be appropriately paid attention to and analysed. Although modernity has brought about great improvements in people’s lives, it has confirmed the maxim that all human action generates risk (Piquemal, 2010: 1218). We may therefore speak of a society of risk (Beck, 1998: 25), arising from the passage of an industrial society into a modern, global society, upheld in scientific-technological development. The conventional problems humanity has historically faced have taken on new shapes, all while new problems arise, with the possibility of creating extensive, irreversible damage. Terrorism, pandemics, organised crime, economic crises and their global effects, as well as imbalances stemming from the concentration of wealth are a demonstration of problems that have been taking place, putting the capability of public, private and social agents to face them to the test. On the other hand, the climate change and its harmful effects to fishing, agriculture and biodiversity itself is an example of the new problems that must be urgently addressed. It is not easy to study social problems, but it is highly valuable to do so. Therefore, we can identify two types of problems in society (Rittle and Webber, 1973). On one hand,


27

docile problems, which professionals in exact sciences commonly face. These are problems that can be clearly defined and delimited, for which it is possible to consider one sole, appropriate solution. On the other hand, we have perverse, ill or poorly-structured problems (Simon, 1974; Chisholm, 1987) which public institutions and different agents (private or social) participating in the social dynamic must face. This type of problem is difficult to define, analyse and find a sole solution. Social problems are normally perverse problems. Their main characteristics are complexity, dynamism and diversity, so heeding to them is a great challenge for science. This is due not only to the difficulty in identifying causal relationships or verifying hypotheses to appropriate identify them, but also due to the transcendence they bear in the life of people, the type of agent that should participate in solving them, and the different perception of the specific problem that they each have. Distinguishing between types of problems has important effects for Public Administration. Normally, Administrations are prepared to handle well-structured problems based on bureaucratic logic, and they have great difficulty in facing perverse or poorly-structured problems. They may be broken down into parts and solved by different inter-connected organisations through channels, standards and agreements that are informal in nature, following a logic of adaptation and flexibility (Simon, 1974; Chisholm, 1987). This gives way to the possibility of creating networks of agents based on specific organisations and applying a social innovation focus to problem-solving. In the following notes regarding characteristics of social problems, the Administration must play a role of simplify-

28

Social Innovation

ing reality and driving the actions necessary to resolve said problems, as well as providing information and resources and acting as the arena where the agents involved in the problem may take action and articulate. Its institutional position, the resources within its reach and the need for many of the agreements reached to be formalised on a regulatory level in order to make them legitimate makes the Public Administration’s role in solving social problems still central, although different from what it was traditionally. It now needs to activate social organisations and citizens themselves to achieve its purposes, which is fundamentally to effectively improve the lives of members of society

1.3.1. Complexity Complexity is shown in the difficulty in establishing an exact definition of the problem accepted by the majority, due to the multiple agents participating in the social dynamic, as well as the characteristics inherent to the reality being addressed. It is clear that there are problems that can be clearly defined, separated and addressed with specific solutions, but social problems normally escape this categorisation (Rittle and Webber, 1973: 160). When defining a social problem, the agents involved must make an extraordinary effort to precisely identify what its causes and main consequences are. However, this task is not easy. Many of the causes and consequences are not in plain sight. They are apparently mixed or remain hidden to the eyes of any analyst. In this regard, there is a risk that the problem formulation is upheld by incomplete information from social reality, which long-term, would limit the efficacy of any solution we intend to implement.


29

In principle, formulation of a problem and defining solutions are two stages that form part of one same logical sequence. In this way, the rule would be applied: a solution for a problem, but this relationship is not so clear with social problems. There are no sole alternatives, and in many cases, a solution that at first was deemed to be highly effective may lead to unforeseen situations that require implementation of complementary measures mid or long-term. On the other hand, identifying the spatial framework wherein a problem takes place is a necessary step in order to appropriately formulate it and define accurate solutions. At first glance, there are micro problems (that affect people in their communities) or macro problems (more global and regional in nature), but social problems do not always match up with such specific spatial frameworks today. The interconnection of the events taking place in the world make it so that a problem of local origin’s effects may extend globally, and vice-versa. The complexity is shown in the difficulty agents have in framing problems within one sole spatial dimension when effectively addressing them.

1.3.2. Dynamism Dynamism means the capability of social problems to transform, drive changes and create other risk situations that may affect the well-being of people. A social problem may be the symptom of another larger problem. This requires a detailed analysis of the environment where it comes about, as well as of the agents and organisations involved in the detected problem.

30

Social Innovation

After implementing a solution that may be deemed effective, new challenges may arise that thwart the achievements obtained up until that time. In 1996, horticulturists from Quebrada de Humahuaca (Argentina) decided to address production and commercialisation problems that affected them by creating a cooperative to put their products on the market and eliminate any intermediaries. The economic crisis that the country underwent in 2000 put the innovative capability of the horticulturists to the test, in overcoming the turbulent market that threatened to affect the sustainability of their project. They decided to reinvent themselves and promote ancestral Andean cultivations. In addition to opening up new markets, this allowed them to decrease production costs, thanks to the knowledge and experience of the community members (Rey and Tancredi, 2010: 52).

1.3.3. Diversity The third characteristic of social problems is diversity. This means that they may arise in multiple scopes of action, sensitively affecting the lives of people, such as in health, education, economy, transport, food safety, the environment, etc. Within each scope, problems have a series of singularities that make it clear that we need to obtain and systematised specialised information for analysis. Furthermore, diversity means social plurality and the need to be represented in public action, especially in defining social problems and in determining the agents called to participate in resolving them.


31

With the last definition, diversity bears the challenge of broadening current views of reality, illuminating it with new sensitivities coming, for example, from disabled individuals and different minorities present in society. One way to help address this issue is the talent everyone has and the need for the greatest amount of said talent possible, in order to formulate public policies and actions that are ever-more inclusive and just. Obtaining information appears to be a limitation on diversity, since it bears a high cost that cannot be handled by all agents in the social system, nor by citizens themselves, individually considered. This difficulty increases when social problems are transversal, due to their formulation, causes and consequences. In this case, we require a multi-disciplinary vision to describe reality, as well as specific skills to direct available resources toward achieving common objectives. In these cases, public agents clearly have an important role to play, due to the resources they have or can access. In 2050, it is expected that the world’s urban population will double, which would put humanity’s capability to develop the same number of dwellings, basic infrastructures and services as it has built over the past 4,000 years to the test (World Economic Forum, 2011). This is a good example of how a problem transversally affects multiple scopes of action, making clear the importance of adopting solutions that are fully inter-articulated.

1.4. Levers for change Given the complexity, dynamism and diversity of social problems, there are important levers for change that not only contribute to identifying and implementing effective solutions for challenges in a changing environment, but that also fa-

32

Social Innovation

cilitate redefining relations between the Government, society and citizens under new action schematics and aggregation of interests. How we understood the Government in providing goods and public services is now undergoing an important transformation, shown in the configuration of models where other agents, such as private companies, social economy companies and civil society organisations are contributing new ways to see and do things. Firstly, these levers for charge are the growing progress of democracy as opposed to political regimes, autocratic in nature, and with it, the spreading of basic rights and freedoms around the world. Secondly, the value that the generation of knowledge has taken on, as well as the implementation of mechanisms to co-create, exchange and reuse knowledge between public, private and social agents. Finally, developing information and communication technologies, and their repercussions on the modification of life patterns for people and the creation of new realities.

Firstly, these levers for charge are the growing progress of democracy as opposed to political regimes, autocratic in nature, and with it, the spreading of basic rights and freedoms around the world. Secondly, the value that the generation of knowledge has taken on, as well as the implementation of mechanisms to co-create, exchange and reuse knowledge between public, private and social agents. Finally, developing information and communication technologies, and their repercussions on the modification of life patterns for people and the creation of new realities.


33

1.4.1. The growing progress of democracy The growing progress of democracy as opposed to autocratic regimes is a huge lever for change, due to the implications inherent to exercise public action, as well as articulation of social processes that make it possible for citizens and social groups to actively participate in the public scope. Reports published by the Center for Systemic Peace verify sustained growth in democratic countries over the past 30 years, far surpassing the number of countries with autocratic regimes. The expansion of democracy has contributed to the recognition of citizens’ rights and freedoms in countries which, up until a few years ago, were under autocratic regimes. Furthermore, this reality has driven an increase in civil society organisations, an increase in social capital and the creation of opportunity structures for involvement in public management. Civil society organisations have become key agents, allowing the most vulnerable sectors of the population to present, defend and claim their rights, all while acting as an effective method for social transformation. We must add that the progressive relevancy they have acquired in current societies have promoted the building of shared collective values, which has led to an increase in social cohesion and greater bonds of trust amongst citizens. On the other hand, the growing progress of democracy has promoted an increase in the number and importance of communication media as relevant agents to defend citizen freedoms and rights. The media has taken on a fundamental role as civic forums, by means of which news and information on the most varied aspects of daily life is spread. This media foments deliberation on issues of collective interest and addresses all segments of the population.

34

Social Innovation

The media is relevant as spaces to denounce abuses in the exercise of public power and is a valuable tool that guarantees citizens’ access to information on managing public issues, promoting a more responsible and transparent attitude for public exercise.

1.4.2. The value of knowledge Since the 1990s, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank (WB) have insisted on the idea that progress is more and more associated with the generation, distribution and application of knowledge. In other words, knowledge has become a key factor in economic development, which is progressively pushing out traditional elements from the economic model inherited from the Industrial Revolution.

In other words, knowledge has become a key factor in economic development, which is progressively pushing out traditional elements from the economic model inherited from the Industrial Revolution.

Furthermore, knowledge has become a lever for change to seek out effective solutions for social problems. Governments are adopting policies to foment the generation of knowledge through R+D+i programmes in order to draw and retain talent and to transform society and the production system, as well as to consolidate more competitive and equal educational models. Companies invest part of their earnings in renewing products and production processes, as well as in training their employees and searching for new ideas that keep them


35

in favoured positions on the market. Not-for-profit organisations draw support from the experience of their members and the communities wherein they take action to create groundbreaking projects and initiatives to change their environment. Knowledge is an asset capable of driving important social changes. However, producing and applying it to heed to the population’s problems and needs requires implementing dynamic processes to exchange resources amongst citizens and public, private and social agents. Furthermore, we must limit the barriers preventing the flow of information and drawing and retaining talent. Everyone has talent to share, and articulating this talent is the base for generating new ideas and transforming society, and is a central responsibility of Public Administrations.

Knowledge is an asset capable of driving important social changes.

1.4.3. Development of technologies Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are considered a valuable lever for change to address the complexity of social problems. Data on ICT evolution in the world show this reality. According to the World Economic Forum, there are five billion electronic devices connected to the Internet, and it is predicted that this figure will increase up to thirty-one billion in 2015. In addition to this data, we have the exponential growth of social networks over the past years and the massive use of simple applications of all types.

36

Social Innovation

Technological progress has propitiated the creation of new methods and spaces for interaction between people and all sorts of organisations. The advantages offered by Internet connection, cost reduction in communication and the diversity and falling cost of electronic resources available have created a favourable framework for this important transformation. People and organisations are developing new capacities, based on relational models that uphold the idea of “being connected.” Between them, they have a different way of assessing social reality because it is enriched, distances are shortened and problems appear to be closer. Furthermore, different electronic resources may be used to obtain, systematise and spread information.

Technological progress has propitiated the creation of new methods and spaces for interaction between people and all sorts of organisations.

The Public Administration has participated in developing ICTs from multiple perspectives. It has stimulated and promoted their use by fomenting R+D+i measures, investment in the renewal of technological resources and liberalisation of the telecommunications market. In turn, with its role as a great consumer of technological products, it has invigorated ICTs in the private sector and developed solutions that have now been extended to society as a whole. Its challenge is to bring eAdministration use to all of its processes and attain effective interoperability between the multiple Public Administrations in order to reduce or eliminate costs inherent to intermediation with citizens, companies and social organisations.


37

The very same advantages offered by ICTs bring new risk situations along with them that affect the well-being, safety and rights of the people. These are situations which, in turn, require developing new capacities in public powers and in society to mitigate their consequences. The greatest risk if that exploiting the advantages offered by ICTs may further increase the gaps existing in society, with an important part lagging behind these changes, due to sociodemographic issues or place of origin.

The Red Guadalinfo (Guadalinfo Network) project, begun in 2002 in the region of Andalusia (Spain) was able to use the opportunities provided by ICTs and new behavioural patterns taking hold in the population to promote the development of new initiatives for citizens. The purpose of this organisation is to draw support from ICTs to provide people with spaces, resources, knowledge and tools to implement their ideas. With their actions, they are making the ICTs available to everyone, reducing gaps that may exist in the population. Over these past years, the Red Guadalinfo has managed to consolidate around 1000 public centres with Internet access and technological training, around 25 Andalusian community centres outside, a network with 200 revitalising elements, 770 local governments involved and more than 3500 connected public and private entities1.

1

For further information on this initiative, please see their webpage: .

38

Social Innovation

1.5. Against new challenges: new capacities One of the most valuable lessons from the economic and financial crisis beginning in 2008 is that it is not possible to address today’s societal problems with the capacities, vision and analysis models from the past 20 years. This premise affects both public organisations and the rest of agents participating in the social spectrum (companies and civil organisations) and citizens, individually considered. It appears evident that we need a change in observing reality, and that this implies new capacities and methods to address reality. One of the most valuable lessons from the economic and financial crisis beginning in 2008 is that it is not possible to address today’s societal problems with the capacities, vision and analysis models from the past 20 years.

When we speak of capacities, this means the skills of people, institutions and societies to carry out their roles, solve problems and reach objectives in sustainable fashion (UNPD, 2010: 2). This is the result of a continuous learning process based on own experience and exchanging resources with other agents participating in the social dynamic. Neighbourhood associations in the most deprived neighbourhoods of Madrid (Spain) actively joined in formulation, implementation and evaluation tasks from the Neighbourhood Plans developed by Madrid City Hall and the Regional Federation of Neighbourhood Associations of Madrid.


Firstly, these associations were clearly convinced that the experience they had gleaned in the neighbourhood struggle was sufficient guarantee to implement these effective actions, oriented toward fomenting the city’s social and territorial re-balance. Notwithstanding, the complexity of the problems addressed and the effects of the economic crisis showed the limitations of many neighbourhood associations to effectively complete certain tasks, such as: diagnosing and defining problems, mobilising neighbourhood residents, establishing strategic alliances with other social agents to carry out effective social-impact programmes or the need for sufficient resources to effective interact with the Public Administration. Some members of neighbourhood associations tend to summarise their limitations in just one sentence: we have scarce organisational capacity to address increasing citizen demands with new methods. The case of Madrid’s neighbourhood associations confirms the importance of having new capacities to address old and new social problems. The traditional method how public organisations, private companies and civil organisations have responded to social demands is no longer sufficient. New skills are required, not only to effectively address problems, but also to achieve a true transformation of the social setting.

39

40

Social Innovation

1.5.1. Administrative capacity From an inside view, the concept of administrative capacity summarises the ensemble of technical-organisational resources and skills an public, private or social agent requires to fulfil their role and attain the proposed objectives. In public organisation theory, this concept is related to the efficacy of the Public Administration to implement policy decisions adopted. Human resources and the organisational model are two key variables to understanding administrative capacity and to determine an agent’s potential when dealing with social problems. Low qualification of organisational members, rigidity in work positions or in organisational design, not incorporating multidisciplinary elements into teams or excessive control over assigned tasks are factors that reduce the agents’ capacity to intervene in circumstances that are highly complex or uncertain.

Human resources and the organisational model are two key variables to understanding administrative capacity and to determine an agent’s potential when dealing with social problems.

It is not possible to implement effective solutions within a rigid regulatory framework that limits the autonomy of its members in decision-making and reduces the flexibility of organisations to adapt to the changes in the environment. This situation becomes even more serious if the organisational model becomes the main cause behind failures in coordination. The implementation of an organisational culture that is


41

immobile in nature is promoted, that prioritises processes over results, and does not make measurement and evaluation effective tools to assess social transformations.

An efficient administrative structure made the Fishing Association’s “Flor de Yancacauha” Inquilla Chullpia (Peru) project in sustainable trout production successful, the final goal being to improve income and quality of life for the community. The organisational method that they adopted, the production techniques developed and the capacity of members to address the environment’s challenges are innovative elements in this project (Rodríguez and Alvarado, 2008: 167-168).

1.5.2. Relational capacity From an outside view, an agent’s ability to establish cooperational networks with other agents in the environment are determining. The concept of relational capacity could be used to categorise this type of skill. It includes the capability of identifying key agents and establishing alliances based on common objectives, and of reaching agreements that promote the exchange of strategic resources amongst members of a network, especially those that favour implementing

effective solutions for social problems. Social innovation must not be understood as a process wherein one sole agent participates, isolated in his or her environment, able to identify the most adequate solutions for social problems on their own. We are not even discussing

42

Social Innovation

governmental institutions. Following a systemic focus to analyse the innovation process, it might be said that interactions between agents are a necessary condition in order to attain effective results with social impact.

Social innovation must not be understood as a process wherein one sole agent participates, isolated in his or her environment, able to identify the most adequate solutions for social problems on their own. We are not even discussing governmental institutions.

These interactions are materialised by establishing formal and informal networks that foment the exchange of knowledge and information amongst the multiple agents participating in the social scope. The existence of these networks is upheld by the recognition of their members that they do not have enough resources to satisfactorily address social problems. Bonds of interdependency are created, where each agent mobilises the resources available to them to achieve a common goal.

Formación i Treball (Barcelona, Spain) is an organisation focused on job placement for individuals with special difficulties in joining the job market. It also carries out a social aid programme, by means of which it manages clothing, furniture and home equipment supplies for families with scarce resources.


When the possibility of turning the second-hand clothing collection service into a successful business project that would promote job creation was proposed, it was necessary to establish collaboration mechanisms with other agents. Its members reached the conclusion that an organisation with its characteristics was not capable of undertaking a project on its own that would require a huge production investment. With the support of private companies and other social organisations, it was possible to create the territorially organised network Ropa Amiga, whose objectives include collecting second-hand clothing in an efficient, profitable fashion (Vernis, 2009: 124).

43

Chapter 2 1

A new way of looking at the public realm

46

Social Innovation

2.1. The historical journey of the concept of social innovation Social innovation has undergone a large boom over the past years as a topic of study in different social science disciplines, and as a goal of interest for multilateral entities and governments. The OECD is motivating its member countries to pay greater attention to the phenomenon of social innovation: the European Commission has created a group of experts and is working to create a reference framework for its Member Countries; the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) has awarded innovative experiences in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) has financed and promoted research on successful experiences in the region. Yet, social innovation cannot be considered as a new concept. Human beings have always creatively responded to problems and needs affecting them. If a critical perspective is used, the balance between the positive and negative consequences of many of their actions may be discussed, but there is no doubt that this principle has played a key role in humanity’s evolution, and fundamentally, in the progressive modernisation of societies. For example, the industrial revolution was a turning point in the history of mankind, and was the beginning of a chain of innovations that have transformed the world. The value of innovation had already been described by Joseph Schumpeter since the 1930s and 40s, when he linked innovation to social change. From an economic perspective, it focused its power on transforming production processes and structures. According to the author, what was firstly considered a solution to improve a company’s efforts may become a déclencheur for a huge transformation in the established order. In this regard,


47

he popularised the concept of creative destruction in his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. The capacity of people to undertake new projects is one of the main values from whence economic development draws its support. Another key element to understand the historical journey of social innovation is the importance of community in innovative processes, seen in establishing support networks that promote the generation and implementation of ideas. For Tocqueville, in La Democracia en América (Democracy in America), the tendency that citizens have to facilitate participation is the essence of democracy. His study on the features of American society gives clues as to the importance of associating oneself in strengthening civic values and in achieving social change. As follows, we introduce a few key moments from the first decade of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century in configuring the meaning behind social innovation.

2.1.1. Crisis and new ideas Times of crisis have tested people’s capacity to solve the main problems afflicting them, by means of generating new initiatives that, over time, may take on important social transcendence. Over the 20th century, public, private and social agents more than showed their capacity to innovate and create social transformations in highly uncertain situations.

Times of crisis have tested people’s capacity to solve the main problems afflicting them, by means of generating new initiatives that, over time, may take on important social transcendence.

48

Social Innovation

In the United States, the measures adopted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s government to offset the consequences of 1929’s Great Depression turned public organisations into great innovation centres. The New Deal is a good example of how the Public Administration can effectively meet citizens’ growing needs during times of crisis (Mulgan et al. 2007: 10). After the Second World War, European governments undertook the reconstruction of their countries and the Welfare State was consolidated as an extraordinary instrument of social transformation. The public sector promoted new laws in this regard, driving the construction of specific institutions and entities at different levels within the Administration to provide public goods and services, and sectoral development plans were implemented that made public policies tools for social change. Unions, business organisations and professionals took on a noteworthy role in promoting innovative solutions for the challenges that they had to face at that time. The capacity to establish pacts, interact, mobilise their members and appropriately aggregate and articulate citizen preferences were determining elements in these processes of social change. In times of crisis, non-governmental entities have had an important task. In the case of Latin America, where different authors speak of emerging Welfare States, social policy has become a key part of their formation. However, the formulation of these policies was historically characterised by heightened instability and lack of continuity in their development, thereby reducing possibilities of obtaining positive results. Within this framework, social organisations have taken on an important role in meeting needs not covered by the Government, by means of innovative mechanisms that involve the very communities themselves as agents for social change.


49

In times of crisis, non-governmental entities have had an important task.

2.1.2. The power of social movements During the 1960s and the 1970s, social movements played a determining role in generating important changes worldwide. The actions and achievements attained by several entrepreneurs and civil organisations led to a sort of spill-over effect that also permeated public, private and social agents, forcing them to make innovative proposals for citizen demands (Mulgan et al. 2007: 10).

The actions and achievements attained by several entrepreneurs and civil organisations led to a sort of spill-over effect that also permeated public, private and social agents, forcing them to make innovative proposals for citizen demands (Mulgan et al. 2007: 10).

Environmental defence and conservation became an objective to fight for, which led to the creation of several associations and social movements around the world. It was held that the notion of economic development could not be reframed at the expense of destroying the ecosystem, so company and government activities were subject to public scrutiny. For example, in 1971, the non-governmental organisation Green-

50

Social Innovation

peace was founded in Vancouver (Canada). This environmental organisation has taken on worldwide relevance, thanks to its capacity to promote collective action in a new way, making social change possible with the participation of citizens. Other movements, such as the struggle for civil rights and feminism, strengthened the work of several social innovators and propitiated the birth of not-for-profit organisations, which have provided effective solutions to growing citizen demands. Activists from the civil rights movement in the United States, such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. used new methods of protest, and they became a valuable source of inspiration for several different social entrepreneurs, both inside and outside their country. The feminist movement promoted major social transformations upon gaining women’s suffrage, keeping up a permanent fight for equal employment, demanding equality for men and women in public institutions and configuring a regulatory framework to regulate formulation and implementation of public policies. Its repercussions around the world made it possible to create networks for work and exchanging resources, which in Latin America, where several civil organisations have had a notable role over the past years, materialised by holding historic events such as the 1st Latin American and Caribbean Feminist Meeting in 1981.

2.1.3. Rising citizen participation Citizen participation is a fundamental value in current democracies, given that it promotes opening up public institutions, guaranteeing that citizens participate in managing issues that directly affect their quality of life. As per the Iberian-American Charter of Citizen Participation in Public Management (2009), citizen participation means a “process of social construction


51

of public policies that, according to the general interest of democratic society, channels, responds to or broadens economic, social, cultural, political and civil rights for the people, and the rights of organisations or groups of which said people are a part.”

Citizen participation is a fundamental value in current democracies, given that it promotes opening up public institutions, guaranteeing that citizens participate in managing issues that directly affect their quality of life.

Achieving greater levels of participation has become a trend that brings hundreds of organisations and civic movements together the world over, from community associations to professional organisations of any sort. This trend’s intent is to place value on the right held by citizens to know what their governments are doing, in what they are investing public money, and to demand the establishment of tools for greater transparency and control over decision-making. Inexorably, this implies the progressive institutionalisation of structures that provide opportunities for citizens to participate in, and have access to, Administrations. In this regard, initiatives have arisen that are different from traditional policymaking methods, incorporating new ideas and ways of exercising basic rights and liberties. The purpose is to place the citizen at the core of social transformation. These ideas have propitiated the development of several participatory experiences with new mechanisms, fomenting full involvement of citizens in managing public issues and strengthening their relationships with public organisations. In

52

Social Innovation

this fashion, conditions were created so that citizens and the Administration can socially innovate, leaving static conceptions of the role each one must fulfil in the social dynamic by the wayside. In some local governments, for example, ambitious practises that go beyond traditional informational and consultation activities for citizens were promoted, incorporating participation mechanisms that mean greater engagement on the part of Administrations in order to guarantee involvement of citizens in the decision-making process, and more importantly, that guarantee real integration of their opinions in formulating public policies, plans or programmes. In this regard, experiences such as participatory budgets, Agenda 21 and participatory strategic planning carried out by many cities worldwide are of importance.

2.1.4. Social transformations: new roles As of the 1990s, the concept of social innovation underwent a debate phase, due to the economic, political and social changes that the world was undergoing. Some factors worth mention in this regard are: the consequences of economic cycles, neoliberalism and the promotion of ideas as to the need to reduce the size of Government and to delegate many of its roles to other agents, and questioning Welfare States and doubts as to their sustainability. This is how the need arose to create new ways to provide goods and services for the dilemmas faced by the public sector. The worldwide trend was to promote the participation of not-for-profit organisations and private companies in developing new models to meet citizen needs. Concepts such as privatisation, regulation, subcontracting and outsourcing


53

services overlapped one another, with no clear theoretical and operational distinction. The overarching objective was efficientist in nature. The concept of social innovation was limited in the public sector due to its relation to collaborative models exclusively designed to reduce costs, relegating the social impact of their activities. However, the low response capacity of these models for citizen demands and for the complex decisional processes that determine the generation of public goods and services would mark a change in trends in later years.

2.1.5. Social innovation on the public agenda Obama becoming President of the United States in 2008 was marked by the use of new electoral strategies based on ideas of openness and change. In addition to the aforementioned, of note is the effective use of new technologies and appropriate exploitation of the advantages of being connected that are offered by the Internet in order to guarantee mobilisation of citizen for electoral purposes. The spirit of wanting to do things differently spread to the specific exercise of political power by implementing innovative initiatives in the public sphere which, as has occurred on other occasions, end up becoming topics for debate and important reference points for the rest of the world. The notion of openness and change was materialised by implementing initiatives designed to achieve greater transparency in exercising public roles, and the creation of favourable conditions for citizens to exercise their right to freely access public information. Of note is the impulse behind two key initiatives, which are open government and strategy for innovation and social progress.

54

Social Innovation

The notion of openness and change was materialised by implementing initiatives designed to achieve greater transparency in exercising public roles, and the creation of favourable conditions for citizens to exercise their right to freely access public information. Of note is the impulse behind two key initiatives, which are open government and strategy for innovation and social progress.

The open government concept, whose origins hearken back to the 1970s, is based on theoretical governance and good government postulates, based on classic issues such as transparency, accountability, access to information, collaboration and citizen participation. These issues were strengthened by technological progress, in such a way that the government is able to establish a bidirectional management model between the Administration and citizens. On the other hand, Barack Obama’s government has taken social innovation as a new focus for policymaking and providing services. He conceives social innovation as a focus able to strengthen transparency and citizen participation, as well as to mobilise social agents in regards to the problems that affect the population with greater intensity. The federal government of the United States created the Office for Social Innovation and Civic Participation to promote joint work amongst public, social and private agents to solve the challenges faced by societies today. This office’s work is upheld by the following principles: result-oriented work supported by trustworthy measurement and evolution tools, promoting bottom-up solutions, strengthening citizen


55

participation and responsibility shared with the rest of agents participating in the social setting. As part of the initiatives developed within this new framework, the Office for Social Innovation and Civic Participation has implemented new collaborative financing instruments designed to promote innovative projects. Furthermore, there was a drive to adopt new public-private association models in order to solidify effective alliances for highly complex social problems. The guiding principle is to take advantage of institutional synergies and knowledge gleaned by participating agents in order to implement innovative solutions in providing public services and goods. On the other hand, David Cameron’s arrival to Downing Street came along with a reconfiguration of conservative discourse in the United Kingdom, adapting it to current challenges and the country’s economic and social reality. As part of his government’s initiatives, Cameron has proposed the need to promote important changes in British society, giving shape to a “great society” model. Collaborative models are an essential part of this proposal, where the private sector and citizens themselves actively participate in generating knowledge and improving the population’s quality of life. Financing is another central issue. There is a drive to implement new financing mechanisms (social stock exchange and social impact bonds), so that social companies, civil organisations and even citizens themselves may obtain sufficient resources to implement their projects and innovative ideas. In Spain, the Provincial Government of Lugo has implemented an experimental centre of knowledge to create projects that favour social welfare by means of new technologies, called IN LUGO (Social Innovation Centre). The Provincial

56

Social Innovation

Government of Malaga has promoted the creation of La Noria, a social innovation centre that acts as an incubator for social projects designed for children and youth. Finally, Madrid Town Hall has an Office of Social Innovation whose purpose is to channel projects and innovative proposals that promote the city of Madrid’s entrepreneurial spirit and creativity.

2.2. The role and scope of the public sphere Literature seems to address social innovation as a response to the lack in alternatives or solutions on the market and from the Government to the population’s most pressing needs and problems. This statement, which is true in certain cases, puts public organisations in a difficult position, as it shows their inability to appropriately meet citizen demands. On the other hand, this suggests that Public Administration falls outside the innovative dynamic taking place in society. The economic and financial crisis has forced us to reconsider the Government’s provision activity and the basic core of guaranteed public goods and services. It has not been difficult to assume that the welfare levels reached at the beginning of the 21st century will be difficult to sustain in the future, at least for the most advanced countries. Citizens observe how, in different scopes of action such as health, education, social services, pensions or employment policies, guarantee levels have been reduced. This has not always taken place after a political or social debate. Rather, it is normally the result of applying budget stability and financial sufficiency policies, on many occasions due to pressure from multilateral entities. The result is that the guaranteed portfolio of public goods and services and provision levels do not have sufficient so-


57

cial consensus, which increases citizens’ indifference toward public institutions and their members. This means we must once again reach a balance between social needs and meeting them, using the resources available in society to this end. The debate of governments is still focused on dimensions of the public sector and its relationship with efficacy and efficiency in carrying out their functions. At least for now, the issue has not been framed as eliminating public services, but it has been framed as revising organisation of the public sector, how it is financed, the responsibilities it must undertake, which institutions should carry them out and how certain services may be addressed and provided by means of collaboration formulas amongst public, private and social sectors. Notwithstanding, the debate must overcome these traditional dilemmas in regards to the role of the Government. We must reflect on the Government’s social role and redefine its role in order to guarantee, not only its survival, but also the provision of goods and services designed to develop society and keep it together.

We must reflect on the Government’s social role and redefine its role in order to guarantee, not only its survival, but also the provision of goods and services designed to develop society and keep it together.

This means the starting point must be: delimitation of its mission in society, which is made up of the guarantee of rights and freedoms for citizens, justice and protection of life for the people, and other activities in line with economic, social

58

Social Innovation

and environmental transformations and the forces and threats weighing down on the world (Elvidge, 2012: 30; Pollit, 2007: 42; Pochard, 2007: 28). In all of these cases, the meaning and scope of government action must be delimited, as well as the degree of involvement of citizens, social organisations and the market in the common good. Many of the challenges and transformations that the Government and society will have to face may be addressed with collaborative mechanisms that recognise the capacities of other agents in management and development, moving beyond the models that prioritise action being taken by sole agents, disconnected from social reality.

Many of the challenges and transformations that the Government and society will have to face may be addressed with collaborative mechanisms that recognise the capacities of other agents in management and development, moving beyond the models that prioritise action being taken by sole agents, disconnected from social reality.

In regards to skill, the knowledge and talent held by society make possible, and guarantee, coverage for certain types of needs, supported by the configuration of new governance models. It is within this context that collaboration between public, private and social agents offers huge possibilities for social innovation. A central aspect in developing social innovation is taking advantage of experiences and innovation capacity, along with generating ideas from the public, private and social group sec-


59

tors. This possibility facilitates preparing proposals that may help to solve socially transcendent problems and needs. This does not mean excluding the Government from all responsibility for the results obtained; rather, it shall be given a new role within the scope of the relationships it must keep with the network of agents forming society.

A central aspect in developing social innovation is taking advantage of experiences and innovation capacity, along with generating ideas from the public, private and social group sectors.

In addition to facilitating, promoting and driving society forward in achieving the common good, this new role also means that it must take on the role of activator and facilitator for society, collaborating and helping families, people or communities to drive forward what they best know how to do, making it so that all agents involved commit to the common good (Elvidge, 2012: 33; König, 2010). Governments are recognising more and more that innovation and idea generation require a plurality of public, social and private agents. This increases the efficacy, efficiency and performance of public services, in addition to providing greater response capacity to needs and requirements of citizens, which would be difficult to achieve solely by governmental means (OECD, 2011; 16). The need to promote new models for governance to achieve public objectives and improve social welfare and living conditions for citizens is becoming clearer and clearer. How to do so

60

Social Innovation

is by strengthening citizen trust in social relationships and in institutions by creating and consolidating networks that direct their efforts toward meeting the common good. As such, trust appears as a key element in building collaboration between public, private and social agents, just like establishing policy networks that complement public institutions. The arguments made up until now show a reconsideration of the role and responsibilities the public sector and the governments leading it must take on. The public sector, the Government, is no longer an omnipresent and unlimited agent. It is difficult for society to admit that public issues are exclusively responsibility of public institutions, and claims, at times with force, a more active role in issues that concern it.

The arguments made up until now show a reconsideration of the role and responsibilities the public sector and the governments leading it must take on. The public sector, the Government, is no longer an omnipresent and unlimited agent. It is difficult for society to admit that public issues are exclusively responsibility of public institutions, and claims, at times with force, a more active role in issues that concern it.

2.3. Efficacy and legitimacy of public action More and more, public actions are facing situations where their efficacy and effectiveness is called into question. On other occasions, the results are not as initially predicted, as there is little effort, which feeds into citizens’ low acceptance


61

of its public institutions and their members. Citizens expect maximum performance from institutions for the sake of good operation and stability of the political system. However, when public organisations do not fully meet the requirements or citizens or do not appropriately solve priority problems affecting the population, trustful relations progressively erode and the established institutional framework is called into question.

When public organisations do not fully meet the requirements or citizens or do not appropriately solve priority problems affecting the population, trustful relations progressively erode and the established institutional framework is called into question.

The economic crisis in 2008 made it clear that some governments were unable to stop the deteriorating economy, and with it, the negative effects on sensitive issues for the population, such as unemployment, poverty, inequality, evictions, closing companies, etc. This reality led to important social mobilisations that questioned ruling institutions and a deterioration in trust levels of citizens with their governments. In countries such as Spain, for example, it was recorded that trust levels fell by 35 percentage points between 2006 and 2013, going from 53 percent to 18 percent, respectively, as per a survey from the company Gallup. In the United States, a fall at 27 percentage points in this same period was recorded. Efficacy and legitimacy are becoming issues that should be close attention to when analysing the role of the Administration and its actual capacities to provide public goods and services.

62

Social Innovation

This reality led to important social mobilisations that questioned ruling institutions and a deterioration in trust levels of citizens with their governments.

Authors such as Lipset (1959) and Huntington (1966) studied this relation between public action efficacy and legitimacy decades ago. The base principle of this relationship is that when institutions’ actions in terms of results (services, decisions or actions) do not meet citizens’ expectations, the political system’s capacity to create and hold the idea that existing institutions are the most appropriate for society decreases. Within this context, a door is opened so that another type of organisation can take on a large part of the roles inherent to public organisations, or, on the contrary, so that citizens are outliers in the dynamic of the political system and define other informal methods to meet their demands. By promoting social innovation, we are given the possibility of formulating work of public, private and social agents under new governance models, and defining alternatives to social problems, which generates social value. However, this should not be taken as a magic formula for the challenges lying in social problems, or for the risks inherent to low Administration performance in regards to citizen expectations. On the contrary, this should be viewed as an opportunity making it possible to develop creativity and to build a new focus to overcome scarce legitimacy and to meet new requirements that public organisations must face in providing some public goods and services. An important step that must be taken by public


63

institutions is to identify the factors that strengthen innovation and guarantee development of these new governance models that have been mentioned now on several occasions. Consequently, the legitimacy of government action must not be based on exclusive responsibility in deciding on and executing public programmes. This approach is a Welfare State model that is insufficient. Legitimacy must include the capacity of public institutions to lead and motivate the participation of social and private sectors that, with their resources, can address and propose new solutions to social problems. The idea is to create institutional frameworks that promote the establishment of alliances and collaborative networks amongst agents from the social sphere, in order to encourage the exchange and use of strategic resources (mainly knowledge and information). In this regard, social innovation becomes a valuable lever for change in speaking of the efficacy and legitimacy of public action.

2.4. The progressive involvement of society in the common good Understanding social innovation as a lever for change in the public sector makes it clear that governments must seek out alliances with different agents in order to optimise the provision of public goods and services given the challenges in a changing environment, as well as maintain certain rights that, up until a few years ago, were guaranteed and that no one questioned or doubted. From different focus points, public organisations, companies, the tertiary sector, philanthropic societies, universities, volunteer associations, families and individuals that have taken

64

Social Innovation

on an attitude of commitment to participate in common projects to provide solutions to the problems of the community where they live and take action. By participating conjointly, they are focused on achieving common good, by means of a learning process and a process of collectively building reality.

From different focus points, public organisations, companies, the tertiary sector, philanthropic societies, universities, volunteer associations, families and individuals that have taken on an attitude of commitment to participate in common projects to provide solutions to the problems of the community where they live and take action. By participating conjointly, they are focused on achieving common good, by means of a learning process and a process of collectively building reality.

Over the past years, an evolution has been observed in social participation models. Social groups no longer reclaim recognition from public institutions and their participation therein alone; their discourse and actions seek for greater involvement in addressing society’s main problems, such as economic growth, equality and social cohesion. This evolution in participation comes along with an exchange of knowledge and resources. It is a turning point in how to address social problems. This reality is not the consequence of mere evolution thanks to the maturity and specialisation of social organisations and the change in mentality of public institutions due to prolonged interaction and contact with them. A new factor


65

has come on the stage, which is the growing commitment of social agents in the community’s course and in achieving the common good. An influence on this transformation is the fact that the Government recognises its powerlessness to address all public needs and to lead all processes of change, as well as low citizen acceptance of public institutions and how they act. Within this context, social groups have been demanding inclusion in decision-making processes, and eventually, in implementing policies or public actions. The Government’s financial limitations, the evolution of society and its needs, as well as of the market and its supply, the growing complexity of public organisations and public affairs has made it so that providing public services as a monopoly is no longer a point of reference, or even an effective possibility.

A new factor has come on the stage, which is the growing commitment of social agents in the community’s course and in achieving the common good.

2.5. The Government and governance networks A collective approach as presented up until now means that the Government recognises and accepts the capacity of society and citizens to provide creative solutions to their own problems and needs. To this end, governments must commit to opening up decision-making mechanisms and making agents co-responsible for the results obtained.

66

Social Innovation

This means abandoning the concepts of citizens and civil society as mere recipients of services, leaving traditional concepts by the wayside, concepts in regards to citizen participation, through which the Government (from a dominating position) opens up to citizens and other agents in society, to inform or consult them about actions or decisions that have previously been adopted by said Government. In many cases, there has been an attempt to coat this focus in modernity, enveloped by attractive new technologies.

2.5.1. Operation of governance networks The past decades have shown that organisations and associations that form part of civil society have taken on increasing prominence in public and social spheres, so much so that some community activities cannot be understood without their collaboration. It is therefore necessary to redefine the “what,” “who” and “how” for services and activities that the community needs and wherein it may participate, providing its know-how. We must also consider the Government’s renewed role in strengthening democracy, the effective improvement in citizens’ lives and conditions at companies and social organisations, and achieving social cohesion. In this situation, the Government must include driving governance networks amongst its methods of action, networks that take action in projects of common interest, strengthening bonds between agents and promoting their interaction. The idea is to create environments of trust to establish objectives that would be difficult for each one of the agents involved, including the Government, working alone, on their own. This latter aspect is key to network operation. The existence of common objectives defines the direction that members’ efforts should be directed, and also promotes cohesion within


67

the network. But it is important to mention that agents also have their own objectives. Their participation in the networks is not justification for abandoning the mission and the purposes that historically determined their operation. Simply, the base premise is that achieving one’s own purposes depends, in one way or another, on the existence of the network and achieving the common objective set forth by its members.

The Government must include driving governance networks amongst its methods of action, networks that take action in projects of common interest, strengthening bonds between agents and promoting their interaction.

Conflicts that may exist between common objectives and individual objectives are reduced by the overarching values shared by network members. Indeed, agents share a series of values that, in a certain way, determine the inclusion or exclusion of agents in the network and the characteristics of the relationships taking place therein. It would be incompatible for a network of agents promoting defence of fair commerce, for example, to include agents that benefit from precarious conditions in developing countries to maximise their profits. Public organisations have a central role in the operation of networks. Due to their own purposes and characteristics, they are enabled to create institutional frameworks that spur the formation of networks to exchange resources and to address social problems in a coordinated fashion. The most appropriate institutional framework is one that significantly reduces collective action problems. In other

68

Social Innovation

words, one that reduces disincentives stemming from the very characteristics of public goods and services (non-rivalry and non-exclusion). The institutional framework must guarantee that the values motivating the existence of the network are in line with the common good, and it must promote trust between members of the network by establishing sanctions for opportunistic actions whose intent is to exclusively meet individual or group needs.

2.5.2. Multiple agents in the social sphere The spectrum of agents that may form part of a public, private and social collaboration setting is highly varied and broad. But there are even more strategic resources that may be shared amongst these agents, by connecting them to clearly-configured governance networks for social problems and to define new alternatives to address them. Historically, public organisations have had a noteworthy role in generating innovative products and processes. Two of the innovations with the greatest social impact over the past half-century were the Internet and the World Wide Web, both developed by public organisations (Mulgan, et al 2007: 4). Adopting collaborative models to provide public services or developing public participatory policies are two examples of mechanisms the Public Administrations may use to create ideal spaces for social innovation.

Adopting collaborative models to provide public services or developing public participatory policies are two examples of mechanisms the Public Administrations may use to create ideal spaces for social innovation.


69

More and more, private companies are committed to problems in regards to the environment, inequality, disability or fair commerce. Business social responsibility has been hugely developed over the past decades, especially with large private corporations, and it is moving forward toward configuring new models based on the idea of shared value (Porter, 2011). A good example of innovations promoted by private companies is the work done by Greg Allgood and Felipe Souter from Procter & Gamble. They developed a simple purification process to provide potable water in developing countries that won them the prestigious The Economist award in 2012, as social innovation of the year. Companies with social economy have become important centres for job creation, resolving sectoral or territorial crises thanks to their collective capacity to react to social problems. They strengthen people’s entrepreneurial spirit and participation in management, all while contributing toward building a more equal society where priority is placed on integrating people with disabilities or at risk for social exclusion. Companies such as Catering Solidario in Latin America connect with different non-governmental organisations to create support networks, offering employment opportunities to women who have been victims of domestic abuse, and promote products related to fair commerce. Several philanthropic foundations and associations are ever-more involved in the fight against poverty and focus their efforts on generating and implementing social development projects. NGOs have acquired and solidified their legitimacy by participating in actions such as education, health, food and childhood, acting as a fundamental agent in designing and implementing social support programmes.

70

Social Innovation

As such, the addition of new social actions and policies over the past decades to the selection of public social services is mainly carried out through NGOs. They also promote the defence of basic rights and freedoms, creating innovative mechanisms for collective action. Amnesty International is a good example of this. Since it was founded in 1961, it has become an extraordinary international movement which, being present in 150 countries, works to defend human rights. Local communities that receive and benefit from social action measures are greatly aware of the problems affecting them and their involvement is fundamental for any public action to be successful. We also find social innovators and entrepreneurs with a different degree of structuring that commit their efforts to developing social action programmes. Finally, entities of an international nature carry out a very vast, profound activity in many emerging regions. The European Union is carrying out initiatives to finance projects on social innovation through the Employment and Social Innovation Programme (EaSI) and Horizon 2020. With this latter initiative, there are financing lines that are specifically focused on creating social innovation communities in European space, with the participation of entrepreneurs, researchers, citizens and political and social leaders. The objective is to encourage exchanging results from research and to develop measures to be applied in communities. The Iberian-American General Secretary (Secretaría General Iberoamericana) (SEGIB) has created a line of work for social innovation that has financing programmes to support the creation of networks to exchange experiences in IberianAmerican countries. The BID is supporting research projects on social innovation in Latin America through The Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF). In short, there is a broad, increasing


71

ensemble of agents, different in character and in nature, with their own expectations, needs and objectives with whom the public sector must clearly define their role, responsibility and scope of action. Given all of these different agents, the Government needs to know how to identify which ones are the most appropriate to join public programmes, and determine in which phase of each programme their participation is most relevant in terms of the added value that they can create. Often, social agents do not know how to identify which network to participate in, and in which one their potential would be most valuable. At this level, the Government is key to strengthen communication channels between this amalgam of agents, to determine the direction of the programme and the principles that should govern action, to establish the purpose sought after and to create an environment favourable to cooperation, where resources and knowledge flow appropriately, in order to achieve social development.

The Government is key to strengthen communication channels between this amalgam of agents, to determine the direction of the programme and the principles that should govern action, to establish the purpose sought after and to create an environment favourable to cooperation, where resources and knowledge flow appropriately, in order to achieve social development.

Chapter 3

Social innovation and public action

74

Social Innovation

3.1. Re-thinking public action In the public sphere, social innovation is taking on strength as a new focus to address relations between public, private and social agents. This might be understood as an attempt to take on models again that were used in decades past, to promote the involvement of private companies and not-forprofit organisations in managing public services with the sole purpose or reducing costs. However, social innovation can change how policies are designed and how public goods and services are provided, using resources, experience and creativity from citizens, social organisations and social and private companies as support. Participation is no longer conceived as an isolated event. It is a definitive part of new collaborative models where knowledge and innovation are basic values to re-think public action and to guarantee the solution to social problems. This relationship between innovation and participation is also framed through the concept of co-production. Reference is made to development of collaborative processes in the public sector, based on citizen and user participation, as a source of innovation and in attributing users and citizens these capacities to improve public good and service provision (OECD, 2011: 27-28). A survey carried out in OECD countries (2011: 173) studied the reasons to promote the involvement of citizens in providing public goods and services through collaborative models. The greatest percentage of those surveyed stated that with this type of initiative, it is possible to increase citizen participation (71 percent), followed by an improvement in service quality (60 percent) and an increase in the effectiveness and impact of their provision (55 percent).


75

Figure 3.1. Reasons to promote citizen participation in public service provision (Percentage of surveyed parties in OECD member countries).

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Lack of resources

Little Resistance Lack of Deficient to change financial qualification evidence of benefits incentives

Citizens Legal limitations apathetic in participation

Source: OECD, 2011.

Adopting a social innovation focus in the public sector may make private or social organisation reticent, due to the fear that excessive Administration intervention takes away their autonomy in their work. But it must be taken into account that public organisations have a key role in sensitive sectors for the population, such as: education, social services, health and the environment. These are also sectors where social and private agents have actively taken action over the past decades, promoting great changes and improvements. The conclusion must be that both the Public Administration and the different organisations and companies participating in

76

Social Innovation

public policy must collaborate together in order to strengthen innovations and spread their positive externalities. With learning processes from interaction between different agents, it is possible to change how the public policy cycle and the provision of goods and services is understood. The traditional stages of diagnosis, formulation and implementation of policy, as well as policy evaluation and improvement, may be benefited by the experience of other agents in developing innovative processes. The objective is to add new elements to how problems are addressed and how solutions are defined, by the incorporation of social innovation. Without a doubt, this way of addressing social problems and needs is a great opportunity for the Public Administration to make correct decisions in each one of the phases of public policies, to forecast appropriate resources to address said problems and needs and to effectively fulfil its purposes.

3.1.1. Diagnostic and generation of the ideas Identifying problems and needs does not tend to be an easy task. Information must be collected to facilitate the analysis process, as well as decision-making on fundamental issues, such as: the causes and consequences of the problem framed, and the characteristics of the affected parties. To this end, it is fundamental to have a series of skills and information to address social reality from its different angles. The difficulty is even greater when the problem must be characterised, because the prejudices of those involved in the analysis process intervene. Individual values, beliefs, symbols, ideologies and experiences condition how we understand social reality. In some cases, this mix of subjective elements can become a barrier that limits the capacity of the agents involved to


77

perform a good diagnosis. In addition to this, the characteristics of social problems are not as visible as one might believe. The complexity, dynamism and diversity of problems makes this task a huge challenge. However, we must remember that good problem identification and characterisation is the seed for the solution (Murray, et al. 2010: 14). One way to address these limitations is to promote participatory diagnosis models. With them, networks are built to exchange knowledge and experiences amongst the agents involved in identifying the problem or the needs that need to be met. Participation is not only an opportunity to create expert networks that contribute their impressions in regard to the reality being addressed, but is also a way to integrate the very affected parties. They are the ones who can provide truly opportune, broad and trustworthy information on the situation from which they are suffering. Participation as a tool for diagnosis also allows us to establish the foundation to move forward in generating ideas. A good idea that provides effective solutions to complex problems is not the fruit of a mystical revelation had by an individual isolated in their environment. It is normally the consequence of an arduous process of reflection, where determining factors are: the exchange of information, knowledge of alternatives carried out in other contexts and individual learning experiences and those of other agents when addressing common problems.

Participation as a tool for diagnosis also allows us to establish the foundation to move forward in generating ideas.

78

Social Innovation

When the question arises as to where ideas come from, the most correct answer is: from many sources that must be interconnected in order to fulfil their task. Neuroscience supports this statement. The project Milk in Abundance, carried out in Haiti by the non-governmental organisation VETERIMED organised producers to improve their working conditions and their income. With the use of participative diagnosis, its promoters were able to appropriately detect their needs, which led them to create micro milk-processing communities and a producers association (Rodríguez and Alvarado, 2008: 164)2. The development of new technologies and the connectivity offered by the Internet facilitate building networks to exchange ideas, and considerably reduces the costs associated with obtaining and systematising information. Different repositories for ideas and experiences from all over the world have been created over the past years, to be shared by Internet users. Wiki pages are another example of how collaborative models upheld by Internet connectivity may facilitate the exchange of knowledge. People from all over the world may freely propose their ideas, as well as modify or complement proposals from other authors, moving forward, collectively building a topic.

3.1.2. Initiative development: prototypes and pilot tests The idea becomes a specific product or service. The idea is to implement the proposed solution within a controlled framework to later on value its efficacy. Before spreading an innovation, it 2

This project was awarded first place in the social innovation contest in Latin America and the Caribbean (2004-2005 cycle), organised by the Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) (CEPAL). Further information on this experience may be found at the following webpage: http://www. veterimed.org.ht/.


79

is advisable to develop prototypes or to perform pilot tests, which could be considered a useful exercise in experimentation. This way, the innovator undertakes a learning process that helps him or her to perfect the proposal. Social innovation laboratories may be an appropriate formula. The best way to achieve this purpose is by creating stable spaces for dialogue and deliberation between agents, as well as by adopting a series of agreed-upon criteria to carry out pilot tests, or the controlled implementation of an initiative. The idea is to implement participative mechanisms that drive the capacity of agents to reflect and debate on the reality that affects them, identifying new alternatives with social impact. Innobasque (Spain) has made this condition a key element to foment the alliance between public, private and social agents in carrying out priority initiatives that affect the Basque Country (Spain) and the policies that must be implemented to address them. By means of the participation of all involved, they managed to design initiatives such as: the Social pact for housing, Lifetime learning law, Social innovation research strategy and the Basque employment strategy (Innobasque, 2011: 29).

3.1.3. Evaluation and analysis of results After the previous phase, we assess if the idea put into practise functions correctly, if it meets with the objectives initially proposed in such a way that it can be extended to other beneficiaries, having passed the experimentation phase. Just as in the diagnostic phase, it is advisable to evaluate in participatory fashion; in other words, with the participation of all agents involved. Community accompaniment is always a resource of great value to guarantee success and sustainability, as well as to reduce risks, for any initiative being implemented.

80

Social Innovation

When we speak of participatory evaluation, we are referring to a plural process where the subjects of an intervention are involved in assessing its development. How this involvement materialises may vary according to the time and resources available. Consultation instruments may be drawn up so that participants answer previously formulated questions, or move forward in designing a more complete process including a review and interpretation of results based on the use of indicators. The evaluation may lead to re-framing the idea or making specific adjustments to improve its performance. Empirical evidence shows that may successful social innovation stories undergo critical moments wherein their promoters must reflect on the actions undertaken and re-direct a large part of their activities to attain greater social impact (Vernis, 2009: 113). The Planes Especiales de Inversión y Actuación Territorial (Special Investment and Action Plans) (PEI) were an initiative promoted by Madrid Town Hall and the Federación Regional de Asociaciones de Vecinos de Madrid (Regional Federation of Madrid Neighbourhood Associations) (FRAVM) in 2004 for territorial rebalance in the city. While carrying out the plans, Citizen Monitoring Commissions were activated (one per each PEI), wherein representation from Madrid Town Hall and neighbourhood entities whom the plans targeted from the districts (administrative division in the city of Madrid) actively participated. The results from evaluating the plans were presented in these commissions. These results were obtained through an indicator system especially designed by the agents participating in the initiative.


81

3.1.4. Dissemination and replication A key to social innovation is dissemination and replication. When the efficacy of an idea has been proven to solve a problem, and the social changes it creates have been assessed, the promoters of the innovation hope that its advantages may be extended to the rest of the population and that the number of beneficiaries can grow further. This is the logic that should prevail over any type of value generated by social innovation, at least. But private and social organisations do not have the capacity to extend successful solutions to the entire population of a specific country or region, due to its organisational and resource limitations, and the impossibility of developing alternatives for all of society, despite the benefits that they may generate. The must ensure the participation of public organisations to make their innovative solutions reach significant groups of the population (Rey and Trancredi, 2010: 12). The participation of the Public Administration in the process more than qualifies said process, bequeathing it institutional legitimacy and aligning it with principles that uphold the general interest. Dissemination and replication of an innovation thereby take on an exceptional meaning, when the Administration adopts it and it becomes public policy, considerably broadening the scope of its benefits and its social impact. In 1975, Venezuelan José Antonio Abreu began a social project whose purpose was to provide new opportunities to children at risk of social exclusion through musical instruction and practise. This initiative became a Government project and shaped the Sistema Nacional de Orquestas y Coros Juveniles e Infantiles de Venezuela (National System of Youth and Children’s Orchestras

82

Social Innovation

and Choirs of Venezuela) with 285 hubs across the country, serving 350,000 children3.

Dissemination and replication of an innovation thereby take on an exceptional meaning, when the Administration adopts it and it becomes public policy, considerably broadening the scope of its benefits and its social impact.

If the evaluation of an initiative is positive and it effectively meets with the proposed objectives, we can begin to think about broadening it. Dissemination of the innovation becomes an objective for the agents involved in developing it. The intent is to promote spreading and implementing it in similar contexts. This is how the decisive factor for an idea to become social innovation is its institutionalisation and development within different social realities (Howaldt and Schwarz, 2010: 30. In 1962, Rogers developed a theory to analyse how innovation is disseminated in a social system. The author defines dissemination as the process by means of which innovation is transmitted or communicated over time between members of a society. According to Rogers (1995: 161-162), dissemination is a process where individuals make decisions according to the assessments they make on the innovation. This takes place in five stages, which are: yy Knowledge. Individuals are exposed to the information that makes them aware of the existence of the innovation, its objectives and how it works. 3

For further information, please see the Fundación Musical Simón Bolívar’s website, the body governing the Sistema de Orquestas y Coros Juveniles e Infantiles deVenezuela: http:// www.fesnojiv.gob.ve


83

yy Persuasion. Individuals develop a positive or negative attitude in regards to the innovation. yy Decision. Individuals take a position on the innovation, to either adopt it or reject it. yy Implementation. If adopted, the innovation is put into operation. yy Confirmation. Individuals evaluate the decision adopted in assessing the innovation’s advantages or disadvantages. They may keep their preference for the innovation, or decide that it is appropriate to reconsider the position initially adopted. Figure 3.2. Stages of the innovation dissemination process.

Source: author based on Rogers’ theoretical proposal (1995: 161-162).

Participative budgets have been deemed a successful example of social innovation with extraordinary international

84

Social Innovation

dissemination. Based on the first experiences carried out in Brazil, it has been spread worldwide as a new model for managing public resources. This dissemination process took place in three phases (UN-HABITAT, 2007: 20). The first phase spans the 191997 period. This is considered an experimentation period wherein new ways of managing public resources in Brazil are implemented. Specifically, in Porto Alegre. The second phase is called Brazilian spread, from 1997 until 2000. During this lapse, several Brazilian municipalities (regardless of their ideological persuasion) adopted the participative budgets with the support of civil organisations. The third phase began in 2000 and is considered a phase of international diversification and expansion. Several Latin American and European cities adopted this participative model, adjusting it to their own needs and realities. In addition to these three phases as proposed in literature, we could include a fourth phase, which promotes reviewing the innovation to revitalise, or in many cases, abandon it. In general, innovations enter a deceleration phase after a strong expansion process, such as has been the experience over the past years with participative budgets.

3.1.5. Learning and evolution Innovative initiatives do not remain static over time. They vary as they are replicated in other contexts, new agents are added or already-existing agents experience changes and adjustments are made to adapt it to changes in the environment. This is a constant learning process that innovation promoters and the very beneficiaries themselves must undergo. All involved agents must be predisposed to assume permanent improvement as a lever for change and social transformation. Developing an innovation should bring a virtuous cycle


85

along with it, where motivation to undertake new projects or optimise those already being implemented is a constant with its promoters. As previously stated, social problems are dynamic, and in many cases, have the capability to create new risks with potential for every-growing harm. At the beginning, the community of San Rafael de la Laguna’s (Ecuador) challenge was to reduce pollution in Imbakucha Lake, which was negatively affecting the health of its inhabitants and the preservation of its natural resources. With the support of not-for-profit organisations and local authorities, the community promoted treating the water supply by using plants such as lemna, large-leaf lettuce and large reeds. This initiative’s success considerably increased large reed production (raw material for production of local artisan crafts) and the motivated community created a social company to manufacture decorative articles and furniture. A specific organisation was created to preserve the lagoon’s watershed and for a tourist development plan (Rey and Tancredi, 2010: 61). Community accompaniment is determining at all stages in innovation, as it favours its sustainability over time and the generation of new ideas. It is fundamental to implement mechanisms that promote the dissemination of information on the changes experienced, as well as regular consultation on the improvements that must be implemented.

Community accompaniment is determining at all stages in innovation, as it favours its sustainability over time and the generation of new ideas. It is fundamental to implement mechanisms that promote the dissemination of information on the changes experienced, as well as regular consultation on the improvements that must be implemented.

86

Social Innovation

3.2. Advantages for public organisations If the analysis is focused on public organisations, adopting collaborative models with other agents to promote the innovation implies great organisational advantages. Generally speaking, a valuable opportunity is created to share knowledge with other agents interacting in current society, and an environment comes about wherein the possibility of taking correct public action increases. The Administration is developing new capacities to address the challenges in the setting, as well as tools to make innovation a permanent practise in the entire organisation. The positive externalities of adopting collaborative models of this sort for the Public Administration might be summarised as follows: yy It promotes the consolidation of intellectual capital within the Administration, by placing high value on transfer of knowledge. Its importance is recognised as an “asset” that must be managed and valued so as to appropriate meet citizen demands. yy It provides practical elements that increase the Administration’s capacity to learn and adapt to new trends in its environment. Thanks to building networks that promote knowledge management and the exchange of strategic resources. yy It creates information with high added value, which directly affects the innovation capacity of public organisations. This maintains recognition and good performance, thanks to the development of new initiatives. yy It foments dissemination of projects, programmes or policies being carried out in the public sphere, creating communication instruments that strengthen their role for citizens.


87

3.3. The co-production of public services The concept of public service co-production is highly interwoven with the idea of social innovation and its purpose, as mentioned in previous pages. Governments and their Public Administrations have the necessary resources and position to become platforms for co-creation of services and for social innovation. In turn public powers formally determine the scope of action of the agents involved in co-producing services, they legitimise adoption of agreements that are public in nature and may act as mediators in conflicts. The combination of public powers with citizens, companies and social organisations and not-for-profit organisations makes it possible for these agents to commit their efforts with more complex, transcendental tasks. If this is achieved, a transformation may take place in the creation of public value and help to overcome the challenges stemming from current crisis by means of co-producing public services and programmes. For example, the MindLab initiative in Denmark operates based on these principles. This is an inter-ministerial unit whose purpose is to assemble public organisations’ work (Ministry of Business and Growth, the Ministry of Children and Education and the Ministry of Employment) with companies and citizens to formulate innovative solutions for social demands. This initiative shows the growing interest in the public sector in creating spaces that foment adopting collaborative models in society 4. Governance International (2011: 9) deems that there are four substantial aspects in order to achieve effective, adequate

4

For further information, please see the following website: http://www.mind-lab.dk/en

88

Social Innovation

co-production in public services, which follow the approach we have outlined in section 3.1. yy Target it. The first measure is a diagnosis, in order to determine in which activities co-production of public services may potentially take place and be effective. These means identifying which activities are most ideal for the service co-production focus 5. yy People it. Secondly, it is appropriate to determine which agents may participate with their experience and knowledge in co-producing public services, since not all agents have the same, adequate skills to participate in a process with these characteristics. It is necessary to identify what each one of them can contribute to providing public services and which motivations drive them to join a network of agents to guarantee and improve the quality of said services. yy Incentivise it. Thirdly, we must consider what kind of compensation and incentives the agents participating in the co-production and provision of services are going to receive. This is a substantial aspect to make the different public and private agents belong to, and remain in the network. A permanent change in agents or excessive rotation makes it difficult not only to maintain the network, but also to effectively and efficiently take advantage of the synergies that take place between agents that normally participate in the network. yy Grow it. Finally, feedback is necessary, designed to glean adequate knowledge of the problems that have arisen and opportunities that may be taken advantage of to improve service provision within a framework of co-production. 5

Eighty-five percent of OECD countries had a budding experience in co-producing public services, while the rest of them had carried out an effective and complete experience in this regard (OECD, 2011: 46).


89

Disseminating good practises after an evaluation and reflection process contributes toward making the network more attractive and motivating other agents or citizens to form a part of it. Sectors where implementation of public service co-production models is incipient provide of a view of the strategic element implied by the participation of public, private and social agents in improving public services, both in regards to efficacy in providing the public services wherein they participate and in regards to resource efficiency. Improving the quality of public service provision begins by find out what the citizen needs, priorities, demands and expectations are, and the problems that mostly concern said citizens. It is not only important to integrate citizens into designing public programmes or determining the quality standards that a service requires, which are a necessary condition that legitimises government action, but also to engage them in the very provision of the public service itself.

3.4. The co-production of public services and the citizen Public organisations are inextricably committed to the common or general interest, and the rights and freedoms of citizens, along with upholding society and democracy. This commitment bequeaths a democratic nature to the relation between public power and the citizen, which is lost or weakened if the citizen is regarded merely as a client or user of public goods and services. The focus must remain on satisfying the user of public services, but not only as a client of said services, but also as

90

Social Innovation

a subject of rights and obligations. This means that the public manager must have a view of the ensemble of public activity in society and keep said activity focused on improving the common good and strengthening democracy. This vision is completed by the fact that the citizen must be responsible for their community’s course and achievement of the common good.

Public organisations are inextricably committed to the common or general interest, and the rights and freedoms of citizens, along with upholding society and democracy. This commitment bequeaths a democratic nature to the relation between public power and the citizen, which is lost or weakened if the citizen is regarded merely as a client or user of public goods and services.

Citizens have talent, knowledge and experience with public services, and if this is not taken advantage of, it would be a waste in political, economic and social terms. This commitment to public services on the part of citizens and social organisations includes two essential elements, which are effectiveness in meeting community objectives and commitment to the common good. Both of them are important enough to not be exclusively guaranteed by the Government. The citizen is not a mere recipient of services, so they should be given a more prominent role and directly and actively involved in defining them. As mentioned, this implies moving beyond the role of a tutor and protector, that the Welfare State has held with citizens, and give them the necessary recognition as subjects that make decisions and participate in configuring and providing public services. The would be


91

the meaning of public service co-production, which considers the citizen as an active subject with the necessary capacity to participate in improving and innovating public services (Harris and Albury, 2009: 4). The public service co-production model is based on citizen and user participation, as a source of innovation and in attributing users and citizens these capacities to improve public good and service provision (OECD, 2011: 27- 28)6. Innovation in public services, from this perspective, requires an open innovation system so that ideas flow between agents involved in providing a public services, and who are the recipients, to whom is also conceded a fundamental role both in their design (co-creation) and in their provision (co-production). The legitimacy and acceptance of governments and the network of agents participating in the co-production of public services is based on meeting citizen needs and expectations. This means that legitimacy and acceptance is not only incumbent on public institutions in regards to participation in public service production. Institutions, entities and citizens involved in said production take on the responsibility of achieving legitimacy and citizen acceptance, not due to the nature of those involved, but rather due to managing goods and services for the community as a whole. Governments and all of the agents with whom they interact must take on a commitment to permanent innovation, taking advantage of the capacities and skills of those participating in governance networks, including citizens in their double role as actors involved in defining and providing public services, and users and direct recipients of the them. 6

There are several terms that may have similar connotations. Co-government: in cases wherein the tertiary sector participates in planning and providing public services; co-management, referring to cases wherein the tertiary sector produces services in collaboration with the Government; co-production, in cases wherein citizens produce at least a part of their own services (OECD, 2011; 38).

92

Social Innovation

This perspective means that governments must grant more power or decision-making capacity (empowerment) to companies and organisations that form a part of governance networks, as well as citizens themselves considered individually, so that they take on a greater degree of responsibility and involvement in providing public services. This social and citizen empowerment is at the expense of public institutions and seeks to achieve greater legitimacy in policy action, and a greater degree of social effectiveness and efficacy. This decentralisation of political power should generate a trustful environment for the different agents participating in the co-production of services and create a greater flow of ideas between them, and consequently, greater knowledge of the reality wherein they are taking action. This approach means that public managers must accept that citizens have formed criteria to evaluate and take a stance in regards to providing certain public services and the operation of the government and the Administration (Governance International, 2011: 5).

3.5. Fields of society’s greater commitment to the common good In fields such as education, health, housing, employment, social services, the environment or safety and public order, to name a few, new ways of providing public goods and services are coming about, by means of the active participation of different agents. Below, we will briefly overview different examples that demonstrate the effort and commitment on the part of citizens and civil society organisations to improve their community’s conditions and quality of life by means of participation or co-production of public goods and services.


Health Within this field, improvement actions are focused on citizens taking co-responsibility for health prevention and protection measures. In the United States, a programme has come about called “Expert Patient,” focused on making it so that citizens with chronic diseases have a greater capacity to keep their health conditions in the best state possible. The programme motivates health system users to improve and take care of their health, emphasising preventative aspects. In Spain, the Law 33/2011, dated 4 October, Public Health General, recognises the need to promote public health in coordination with other sectors, and the fomentation of public health with actions focused on increasing talent, knowledge and capacities of citizens. In this country, we can find examples such as the Virtual Patient Classroom in the Autonomous Community (region) of Castilla y León. This is a participation space which, with objective and truthful information, is focused on promoting healthy lifestyles, preventing diseases and supporting chronic patients to take care of their own health. In a similar line, the Patient Classroom exists in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia. Another Spanish initiative is the Spanish Patient Forum, created in 2004. This is an inter-associative platform that agglutinates patient representation based on expert experience with the sickness and its impact on the patient’s daily life and family and social context. Finally, in Spain we can find the University of Patients. This is a centre whose purpose is to promote the

93

94

Social Innovation

modernisation and improvement in quality for healthcare by developing informational, training and research activities. Its intent is to empower the patient by providing knowledge on the disease so that said patient is involved in his or her situation and improves the quality of the healthcare system.

Education In Australia, United Way is a tertiary sector organisation that works in different social and service spheres with the participation of citizens and the community to improve quality of life in different fields. In the educational field, it promotes early intervention programmes for children with special problems in adapting to schools, along with the families and the respective community. Through these programmes, an attempt is made to prevent difficult social adaptation for the minor in the future, along with mental health problems and difficulties in gaining employment. In Ireland, there are experiences that offer children and youth the possibility of participating in decision-making so that they are involved in contributing ideas for issues that affect their lives with problems related, for example, to mental health. In Lambeth, a district in London, youth have been equipped with resources and the capacity to inform other youth on sexual health-related matters. The experience arose with a group of youth that formed part of the Lambeth Youth Council. They considered it necessary to address health problems derived from sexual relations


between young people in order to prevent high levels of undesired pregnancy in teenagers. The knowledge and experiences of these youth tutors was used to transmit messages on sexual health to other youth in the district, based on the conviction that, in this fashion, information would more effectively reach youth than if this same activity was performed by adults.

Social Services In western Australia, we find ourselves with a service co-production method for disabled persons. The entity responsible for providing service to these people, “The Disability Services Commission,” has developed a support programme with the Local Area Coordinators (LACs) in local communities. Through them, they coordinate aid services for disabled persons and their families and caretakers. The results from this collaboration programme translate to 35% savings for beneficiaries, in comparison with the costs that would have to be taken on if they used traditional programmes.

Housing In the United States, foreclosures have led to a large percentage of the population not having decent housing. The federal government’s Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) and the Center for Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, under the White House, promote actions focused on foreclosures and the

95

96

Social Innovation

effect caused by lack of housing along with civil society organisations. In Canada, France and the United Kingdom, cooperative models have been established to grant citizens the opportunity to define and determine the characteristics the neighbourhoods they live in must meet, along with the services they must provide. The Renter Participation Plan in Toronto is a significant example of this.

Environment With budget cuts in Solihull, United Kingdom, a project was developed that was focused on motivating citizen participation and the involvement of public and private sectors in conserving and caring for their municipality, especially in aspects that had to do with cleaning graffiti and trash collection. In Ireland, the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government is driving a contest called “National Tidy Towns,” designed to preserve and improve the environment in order to make their local community a better place to live and enjoy. It takes place annually, between March and September, and promotes the participation of local communities in collaboration with public institutions and with private sponsors. In Australia, the Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) is promoting collaboration between public and private agents with communities and citizens to provide solutions to problems stemming from the climate change, environmental degradation and the sustainability of the territory. The programme’s premise is that the most ap-


propriate solutions come from the integrated, systemic vision provided by the ensemble of agents involved in this activity.

Citizen safety The “Peace Project” in Brazil empowers women as social mediators in metropolitan areas and communities in order to prevent violence against women and youth. With this project, led by Brazil’s Ministry of Justice, women forming part of said project acquire knowledge on human rights, conflict resolution and legal regulations in order to carry out their role. This joint-action programmes meet factors that are key to success, which are common, and guarantee progress and solidification of the common good: solid associations, trust in relations between agents, recognised capacity to make decisions, both for communities and for individuals, a trained community with the skills to provide services, co-responsibility in actions, participation on the target population’s part in designing programmes and co-production public goods and services with citizens.

97

Chapter 4

An action plan for social innovation

100

Social Innovation

4.1. What is expected of public organisations? Public organisations play a key role in operating governance networks, and therefore, in promoting and developing social innovation. This is justified because defining and achieving common objectives can be considered collective in nature; they have an impact that surpasses agents participating in the networks. According to Peters (2007: 6) public agents are the only agents able to propose and implement collective objectives effectively. For the author, the Government is the main force of collective governance in society. The principle guiding this definition is the Government’s obligation to act as guarantor for the great majority of citizens, especially for the weakest, for individual interests, no matter how broad these may be (Arenilla, 2011: 75). It is expected that public organisations create positive conditions for social innovation by defining a common development project that brings together all agents living in the territory; the co-creation of public goods and services; the implementation of institutional solutions to promote social innovation; to foment development of institutional capacities for social and private agents and to reduce fear of failure.

It is expected that public organisations create positive conditions for social innovation by defining a common development project that brings together all agents living in the territory; the co-creation of public goods and services; the implementation of institutional solutions to promote social innovation; to foment development of institutional capacities for social and private agents and to reduce fear of failure.


101

4.1.1. Leading a common-development project In 2010, the city of Móstoles (Spain) had to face important challenges, such as slowing economic growth, competition with other cities toward the south of the Community of Madrid, an increase in the unemployment rate, redefining its role within the Community of Madrid as a whole, the high immigrant population percentage and the need to implement truly effective integration programmes, population loss and citizen demands for greater opportunities in the city. The Móstoles Town Hall government team understood that the only possible response to the magnitude of the challenges they were facing was to promote a new city model with the participation of political parties in the municipality’s political representation entity, neighbourhood associations, the municipality’s social organisations, trade and business associations, unions, the University, etc. In participatory fashion, a strategic city plan was drawn up with a series of strategic axes, which have re-focused public action and transformed the municipality. A change took place in the structure and operation of local government by implementing institutional mechanisms to monitor, measure, contrast and evaluate public policies, and citizen participation was extended beyond the plan’s formulation phase. Furthermore, mobilisation of residents was established with decisionmaking as to the city’s development. A less from the experience had by Móstoles Town Hall is that, by designing a common-development project that brings together the interests and expectations of the city’s agents, local governments can drive the mobilisation of public, private and social agents toward collective objectives. This lesson can be transferred to any scope of the Administration, insofar as improvements to public goods and services are addressed collectively.

102

Social Innovation

Participants must share the same vision of the social change they hope to promote. This includes the possibility of establishing a common definition for the problem, defining an agreed-upon strategy to address it and having clear objectives that are shared by all agents. Firstly, participatory identification of the problems and needs affecting the population is required, which mandates specifying a common agenda, led by the highest policy authority at the institution. Secondly, the project must provide principles and values that guide the work carried out by the participating agents, according to the society model they intend to configure. It must transmit excitement and become a tool to drive citizen cohesion. Thirdly, public organisations must create structures for opportunity which, in being long-lasting over the course of time, guarantee active citizen participation in adopting and implementing decision in regards to the territory’s future (Moualert, 2009: 19). Formulation and implementation of the Móstoles Strategic Plan would not be possible if the Town Hall had not institutionalised consultations and citizen forums as permanent spaces to deliberate the city’s future. In this fashion, the foundations are laid to promote social innovation in the territory, by defining common objectives, in managing to have citizens identify with the problems and needs in the town, in strengthening the connection and exchange of resources between agents living in the city and in fomenting their participation in decision-making processes.

4.1.2. Promoting the co-production public goods and services In 2004, the social enterprise ECT Group obtained a contract to provide pick-up, recycling, street cleaning, civic equipment services, etc., in the municipality of Ealing (United Kingdom) after a hiring process that was focused on promoting new


103

models in providing services. The work carried out by the social company considerably reduced costs, which in turn created great savings for the city. Furthermore, along with it came innovation in providing service, as it fomented the incorporation of new procedures and products in the service provision (Social Enterprise Coalition, 2006: 22). Public organisations can take on as their own the concept of co-production in providing public goods and services, and thereby make progress in defining stable collaboration frameworks with private and social agents in order to develop shared experiences (Bason, 2010: 27).

Figure 4.1. Barriers to citizen participation in public service provision (Percentage of surveyed parties in OECD member countries).

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Lack of resources

Little Resistance Lack of Deficient to change financial qualification evidence of benefits incentives

Source: OECD, 2011.

Citizens Legal limitations apathetic in participation

104

Social Innovation

A survey performed by the OECD (2011) addresses the obstacles or barriers that governments must overcome to encourage citizen participation in providing public goods and services. This has to do with the lack of resources (42 percent), resistance to change (36 percent), the lack of financial incentives (31 percent), deficient qualification (29 percent) or scarce proof of benefits (29 percent). These are aspects that also affect other actions within the public sphere and require decided action from governments to overcome them. If this barriers are overcome, the Administration could raise its capacity to learn and adapt to new trends in the environment, thanks to the construction and consolidation of networks based on knowledge management and the exchange of strategic resources that optimise the provision of public goods and services. Furthermore, participation in these networks provides a valuable opportunity to generate information with a high added value, which would directly affect the innovation capacity of public organisations.

4.1.3. Creating institutional arrangements to foment collaboration British Columbia is a province in Canada with a great trajectory in developing social innovation. In January 2011, it created the Social Innovation Council, an entity responsible for supporting the government in the search for new formulas to address community problems and successfully meet challenges in the sphere. As part of its work, the Social Innovation Council drew up and published a plan in 2012 to promote social innovation in the province. In the plan, they established five recommendations to reach this goal: the creation of institutional mechanisms to support social enterprises, the definition of an appropriate legal framework to stimulate innovative processes, implementation of a


105

social innovation laboratory in the region, achieving greater community commitment to this type of initiative and carrying out learning and research activities. The content of the plan to promote social innovation in British Columbia shows the need for governments to establish institutional arrangements that activate collaborative mechanisms between public, private and social agents. Public organisations could design flexible regulatory frameworks that reduce barriers for innovation and encourage drawing up and developing community projects in the city. Furthermore, the creation of formal and informal spaces that propitiate deliberation and the creation of ideas could be fomented, by bringing together people with varied knowledge and experiences to establish collaborative bonds between them when developing innovative projects. Media Lab Prado is a citizen laboratory promoted by Madrid Town Hall (Spain) to foment the production, research and dissemination of projects based on collaborative learning and experimentation. One of the programmes being carried out is called “Madrid Laboratorio Urbano (Madrid Urban Laboratory)” and it has become an important space where specialists come together from different areas, neighbours, civil association members, etc., to collaboratively develop initiatives that encourage city transformation.

4.1.4. Supporting the development of institutional capacities In 2010, the United Kingdom government promoted a series of initiatives designed to develop social entrepreneurship and the growth of civil organisations in the country. As a part of these initiatives, in 2012, an important programme called Big Society Capital was launched to develop the social investment

106

Social Innovation

market, to improve access to social organisation financing (including social enterprises) and draw private capital by spreading the news about the advantages and profitability offered by investment in this sector. The Big Society Capital does not directly contribute resources to social enterprises or any other tertiary sector organisation. It works with social investment financial middlemen and acts as a sort of bridge between them and social enterprises. This initiative was tarnished by complaints from social organisations, based on the fact that the initiatives undertaken by the government were not focused on the sector’s true needs. A reflection on the steps that were taken with Big Society Capital was complemented by the creation of the Investment and Contract Readiness Fund, whose objective is to financially support social enterprises in developing organisational capacities to compete with private companies in public procurement processes. This change in policy makes two issues clear. The first is that by only resolving the financing problem, social entities are not promoted; the second is that the institutional capacity of these entities is fundamental if we want them to actively work on identifying and implementing new solutions for the problems affecting the population. Institutional capacity is defined as the ensemble of resources and skills that allow organisations to meet the environment’s challenges and carry out their roles effectively, efficiently and sustainably. Experience shows that many social enterprises do not have sufficient technical, logistical, human or financial resources to carry out projects of social impact. From here arises the need for public organisations to make support structures and shared measurement systems available to them, creating


107

training programmes to address issues related to entrepreneurship or propitiating the diversification of financing sources. Logroño Town Hall (Spain) has made an Associate Resources Centre available to civil associations in the municipality, whose purpose is to foment associating and to facilitate citizen participation, by creating a space where social agents may carry out social promotion activities and programmes.7 At this centre, assessment is provided to civil organisations and technical resources are made available that are necessary to fulfil their daily tasks (technological equipment with Internet connection, photocopier, projection system, image recording equipment, etc.).

4.1.5. Facing fear of failure In the 2012 report drawn up by Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, there is an interesting indicator that shows the percentage of the adult population that states fear of failure when starting up a business or implementing an entrepreneurial initiative (see figure). The regions with the lowest percentages are SubSaharan Africa (24 percent), Latin America and the Caribbean (29 percent) and the United States (32 percent). Putting an idea into practise is a huge challenge for innovation promoters, because a series of favourable conditions are required to go from mere concerns about reality to implementation of specific actions to achieve said idea. One of these conditions is overcoming fear of failure. In some societies, failure is a sort of stigma that people carry with them throughout their entire existence when they have suffered from it at some point in their life. Failure is not taken as an opportunity to learn new lessons or as a starting point 7

For further information, please see the Logroño Town Hall official website: http://www. logroño.es

108

Social Innovation

to resume action in a renewed, vitalised fashion. This reality is aggravated in public organisations, as a result of the rigidity inherent to fulfilling administrative procedures and laws and regulations framing their operation. Figure 4.2. Percentage of the adult population stating fear of failure.

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 United States

Latin America Sub-Saharan Non-Union European and the European Union Africa Caribbean countries

Middle East Asia Pacific and North and South Africa Asia

Source: GEM, 2012.

We must not forget the cost a failed idea has for the public sector, in terms of time, the effort of agents involved, political cost, financial resources invested to implement it, media monitoring and citizen pressure. The ensemble of these aspects leads to paralysis in public organisations. Their members see that the cost of failure is high, as opposed to the profits that could be obtained after eventual success.


109

The best way to break this vicious cycle is to promote collective processes to generate ideas within organisations. This means giving their members greater prominence and encouraging teamwork, as opposed to decision-making processes that are highly hierarchical. Implementing small changes, small innovations, may accompany this modification in daily work. As small changes are perceived in how things are done, incentives may be generated to produce and apply new ideas.

4.2. The importance of the four “C’s” The fact that new governance models that are configured to provide public goods and services are upheld by the articulated work of public, private and social agents is already a huge challenge in and of itself. If, furthermore, we expect for these models to act as the foundation to develop innovative responses for citizen problems and needs, the challenge is even greater, due to the multiple interests of each agent. In all relational models, there are situations of conflict that arise that affect achieving the desired objectives, but it is possible to bear in mind a series of principles to guarantee total operation of the network, such as: confidence, communication, coordination and collaboration. As follows, we present a description of each one of these basic principles.

4.2.1. Confidence Confidence in the framework of a collaborative model means that there are positive expectations shared between participants that are based on the idea that none of the parties are acting opportunistically in search of their own benefit, recognition of the competency and sincerity of the participants and

110

Social Innovation

the non-existence —or overcoming— of motives in the past that led to lack of confidence. These characteristics make the behaviour of agents forming the networks predictable, and significantly reduce the costs for strategic resource transactions, strategic resources being information and knowledge produced therein. Thomas (1998: 172) broadens this definition even further, and proposes three different types of confidence, or trust (fiduciary, mutual and social), based on a relational perspective of the concept. Firstly, the author speaks of fiduciary trust or confidence, defining it as an asymmetric or unilateral relation between the parties. This takes place when an individual places their trust in someone else, expecting to reach determined objectives, without having a reciprocal relationship between the two of them and without effective tools to ensure fulfilment of the commitments taken on. Within the public sphere, for example, it is difficult for citizens to obtain all of the information on actions carried out by their representatives, and it is highly costly to rigorously monitor or control the decisions that said representatives make. According to Thomas, an asymmetrical relationship of trust is limited by the periodical elections of elected positions, but in the case of civil servants and technicians (whose weight in decision-making is determining), limitations are few, as they are not subject to direct citizen control. Secondly, the author references mutual trust which, unlike the previous example, is a more symmetrical relationship, upheld by interpersonal relationships. The author highlights that relationships of mutual trust between individuals are the starting point to create trust toward organisations, which is why the ensemble of structures managing interactions with


111

other agents is so important (which is commonly called the front office). Lastly, Thomas describes social trust, based on the contributions made by Putnam (1993) in this regard. He considers social trust to be a sort of social capital that is accumulated bit by bit in society, by means of interactions between individuals, in such a way that productive interactions between its members and the development of more efficient actions are encouraged. Thomas’ proposals explain under which conditions relationships of resource exchange take place between members of a network, as well as between the very public, private or social organisations themselves when making decisions. It is useful to know how agents’ expectations affect (negatively or positively) the performance of a network and achieving their objectives. The possibility of reaching high levels of trust for public, private and social gents creates a series of positive externalities that encourage the innovative process, such as: yy Alliances are strengthened and extended to other agents on the social spectrum. Collaborative models become more open and inclusive, given the positive trajectory between agents, encouraging openness. The creation of new bonds with other agents in the sphere provides the opportunity to encourage the exchange of resources and knowledge within the network. yy The exchange of knowledge between parties is strengthened. Agents share their own experiences and reduce barriers to revealing information. Those acting as recipients reduce control mechanisms when using information to improve their performance. In this way, the agents’

112

Social Innovation

behaviour is more efficient in order to achieve the common (and individual) objectives proposed. yy A mutual knowledge base is created that acts as a support to reduce costs when effectively addressing social problems. This is the knowledge accumulated after the actions shared amongst members of the network. This allows us to undertake learning processes when it promotes the creation of innovative ideas.

4.2.2. Communication Communication is a tool to transmit ideas and values that contributes to managing change and modernising organisations. It ensures greater transparency in handling information and facilitates agent participation in formulating effective alternatives to address social problems. Communication may be approached from two different dimensions: between agents making up the network, and between the network itself and the rest of society. Using the first dimension as a reference, it may be confirmed that communication creates a virtuous cycle in generating new ideas to encourage the shared provision of public goods and services. When interactions between involved agents are upheld by good communication, transparency and the appropriate exchange of information is guaranteed. Great communication related to strengthening bonds of trust between agents is a good base to stimulate creative processes. A culture of accountability between agents is encouraged, which tends to reduce the obscurity of their actions and stimulates participation, not only of institutional agents, but also of the very citizens themselves, individually considered.


113

The second dimension references interactions taking place between members of the network and society. When stages in social innovation were addressed, we insisted on the importance of communities actively participating in the entire process. Only in this way is it possible to develop initiatives that match the social reality we intend to transform. Good communication is the base for these interactions. The value of communication also extends to the dissemination and replication phase. A significant part of innovations are not widely known by their potential beneficiaries, and since there are not effective strategies to disseminate them, the media or opinion leaders do not mention their existence or possible benefits. An innovation’s visibility depends on the appropriate use of existing communication channels to transmit information that creates positive positions in citizens toward innovation and adopting said innovation. The rapid upward spiral of ICTs was determining to facilitate the exchange of information and to reduce costs in data transmission. This creates a favourable framework for the agreedupon design of communication strategy, whose objective is to facilitate the work of participating agents. Furthermore, it promotes transparency in decisions and actions adopted, and also guarantees the right of citizens to be informed and voice their opinions on the management of problems affecting them.

4.2.3. Coordination The coordination concept in this case is in reference to the establishment of common standards that set forth how public, private and social agents interact together and exchange strategic resources. Collaborative models may be assessed with a systemic focus to simplify this idea. The work the parties that form the system carry out must duly mesh in order to guar-

114

Social Innovation

antee its good operation and the achievement of proposed objectives, without leaving their own purposes by the wayside or losing autonomy. The relational nature that characterises operation of collaborative models makes the principle of coordination take on greater prominence, as opposed to the role it had with other models based on hierarchical relations. Coordination is proposed as a key element in innovation processes, because it limits the conflicts that may arise from interaction between the multiple agents participating in the network, especially when there are serious differences in the organisational model of each one of the agents, their end goals and interests. The relevancy of coordination in innovative processes lies in the possibility of guaranteeing interactions that encourage the exchange of truly useful information and knowledge for operation of the network and the agents themselves. Trust and communication, in this regard, are addressed as two basic principles that aid in duly articulating public, private and social agents. They encourage coordination, insofar as they create a framework for positive action between agents in the network, they reduce the cost of exchanging resources and make them more transparent.

Trust and communication, in this regard, are addressed as two basic principles that aid in duly articulating public, private and social agents. They encourage coordination, insofar as they create a framework for positive action between agents in the network, they reduce the cost of exchanging resources and make them more transparent.


115

The Fundació Banc dels Aliments in Barcelona (Spain) highlights coordination’s value by including it amongst the ethical principles that guide its work. This is a private not-for-profit foundation whose purpose is to receive leftover food products and distribute them to recipient organisations that later distribute them to the needy. A great achievement in developing this initiative was articulating the contribution and work of permanent, sporadic and corporate volunteers, based on the entity’s objectives and its philosophy .

4.2.4. Collaboration Collaboration means the establishment of supporting relationships (stable and long-lasting) between public, private and social agents, whether they are the promoters of the innovation or its beneficiaries. Collaboration means that the agents are predisposed to participate in some initiative or proposal by contributing the resources that they have. We might say that the principle of collaboration breaks away from the concept of the omnipresent, tutor Government that up until now, has been the only party responsible for safeguarding the well-being of citizens. As we have insisted in different previous sections, we have abandoned the vision of a sole agent, able to identify human needs on their own and formulate effective alternatives without the participation of other agents. This breakage takes place with the processes or resources to reach the Government’s own purposes which, although as already mentioned, have experienced a great transformation, we cannot say they have varied in their scope for society. The experience and knowledge gleaned by public, private and social agents in different scopes of action complement each other to create innovative solutions for present and

116

Social Innovation

future challenges. This collaboration allows the Government to reinforce its democratic and institutional legitimacy and to increase citizen affection for its institutions and members. Confidence and communication set forth the development of collaboration. Confidence encourages agents being predisposed to collaborate, because positive expectations make participant behaviour predictable, allowing them to postpone the benefits they expect to receive (when they are not very clear) and internalise the costs arising from their participation. Communication encourages understanding between the parties and knowledge of the objectives to be achieved, as well as of the resources available to achieve them. The Planes de Barrio (Neighbourhood Plans) are a participatory initiative implemented by the Madrid Town Hall (Spain) and the Federación de Asociaciones Vecinales de Madrid (Regional Federation of Neighbourhood Associations of Madrid (FRAVM), whose purpose is to achieve greater levels of integration and social equality in the city. Participatory initiatives were implemented, focused on addressing needs in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the city, which required the establishment of effective collaboration mechanisms. The multiple agents participating in execution of plans and the great number of actions included in each one of them requires mechanisms from local Administration in order to attain appropriate collaboration in addressing each problem identified.

4.3. Barriers to social innovation Despite the approaches we may use to foment adopting collaborative models in the public sector, there are barriers that prevent extending this type of initiative in public organisations.


117

We have seen a few in addressing the 4 “C’s,” and now they shall be completed with three more. One great barrier is resistance to change. Adopting social innovation models implies transforming the technical-bureaucratic culture in public organisations. To this end, some principles must be introduced or strengthened. The first one is participation, in order to drive citizen mobilisation based on common goals, even more so when institutions are highly ambiguous and do not have great accountability. Participation is not an isolated event; rather, it is part of a model where knowledge and innovation are basic values to re-consider public action and strengthen citizen mobilisation Public organisations tend to be preferentially focused on the evaluation of processes, and not very results-oriented, so moving forward in measuring the impact of their actions becomes another barrier. Social innovation implies evaluating the impact of implemented initiatives. Only in this fashion is it possible to assess the degree of effectiveness and the transformations created within the social sphere. But this has its cost, since it requires public organisations to have qualified individuals and sufficient information in order to implement measurement systems based on the use of impact indicators. Another barrier is the lack of financial incentives. The very defining characteristics of public goods (non-rivalry and nonexclusion) may discourage participation from private and social agents due to the low return, or lack of return on the investment. Establishing financial incentives is a tool so that public organisations take on a part of the costs and it facilitates participation from other agents.

118

Social Innovation

4.4. Factors that promote social innovation It is possible to identify a series of factors to spur the adoption of collaborative models to provide public goods and services. Most of these factors are focused on the characteristics and roles of public organisations and on the effort they must make to open up to participation and articulate the creativity of social and private agents based on collective objectives. Government leadership is key to driving the changes needed in public organisations in order to reduce the barriers standing in the way of adopting relational models to provide services. Public organisations are facing a huge challenge in implementing reforms to guarantee greater flexibility in carrying out their roles, the implementation of mechanisms to propitiate the exchange of knowledge inside and outside of organisations and the consolidation of an organisational culture based on recognition of social and private agents as valid spokespersons to conjointly develop innovative initiatives that benefit citizens. The second factor is the will to involve citizens in providing public goods and services. The idea must be established that social innovation is only possible with the active participation of citizens in all stages. Furthermore, within the scope of relations between those governing and the governed, participation takes on a meaning that goes beyond merely solving social problems. The idea is to facilitate the path toward guaranteeing modern and transparent exercise of basic rights and freedoms that places citizens at the epicentre of public action and social transformation. This means understanding that citizens and organisations taking action in society are co-responsible for community life and achieving the common good.


119

Transparency and accountability are fundamental values in defining the rules to make collaborative models work. Citizens, as well as social and private agents, must be aware of the actions carried out by public organisations. Opening up public institutions to citizen scrutiny is no longer an option; rather, it is a requirement to convey confidence to those participating in social innovation processes. A central aspect is to promote forming a technical team made up of individuals with training and skills in line with the characteristics of the initiatives being implemented. Human resources are a key variable in driving collaborative models, and even more so when they areas wherein they take action are directly linked to community development or social work.

Human resources are a key variable in driving collaborative models, and even more so when they areas wherein they take action are directly linked to community development or social work.

Chapter 5

Bibliography and Web references

122

Social Innovation

Adams D. and Hess M. (2008) “Social innovation as a new Public Administration Strategy”. Contribution to the 12th Annual Conference of the International Research Society for Public Management, 26-28 of March, 2008, Brisbane, p. 1-8. Available at: . Arenilla, M. (2015) “Innovación social y corresponsabilidad pública” en Arenilla, M. and García, R. (Dir.) Innovación social: claves y casos. A Coruña: Consello Social Universidade A Coruña Arenilla (Dir.). (2011a), Crisis y reforma de la Administración pública. Oleiros: Netbiblo. Arenilla, M. (2011b), “Redes de política: el caso de la ciudad de Madrid”, Revista Española de Ciencia Política, nº25: 31-56. Arenilla, M. and García, R. (Dir.) (2015) Innovación social: claves y casos. A Coruña: Consello Social Universidade A Coruña. Arenilla, M. and García-Vegas, R. (2013), Innovación Social. La integración social en la Administración Pública, INAP, La Coruña: Netbiblo. Baena, M. 2000. Curso de Ciencia de la Administración. Volumen I. Madrid: Tecnos, cuarta edición reformada. Bason, C. (2010). Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society. Bristol: Policy Press. BEPA (2010), “Empowering people, driving change: social innovation in the European Union”. Report prepared by Hubert et al. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/pdf/publications_pdf/social_innovation.pdf. Accessed the 19th August, 2014. Bourgon, J. (2007): ”Gobierno receptivo, responsable y respetado. Hacia una “nueva” teoría de la Administración pública”. Revista Internacional de Ciencias Administrativas vol. 73, March, 1: 5-26. Chisholm, D. (1987) “Ill-structured problems, informal mechanisms and the de-sign of public organizations,” in Lane, J. E. (Ed.) Bureaucracy and public choice London: Sage. De la Dehesa, G. (1996) “Del Estado del Bienestar a la Sociedad del Bienestar”. Estado del bienestar y Autonomías en el año de Maastricht. Libro Marrón Círculo de Empresarios, Num. 1, 1996:

Bibliography

123

p.141-148. Available at: . Elvidge. J. and Carnegie F. (2012) The enabling State. A discussion paper 2012. Carnegie UK Trust. Available at: European Comission (2009), “Social innovation as part of the Europe 2020 strategy”, Executive Summary”. Brussels: Bepa. European Comission (2012), “Strengthening social innovation in Europe, Journey to effective assessment and metrics”, consulted the 25th February, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/ innovation/files/social-innovation/strengthening-social-innovation_en.pdf Garcia Cotarelo, R. (1987) “La Crisis del Estado de Bienestar y la Sociedad Civil”. Available at: . García-Vegas, R. (2010), “Sistemas de evaluación participados en los gobierno locales; el caso de la ciudad de Madrid” en M. Arenilla (Coord.), Administración pública entre dos siglos. Madrid: INAP. García-Vegas, R. (2012), “El proceso de planificación en las ciudades medianas. La experiencia de la ciudad de Móstoles” in M. Arenilla (Coord.), Ciudad, gobernanza y planificación estratégica. Aportes de la experiencia de Móstoles. Madrid: Dykinson. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2009), “Report on Social Entrepreneurship”. Consulted the 24th February 2013. http://www. gemconsortium.org/docs/download/2519 Governance International (2011). The Governance International Coproduction Roadshows Transforming Communities Creating Outcomes Improving Efficiency. Governance International. Available at: . Guerrero, O. 2003. ”Nueva gerencia pública: ¿gobierno sin política?”. Revista Venezolana de Gestión, 8(23):379-395. Haque, M. S. 1999. “Relationship between citizenship and public administration: a reconfiguration”. International Review of Administrative Sciences, nº 65.3, pp. 309-325. Harayama, Y. y Nitta, Y. (2011), “Introduction: transforming innovation to address social challenges”, en OECD, Fostering Innovation

124

Social Innovation

to Address Social Challenges. OECD Publishing. Available at: . Harris, M. y Albury, D. (2009). The innovation imperative. Discussion paper 2009. The Lab. Innovating Public Services. NESTA. Available at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_innovation_imperative.pdf. Accessed the 19th August, 2014. Howaldt, J. y Schwarz, M. (2010), “Social Innovation: Concepts, research fields and international trends”, consulted the 22nd February, 2013. . . Innobasque (2011), “Estrategia de innovación social. Una ventana de oportunidad para Euskadi”, consulted the 25th February, 2012. . Kania, J y Kramer, M. (2011), “Collective impact”, Stanford Social Innovation Review. Consulted the 23rd February, 2013. . Loughlin, J. (1994). “Federalismo, regionalismo y Unión Europea”, en Arenilla, M.; Loughlin J.; y Toonen, T. (Eds.) Europa de las Regiones: una Perspectiva Intergubernatal. Granada: Universidad de Granada. Moulaert, F. (2009), “Social innovation: institucionally embedded, territorially (re) produced”, en MacCallum, Social Innovation and Territorial Development. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. Mulgan, G. et al. (2007), “Social innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated”. Consulted the 21st February, 2013. . Murray, R (2011), ”How to innovate: The tools for social innovation”, The Young Foundation and Nesta. Noya, A. (2011), ”The essential perspectives of innovation: the oecd leed forum on social innovations”, en OECD, Fostering Innovation to Address Social Challenges. OECD Publishing. Available at: .

Bibliography

125

OCDE (2011) Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with citizens and civil society. Paris OCDE. Available at: . OCDE (2011). The Call for Innovative and Open Government: An overview of country initiatives. Paris OCDE. Available at: . OECD (2010), ”SMEs, Entrepreneurship and Innovation”, OECD Publishing. OECD (2011), Government at a Glance. OECD Publications. Peters, G. and Pierre, J. 2000. ”Citizens versus The New Public Managers: The Problem of Mutual Empowerment”. Administration & Society, 32(1): 9-28. Phills, J. et al. (2008), ”Rediscovering Social Innovation”, Stanford Social Innovation Review. Consulted the 20th February, 2013. . Piquemal, M. (2010) ”El principio de precaución, núcleo de una reflexión sobre sistema público”, e, M. Arenilla, La Administración Pública en dos siglos. Libro homenaje a Mariano Baena Alcázar. Madrid: INAP. Rey, N. and Tancredi, F. (2010), ”De la innovación social a la política pública. Historias de éxito en América Latina y el Caribe”, ECLAC documents. Available at: . Rittle, H. and Webber, M. (1973), “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning”, Policy Sciences 4, 155-169. Available at: . Rodríguez, A. and Alvarado, H. (2008), “Claves de la innovación social en América Latina y el Caribe”, ESCAC books 101. Available at: . Rogers, E. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Edition. New York: Free Press. Rojas. M. (2013) “El Bienestar después de la Crisis del Estado del Bienestar”, in Serra, E. (Dir.) España: crecer en la nueva economía global,

126

Social Innovation

Madrid: Fundación de Estudio Financieros. Available at: . Rose, R. (1989), Ordinary People in Public Policy. A Behavioural Analysis. Sage. Simon, H. A. (1974) “The structure of ill structured problems”, Artificial Intelligence, num. 4-3, p. 181-201. SIX and Young Fundation (2010), “Study on social innovation”. Consulted the 20th February, 2013. . Thenint, H. (2010),“Mini Study 10 Innovation in the public sector”. Global Review of Innovation Intelligence and Policy Studies. Inno Grips, p. 1-51. Thomas, C. (1998). “Maintaining and restoring public trust in government agencies and their employees”, Administration & Society, Vol. 30 Num. 2, pp. 166-193. UNDP. 2010. “Capacity development. Measuring capacity”, United Nations Development Programme. Consulted the 25th February, 2013. . UNHABITAT. 2007. “27 Respuestas a preguntas frecuentes sobre presupuestos participativos municipales”. Quito: UNHABITAT. Vernis, A. (2009), “Innovación social local a través del mercado en las organizaciones de la sociedad civil en Iberoamérica”, Revista española del tercer sector, num. 13 September-December, pp. 99-132. Ville, S. and Pol, E. (2008), “Social Innovation: Buzz Word Or Enduring Term?” Working Paper 08-09, Department of Economics, University of Wollongong. Westley, F and Antadze, N. (2010), “Making a Difference Strategies for Scaling Social Innovation for Greater Impact”, The Innovation

Bibliography

127

Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Vol. 15(2). Available at: . World Economic Forum (2011). “Global risks 2011 sixth edition, an initiative of the risk response network”. Consulted the 14th February, 2013. . World Economic Forum (2012). “Global risks 2012 seventh edition, an initiative of the risk response network”. Consulted the 14th February, 2013. .

Web references Patient Room from the Junta de Andalusia . Patient Room Dr Negrín of the Canary Islands . Virtual Patient Room of Castilla y León . Youth Board of L . Department of Children and Youth (Ireland). . Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Ireland) . Citizen Safety Strategy. Madisonville. Kentucky (USA) .

128

Social Innovation

Spanish Patient Forum . Sustainable Communities Initiative (Australia) . Women for Peace (Brazil) . White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships . Tertiary sector organisation. United Way Australia . Porirua City Council . Programme for self-care against pain. British Columbia. Canada http://www.selfmanagementbc.ca/chronicpainprogram National Health Service (England). http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/doctors/Pages/ expert-patients-programme.aspx The Disability Services Commission (Australia) http://www.disability.wa.gov.au/disability-service-providers-/fordisability-service-providers/ Patient University http://www.universidadpacientes.org/la_universitat/index.php