|Up a level|
As developing countries move from policy to implementing adaptation to climate change, formal operational structures are emerging that exceed the expertise of any one actor. We refer to these arrangements as ‘meta-organisations’ that comprise many autonomous component organisations tackling adaptation. The meta-organisations set standards, define purposes, and specify appropriate means-ends criteria for delivering adaptation. Using empirical data from the three cases, Nepal, Pakistan and Ghana, the study identifies and analyses six attributes of the meta- and component organisational structures. We argue that organisational structures are crucial to understanding adaptation, specifying policy and implementation. Our analysis demonstrates that while each country promotes similar objectives, the emerging structures are quite distinct, shaped by country-specific attributes and issues that lead to different outcomes. Nepal’s priority for a formal process has come at the cost of delayed implementation. Pakistan’s devolved approach lacks legitimacy to scale up the process nationally. Ghana’s use of existing decentralised structures and budgets relegates adaptation below other development priorities. These divergent structures arise from the different needs for legitimacy and accountability, and the relative priority attached to adaptation against other needs.
In recent years, social innovation has become an increasingly prominent concept employed by political leaders and administrations across Europe. It has been posited as a solution to both old and new social risks at a time of heightened uncertainty and pressure on public administrations and finances (Bonoli, 2005; OECD, 2011; Sinclair and Baglioni, 2014). There is broad recognition that,
growing interest in social innovation is intimately linked to the Great Recession, structural unemployment and the social challenges arising as a result (European Commission., 2014). In political and policy rhetoric, the European Union repeatedly cites social innovation as a solution to the persistence of socio-economic, environmental and demographic challenges. These challenges are placing increasing pressure on Europe’s systems of welfare, health, education and care
provision. Budgetary constraints and increased demand on public services has fuelled the desire to capitalise on social innovation so that public and private institutions are able to do and achieve more with less (TEPSIE, 2014). Not only is social innovation understood as a means to achieve an
end in this regard, it is also recognised as an end in itself.
Social innovation has been cited by the European Commission as ‘another way to produce value, with less focus on financial profit and more on real demands or needs… for reconsidering production and redistribution systems' (European Commission., 2014: 8).
The European Commission defines social innovation as:
the development and implementation of new ideas (products, services and models) to meet social needs and create new social relationships or collaborations. It represents
new responses to pressing social demands, which affect the process of social interactions. It is aimed at improving human wellbeing. Social innovations are innovations that are social in both their ends and their means. They are innovations
that are not only good for society but also enhance individuals’ capacity to act. (European Commission., 2013a: 6)
Work Package 6 of the Creating Economic Space for Social Innovation (CRESSI) research programme examines how this definition (or perhaps ideal) is translated and realised in the EU and domestic policymaking process. Whilst this research
pays some attention to definitional issues of social innovation and the implications of conceptualising social innovation in a particular way, the principle objective of the EU social
innovation policy survey is to identify and review ‘social innovation in the context of European policymaking’ (Borzaga and Bodini, 2014: 412). As such, the range of ways in which social innovation has been conceptualised and translated into European public policy have been considered at the Pan-European and domestic level.
Overall, Work Package 3 (WP3) of the CRESSI (Creating Economic Space for Social Innovation) project aims to address two overarching questions:
1. What are the relationships between social impact, performance measurement and accountability in the processes of social innovation?
2. How can effective performance measurement enhance the impacts and outcomes of social innovation processes, particularly for the disenfranchised or disempowered?
As a foundation for these research objectives, this paper develops a critical accounting framework to inform the development and operationalization of a range of social innovation metrics that will be used elsewhere in the CRESSI project. The ultimate purpose of this work is to help shape appropriate and effective methodologies and indicators by which the empirical material in CRESSI can be tested in terms of its presentation of innovations to alter the structural relations that cause and perpetuate marginalization for target populations. Such analyses will also inform the overall policy and practice recommendations of CRESSI.
A Creating Economic Space for Social Innovation (CRESSI) policy brief based on CRESSI Deliverable 1.3: Report Contrasting CRESSI’s Approach of Social Innovation with that of Neoclassical Economics
A Creating Economic Space for Social Innovation (CRESSI) policy briefing paper based on CRESSI Deliverable 1.1: Report on Institutions, Social Innovation & System Dynamics from the Perspective of the Marginalised
The Creating Economic Space for Social Innovation (CRESSI) project focuses on one over-arching research objective: to develop a novel theoretical framework better to understand the economic underpinnings of marginalization and social innovation in the European Union. Specifically, this project will inform future EU policy making in two ways: by means of a detailed analysis of how socio-economic structures marginalize vulnerable populations; by means of an exploration of the potential role of social innovation as an institutional change phenomenon to address such structures. An important conceptual component is drawn from the work of Jens Beckert and his Social Grid Model (2010). This research develops an Extended Social Grid Model that allows CRESSI to explore the structural issues that cause and reproduce marginalization. However, it needs to be stressed at the outset that the intention of this model – and the wider framework within which it sits – is to provide a mode of thinking to inform subsequent analysis and policy development rather than to represent a thorough commentary on individual thinkers and their schools of thought. The Social Grid model and the wider CRESSI framework operate, therefore, as theoretical orientations for the project as a whole: as a result, the exposition here is only the first of what are likely to be several iterations as the project develops.
Extending this model, CRESSI suggests that a social grid, at the macro-level or social-environmental level of structures, is enacted via contingent sources of power to affect (positively or negatively) the individual’s ability to realize her own capabilities. Finally, the model allows social innovation to be seen as a set of processes and interventions that can disruptively and incrementally alter one or more of the three social forces within a particular social grid, the dynamics across the social forces and, potentially, the power sources that structure it in a given historical context to reduce the marginalization of certain populations. Moreover, this may also include processes that empower the marginalized to become change agents (or institutional entrepreneurs) in terms of the forces and structures that cause their own marginalization.
This paper explores Beckert’s model and extends it drawing on two other key sets of theories around power (Michael Mann) and capabilities (Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum) that constitute the overall analytic framework for CRESSI and which are discussed in more detailed elsewhere in the CRESSI project. Where appropriate we reference ideas from CRESSI working papers so as to point to further discussion as well as some of the inspirations and ideas for this extended social grid models.
This paper demonstrates that the capabilities approach offers a number of conceptual and evaluative benefits for understanding social innovation and – in particular, its capacity to tackle marginalisation. Focusing on the substantive freedoms and achieved functionings of individuals introduces a multidimensional, plural appreciation of disadvantage, but also of the strategies to overcome it. In light of this, and the institutional embeddedness of marginalisation, effective social innovation capable of tackling marginalisation depends on a) the participation of marginalized individuals in b) a process that addresses the social structuration of their disadvantage. In spite of the high-level ideals endorsed by the European Union, social innovation tends to be supported through EU policy instruments as a means towards the maintenance of prevailing institutions, networks and cognitive ends. This belies the transformative potential of social innovation emphasised in EU policy documentation and neglects the social structuration processes from which social needs and societal challenges arise. One strategy of displacing institutional dominance is to incorporate groups marginalised from multiple institutional and cognitive centres into the policy design and implementation process. This incorporates multiple value sets into the policymaking process to promote social innovation that is grounded in the doings and beings that all individuals have reason to value.