Votre recherche

Social innovation is conceptualised as having two intimately related pillars: institutional innovation and locally embedded innovation, in the sense of social economy. Two main research questions were addressed: how political, institutional innovation is fostered and how does it influence social economy? A mixed methods research was conducted in the Mühlviertel NUTS3 region. Despite a framework of enhanced autonomy and institutional innovation for the main stakeholders, both macro and micro analysis illustrate a lack of intermediate space to: a) link the innovative agenda to high-state political agendas, and b) link institutional innovation to social economy.

L’article est basé sur une enquête portant sur la structuration de la démarche de développement durable et responsabilité sociale (DD-RS) dans les universités françaises. Il s’appuie sur la théorie de la structuration et la Théorie Néo-Institutionnelle pour construire un cadre conceptuel à la structuration de cette mission. Ce dernier est confronté à la pratique des établissements et débouche sur une typologie fondée sur le rôle de l’implication politique, de la culture du pilotage et des isomorphismes. La discussion autour de cette typologie, à partir d’une ACM montrant l’existence de groupes homogènes d’universités quant à leur structuration d’une démarche DD-RS, permet d’affiner le rôle de chacun des facteurs du modèle conceptuel.

In the past twenty years, innovation has slowly, but steadily, become an important presence in development cooperation discourse and practice. The ambitious UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda has accelerated this trend, providing a strong framework for the main argument in favour of an innovation agenda for international development: without new ideas and innovative solutions, solving the current global development challenges will not be possible. Although this innovation-push is in line with a wider predominant view of innovation as an inherently positive force of progress, that alone does not explain when, how, and why innovation becomes a key topic in the field. This paper seeks to fill this gap in the literature, providing an initial overview of innovation in development cooperation in the post-2000s. It argues, firstly, that innovation has always been part of international development policy and practice. Secondly, it links the recent strengthening of the innovation discourse to three trends in the systemic transformation of the field: the triumph of metrics-based agendas, the ICTs and digitalization revolutions, and the role of private sector actors. It concludes by critically assessing the implications of this narrative in changing the politics of innovation towards more inclusive sustainable development policies and practices.

The last few years witnessed theoretical and practical contributions to the field of social innovation and social enterprise. However, analysis of the interplay between these two different realms is still limited. This article aims to fill some gaps in this respect. We deal with historical reconstruction of the concept of Social Enterprise and Social Innovation, and their conceptual premises. We consider the process of creation of social innovation in social enterprises. As members’ motivations, ownership rights and governance rules in social enterprises create a new relational context and new routines, which are germane to the production of social knowledge and deliberation, social innovation can be considered one of the main outcomes of this setting. Social motivations, collective action of a cooperative kind, multistakeholder governance and socialization of resources, and their interplay are singled out as main drivers of innovation. Social innovation is seen as akin to novelty in social interaction, a non-standardized and non-standardizable outcome of the operation of this organizational form.

The incubator model of a support structure to develop high-tech firms from academic research was imported from the USA to Brazil, where it serves a variety of economic and social purposes. The Brazilian cooperative incubator is a creative reinterpretation of the business incubator model to advance social innovation. It addresses issues of social exclusion, poverty and unemployment by empowering favela residents to create their own jobs. Having diffused broadly, the Brazilian cooperative incubator allows us to address the issue of growth in social enterprises. This paper employs a triple helix dynamic model, including government (local, regional and national), academic (different types of universities, industry (firms of varying scale and sector, industry associations) and NGOs (non governamental organizations) to explain the diffusion and expansion of this innovation in social entrepreneurship.

Cette recherche se propose d’explorer le processus de développement de l’entreprise d’économie sociale issue d’un partenariat fondateur. Nous nous intéressons plus particulièrement à la façon dont l’entreprise d’économie sociale opère, à travers ses choix d’orientation et organisationnels, l’équilibre entre ses besoins propres de développement et les besoins spécifiques de son partenaire de fondation. La Caisse d’économie Desjardins de la Culture constitue le terrain d’investigation. Le rôle de cette organisation, issue d’un partenariat avec l’Union des artistes (UDA), est passé de celui de prestataire de services aux membres de l’UDA à celui d’agent de développement du milieu de la culture. En décrivant les étapes et leviers de ce passage, nous nous attachons à comprendre le mécanisme d’autonomisation de l’organisation par rapport à son partenaire d’origine.

The UK government has called for a rehabilitation revolution in England and Wales and put its faith in market testing. It hopes this will lead to greater innovation, resulting in reductions in re-offending while also driving down costs. However, many of the most innovative developments in criminal justice over recent decades have come through social innovation. Examples include restorative justice and justice reinvestment. In this article we argue that while social innovation will respond to some extent to conventional economic policy levers such as market testing, de-regulation and the intelligent use of public sector purchasing power it is not simply an extension of the neo-liberal model into the social realm. Social innovation, based on solidarity and reciprocity, is an alternative to the logic of the neo-liberal paradigm. In policy terms, the promotion of social innovation will need to take account of the interplay between government policy, social and cultural norms and individual and social capacity. Current proposals for reforming the criminal justice system may not leave sufficient scope to develop the conditions for effective social innovation.

Offender mental health is a major societal challenge. Improved collaboration between mental health and criminal justice services is required to address this challenge. This article explores social innovation as a conceptual framework with which to view these collaborations and develop theoretically informed strategies to optimize interorganizational working. Two key innovation frameworks are applied to the offender mental health field and practice illustrations provided of where new innovations in collaboration, and specifically co-creation between the mental health system and criminal justice system, take place. The article recommends the development of a competency framework for leaders and front line staff in the mental health system and criminal justice systems to raise awareness and skills in the innovation process, especially through co-creation across organizational boundaries.

This paper describes how the Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination (ESID) model was successfully used to reduce male violence against women in an intimate relationship. The women in the study who worked with advocates (the key feature of the program) were significantly less likely to be abused again compared to their counterparts in the control condition. They also reported a higher quality of life and fewer difficulties in obtaining community resources even 2 years after the short-term intervention. The advocacy provided consisted of five phases: assessment, implementation, monitoring, secondary implementation, and termination. Assessment collected important information on the client's needs and goals. This involved asking the women what they needed and by observing women's circumstances. In response to each unmet need identified, the advocate worked with the woman to access appropriate community resources. This was the implementation phase. The third phase involved monitoring the effectiveness of the intervention. The advocate and client assessed whether the resource had been obtained and whether it met the identified need. If it was not effective, advocates and clients initiated a secondary implementation to meet the client's needs more effectively. Termination of the intervention consisted of three components. First, advocates emphasized termination dates from the beginning of the intervention in order to prevent termination from surprising the client. Second, beginning about week seven of the 10-week intervention, advocates intensified their efforts to transfer the skills and knowledge the women had acquired throughout the course. Third, advocates left families with written “termination packets,” which contained lists of community resources, helpful tips for obtaining difficult-to-access resources, and useful telephone numbers. A total of 143 women participated in the experimental condition, and women in the control group were not contacted again until their next interview; they received services-as-usual. 30 references

We conjecture that adoption of agricultural biotech innovation imposes relationship-specific investments that exacerbate hold-up costs between biotech producers and farmers. Moreover, the increasing presence of biotech reduces biodiversity, which is a significant negative externality on food production across farms. As such, increasing biotech has the potential to exacerbate food insecurity. By contrast, certified organic operations have the potential to have the opposite effect. We examine 15 agrarian states in the U.S. and find evidence strongly consistent with these propositions. We discuss implications for policy, practice, and future research.

Public innovation has received increasing attention in recent years. Experiments with new governance structures, such as New Public Management and New Public Governance, have challenged the traditional top-down, internally driven forms of innovation in the public sector and have entailed a search for new forms of open, collaborative and interactive innovation, implying a reframing of public innovation activities. However, introducing these new frames of innovation causes uncertainties in the public sector, necessitating better understanding of how public innovation can be changed to address societal needs. This paper uses materials from case studies of 21 public living labs across Europe to analyse the lessons that can be learned from public sector participation in living labs in terms of their contribution to reframing public innovation. The “frame” construct is used to analyse and provide an understanding of how participation in living labs helps public actors to reframe innovation and address public and societal needs. Three living lab framings for changing public innovation are identified (processual learning, restrained space and democratic engagement), and the degree of intensity of these framings with respect to involving stakeholders and addressing societal challenges is discussed. The paper contributes to knowledge of public sector innovation by extending previous accounts of how public innovation can be improved.