Social Innovation Entrepreneurship - Three Themes to Understand and Practice Social Innovation

Social Innovation Entrepreneurship

1. Question 1: Three themes to understand and practice social innovation

1. Introduction

Social innovation can be understood as an intentional, positive, creative shift in systemic social-ecological patterns. It is more than old concepts dressed in new clothes, it’s an emerging social movement that builds on previous movements but that has some novel qualities, that is more effective, efficient, sustainable – for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals (Martin & Osberg, 2007). Complex process of introducing new products, process or programmes – that profoundly change the basic routines, resource and authority flows, or beliefs of the social system in which the innovation occurs, such successful social innovation have durability and broad impact (Westley & Antadze, 2010). It does not have to be profitable – there are several types of resources, not necessarily cash, time, work. But, it is new projects that meet a social need, engages and mobilises beneficiaries, to an extent improves beneficiaries access to power and resources – benefits society as a whole (Economist, 2016).

Therefore, what makes social innovation different from innovation is the underlying themes that drives. I will discuss three of these themes, with the understanding that they are not conclusive and are only an attempt to describe some of the thinking behind social innovation.

Theme one address social innovation as cause/purpose driven. To this end, William James, argues that we need a moral equivalent to war, Unger agrees and suggests that there is a better alternative to drive social change and that we need to break down the barrier between insiders vs outsiders, haves and have nots. There are two elements that links cause/purpose with social innovation, it needs to lead to a greater social good that is inclusive, and it needs to create a burning platform for change. Both Unger and James argue the need for a burning platform that is not the result of war, disaster or other tragedy.

Theme two frames social innovation as an inclusive system, where change at one end impacts on all other elements of the system, as such slight changes can have large systemic impacts.

Theme three place the beneficiary at the heart of innovation, it sees them not only as a focus, but as central to the design and delivery of innovation. Thus, social innovation starts with the excluded group and it should have a deep appreciation of the underlying frames, specifically the impact of an individual’s sense of belonging.

1. Theme 1 – social innovation is cause driven

William James, a philosopher, published a paper in 1910 arguing that the world needs a ‘moral equivalent to war”. In considering the classic problems of politics on how to sustain political unity and civic virtue in the absence of war or a credible threat, with all its positive impacts upon human character, social unity and personal greatness – the world needs an alternative. He argued that socialism and mandatory collective national service, volunteering, attempts to defeat human suffering etc. would still promote human solidarity and brotherhood, thus providing a viable and superior alternative to the extraordinary horror, destruction and expense of war. President Jimmy Carter echoed this idea in his 1977 speech, where he compared the energy crisis to a moral equivalent of war. He used this framing to drive post-structural and structural change.

Unger’s social innovation movement shares the notion that there is a better alternative. He argues that the prevalent world-view holds that there is only one way to freedom and prosperity. However, like war with its eventual positive spin off for society, the cost of this ‘one way’ is too high. Unger highlights five fundamental challenges: the hierarchical economy disproportionately distribute the benefits of continuous innovation to a relatively privileged segment of society and protects them against instabilities. The flow of finance is disconnected from the real economy, there is almost no way to enhance the quality of public services because of the unlimited demands that social spending place on an ever-narrower social base of successful enterprise. There is an absence of an adequate basis for social solidarity with little or no contact between those who work in enterprises and those receiving social benefits other than the disconnected transfer of money at a distance; and the flawed and relatively impotent character of democratic politics. Unger states that “The division between insiders and outsider has been reinvented and institutionalised, rather than overridden. This movement is the privatisation of the sublime, the containment of energy and hope within the most intimate recesses of private experience and the abandonment of public life as a proper sphere for the advancement of large projects. This created a sense of entrapment; an awareness that the diminished life one lives is the only life one is ever going to live” (Unger, n.d).

Like James, Unger essentially asks three things; how can we empower ourselves individually and collectively in ways that also connect us rather than reduce us to self-aggrandisement? How can we imagine and develop social connection that also empower us rather than trapping us in closed communities and fossilised traditions? How do we achieve this in the absence of a war, crisis or immense tragedy and pain that force the change?

To this end, social innovation theory argues that social innovation are new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneous meet social needs (more effectively than alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaboration (Murray, Calulier-Grice, & Mulgan, 2010). For me, this speaks to the heart of Unger’s movement, that we can challenge the status quo when we resist and subvert the dictatorship of no alternatives, work to enhance agency in all domains of social life, mobilise small-scale innovation (little epiphanies) all around the world, represent them as down payments on larger transformative possibilities and provide an alternative to the path of least resistance (Lecture Slides). We see examples of this in the Indian Aadhaar project, where the government implemented a system that use biometrics to identify and authenticate residents, this project challenged a century old stronghold where access to the economy and resources were restricted to class or social status, the poor and marginalised groups were unable to do something as simple as open a bank account because they had no way to proof their identity. This small change carries with it the potential to disrupt the very heart of Indian culture. RLabs is another example, conventional thinking holds that drug rehabilitation and counselling should be done by registered professional, as such these services were no accessible to those communities who needs them the most, the RLab model use recovered drug addicts to share their stories of hope and recovery to anyone who might need this. Mother2Mothers, tackled political indifference and deep-seated shame associated with HIV through a model of using mothers who had a child while HIV+ to mentor pregnant women and new mothers. In all three cases, the innovations took something that existed, changed it in a novel way, while keep the target group at the centre of their change.