Ander Gurrutxaga Abad has been Professor of Sociology at the University of the Basque Country since 1994. Among his recent works are Occidente y las Otras Modernidades (2008) and Implications of Current Research on Social Innovation in the Basque Country (2011). He has taught as a visiting professor at various universities in Spain and abroad, and is currently Director of the Laboratory on Social Innovation at the University of the Basque Country.

Societies of Social Innovation

Voices and Arguments

By Ander Gurrutxaga Abad

Sussex Academic Press

Copyright © 2014 Ander Gurrutxaga Abad
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-84519-513-7

Contents

Acknowledgements,
Introduction,
1 The Instruments and Meanings of Social Innovation,
2 Texts and Contexts of Social Innovation,
3 The Locations and Varying Visions of Social Innovation,
4 Successes and Failures of Innovation Programmes,
5 Dilemmas and Paradoxes of Social Innovation,
6 Conclusions: Heralds and Prophets of Social Innovation,
Consolidated Bibliography,
Index,

CHAPTER 1

The Instruments and Meanings of Social Innovation

The Backstage Machinery of Social Innovation: Settings, Scenarios, Actors and Agencies

This chapter has as its starting point a series of questions. To what can we attribute the success of the concept of social innovation in knowledge societies? Why has it penetrated into contexts alien to the economic universe in which it had found its natural setting, at least since Joseph Schumpeter’s (1942) theory on “creative destruction”? What is the theoretical, methodological and conceptual background required for it to appear in other fields such as culture, politics or society in general? Why has it become a basic point of reference in attitudes towards change and transformation, as much for governmental agencies, economic organizations and business institutions as for civil society? Among the social sciences, economics lays claim to the term and asserts its ownership of it, seeing its aim as ensuring levels of competitiveness, the productivity that economic agents require and the securing of profits. Businesses incorporate it by means of models and a variety of activities and references in their organizational culture. Parallel to these phenomena is a rediscovery of the need for ethics and values in liquid capitalism. One consequence of this is an increasing resort to lauding the virtues of creativity, responsibility, efficiency, effectiveness and flexibility.

History – above all the school of “Big History” – comprehends the power of innovation by means of an analysis of the changes that it leads to in the structural processes that make up the global structure as a whole, and analyses how human beings learn by experimenting in multiple interactions, and how the networks are constructed that shape the contemporary world. Sociology has incorporated innovation as one of the “obvious” manifestations of social change. Psychology relates it to the creativity of individuals, their emotional intelligence, and the ability to create empathy within the terrain of complex organizations. Public institutions appropriate it by means of formulae associated with governance, and as a way of managing complexity. Civil-society organizations take it over when they seek to “revive” the communitarian and social aspects of the meetings and interactions between individuals. Governments lay emphasis on it when they encourage technological innovation through policies of support for R&D+I and promote new sources and particular formulae with which to finance it. The result is that nothing is left outside innovation’s extensive umbrella.

The questions that are raised by the ascent of social innovation in contemporary contexts are at the heart of the text I present here. Behind this analysis lies a paradox: we have before us an idea and accompanying praxis that carry with them a long history, and yet are presented in our times as a new idea and an original way to understanding how change occurs in complex societies and organizations. My hypothesis is that these appeals to the idea of social innovation represent an accumulation of invented responses, constructed to give greater credibility to the dilemmas of change in multiple fields – economic, social, cultural, political – in diverse dimensions – macro-, medium -level, micro – and in contemporary contexts that are plagued by uncertainty.

The dominant paradigm maintains that development is “bound up with” the particular economic model which, based on technological knowledge, associates itself with human talent and the creation of innovative environments and creative systems so that institutional structures, productive processes, competitiveness and productivity may all move forward. Among the consequences of this is that a new/old classification is created of the societies and regions of the world, based on an outline of what could be called the socio-economic structure of the knowledge age. This classification functions in some cases as a specific, distinctive structure, and in others as a frame of reference for those who still do not exist because they are still not “within the club” of innovative nations, since they have not attained the right positions in the indices and indicators that determine this new way of arranging the prestige of nations in the 21st century.

The realization of this “historic project” requires many and varied settings. How are they established? Through the construction of innovative eco-systems and environments, which require strategic decisions on the part of governments and business and social leaders to invest in a basket of resources that include new forms of urbanization, specific pieces of infrastructure, quality educational systems, the financing of new discoveries, best practices and work -based values, entrepreneurial attitudes, creative institutional systems, support for talent and the construction of the new.

The underlying ideas associated with processes of innovation suppose that human beings learn through experimentation, that is, through the ability of individuals in creating new knowledge and transferring it to others by means of their participation in social networks. To achieve this innovation needs actors, agencies and institutions in which the respective processes can be anchored. Changes of this nature are sustained by institutions that operate – though not exclusively – in specific urban enclaves, with business models suited to the requirements of knowledge-based ideas, organizational cultures based on “psychologised” modes of operation (the use of coaching, emotional intelligence, and so on), and social organizations that believe in and exercise best practice. The provision of the necessary resources is organized from institutions that have accumulated social capital in their specific socio-structural settings, and have at their disposal the required logistical systems and shared infrastructure: education, health, universities, financing for innovative research, effective public policies and new forms of governance.

The relevance of social innovation as a concept and praxis is not determined solely by the functionality or pragmatism of the solutions it offers but also by the continuous calls it brings with it for a reconstruction of the ethics of capitalism and all the associated discourse around the idea of a “return to values”. We frequently come across statements that proclaim innovation in companies, public institutions, civil society, health services, education and political bodies, and in a long list of other actions we could mention that form part of the normal running of these institutions.

My belief is that in general the “revolution” of social innovation is connected to the array of paradoxes thrown up by the dilemmas and lack of answers that we find in our societies. To put this another way, the more perception of uncertainty there is in society the more dilemmas and more questions emerge, and the more calls will be made to the “information exchange” in search of answers, using the resources and repertory of responses offered by innovation. The equation is simple: the more uncertainty there is in societies and organizations, the more need there is to resort to the services and resources offered by innovation.

The activities this encourages are transformed into a point of reference that classifies and measures societies and directs them towards specific types of socio-economic development. In places where investment in R&D+I has been turned into “black gold” and technological development and scientific production are venerated, education and research are seen as basic elements in the quality of life, and well-being is defined in terms of these coordinates and the place these societies occupy in the eco -systems of innovation. As a result being successful or attaining success is seen as the creation for oneself of an objective and subjective position that allows one to manage the uncertainties of contemporary knowledge societies, whether in different fields – economic, social, political or cultural – in different dimensions – micro-, mid-level or macro – or in institutions such as business, public administration, civil society or social movements.

The various forms of discourse on social innovation are associated with the understanding of social change. They are presented as practices that have been endorsed by their role in processes that have left the arenas where they have traditionally been prominent (above all those of economics, business and technological innovation) to penetrate other “corners” of human activity where their presence is not so enveloping. Studies on the value and characteristics of social innovation present a picture of a still -unfinished building and a laboratory under construction, associated in each case with theories of social change. At the same time, the concept and the praxis it encourages are in fashion, and employed as the “answer to nearly anything”. The danger is that the dominant definitions of the concept may disregard the importance of structural conditioning factors in our understanding of the outcomes of these processes in different fields. On occasion, the impression given is that we are looking at “blind processes” that follow rules in which, at least apparently, these structural factors have no role to play.

The danger this poses is that, when this happens, the resulting theoretical “dissolution” of the innovation concept and conceptual abandonment of social and material factors may entrap and preclassify our responses to the dilemmas that innovation presents, in the same way that sometimes occurs in economic literature, which leads us to ask whether this same literature can continue to be a solid and credible point of reference in our attempts to achieve our anticipated objectives when it comes to applying formulae drawn from the material related to social innovation. At the same time, a glance at modern references to innovation, our own analysis and empirical evidence warn us that there are no universal answers that explain the upsurge in usage of the social innovation idea, nor the imperious need for this to be present in all countries and social organizations.

The facts we have conceptualize experiences that are not extrapolated directly one from another, nor follow in an unbroken line based on a rational process subject to the laws of cause and effect, however much the most successful experiments highlight indices and variables that are put forward in nearly every analysis of case studies and serve as a foundation and, at times, as a ceiling for pronouncements on the value of social innovation. Taking this into account, there are societies that adjust better to the preferred models, and which are differentiated according to the manner in which they organize relationships between the regulatory roles and functions they attribute to the state, the role of the market, financial investment, their respective institutional systems and the forms of infrastructure that they construct to aid the transfer of knowledge and the culture they wish to promote.

Sufficient historical knowledge has been accumulated for us to know that the structures of society – lifestyles, social relations, norms and values – are not transformed “from one day to the next”: habits, customs and ways of life change slowly, even when the political order is overthrown by war or revolution. The task of building up a new social structure is long and hard, and has to make use of the “bricks” of the old order. If the distortion of historical time is one difficulty in understanding how innovation is undertaken, another stumbling block lies in the monolithic vision of society.

It seems feasible, as Daniel Bell (1976) suggested, to conceive of contemporary society as made up of three distinct realms. Each one is structured on an axial principle. Bell divided society into a techno-economic structure, the political order and culture. These realms do not run in parallel with each other and have different paces of change: they follow norms of their own that legitimize differing and even opposing forms of behaviour. It is the discordances between these realms that are responsible for the contradictions in society. This proposition is relevant to the purpose of our investigation. As we have said, Bell saw each sphere as formed around an axial principle. In the case of the techno-economic realm, the objective pursued is functionality, and the mode of regulation is to economize. This signifies efficiency, lower costs and higher profits, the maximization and optimization of resources and the application of similar standards of judgement to employment. The axial structure is bureaucracy and hierarchy. Both are derived from specialization, the fragmentation of roles and the need to coordinate socio-economic activities. There is a measure of value, which is utility, and a principle upon which change can be based, productivity. That is, the ability to replace products or processes, by looking for others that are more efficient with higher profits and lower costs.

The political order is the field of justice and social power, the control of the legitimate use of force and the regulation of conflicts to enhance the particular conceptions of justice enshrined in a society’s traditions and its Constitution, written or not. The axial principle is legitimacy. Democracy is based on the premise that power can only be exercised with the consent of the governed.

Culture is the third realm. It comprehends different existential situations and the means used to confront them. It deals with the meaning of things, in order to interpret what “happens” in life; how to confront death, for example, or tragedy, the characterization of heroism, the definition of loyalty, the nature of obligations or the value of the norms and customs with which we construct our lives.

The three realms indicated have different rhythms of change. The techno-economic realm is lineal in nature, since its principles of utility and efficiency provide rules for innovation and the displacement or substitution of different component parts. More efficient and productive processes replace others that are less efficient. In culture, in contrast, one sees a return to the concerns and questions that constitute the existential conflicts of human beings. It is interesting to stress here that innovation is not understood in a monolithic way, as the different realms have distinct axial principles and move at a different pace. Indeed, the movements that effect the economy do not travel at the same speed as those that occur in politics, culture or social life. Economic changes and transformations are not carried over mimetically from the economy into culture, society or politics, and the same applies to the principles that govern the different realms.

Society is a mosaic in which the different parts of which it is composed have different rhythms and a logic of their own, and the capacity for “contamination” from one realm to another is limited. To conceive the transfer of a major transformation or movement from one realm to another in a lineal manner is to fail to understand the autonomy of the elements that make up societies. The axial systems are moved by different principles, follow divergent needs and have different speeds. If the economy, for example, is ruled by principles of productivity and competitiveness, the resources and procedures that it employs will be different to those put forward from the political sphere, whose axial principle is participation and a culture rooted in the process of election.

If we can see that there is no one single means of understanding what innovation is, this is because the latter – and it could not be otherwise – admits differing rhythms, occurs in diverse fields and appears in particular dimensions. This situation presents us with a fragmented map in which each situation is defined by specific features to which the toolkit of innovation needs to be applied differently in each case, and the societies involved perceive that neither can technological innovation – however significant it may be – represent the whole of the innovation process, nor will the ideas employed in or emerging from models of business organization function in the same manner in other spheres, or in activities guided by the precepts of public policy, cultural creativity or competitive politics.

(Continues…)Excerpted from Societies of Social Innovation by Ander Gurrutxaga Abad. Copyright © 2014 Ander Gurrutxaga Abad. Excerpted by permission of Sussex Academic Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.