SozialMarie Event Košice

SozialMarie Event Košice

November 29, 2017

How Social Innovations Solve Societal Problems

Learnings from research and examples

Josef Hochgerner

Zentrum für Soziale Innovation, Vienna

An opening with open questions:

This summer programme aims to carry out no less than a global dialogue on the future.

Moreover, it is not only about „the“ future in general, but about „our“ future. – In fact, to ask for the future is one of the three biggest questions of mankind:

Where do we come from? Who are we? Where will we go to?

So, with some modesty, a first reflection needs to take into account:

 Who is WE ?

 What is OUR‘s ?

 Which may be specific quality features of the/our FUTURE ?

 Will „we“ be capable to execute a (productive) GLOBAL dialogue ? And, of top of this:

 How far can we go with SOCIAL INNOVATION … is it an all-purpose remedy ?

In the context of a ‚global dialogue‘ on the future we may leave aside the first of the three questions (Where do we come from?). But in order to get at least a glimpse at the future (Where will we go to?), some certitude about the presence – Who are we? – seems indispensible.

Present day societies live under a common denominator we call „globalisation“ – (almost) no matter whether world regions and countries (nations, states of all sorts of regimes) appear as drivers or driven ‚objects‘ of globalisation.

The economic system ruling the planet is universal capitalism which re-invents itself ever since Manchester capitalism of the 19th century, passing through periods and regions (mainly parts of Europe) when and where social market economy prevail(ed), exposing now an almost inescapable model of neo-liberal capitalism (also termed ‚Casino capitalism‘ where gambling with stocks as well as lives becomes a dominant factor pertaining to the rise and fall of companies).*)

*) Currently, cf. for more details L.C. Bresser-Pereira: „I identify five forms of capitalism: among the rich countries, the liberal democratic or Anglo-Saxon model, the social or European model, and the endogenous social integration or Japanese model; among developing countries, I distinguish the Asian developmental model from the liberal-dependent model that characterizes most other developing countries, including Brazil.“

In: Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, vol 32, nº 1 (126), pp 21-32, January-March 2012. (p.21)

Under such a global regime, societies are governed by three

„formative principles“:

 Guidance by hierarchy,

 increasing objectivation, and

 economic growth.

When the (European) philosophers of the ‚Enlightenment‘ (Aufklärung) looked at the future, they anticipated increasing rationality to take command of human development.

Max Weber, in the early 20th century, wrote about ‚dis-enchantment‘

(Entzauberung) of the world.

Later-on hopes for social progress rested on science, technologies and innovation.

Now everthing seems different: There is rising fear of the future, of diversity, and: less harmony. … challenges, not only for the current Summer program !

Global challenges are rapidly changing living and working conditions

at individual, groups, organisations, and societal levels Climate Change

Environment

Energy

Mechanisation

Nukes, industry 4.0, synthetic biology ...

Labour

Ways of working, working conditions, salaries, security, alienation …

Public finances

Taxes, debts, social systems, health & care

Conflicts

National, religious, civil and international wars, flight and migration

Poverty

Income disparities, centre-periphery, exclusion, crime …

Climate change, decarbonisation of economy and society

Decisions/strategies: EU – decarbonisation until 2050

Cases – incomplete and only in a very rough sketch:

Stuttgart – ban of vehicles with too high consumption of diesel (2019) UK – no more gasoline / diesel by 2040

Austria – only electric cars by 2030

Norway – decarbonisation in stages until 2040

Not least: Shutdown of NPPs in Germany following the Fukushima disaster

„Financialization“ is defined as a „pattern of accumulation in

which profit making occurs increasingly through financial channels rather than through trade and commodity production“

(Krippner, Greta R., 2004: ‘What is Financialization?’; mimeo, UCLA Department of Sociology, p. 14.;

further reading: cf. T. I. Palley, 2007: Financialisation. What it is and why it matters.

www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_525.pdf)

1. Global imbalances: Distribution of wealth, poverty, well- being, life expectation, debts (state finances) and risks … 2. “Fiat money”: Compensation of weak growth in

industrialised countries by cash generation

3. “Financialisation“: Making money without real value added

→ Depletion of productive economic resources

THREE PROBLEMS BEHIND THE CHALLENGES

„Financialization“ is a core component of the neo-liberal project …

since the 1980ies (UK, under Thatcher): Wage increases were suppressed; however, consumption was kept high – by increasing loans replacing growth of real income!

Paul Mason (2015)^*) denominates four major changes as key features of finanzialization:

 Corporations become active themselfs in financial markets (expecting higher and direct revenues instead of using loans to invest in new products)

 Banks increasingly address consumers by complex high-risk insvestment banking

 Consumers become more and more directly involved in financial market procedures through escalating utilisation of credit-cards, overdraft business, extension of consumer credits

 Investment banks operate with options and future bonds which include even regular every day transactions of people buying a house, a car, or just a new telephone contract (who never would aim at any kind of speculation by such transactions)

According to official data real wages of manufacturing workers stagnate in the US since 1973. During this time debts of the American economy doubled to 300% of the GDP. The part of the FIRE-sector (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) rose in these four decades from 15 to 24%, thus became larger than the manufacturing industry, and almost as big as the service sector. (Mason, German edition from 2016, p. 44; with reference to Krippner, Greta R., 2005: The financialization of the American economy.

In: Socio-economic Review, 3/2 , pp. 173-208, p. 173)

*) Mason, Paul, 2015: PostCapitalism. A Guide to Our Future. London: Allen Lane/Penguin Books.

There are blurring boundaries between the logic of capitalism, power, violence and humanity.

Social change increases, including unleashed dehumanization, alienation, and externalization instead of inclusion, epathy and humanity

(„humiliation instead of humanity“ … or harmony).

What is „social change“ from the point of view of sociology ?

⇨ Five dimensions or levels of social change:

 Socio-economic structures and social systems

 Institutions (social and adminstrative/organisational ones)

 Cultural patterns („Frames of reference“, what is „normal“)

 Behaviour (individuals, groups, responses to norms, values)

 Consciousness (perceptions, acceptance, resistance, hopes/anxieties)

„Society“ ≠ „Community “

Society

 Shaped on (historic, regional, ecenomic) purposes – states, nations, corporations …

 Formally defined and documented

membership, changeable (e.g. citzenship)

 Rules and regulations shall be in line with values, yet are dominant

 Rules are legitimate and binding beyond personal relations („communities“!)

 Functioning is – in principle – independent from individuals. Allegory: „Domino“

Members: may vary, according to rules, official roles are widely Independent from personal preferences ( = against the rules)

Society may expand (almost) unlimited, includes lots of communities; … may – in case of crisis – decay into

conflicting communities.

Community

 Emerges and develops in „organic“ (from

„blood“ to association of likeminded)

 Emotional connexions, membership is (basicly) un-conditional and subjectiv after birth, initiation ritual adoption …

 Examples: Family relatives, „gang“ political groupings → danger in politics/for society:

„People‘s community“ [„Volksgemeinschaft“]

 Common values dominate rules (even law)

 Existence and functioning highly dependable on individuals (Leader/“Führer“)

Allegory: „Puzzle“

Members: Exchange difficult/ impossible, offices/duties/functions formed by individuals instead of rules Communities are limited in size/numbers, do

neither necessarily create, nor necessarily strengthen society.

About the role of knowledge

… in regard of environment, nuclear pow stations and related policies:

1. Understanding the technolgy (only) is of little help: Those who know best are not the best advisers – and often uncritical, i.e. no reflection on meta levels 2. Austrian expample of the people‘s referendum (Nov. 1978): There was a civil

society movement (already active since about 4-5 yrs.), the government provided pro & contra experts information in discussions, presentations, demonstrations etc … the result was a slight majority for „no“⇨

3. Really decisive: a high level of capacity in „critical thinking“ (ability to reflect the own store of knowledge and common „truth“ from various perspectives) 4. Critical thinking requires more than only „science“ and scientific knowledge as

such (facts, figures etc.), but ⇨ additionally at least some comprehension of

„philosophy of science“, or of the „logic of research“ respectively:

The definitive aim of science and research is not to ultimately proof „right“

or „wrong“ – instead, science has to contest everything, including existing / prevailing / accepted and popular scientific knowledge ( = „state-of-the-art“)

„Critical thinking“ ought to be advanced in schools, universities and the public !

The position of knowledge on a stairway to

cognition

Data Information

Knowledge Wisdom

Abstraction Pattern recognition Linear thinking Lateral thinking

Documentation, order and analysis

Attributions, contradictions

Intelligence, empathy potential

Creativity, consensus

Facts &

figures Foresight,

scenarios Strategies, conventions Collaborative

action

Cognition

TURNING KNOWLEDGE INTO ACTION

Resources, one after another, including the former → finally all together advancing knowledge into action, at best on ever higher levels of cognition:

Concepts Competencies Capacities Levers

Not one big innovation, nor a series of innovations only!

→ result of a powerful socio-technical system, enabled by a particular innovation culture

Innovations expand the range of human action ...

Earth rise from moon orbit, December 24, 1968

A walk in the sunshine, July 21, 1969

Society generates innovation

... and facilitate sometimes very spectacular achievements:

„Sputnik shock“ in the U.S. → and the vision thereafter

The dominant innovation culture mainly drives changes in „societal sediments“ by technology:

(1) Technology made ‚skin‘ of society (2) The power structures in society (3) Modes of communication in

society, between individuals, organisations, organisms and artifacts

(4) Frames of reference, shaping manners, mores, myths & rites (5) The balance of emotions in

society, i.e. security / insecurity, hope / fear, empathy / hatred … )

The most famous steam engine - Optimised by James watt, 1776„Humans by Design“: Optimisationin the 21st c.? „Brave New World“: Optimisation of human bevaiour in social systems – 20th century

Innovations are embedded in social change

Acceleration, ‘speed kills‘

Pressures

„Work-Life Balance“

Work-load

Weak ties in social relations: Flexibility Standardisation

1. Innovation culture …

„ALL INNOVATIONS ARE SOCIALLY RELEVANT“

Social change, development, crisis and ‚Grand Challenges‘:

Resources and solutions

Evolution of Brains

Innovative Technologies

WHY SOCIAL INNOVATION – now ?

Social Innovation for Social A ction !

>> Cultural Evolution

Collaborative intelligence & intelligent collaboration

1. Innovation culture …

Stress in social systems

Growth of the world population:

... global economy, yet no global society !

SOCIALLY UNBALANCED GLOBALISATION

Stress in social systems

Index of productivity 1959 until 2005 (USA) (1959=100)

Index of hourly compensation of production workers and non-supervisory workers

U.S. Data, Source:

Economic Policy Institute

Wages remain unimproved whilst productivity increases, USA 1959-2005

The termination of the ‚golden age of capitalism‘ (1)

Stress in social systems

*) Eric Hobsbawm

Wealthier society provides less additional welfare

GDP (‚BIP‘) compared to ISEW (Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare) in Austria, 1955 – 1992

Source: Stockhammer et al. 1995

The termination of the ‚golden age of capitalism‘ (2)

Assess

„Functionalities“

instead of GDP (growth):

Heating, Shelter Nourishment, Sanitation, Mobility and Transport, Health, Wellbeing

Stress in social systems

US-American, German, and Japanese profit rates in manufacturing industries

Source: IMF

The termination of the ‚golden age of capitalism‘ (3)

Stress in social systems

First step is to stop and reverse financialisation

 Taxation: Preferential treatment of productive industries and services, as compared to critical parts of finance industries: wealth tax, taxes on revenues from speculation, ban of speculation on foodstuffs

 Investment: Create innovations (technological + social + organisational + …) in favour of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth

 Technologies: Fair distribution of „energy for all“ as a global policy principle, instead of inefficient protocols aiming to curb emissions (cf. „The Hartwell Paper“, 2010) – step forward: Paris Agreement 2015

 Prices: Enforce real price on carbon based energy, ban Gasoline, Diesel and mixed power fuels; stimulate public and private involvement in favour of clean energy and renewable resources

Management of Abundance

→ NO!

Calling for social innovation in view of austerity measures and declining welfare often is motivated and ‘justified‘ by budget cuts and the need for ‘Making more of less‘.

I favour an analytic concept of social innovation, broad enough to capture the wide-spread manifestations of empirical cases, and specific enough to allow scientific determination and measurement:

Conceptualizing social innovation

 A new product or process in business is only recognized as innovation – distinct from an invention – if it provides viable commercial success in markets.

 Analogical, social innovations, appearing in all sectors of the society (public, business, civil society), must reveal an ever so clear distinction compared to a mere (social) idea: „Living and working conditions“ are most appropriate to identify the essential impact in society.

 Though a social innovation usually is a novelty on purpose, its impact ought not be judged normatively „good“ (in particular not „for the whole of society“). Impact assessment may vary a lot depending on people, groups or organisations with potentially conflicting hopes, demands and interests – and therefore are affected differently by new practices.

Social Innovations are new practices of action by individuals, groups or organisations, asserting impact on living- and

working conditions in parts or the whole of a society.

Areas relevant to social change

Examples of social innovations

Old / historic /

previous New / current / future

Science, education and training

Work, employment and the economy Technologies, machinery

Democracy, politics and justice

Social and health care systems

  Universities;

compulsory education;

Kindergarden; pedagog.

concepts e.g.

Montessori ...

 Trade unions;

Chambers of

commerce/labour;

Taylorism; Fordism; self service

 Norms and standardisation;

mechanisation of house keeping; traffic rules;

drivers licence

 ‘Attic democracy’; the state as a juristic person;

general elections

 Social security;

retirement schemes, welfare state

 Technology enhanced learning; ‘micro-learning’, Web 2.0; Wikipedia;

‘science mode 2’

 Flextime wage records;

CSR; social

entrepreneurship;

diversity mgmt.;

collaborative consumption

 Open source movement (com-munities); self

constructed solar panels;

decentralized energy prod.

 Citizens participation;

3^rd sector; equal rights;

gender mainstreaming

 Reforms of financing and access to welfare (e.g.

‘birth right portfolio’)

Ideation Intervention Implementation Impact

HOW TO CREATE SOCIAL INNOVATION ?

Idea Idea Idea Idea

Intervention

Implementation

Impact

New/modified idea

Next intervention

Implementation, 2nd Intervention, 3rd try

Persistent idea

The „4-i process“ of social innovation development:

o Idea >> What is the issue, objectives of change

o Intervention >> Conceptualisation, define approaches, methods o Implementation >> Using resources, breaking deadlocks, cooperation o Impact >> Measures of quality, range and scales, life cycle!

But: It is usually

not

linear

… often interrupted → „back to field one“, iterative process

What qualifies a certain figuration of new practices as

‘social innovation’?

Award criteria applied by „SozialMarie“, Austrian Prize for Social Innovation: www.sozialmarie.org

Characteristic properties of the new practices in the course of SI development

 Novelty of the idea: Rarely in absolute terms, usually relatively better in respect of the location, time, social strata, or field of action concerned

 Social quality of the intervention: Involvement and active participation (involvement) of the beneficiaries and other stakeholders

 Sustainability of the implementation: The new practices are accepted, adopted and performed by the those concerned

 Notable impact: Effective practices become operational and replicated

beyond the pioneering initiative (project); replicability and up- or outscaling instigate or modify social change

Most innovations only improve already implemented technologies or practices ( = “incremental innovation”), only few innovations

have fundamental or systemic impact ( = “radical innovation”).

Type of Innovation

Innovative technologies

Innovative practices Incremental

Innovation Radical*) Innovation

Few breakthrough techno- logies with high impact

Very few: Game changing systemic social innovations

Most: Social demand SI Many: Societal challenges SI Vast numbers of follow-up

techn., cumulative impact

*) Other terms in use: In the past “basic innovation”, currently “disruptive innovation”

IS INNOVATION SPECTACULAR BY NATURE ?

SOZIALMARIE – REGIONAL ELIGIBILITY

Analysing social innovation examples

Public sector: Municipality of Kapfenberg (AT) – „Future for all“

– Idea >> Issue poverty – social assistance without stigmatisation

– Intervention >> „Activity Card“ looking like a bank or credit card, subsidized inclusion

– Implementation >> Transport, NGO, Supermarket, Cafe, Sports, enabling access to communities – Impact >> Participation, elevating quality of life and cohesion beyond the needy group

Business sector: ERSTE Bank (AT) – „2

Savings Bank“

– Idea >> Issue private persons excluded from financial services, re-inclusion – Intervention >> Collaboration with insolvency advisers and social care NGO

– Implementation >> Access to bank account, guidance by the NGO and bank volunteers – Impact >> Empowerment, inclusion, easier access to jobs, scaling across the country

Civil society: Nagykaniza (HU) – „Social housing reconstruction camp“

– Idea >> Issue: social exclusion of poor roma, threat of eviction from homes – Intervention >> Negotiating rent arrears compensation by labour contributed

– Implementation >> Contracts, camp and co-ordination of students, roma & professionals – Impact >> Improved living and respect, less energy consumed, empowerment, replication

Analyze yourself:

What about “COOL BIZ” in Japan?

Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change

blue: EU research partner, red: non-EU research partner, green: Advisory Board

International Consortium Members:

SI-DRIVE involves 15 partners from 12 EU Member States, 10 partners from other parts of the world, and 14 high level advisory board members:

all in all 31 countries involved.

This project has received funding from the European Union’s 7th Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 612870.

Research: Global mapping and typology of SI

Key features of social innovations around the globe

(a) In many policy areas and all sectors of society (public, private, civil society) (b) Social innovations affect all layers (‚sediments‘) of the formation of societies:

- Material surface → environment and the technology-made ‚skin‘ of society

- Power structures → decision making, political institutions, inequality, inclusion … - Communication and networks → modes, functions, from individuals onto artefacts - Frames of reference → patterns of what is ‚normal‘ (manners, mores, myths & rites) - Equilibrium of emotions → security-insecurity, hope-fear, empathy-hatred …

(„Mood matters“, John L Casti)

(c) Most projects developing new practices are bottom-up initiatives (1^st: civil society)

- „small, diverse, demand driven …“

- relatively similar if clustered in „practice fields“ (sharing, involving, caring, gardening …) - lacking resources and power (vs. institutions, structures, opinions, interests)

(d) Social innovations – able to cope with big challenges & trigger systemic change?

- Discrepancy between expectations, wishful thinking, „scaling“, and real/sustaining impact - Variety of scales: Target groups, regions, time, policy areas, replications/modifications

Some thoughts about approaches to social innovation

in European welfare states and Anglo-saxon world regions

Framing of mind-sets:

Towards ensuring existing social systems and amend welfare

Policy mix connects the public, business and civil society sectors: Tripartite arrangements (where still existent – middle/north EU) Favours a complimentary

approach to social innovations

Framing of mind-sets:

Business driven, entrepre- neurial spirit, DIY individualism

Dominance of the business sector creates need for a multitude of civil society

initiatives: ‚Lean Government – Big Society‘

Favours a compensatory approach to social innovations

Growing cleavages:

regions, social ‚classes‘, globalization winners &

loosers, neoliberalism, austerity

All innovations

affect all „functional systems of the society“

*) cf. Parsons, „The social system“

Eight main types of innovation ...

o Products o Processes o Marketing o Organisation o Roles

o Relations

o Norms

o Values

... across four functional systems:

o Economy

o Culture o Politics

o Law

Extending the paradigm of innovation

Established social and cultural patterns

… maintained by – relatively stable – “frames of reference“

[facilitating easy definition of, and compliance with what is „normal“]

Selective perceptions

Filtered Information

Knowledge,

awareness Roles

Values Norms Relations

N ew p ra cti ce s = s o ci a l i n n o va ti o n s

Behaviour,

social action &

potential change Opinions,

attitudes

„environs“: media, societal institutions, networks, peer groups ....

The ‘CULTURAL LEARNING CYCLE‘

Prof. Dr. Josef Hochgerner Centre for Social Innovation Linke Wienzeile 246 A - 1150 Vienna

Tel. ++43.1.4950442 Fax. ++43.1.4950442-40 email: hochgerner@zsi.at http://www.zsi.at

Thank you for your attention 