ESPAnet, Edimburg 2012Stream 1: Social Innovation and Social Investment

Social Innovation in the Barcelona Local Welfare System

Teresa MontagutDepartment of Sociological TheoryUniversity of Barcelonamontagut@ub.edu

Work in progress – please do not quote

Social Innovation in the Barcelona Local Welfare System

Abstract:

The paper contains three sections: First, is a discussion of the concept of social innovation. Secondly, is the analysis of policy of Barcelona from this conceptual perspective, trying to explain what the social processes behind this innovation are1. Finally, we look at the challenges faced by this innovative policy.

This paper is linked to the research that is being carried out within the framework of a larger European Research Project: Welfare innovations at the local level in favour of cohesion (WILCO). The project is in progress and is funded by European Commission through the Seventh Framework Programme: Project Number: SSH-CT-2010-266929. http://www.wilcoproject.eu/

1 Some of the interviews of the paper are part of the field work from WILCO Project and others from CIIMU Barcelona Third Sector Research.

2

A new form of intervention is emerging in local welfare systems: social innovation. We define "social innovation” as the implementation of an idea or a concept that is new and that breaks with the prevailing routines and structures in a given system or setting. This new way requires a change of attitude and involvement from citizens, public authorities -at all levels- and private organizations.

This paper has two aims. On one hand, it explores the concept of Social Innovation in regards to local welfare systems, and on the other hand, it analyzes the specific case of social innovation in the city of Barcelona. During the past 10 to 20 years we can find new forms of policy implementation and new policies in this local welfare system. This paper will analyze the emergence and the implementation of a new policy - “The agreement for an inclusive Barcelona” - its effects and expected future. We also study which new patterns (of goals, organization, services, etc.) from this new policy may entail lessons that could be applied to other local welfare systems.

I. From innovation to social innovation

A) Innovation

Innovation is a topic of great interest among analysts of society. It is also the motor of capitalist development. If we understand capitalism as a social and economic system that reinvents itself, then innovation becomes a central concept and one which should receive greater academic attention, particularly in periods, such as today,of great social turbulence.

The classical sociologists, among whom stand out Durkheim, Simmel and Weber (although contributions are not limited to them) reflected on and analysed the passage from tradition to modernity and how the transformations of specific social orders developed2. Durkheim (1982), for example, studied economic facts as social facts, emphasising the importance of new social conditions that were created with the development of the division of labour. Simmel addressed the study of the expansion of markets, the growth of material culture and lifestyle in large cities. The core of Simmel’s analysis was that innovation occurs “In order to find a source of income which is not yet exhausted” (Simmel, 1986). He considered the processes of interaction and learning in the market and situated these processes of social learning in the large cities. Taking as an example the perspective of Weberian social action, we can understand social change as not only the result of changes in life conditions resulting from the social system, but as also influenced by individual behaviour. Weber studied the economy in dynamic and evolutionary terms. His contribution on economic action as a social action (as interaction) is based on the following definition: “Social action (which includes failure to act and being acted upon) can be related to the past, present or anticipated future behaviour of other people...” (Weber, 1984). To him we also owe the interest in explaining or providing an answer to the question of the origin of capitalism and modernity in which innovation, produced as a consequence of the dynamics of social interaction, plays a key role. In short, what he and other

2 It is not the objective of this study to go further into this perspective. See, for example, Herranz (2011) or Giner (2004).

3

“classical” authors contributed to the study of social change is related to what we intend to study: innovation.

Other disciplines have also made significant contributions to understanding processes of innovation and social change. For example, within economics authors such as Veblen and Pareto, by introducing sociological elements into their economic analyses, also adopt a perspective focused on evolution and social change. However, it is Joseph A. Schumpeter who specifically developed a theory of innovation applied to the study of economic processes. Schumpeter highlighted the tensions, ambiguities and contradictions of societies regarding modernity and pointed out how and to what extent economic processes play a role in these tensions or discontinuities. For him, the key to development is found in innovation, which is inseparable from the work of the entrepreneur.

In this paper I want to focus on Schumpeter’s reflections regarding the concept of innovation. Although he refers to the economic sphere, the meaning he gives to the concept is a good starting point for our analysis. I am going to show the relevancy and analytical capacity that a Schumpeterian approach has to understanding the social processes that drive or generate innovation in the social welfare sphere.

We talk about innovation when we observe a significant change that has a determined end. The creation and expansion of markets was a source of innovation of great reach. The appearance of entrepreneurship broke the social moulds of old traditions. Profit came to be understood as a social good as it increased the wealth of all society. Understanding society as dynamic permits us to see the importance of innovation as a fundamental element of social change. Innovation, however, should not be understood as a resource that automatically advances us toward a better society; innovation, as a process and result, can also produce decline or regression.

In the essay, “How the economic system generates evolution”, Schumpeter distinguishes innovation from invention:

“Technological change in the production of commodities already in use, the opening up of new markets or of new sources of supply, Taylorisation

4

of work, improved handling of material, the setting up of new business organizations such as department stores—in short, any "doing things differently" in the realm of economic life— all these are instances of what we shall refer to by the term Innovation. It should be noticed at once that that concept is not synonymous with "invention." (Schumpeter, 2002, pp.63)

An initial important consideration is to distinguish between the appearance of a new product, “an invention”, and whether it represents a process of “innovation”. How does an invention become an innovation? For the invention of a product or a service to be an innovation requires the existence of a series of elements that contribute to and consolidate a transformative process. Innovation combines elements into a new form; that is, it consists in carrying out new combinations of factors and as a result, it can be defined as a new way of producing goods and services, one which includes not only a new product, but also a new form of production, a new process.

Schumpeter refers to economic dynamics: “innovation is the out-standing fact in the economic history of capitalist society” (pp. 65). But can we take this approach to analyse the evolution of the welfare system in advanced capitalism? The answer is yes, we can, but this necessitates understanding capitalism as a system with three dimensions: the economy, the political system and social relations. In this sense, social evolution is directly associated with the changes that are provoked by innovation in the economic process (in other words, capitalism produces certain effects that the social system responds to). Can we use a Schumpeterian approach in the analysis of social innovation? We will see that a new social policy or a new political programme can be of a similar category as a new invention in the productive sphere. In addition, a new policy can form part of a broader general process that we would identify as an innovation – in this case, a social innovation. In a social context, we should take into account that processes that produce “inventions” and processes that produce “innovations” are not the same. They can be similar, but they can also diverge, and the results of these processes can be clearly differentiated.

A social innovation is defined as, not only, a new policy or service, but also as any way of carrying out existing policies or services in a different manner. The

5

objective of the WILCO project is to analyse changes in social welfare systems at the local level - Welfare innovations at the local level – that facilitate or favour better governance in the interest of social cohesion. The objective of this paper is to apply a Schumpeterian approach to the analysis of social innovation in the field of social welfare.

6

B) Social innovation

The difficulties European welfare states have been experiencing have produced a broad interest in discussing, conceptualizing and analysing social innovation. In recent years, “social innovation” has been discussed from many different perspectives as politicians, academics and civil society organisations have been using the expression in different ways. It is a topic that is currently “in fashion” as Moulaert and Mehmood have shown (2011), and as often happens when a scientific topic is defined in different ways in different economic and social sectors, ambiguity and confusion regarding the use of the concept spread. Social innovation must always be contextualised if we want to adequately understand what is happening. The same term can have different meanings and be used to refer to approaches of very different nature. For this reason, we must be explicit in defining the approach adopted in this paper and in the WILCO Project. In an academic sense, we want the meaning of the term to permit its use in analysing social change.

It is not surprising that in the current period of uncertainty, social innovation is a widely desired objective. Economic decline and the increase in unemployment and inequality in a context of serious state budgetary difficulties are challenges that necessitate a search for and reflection on the capacities of our societies to regain a certain balance in our socio-economic systems through new forms of political and policy action. States today must ask themselves how to provide coverage for those who are not prepared for new risks. The old model of welfare covers old social problems, but this is no longer enough to guarantee the necessary social cohesion. The new risks or inequalities that European countries face requires innovative initiatives in social fields, not only the application of new programmes, but also proposing an innovative organisation of welfare provision and new networks that aid in constructing human and social capital. These are new objectives and challenges that local social welfare systems in particular must face.

Social innovations are innovative in regard to both means and ends, acting on processes (social interaction) and results (producing a social return). We speak of social innovation if society as a whole is affected or if the innovation involved has a clear social value – in other words, it produces a social benefit (or a

7

reduction in cost) for society. Although many innovations entail an improvement for the society in the sense that they increase productivity, employment or economic growth, we speak of social innovation only if they make a clear contribution to the public sphere or to society as a whole. An innovation may be profitable for an entrepreneur, an investor or a private consumer, but we speak of social innovation when the value created is accumulated by the society as a whole.

The report, “Empowering people, driving change” (BEPA, 2010) commissioned by the European Commission, begins with an introduction by President Barroso which provides an interesting definition of social innovation and one which will be a starting point for our research:

“Social Innovations are innovations that are social in both their ends and their means. Specially, we define social innovations as new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively tan alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaborations. They are innovations that are not only good for society but also enhance society’s capacity to act.” (pp. 9)

This report proposes classifying social innovations into three broad categories: (a) Social innovations that are a response to social demands. (These are innovations that are not addressed by the market and that are directed to vulnerable groups in society). (b) Social innovations that are in response to broad societal challenges (where the boundaries between the social and the economic are blurred). And lastly, (c) Systemic actions that are related to fundamental changes in attitudes and values, strategies and policies, organisational structures and processes, and delivery systems and services (BEPA, 2010, pp. 10).

This last category is the one we use as our framework in this paper in studying the programme, “Acuerdo ciudadano para una Barcelona Inclusiva” [Citizens’ Agreement for an Inclusive Barcelona] as an example of social innovation in the city of Barcelona. We will analyse the social processes behind the creation and development of this programme. The WILCO Project defines social innovation “as the implementation of an idea or concept that is, in a significant way, new and

8

disruptive towards the routinesand structures prevailing in a given system or setting….” (WILCO Project 2011-2013)

The programme that we present as an example of social innovation falls within the political dimension, as it establishes both a new form of participation and policy-making. It is based not only on new practices but introduces changes in social responsibilities (public and private) in the local welfare system. By bringing about a new culture in the management of the welfare system, it also affects attitudes and values within local government. It is an example of social innovation resulting from a two-way process: (1) A top-down process, in the sense that it has been proposed by the municipal government, which (2) intersects with a bottom-up process based on the effort and interests of different organisations and social networks that work within the city’s social welfare system. We believe this is a programme with great potential and one that could be implemented in other cities with similar conditions.

II. The programme: “Citizens’ Agreement for an Inclusive Barcelona” 3

A. The programme

The Citizens’ Agreement for an Inclusive Barcelona is the result of the 2005-2010 Municipal Plan for Social Inclusion that was approved in Barcelona in March 2005. This plan provided the framework for municipal policies aimed at preventing the social exclusion of individuals and groups and the promotion of participation. The Citizens’ Agreement (CA) was established in April 2006 and “concretised the relational dimension of government action on matters of public policy regarding social inclusion”. A total of 235 entities of diverse nature (organisations, businesses and universities) signed the agreement with the aim

3See http://www.bcn.cat/barcelonainclusiva/es/que_es.html

9

of establishing alliances, generating synergies, coordinating activities and finding shared objectives with the municipal government and among themselves.

It was established with the intention that it would remain open to the incorporation of new entities and social organisations. Since its public presentation, the number of institutions and organisations involved and attached to the Agreement has grown each year. In December 2011, there were a total of 467 participating organisations, institutions and businesses (representing a doubling of the number of participants in five years).

The CA is based on the work carried out by a number of associations and organisations and the local government to achieve “the common objective of a more inclusive, supportive and socially cohesive city.” Its aim is to increase the city’s social capital, in other words, its organisational capacity and capacity for joint action.

The Agreement has been promoted and is coordinated by the municipal government. Currently, the more than 400 participating entities work in such distinct spheres as the economy, culture, education, social action, housing, health and labour. The values that the CA promotes are identified in the strategic framework that defines the programme: co-existence, co-operation, social cohesion, creativity and community. As stated in a CA document: “these values emphasize the need to improve dialogue within a framework of diversity, increase interactions between individuals and organisations, social ties in the community, solidarity, transformative action and social innovation”. In addition, from the perspective of the internal administration of the agreement, the desire is for “the values that preside to be closely related to democratic governance, networking and quality of work”.

Signing the Agreement means joining a network that provides opportunities for access to and exchange of information, resources and knowledge. It also promotes projects in which co-operation between diverse entities and organisations in the city is key.4 The CA is organised on different levels: (a) There is an annual meeting of all the signatories to the agreement, in which participants provide an account of the work they have carried out during the year and agree on the direction of the work for the following year. (b) There is a 4Ayuntamiento de Barcelona [Barcelona City Council] 2012)

10

governing council, which is a deliberative and decision-making body that shapes the development of the agreement. (c) There are work commissions, formed by organisations that temporarily work on concrete issues, and (d), there are action networks formed by organisations, institutions and other bodies that work in specific sectors,which establish common objectives to improve the work they do.

These networks are integrated by organisations and city institutions that share concrete methodologies and goals; they co-operate and direct their shared work toward common strategic and operational objectives. The networks begin with a desire to work together on a particular issue or matter and achieve improvements in the respective fields of the participants. Each network is independent and has, based on its objectives, its own dynamics and work plan.

At the time of this study (summer 2012), 10 networks had been formed that were working on the following objectives:-Network for the reception and support of immigrants in BarcelonaThis network was formally constituted in February 2007 and includes 89 organisations. Its objective is to aid recent arrivals take up residence in the city. It does so by sharing information, providing advice and counselling and covering the basic needs of recently arrived persons and families. - Network for assistance to the homelessCreated in November 2005 and constituted by 25 organisations and federations. The social organisations that are participants in this network are committing to working together to help homeless persons regain autonomy and social relations. - Network of businesses with social responsibility projectsBegun in April 2007, participants are businesses with social projects that collaborate through the Barcelona municipal government in the social initiatives of social organisations. This network has carried out approximately 30 action projects. - Network for social and labour market integrationCreated in April 2006, this network is made up of 49 organisations and its objective is to coordinate the effort of public authorities and other social agents that work to find employment for persons in situations of vulnerability.- Network of centres for children and teens

11

This network is formed by 17 organisations and was constituted in April 2006. Its aim is to improve the city’s responsiveness to children and adolescents in situations of social risk.-Support Network for family caregiversCreated in 2007, this network of 18 organisations promotes the work of the organisations and other entities that support family caregivers assisting persons with illnesses that lead to the loss of autonomy.

12

- Inclusion housing networkConstituted in June 2010 by 15 organisations, there are now 40 participating organisations. The network reflects the work of a significant number of social organisations focused on residential inclusion. These organisations manage housing for persons or families at risk of social exclusion.- Cultural network for social inclusionConstituted in May 2010,this network’s 23 organisations fight against inequalities in access to cultural and educational capital. They believe that culture is a form of empowerment and a mechanism for generating inclusion and citizenship.- Network for children’s’ rightsThis network was formed in 2011 based on the prior experiences of different organisations in the organisation of Universal Children’s Day. There are 19 organisations and federations participating in the network with the objective of strengthening the city’s ability to defend and promote the rights of children.- Network for co-existence and preventionThis network is in a phase of consolidation. It was formed in 2011 and includes the main organisations involved in the prevention and management of social conflict and aggression toward individuals and public and private property. There are currently 11 organisations in the network.

B. Why is it a social innovation?

The ultimate goal of the programme is a redistribution of responsibilities in the social welfare sector in Barcelona through a broad agreement among representatives of the main social agents in the sector. The intention is to create a strategic framework shared by all participating entities. This is a new philosophy, which integrates the diversity of activities that are carried out in the local social welfare system into a single framework or joint strategy. It is based on a policy decision to coordinate the diverse activities of the different social actors. No one loses their space for action; rather, it is possible to improve results by combining efforts.

In this sense, the promoters of the programme intended to establish a new form of governance for the local welfare system involving third sector organisations.

13

The agreement established two annual deliberative sessions, in addition to training sessions and perhaps most importantly and what is the backbone of the CA, thematic or issue based networks.

The development of this programme has been made possible by the confluence of two types of social processes acting in opposite directions: a top-down process and a bottom-up process. In other words, the CA emerged as a policy driven by local politicians, but it crystallised because of the dynamism of the third sector that manages (sometimes alongside of local government and sometimes as its substitute) a significant part of the local welfare system.

Schumpeter says regarding the economic sphere that “The fundamentalist impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers’ goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates (Schumpeter, 1968, pp. 120). We can also argue that in the political sphere - understanding “political” as referring to the polis -, political systems are affected in an important way by new forms of organising action, by a process of creative destruction that constantly revolutionises organisational structures from within, destroying the old and creating new elements.

C. Social processes

(a) The “top-down process”

Current social service systems in Spain’s cities were designed after the re-establishment of democracy (the first local elections after the end of the Franco dictatorship took place in 1979). The decentralisation of political competencies means that Spain’s autonomous regions must attend to the social needs of their populations, developing their own laws and social service programmes and systems. The legal system also mandates that Spain’s large municipalities have their own responsibilities for the provision of social services.

With the onset of democracy, political leaders had the opportunity to design a new social welfare system. Barcelona was governed for more than thirty years

14

(from 1979 until 2010) by left-wing parties led by the Socialist Party of Catalonia. Leading the Department of Social Welfare for a significant part of this period were individuals sensitive to the need to strengthen civil society. Even before the idea of “governance” had become important in Europe (and even more so in Spain), involving civil society and strengthening the third sector were important goals for local political leaders in this area. The first proposal in this direction was the creation of a Municipal Social Welfare Council [Consejo Municipal de Bienestar Social (CMBS)]. The CMBS, created in 1988 as a consultative and participatory body in the city’s social welfare system, had as its objectives “to promote a culture of social well-being in the city, to validate the direction of social policy and to foster collaboration between the actors involved”5. This policy initiated the participation and collaboration of different social actors: political parties, trade unions, universities and non-profit organisations.

The subsequent step was the elaboration of a Comprehensive Plan for Social Services [Plan Integral de Servicios Sociales] for Barcelona, as a shared project among government institutions and private entities that were involved in the provision of social services. In 1995, the Barcelona City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan, the result of the work carried out by 138 city institutions and private entities that were constituted in the Barcelona Association for the Development of Social Action [Associación Barcelona por el desarrollo de la Acción Social (ABAS)] in 1999. After an analysis of the situation, the Plan defined the strategic direction that should guide policy. The Plan’s main objective was: “to achieve a more integrated and inclusive city, with the active solidarity of all its citizens….. To do this, [it was proposed] to construct a model of social services based on the public responsibility that underpins public and private co-operation, encourages civic participation and optimises the management of human resources”6.

Out of these proposals, and as a result of actions based on the Comprehensive Plan, the Citizens’ Agreement was proposed. The CA is an additional step on the path initiated by Barcelona’s Department of Social Welfare, because if the CMBS was – and is – an advisory body, the CA has as its main goal involving the city’s

5See: http://w3.bcn.es/V45/Home/V45HomeLinkPl/0,3698,88652498_88654198_1,00.html6 http://www.bcn.es/plaintegral

15

main social actors in welfare policy, creating a space for collaborative effort. This is a redrawing of responsibilities between the government and civil society.

“Conceptually, it is very new, but it is a plan of the local government; in other words, financed through municipal resources. It creates a space for meetings between the local government and social organisations for the purpose of participating in common projects” (I-1 WILCO Project).

“As the CA was defined, its intention is to strengthen the city’s organisational capacity and capacity for action to face today’s social challenges. The Agreement is a space for interaction to strengthen the government and private or civic response. The municipal government is the leader, but as a democratic representative of the “polis”, not as an operator” (I-1 WILCO Project).

In contrast to earlier participatory approaches, the CA looks to create a shared strategic framework for action. Once this framework is developed and approved, meetings are organised to discuss new issues or those on which sufficient consensus has not yet been reached. The backbone of the CA is the action networks. There were originally 6 networks and there are currently 10 on different social issues. Each network has its own dynamic and is open to any organisation or body interested in working on any aspect of the issue that has signed the Agreement. There are certain networks that have advanced doing common projects (from small projects to programmes for the whole city) and others that are still in an exploratory stage. The majority share resources and information. The networks are autonomous; however, a representative from the municipal government participates in each.

“At first we didn’t know what we wanted to do, but we wanted to be together” (I-2 WILCO)

(b) The “bottom-up dimension”

Traditionally, the city of Barcelona (and the Autonomous Region of Catalonia) has been characterised by its vibrant civil society with its strong associational

16

network. The importance of third sector organisations - private entities that manage welfare services - has increased significantly since the end of the 1980s (Montagut, 2011a).

These organisations formed the Board of Third Sector Organisations in Catalonia [Taula d’Entitats del Tercer Sector Social de Catalunya] in 2003as their representative body. The third sector in Catalonia is composed of approximately 7,500 organisations, with 100,000 workers and 245,000 volunteers. It represents approximately 2.8% of Catalonia’s GDP. (69% of these organisations are located in the metropolitan area of Barcelona.)

These third sector organisations argue that the social innovation they contribute gives them a key role to play. In a study carried out during 2009 and 2010 by the Institute of Childhood and the Urban World [Consorcio de Infancia y Mundo Urbano (CIIMU)] (Montagut, 2011b) on the Third Sector in Barcelona in the childhood and family sphere, it was found that third sector organisations are not in competition with the public sector, rather they are complementary. Some respondents in the study said that among the contributions the third sector makes to society is the fact that it is closer to the public, closer to social problems. In addition, they see the third sector as more empathetic and committed, and that in contrast, the function of the public sector is to guarantee justice and equity:

“The third sector is more responsive and can react more rapidly than the public sector because of its structure and definition” (I-7 CIIMU)

Third sector organisations see themselves as complementing the activity of local government, particularly in regards to prevention and innovation, as they are able to act more freely, not having to follow the administrative protocols which define the “service portfolio” that the government offers. The third sector sees itself as better able to anticipate new needs and design new programmes. However, when it comes to long-term planning or incorporating innovation as an important element in their organisation, they face the difficulty of having to invest time and money that they do not have in designing and planning; this is a problem for small organisations in particular. However, this problem can be

17

overcome through closer collaboration between the third sector and local government.

“One of the important points of innovation is working in networks because it permits us to reach places we could not have imagined reaching” (GT-1 CIIMU)

Joint work is seen as the way to move beyond the limits of each sector. Collaboration or networking from the perspective of different responsibilities means that the establishment of a network for joint work is an element of innovation par excellence. These horizontal links make innovation more likely.

“Innovative dynamics are generated. Innovation is what drives the network for an inclusive Barcelona…. These are consolidated networks as the actors that form part of the networks are operators and providers of services, therefore, the value added by the network is that it is often a platform for innovation” (E-10 CIIMU)

III. In conclusion: Obstacles and opportunities

In conclusion, the Citizens’ Agreement project is an example of innovation in governance in Barcelona. In my understanding, this is a project that permits a productive use of the concept of “social innovation”. As previously explained, social innovation in this case is the result of two processes (top-down and bottom-up), with a level of involvement of both civil society and the government that suggests that it would be difficult to reverse the gains made.

However, a process of change in the governance of the local social welfare system generates tensions between established structures and the values that are associated with these structures. When we use a social innovation approach, in the sense of reshaping society toward greater citizen empowerment and participation, the initial difficulty we face is the rigidity of the public sector. The culture of the public sector is rooted in a top-down approach, as policies are designed by the government and applied to the public. This culture sees

18

demands or social problems as the responsibility of public institutions, assigning users or stakeholders a passive role that does not involve them in the definition or design of social policy. There is a lack of recognition of the organisations and initiatives of civil society that aim to improve the ability of individuals to take an active role in shaping policy and local development (BEPA, 2010 pp.115).

This is the main obstacle that has had to be overcome in this project. The rigidity of the public sector and the public employees that ensure the completion of administrative regulations is very difficult to change.

“You don’t know what it took in City Hall. And because it was pushed by who pushed it….if not it would have been impossible. They had the ability to negotiate and impose their strategy. It was about going from managing City Hall to managing the city” (I-2 WILCO).

But difficulties were found not only because of the administrative structure of local government. The CA also signified a change in the distribution of power. Participation is not always easy to manage and sometimes “giving a voice” to third sector organisations can be problematic. Opposition parties in the government were originally quite suspicious of the CA, as they believed it would strengthen the governing party.

However, in May 2011 there was a change in the city government. After more than 30 years with the Catalan Socialist party in City Hall, the CiU(Convergència i Unió), a centre-right alliance of two Catalan nationalist parties, won the elections. The new city government has been in power for more than one year, enough time to see whether the main policies of the previous government are well-established and form part of a broad social consensus. From the interviews carried out for the WILCO study, it seems that the Citizens’ Agreement is now consolidated and has the full support of the new government.

That a significant part of third sector organisations in Barcelona are involved suggests that it would be very difficult to reverse course at this point. The directors and staff of these organisations and their volunteers are committed and now form part of the city government’s welfare system. In addition, other institutions, such as universities and professional associations are also involved.

19

It would be very difficult to return to the previous process, as eliminating a participatory process of this type would have political repercussions.

“The first time that the new government representative attended a meeting of the CA they could see that it was something different from an advisory board. We could almost say that today it has much broader support as the pressure from the municipal government structure has disappeared. It is now seen as something of both the municipal government and the organisations, and they see very clearly that they must act based on the Agreement” (I-1 WILCO)

Regarding the public, in the short term it is likely that users of welfare programmes and services have not noted any changes. However, if the CA continues as a form of public/private governance of the welfare system, there should be, in the medium term, changes in certain aspects of the system that will affect the welfare of users and the general public. The combination of public and private resources should generate a more effective welfare structure and aid in achieving the objective of a more inclusive city. This is connected to the idea of co-responsibility for the common good. Social welfare is not only the responsibility of the city government. The general population must assume some responsibility for making a more cohesive society.

A major challenge that some countries have begun to address is the lack of a culture of democracy. How is co-responsibility for public affairs fostered among non-government actors? In a period of economic and political turbulence, the need for the emergence of these types of innovations that advance the common good seems undeniable. Welfare has, by necessity, become an essential sphere for policy innovation as a consequence of governmental changes and difficulties.

According to Schumpeter, economic change is impossible without the necessary “social climate” that permits it. In the economic process production depends not only on capital and labour but on technology. Technology is incorporated through investment. Investment depends on the level of profits and the supply of entrepreneurs. And the supply of entrepreneurs is a function of the social climate.

20

Regarding the social process we can also talk about the necessary social climate that facilitates change. The CA offers a great opportunity to redefine the public and private spheres. It provides an opportunity to strengthen the bonds between citizens. Local governments must also redefine their function. More than providing direct services, they should have a role as coordinators, as procurers of resources and guarantors of rights. The CA creates the necessary “social climate” that permits this.

In short, the creation of a network between government and civil society, where responsibilities are divided and shared between these two spheres, is an element of social efficiency that can aid in creating a more cohesive and inclusive society.

July 2012

21

References

Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, (2012) Acord Ciutadà per una Barcelona Inclusiva. Memoria d'activitats 2011. Barcelona. Ayuntamiento de Barcelona

Becker, H. and Vanclay, F. (2003) The International Handbook of SIA. Cheltenham: E. Elgar.

BEPA (2010) Empowering people, driving change: Social Innovation in the European Union. Brussels, European Comission (2010)

Durkheim, E. (1982) La división social del trabajo. Madrid: Akal

Giner, S. (2004) Teoría Sociológica clásica. Barcelona, Ed. Ariel

Herranz, R. (2011) "Innovación, mercados e incertidumbre en la sociología económica clásica" in Revista Internacional de Organizaciones. Tarragona: Universidad Rovira y Virgili, nº 7

McCraw, T. K. (2007) Prophet of innovation. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, USA.

Moulaert, F and Mehmood, A. (2011) “Spaces of social innovation”, in Pike, Rodrígez-Pose and Tomaney Handbook of local and regional development. Routledge,

Montagut, T. (2011) La funció del tercer sector en l'àmbit d'infància, adolescència i famílies. Barcelona, CIIMU

Montagut, T (2011) "Assessing the Welfare Mix: Public and Private in the Realm of Social Welfare" in Guillen, M. and León, M: The Spanish Welfare State in European Context. England: Ashgate Publishing

Osborne, S.P. and Brown, L. (2011) “Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK: The word that would be king?” in Public Administration, Vol. 89, nº 4. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Phills, J.A., Deiglmeier, K. and Miller, D.T. (2008) “Rediscovering Social Innovation”, Standford Social Innovation Review, fall, 2008. Standford: Standford Graduate School of Business.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1968) Capitalismo, socialismo y democracia. Madrid, Aguilar.

Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1976) Teoria del desenvolvimiento económico. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica

Schumpeter, Joseph A. (2002) Ciclos económicos: Análisis teórico, histórico y estadístico del proceso capitalista. Zaragoza: PrensasUniversitarias de Zaragoza

Simmel, G. (1986) El individuo y la libertad. Barcelona: Península.

Vale, A (2009) “A new paradigm for Social Intervention” in Social Innovation, New Perspectives. Lisbon: Sociedade e Trabalho Booklets, nº 12.

Weber, M. (1984) La acción social: Ensayos metodológicos. Barcelona, Península.

WILCO Project (2011-2013) http://www.wilcoproject.eu/

22