Using Resilience Theory to Examine Public Policy and Social Innovation

fosteringsocialinnovationinCanadathrough

research • education • advocacy • collaboration

WORKINGPAPER

TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson:

UsingResilienceTheorytoExamine

PublicPolicyandSocialInnovation

MicheleLeeMooreFrancesWestleyOlaTjornboCarinHolroyd

WorkingPaperNo.003

January2010

SocialInnovationGeneration@UniversityofWaterloo

TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page2

Tosendcommentstotheauthorspleasecontact:

MicheleLeeMooreMcConnellFellow,SiG@Waterloomlmoore@balsillieschool.caFrancesWestleyJ.W.McConnellChairinSocialInnovationSocialInnovationGeneration,UniversityofWaterloofwestley@uwaterloo.caOlaTjornboMcConnellFellowSocialInnovationGeneration,UniversityofWaterlooolatjornbo@btinternet.comCarinHolroydDepartmentofPoliticalScience,FacultyofArtsSocialInnovationGeneration,[email protected]

________

IfyouwouldliketobeaddedtoourmailinglistorhavequestionsregardingourWorkingPaperSeriespleasecontactinfo@sig.uwaterloo.ca

Pleasevisitwww.sig.uwaterloo.catofindoutmoreinformationonSocialInnovationGenerationattheUniversityofWaterloo(SiG@Waterloo).


SocialInnovationGeneration@UniversityofWaterloo

WORKINGPAPER

TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson:

UsingResilienceTheorytoExaminePublicPolicyandSocialInnovation*

MicheleLeeMooreFrancesWestleyOlaTjornboCarinHolroyd

WorkingPaperNo.003January2010

_____________________________

*DRAFTforDISCUSSION–Pleasedonotquotewithoutauthors’permission



Abstract

Socialinnovationisanimportantcomponentofbeingresilient–newideaswillkeepasociety

adaptable,flexibleandlearning.Therefore,thebettertheunderstandingoftheconditionsthatenable

innovationsnotonlytoemerge,buttotakehold,becomeroutinizedwithinourbroadersocial

structures,andthentofacedisruptionordisturbance,thegreaterthecapacityhumanswillhavetobe

resilient.Oneoftheseconditionsprovidesspacefortheroleofthestateandpublicpolicy.Atthe

broadestlevel,certainpoliticalphilosophiesprivilegeemergenceandinnovationmorethanothers.

Withinallregimes,however,numerousoptionsexistforpolicytoolsthatcould,andinmanycases,

havebeenusedtofostersocialinnovation.Theimportantquestionforapolicymakeriswhichpolicy

leverandwhen?Thispaperwilluseresiliencetheoryandtheadaptivecycletoarguethatdifferent

policieshavegreaterimpactatspecificpointsoftimeinthecycleofsocialinnovation.Therefore,

recognizingthedistinctphasesofsocialinnovationiscentraltounderstandingwhichpolicywillbe

mostsuitable.


IntroductiontoSocialInnovation

Socialinnovationisdefinedhereasanynewprogram,product,ideaorinitiativethat

profoundlychangesthebasicroutines,resourceandauthorityflowsorbeliefsofanysocialsystem.

Successfulsocialinnovationshavedurabilityandbroadimpact.Socialentrepreneurshipontheother

hand,referstoindividualswithavalue‐based,socialmissionwhopursueopportunitieswithinthe

marketcontext,whethertheirownorganizationisconsiderednon‐profit,charity,orforprofit

(Nicholls,2006).Themarketorientationisoneofthecleardistinctionsbetweentheworkinthesocial

entrepreneurshipfieldandthatofsocialinnovation,associalinnovationdoesnotrequirethemarket

contextandquiteoftenmaychallengeexistingeconomicmodelsandideologies.

Additionally,socialinnovationisfocusedonsystemicchange.Whileasuccessfulsocial

entrepreneurmayberecognizedonceamarketdemandhasbeencreatedandtheinnovationdiffuses

fromonetomanypeople,asocialinnovationdisruptsalargerinstitutionalcontext(Westley,2008).

Thus,theinnovationmayoccurdependingonpolitical,culturaloreconomicopportunitiesand

therefore,doesnotrelyonaspecific,incrementalvolumeofadoptiontobeconsideredasuccess

(Westley,2008).Therelationshipbetweenthetwoasareasofstudyandpracticeisthatsomesocial

innovationswilloccurasaresultoftheworkofsocialentrepreneurs.Likewise,thelessonsand

knowledgethathasbeenadvancedaboutsuccessfulsocialentrepreneurs(e.g.Leadbeater,1997;Dees,

1998;Nicholls,2006;Bornstein,2007)isusefulforunderstandingandcomparingtheentrepreneurs

disruptingentiresystems.

Agrowingbodyofworkfocusesontheroleofentrepreneurs,partnershipswithprivateactors

andnon‐profits,theroleoffoundations,andthesupportofsocialnetworksincreatingtheconditions

thatenablethegenerationandsustainabilityofsocialinnovations.Butinpractice,theroleofpublic

policyandgovernmentshasalsocometotheforefrontofdiscussionsaboutsocialinnovation.Some

attempttocoordinateandsupporttheenergyofsocialentrepreneursandsocialenterpriseshasbeen

made,withexamplessuchastheOfficeoftheThirdSectorintheUKandthenewlycreatedCentrefor

SocialInnovationintheUS.Othergovernmentshavechosensimplytopromotethe“production”of

innovation,withfundingforresearchanddevelopmentandthetechnologysectors.Yet,whilefunding

innovativeinitiativescanbeoneoption,itneglectstheactualcontextthatmayhavecreatedtheneed


forinnovativesolutionsinthefirstplaceandtherefore,maydolittletoeffectsystemicchange.

Politicalintentaside,alackofdebateandunderstandingabouttherangeofpolicyoptionsthatcould

bestsupporttheprocessofsocialinnovationisminimalamongstbothpractitionersandscholars.The

conceptualpiecepresentedhereisourattempttobeginamoreextensivediscussion.Thispaper

arguesthatsuccessfulsocialinnovationhasatleastfourdistinctphasesandtherefore,different

policiesareneededtosupportsocialinnovationdependingonthephase.Therefore,policymakers

needtounderstandwhattheyaretryingtochangeandthephaseofthepossiblesolutionsthatare

availableorthatcouldbecreated.

TheCycleofSocialInnovation

Socialinnovationisanimportantcomponentofbeingresilient–newideaswillkeepasociety

adaptable,flexibleandlearning.Therefore,thebettertheunderstandingoftheconditionsthatenable

innovationsnotonlytoemerge,buttotakehold,becomeroutinizedwithinourbroadersocial

structures,andthentofacedisruptionordisturbance,thegreaterthecapacityhumanswillhavetobe

resilient.Thetheoryofresilienceprovidesameaningfullenstoimprovethisunderstandingandisused

asabasistoframetheargumentpresentedhere.

Resiliencetheorystemsfromworkinecologyinthe1970sandtheadaptivecycle(orinfinity

loop)isakeyfeature.Thetheoryrestsupontheideathatanyresilientecosystemisdynamically

movingthroughanadaptivecycleandthatremainingstagnantinafixedequilibriumisnothealthy.The

adaptivecyclehasatleastfourdistinctphasesinwhatisbestpicturedasafigureeight,whichare

exploitation,conservation,release,andreorganization(Gunderson&Holling,2002).Ratherthan

focusingonecosystems,thisworkexamineshowinnovationsmayimprovetheresilienceofoursocial

ecologicalsystems.Indoingso,itappliesresiliencetheoryandtheadaptivecycletoconsiderthefour

phasesthatsocialinnovationsmustgothrough.

Essentially,resiliencetheoryindicatesthatatanygiventimeadisturbancecanaffectasystem,

whetheritisafinancialcrisis,anaturaldisaster,orsomeothertypeofeventthatmaycreateatipping

point,andthenresourcesandcapital,includingsocialcapital,intellectualcapitalalongwithmore


traditionalformssuchasfinancialcapitalarereleased,orfreedup.Duetothedisturbanceorcrisis,a

breakdownmayoccurinsomeexistingsocialstructureswhichcanpresentbothaperiodofseeming

chaos,butalsoaplacewhereemergencecanoccur;thatis,differentinteractionsmaynowtakeplace

amongstthenewlyfreedupresources,andnewknowledgeandnewideasmayariseasaresultofthe

newconnections.Asimilarideaofacycleisreflectedinliteratureonprivatesectorinnovation,and

theperiodofmassivedisturbanceisfrequentlyreferredtoasSchumpeter’s(1942)processofcreative

destruction.

Intheadaptivecycle,oncethedisturbanceandtheincreasedactivityandinteractionsoccurs,

thesystemmovesintothebackpartofthefigureeightloop.Inthisbackloopofthesocialinnovation

process,somepeoplemaystarttoclusteraroundthenewideasthathaveemergedorstartto

reorganizethemselveswithotherswhoshareasimilarvisionforthefuture.Itisinthebackloopwhere

truenoveltyandinnovationislikelytoemerge.

Movingforwardintothefrontloop,choicesaremadethatsupportorshowcasecertain

innovations,whichproveitseffectivenessormeaningfulness.Manyinnovationsgettrappedhereand

cannotmoveintothefrontloop.Commonwisdomisthatmanyexcellentnewideasregularlyemerge,

buttheyareunableorunsuccessfulinchallengingpeopleattherighttimetoensuresupportorin

framingtheirinnovationinawaythatmakesitappearaslegitimate,desirableandneeded.

Consequently,sufficientresourcesareneverdevotedtotheseinnovations.Theliteratureaboutsocial

entrepreneursoftenexploresquestionsabouthowandwhysomepeoplearebetterabletoachieve

thisstep.

Ifresourcesdobegintobedevotedtothatinnovation,othersocialstructuresbegintoemerge,

whetherthisinvolvescertainnormsbecomingwidelyaccepted,institutionsbeingcreated,or

regulationsbeingestablished.Inanybroadsocialsystem,numerousadaptiveloopsthatrepresentsub‐

systemswouldexistinvariousphasesoftheadaptivecycleatanygiventime.Usingatechnological

example,wecanthinkoftheInternetasitmovedfrombeinganideaofafewpeople,tobeginningto

gainsupportandresourcestodevelopit,thenactuallybeingabletogainuserswhowouldsupportthe

innovationasanimportanttool,whichgarneredfurtherresources,andslowlyitsusebegantobe

institutionalizedandinturn,institutionsrelatedtoitsregulationanditsfurtherdevelopmentallbegan


tobeestablished.Atthesametime,wecanimaginethehardwareforwirelesstechnologyatanyofits

phasesinanotherloop.Mostsignificantlyistheinteractionbetweentheloops–whenaninnovationis

abletoactuallycrossscalesintoalargersystem.

SocialInnovation:WhatRoleforGovernment?

Wepositthatgovernmenthasaroleinsocialinnovation.Butwhatdoesthetheoryofresilience

indicatetheroleofpublicpolicytobewithregardstosocialinnovation?Firstly,itemphasizesthatthe

roleisgoingtobedynamicthroughouttheprocessandtherefore,thispaperarguesthatnosingle

policyisgoingtobeusefulfortheentireinnovationlifecycle.Yetwhileboththeliteratureon

innovationandthevarietyofliteratureemergingongovernanceconcursthatgovernmentsnowneed

tobeflexible,adaptive,andthattheyneedtoengagewithnonstateactorssuchastheprivatesector

inordertoenableandsupportinnovation,whatdoesthisactuallymeanforpublicpolicy?Whatforms

ofgovernancehavebeendevelopedtotacklecomplexproblems?

Althoughthereisalackofscholarshiplinkinggovernancetosocialinnovation,variousattempts

havebeenmadetocreategovernanceparadigmsdesignedtoallowgovernmenttomanagecomplex

problems.Inthefieldofecologyforexample,buildingonresiliencetheory,agroupofresearchers

havecreatedtheconceptofadaptivegovernance,designedtocreatetheidealconditionsforbuilding

resilientsocialecologicalsystems(Olsson,etal.,2004a;Olsson,etal.,2004b;Folke,etal.,2005;

Olsson,etal.,2006).Anotherparadigmisreflexivegovernance(Voß,etal.,2006)createdtoallow

effectiveresponsesinsituationswhereuncertaintyishigh,decisionmakingpoweriswidelyand

unequallydispersedandthereisconflictbetweeninterestgroupsovervaluesandgoals.Thekindsof

challengesthesetwoparadigmsareintendedtoaddressareroughlyanalogoustothechallengeof

socialinnovationwhenitisexaminedthrougharesiliencelensandhence,shouldmarkapromising

startingpointforthisstudy.

Promisingly,thereisagreatdealofoverlapbetweentheseparadigms,indicatingthatsome

agreementexistsaboutthegovernanceelementsthatareimportantwhencomplexproblemsareat

stake(seefig.1).Itshouldbeimmediatelyapparentfromthetablethatneitheroftheseparadigmsis


focusedatthelevelofconcretepublicpolicy,rathertheyaredescribingdesirablecharacteristicsof

entiregovernancesystems.Wehaveadditionallygroupedtheseintothemes,thoughinsomecases,a

singleelementfitsintomorethanonetheme.

Fig.1:ThemesofComplexityGovernance

GovernanceTheme ElementsofReflexiveGovernance(FromVossandKemp2006)

ElementsofAdaptiveGovernance(SynthesizedfromOlssonetal2006;Olsson,FolkeandBerkes2004andOlsson,FolkeandHahn2004)

Transdisciplinaryknowledgeproduction

Transdisciplinaryknowledgeproduction

Integrationandmobilizationofdiversesetsofknowledge

Governanceasongoingexperiment

Experimentsandadaptivityofstrategiesandinstitutions

Ongoingexperimentationinecosystemmanagementactions;Monitoring

Participatoryapproaches Iterative,participatorygoalformulation

Collaborationofmultipleanddiverseactors;Selforganization;Developmentandmobilizationofsocialnetworkstofacilitateleaning,knowledgesharingandcollaboration

Continuouslearning Interactivestrategydevelopment

Dynamiclearning;Monitoring

Takingasystemsperspective Anticipationoflong‐termsystemiceffects

Wholesystemsperspective

Flexibility Experimentsandadaptivityofstrategiesandinstitutions

Flexibility;Sitespecificity

Itisclearthatthetwoparadigmsdonotgiveequalweighttoallthethemesandelementswe

haveidentified.Thismaypartlybeexplainedbythefactthatadaptivegovernanceismoresensitiveto

theneedforaccurateandcredibleknowledgeandthereforeconcentratesonknowledgeandlearning

networks,whilereflexivegovernanceismorecautiousandrecognizesthatparticipatoryapproaches


ofteninvolvevalueconflictsthatneedtoberesolvedbeforelargerproblemsolvingbecomespossible

andthereforeemphasizesgoalsandstrategies.

Althoughthethemesdescribedinthistabledonotfocusonthelevelofpolicy,theymaybe

usefulinhelpingtocategorizetypesofpolicyaction.Forexample,policiesdirectedtowards

encouraginglearningmightincludemonitoringprogramsandlearningworkshops,whilepoliciesthat

encourageparticipationmightincludevolunteerprogramsandopenmeetings.Additionally,some

policieswilladditionallyachieveseveralaims,suchaschallengegrants(discussedfurtherinthesection

ReorganizationPhase)mightencourageparticipation,experimentationandselectionofinnovations.

Usingthesecategorieswecanbegintounderstandthebroadrangeofactivitiesthatgovernmentis

abletoengageinasameanstoaddresscomplexproblems.

Strikinglyhowever,thenotionthatthetaskofgovernancechangesovertimeisneglectedby

bothoftheseparadigms.Althoughtheyemphasizeflexibilityandlearningandclearlyrecognizethat

complexproblemsareconstantlyevolving,neitherhasattemptedthetaskofnavigatingthese

problemsintodistinctstagesrequiringdifferenttypesofintervention.Infact,thereisatendencyto

placeagreateremphasisonconstantexperimentationanddeliberation,whichwhilecrucialforthe

releaseandreorganizationphasesoftheadaptivecycle,arecostlyandinefficientinthelongrunand

mayinfactpreventthesystemfromtransitioningtoaconservationstagewhichisanecessarypartof

thesocialinnovationcycle.Thispaperarguesthatthistypeofunderstandingiscriticaltomanagingthe

processofsocialinnovation.Undoubtedlyallofthetypesofpolicycategoriesaswellasthe

characteristicsofthesegovernancesystemsarenecessaryfornavigatingtheseprocess,theymaynot

allbenecessaryorevenhelpfulifemployedatthesametimeratherthanatdifferentstageofthecycle

whendifferenttypesofpolicyactionmaybeneeded.

Yet,staticgovernancemodels(thosethatfocusonremaininginoneortwostagesonly)

continuetoprevailandonlyafterseriouscalamitydotheybecomecalledintoquestion.Thiscanbe

observedbylookingattheeffectoftherecenteconomiccrashonthefinancialpolicyenvironment.

Beforethecrisis,theemphasisformanywasonderegulation,privateinvestment,privatizingfinancial

institutionsandencouragingflexibility,creativityandfreedominthefinancialeconomy.Theeffectsof

thisapproacharewellknownandthecallsforareversalofpolicycamequicklyafterthecrash.The


statewasforcedtoinvestheavilyinkeepingtheprivateinstitutionsafloatwiththeresultthatithas

becomeamajorityshareholderinmanycasesandinothershasfullynationalizedpreviouslyprivate

organizations.Alongwiththisinvestmenthavecomecallsforregulationandparticularlyforaclamp

downonbonuses.Althoughthereissupportforthiseconomicmodel,thereisalsocriticismbythose

arguingthatalthoughregulationmayhavebeeneffectiveinpreventingthecrash,whatwillnowbe

neededistoallowtheeconomytoretainitsfreedomtoallowplentyofroomfornewenterpriseso

thatrecoverycanbegintooccur.Fromaresilienceperspectivewecansaythatatransitionfrom

conservationtoreleasephaseshasoccurredandpolicymakersneedtopaycloseattentiontothe

changingconditionsandtailorpolicyaccordingly,ratherthansimplyreinforcingthesystemthat

persistedbefore.

Currently,numerousoptionsforpolicytoolsthatcould,andinmanycases,havebeenusedto

fostersocialinnovationexist,including:regulation,subsidies,theindirectprovisionofservices(e.g.

financialsupportforuniversities),thedirectprovisionofservices(e.g.medicalcare),taxarrangements,

enforcementandimplementationagreements,signaling(e.g.employmentequityprovisions),

awarenesscampaigns,incentivesforconsumers,incentivesforbusinesses,RoyalCommissionsand

otherconveningexercises,andawards.

Thedifficultyisinunderstandingwhichpolicyleverismostsuitedtoenablingsocialinnovation

andwhenshoulditbeused.Thispaperarguesthatdifferentpoliciesaregoingtobemoreuseful

dependingontheactualphaseofinnovationandthattheadaptivecycleisahelpfultooltoconsider

theimpactsofdifferentpolicytoolsinthefourdifferentphasesofsocialinnovation.

ExamplesofthePolicySocialInnovationRelationship

Forthissection,wewilldescribethecharacteristicsofthephasesofsocialinnovationinmoredetail

anddescribepotentialpolicyinitiativesthatwouldbewellplacedinthedifferentphases,using

examplestoillustrate.


ReleasePhase:Policyapproachesfor“sensemaking”forcomplexproblemsand/orwhenno

tangibleinnovationclearlyexists

Thereleasephaseimmediatelyfollowsaperiodofcreativedestruction,oradisruptiontoa

system.Inthisphase,thegreatestneedisfornewideasandcreativesolutionsasopposedtocreating

amarketorscalingupanexistinginnovation.Theopportunitycontextmayseemopaqueinthisphase,

withpeoplegenuinelyuncertainabout“whattherightideais”andhowtomakeanythingsignificant

happen.Infact,manywillnotagreeyetonthedefinitionoftheproblemitself.Simultaneously,some

groupswillresistthevulnerabilityandchangebyattemptingtoreturntothepre‐disturbancestate,

whilemanyotherswillbeactivelyseekingandsupportiveofnewideasinthisphasemorethanany

other.Therefore,thisphaseiswheretheseedsofchangearetrulyplanted.

Withthelackofaclearproblemdefinitionandthehighlevelofuncertaintyaboutpotential

solutionsthatcharacterizethisphase,policyleversthepromotediscussion,sociallearning,and

creativesolutionstoaddresstheissuesareneeded.Researchhasshownthatnewknowledgeand

differentideasaremorelikelytoemergewhendiverseactorsthatdonotnormallyinteractclosely

withoneanotherareexposedandcomeincontactwitheachother(Burt,1992;Gilsing&Duysters,

2008)whichprovidesafoundationforpolicymakerstoconsider.However,oncethisinteraction

occurs,thepathmaygooneofthreedifferentways.Firstly,ifdecisionmakingprocessesaredesigned

toosimplyforthecomplexityorscaleofaproblem,quickconvergencemayoccur;thatis,everyone

quicklyagreesonthesamesolutionoridea(Mason,etal.,2008)whichmaybeusefulintermsofthe

rateatwhichdecisionsandchangecanhappen,butitcanalsoleadtosub‐optimalideasrapidly

spreading(Mason,etal.,2008).Theconsequenceisthatresourcesaredevotedtooneideawithout

adequateconsiderationandexplorationofnovelalternatives.

Secondly,whilediversityisneededamongactors,iftoomanydifferentsignalsandknowledge

inputsarereceivedbypeople,theircognitivelimitsmaybereached,whichcouldeventuallyleadto

possiblemisunderstandings(Mason,etal.,2008).Aswell,inorderforpeopletobewillingtosharethe

risksofinnovation,relationshipsthatarecharacterizedbytrustareimportant,whichisnotinherentto

relationshipsbetweenpeoplewhoneverinteractregularly(e.g.Uzzi,1997).Socialinnovationthen,


canreallyonlyfollowathirdpathwherethe“rightmix”ofdiversityandtrustisfound(Burt,2004;

Gilsing&Duysters,2008;Bodin&Crona,2009).

Publicpolicyinstrumentsthataremostusefulinthisphasethenarethosethatconvene

differentindividualsorgroupstogetherandprovideaforumforsharingideasandforbuildingtrusting

relationships.Multi‐stakeholdercollaborations,consultations,RoyalCommissions,andparticipatory

planningprocessesbasedonmodelssuchasFutureSearchareallexcellentexamplesoftoolsthatwill

helpfosternewinsights,newpartnerships,andnewsolutionstoemerge.

Proposition:Whencomplexproblemsneedtobebetterunderstoodandnewideasareneeded,

processesthatenableinteractionsandbuildtrustbetweenpreviouslydisconnectedgroupsarehelpful

tothegenerationofsocialinnovations.

ReorganizationPhase:PolicyLeverstoStimulateandSelectEntirelyNewInnovations

Inthereorganizationphase,theactualdefinitionoftheproblemisfarclearerthaninthe

releasephaseandtheresultisthatgroups,structures,andopinionsbecomingformedwhichwill

providetheeventualsupportofdifferentinnovationsthroughtheremainingtwophases.Infact,this

phasemarksakeytransitionfrommere“idea”toplanningforimplementation.Publicpoliciesthat

supportsocialinnovationinthisphasethenarethosethatassistinnovatorsandthenewlyformed

groupstodevelopshortandlongtermplansandthenencourageaselectionprocess.Thatis,forums

forthemeregenerationofnewideasarenotneededinthisphase;ratherdecisionsaboutwhich

innovationwillbechosenandtherefore,whichoneshouldbeinvestedinbecomesaprimaryconcern.

Manypotentiallygoodideaswillcomeforwardoutofthepreviousreleasephaseandoneofthemost

commonpitfallsistodevelopapolicyinthisphasethatonlycommitstoaprincipleof“fairness”inthe

distributionofresourcesforthenextphase,whichcantranslatetoprovidingonlyminimalsupportfor

anyandallinnovatorswithnosingleinnovationreceivingadequatesupporttosucceed.Wearguethe

“fairness”principleshouldinsteadbeembodiedintheopportunitiestoaccessandparticipateinthe

generationofnewinnovationsandthenintheprocessofselection.Withfiniteresourceswe


emphasizethatpoliciesneedtosupportselectionandthecapacityofgroupstocollectivelymake

informedchoicesabouthowtoinvestresources.

Oneofthemostsignificantdifficultieswithselectionprocessesthatgovernmentsandothers

faceisthelackofappropriateevaluationtechniquestomeasuresocialinnovationandtheoften

intangiblebenefitstheyprovide.Withoutappropriatemetrics,itbecomesdifficulttodeterminewhich

innovationisworthmovingtowardsthenextphase.

Pilotprojectswithcompleteevaluationsandchallengesthatencouragecompetitionand

partnershipsareeffectiveinthisphase.Examplesincludethe“BiketoWork”weekcampaignsthat

encouragepeopletoadoptdifferentmodesoftransportationforcommutingandprovideincentives

forgroupswhocollectivelybikethemostmileage,andtheUK’sBigGreenChallengewhichinvolvesa1

millionpoundchallengeintendedtostimulatecommunityledresponsetoclimatechange.The

Challengeorganizersselected100ofthemostpromisinggroups,whoreceivedsupportfromtheBig

GreenChallengeteamtodeveloptheirideasintodetailedplans.Fromthisgroup,10Finalistswere

shortlistedwhoarenowputtingtheirideasintopracticetocompeteforthe£1millionprize.Theyhave

untilOctober2009toreduceCO2emissionsintheircommunity.Whileitisstilltooearlytodetermine

theeffectivenessofthechallengeingeneratingsociallytransformativesolutions,earlyindicationsare

thatsomenovelideashaveemergedandthatthoseideashavecomefromcommunitiesandactors

thatarenottheusualsuspects,intermsofwhowouldnormallybeapplyingforfundingtoreduce

carbonemissions.

Otherpolicyoptionsincludeenablingtheinnovationstobeselectedthroughothermeans–inthis

case,thismaymeangovernmentssupporttheexistenceofcertainareaswhereinnovationcouldoccur

toensuretheycontinuetosurvive.Fundingforuniversitiesandeducation,grantsforthearts

community,andstudentloansareallexamplesofoptionsthatwouldsupportthisenabling

environment.

Proposition:policiesthatnotonlymotivateandrewardthegenerationofinnovativeideasbutalso

involveanevaluationprocesstoselectamongstthemanypotentialinnovations,isoneofthemore

successfuloptionsforthereorganizationphase.


ExploitationPhase:PolicyLeverstoScaleOutNewinnovations

Inthisphase,themostimportantstepbecomesleveragingresourcestosupportthe

developmentoftheinnovationselectedthroughthepreviousphase.Thisphasemayinvolvethefinal

developmentofinnovations.Oftenbythisphase,theinnovationhasalreadybeensuccessfulatalocal

scaleandthegoalbecomestoscaleouttheinnovationonabroaderscale.Scalingouthowever,may

requiredifferentcomponentstobecreatedthatwillcontributetoabroadersocialinnovation,as

describedintheRDSPexamplethatfollows.Forsocialinnovationsthatleadtotrulytransformative

change,thisphaseoftenplaceslessdemandontheinnovationandplacesgreateremphasison

requiringthestructuralbarrierstotheinnovationbeaddressed.Structuralchangewilltypicallyrequire

resourcesandasourceofauthorityorpowerthatmaynotpreviouslyhaveexistedforthoseseeking

thechange.Scholarsstudyingsocialmovements,networks,therelevanceofsocialcapital,innovation

intheprivatesector,ortheincreasingroleofarangeofactorsinglobalgovernanceallprovideuseful

insightsastohowdifferentpeopleandgroupsmayseektogainaccessandlegitimatelyleveragenew

resourcesincertaincircumstances.Buthowcanpublicpolicyproactivelysupportsocialinnovationsin

thisphase?

Oneexampleinvolvesthesocialinnovationofchanginghowindividualswithdisabilitiesare

caredforinCanada.AlEtmanskiinitiallycreatedPLAN,anorganizationthathelpsbuildlocalsupport

networksforchildrenwithdisabilitiesandtheirfamilies,whichwasmetwithgreatsuccess.

Recognizingthattheselocalnetworkswereinsufficienttochangeperceptionsandthelongterm

securityofindividualswithdisabilitiesmoresubstantiallyhowever,Etmanskiworkedwithothers,

includinggovernmentandfinancialexperts,tocreatetheRegisteredDisabilitySavingsPlan(RDSP)‐a

taxdeferredbondandmatchinggovernmentgrantthatenablestaxfreefundstobeinvestedand

savedlongtermforanindividualwithadisability,thatoneday,willlosehis/herparents,guardiansor

caregiversandwillrequireafinancialmeanstosurvive.

ByadoptingtheRDSPasapolicyoptiontofocuson,thegovernmentredirectednotonlyits

resources,butalsoapprovedthefinancialinstitutionswherefamiliescouldopenanRDSPproviding

somestructuralsupport.Asthefinancialinstitutionsbecameengagedintheprocess,othersalso

redirectedtheirresourcestoraisingawarenessabouttheissuesfacingfamilieswhereonememberhas


adisabilityandprovidingsupport.Forexample,oneoftheleadingpharmacychainscalledLondon

Drugsranacontestforfamilieswhocouldwina$1500startupcontributiontoafund.Inthisway,the

governmentpolicyofanRDSPhelpedtoleverageresourcesandtobegintheshiftingbeliefsystems

abouthowpeoplewithdisabilitiescanachievefinancialsecurityandintheprocessassistedan

innovationtomovetowardstheconservationphase.

Proposition:Policiesthatenablesocialinnovationsandtheinnovatorstoaccessresources,including

social,intellectualandfinancial,arecriticaltoscalingoutinnovationsfromlocalsuccessestobroader

systemicchange.Thesepoliciesofteninvolvedproactivelyaddressingstructuralbarrierstosocial

innovation,butmustbeveryspecificsoasnottoopenopportunitiesfornegativeorneedless

exploitationofscarceresources.

ConservationPhase:PolicyLeverstoEstablishAvailableInnovationsAstheNew“BusinessAsUsual”

Theconservationphaserepresentsaphasewhenthesysteminwhichthesocialinnovationis

operatingisquitemature;thatis,mostoftheavailableresourcesandcapitalareinvestedintoexisting,

andgenerallyonlyafewdominantones.Consequently,withonlyafewfirmsholdingmostofthe

resources,andmostoftheresourcesflowingin,outandbetweenonlythesefewfirmsformore

matureproducts,verylittlediversityexists.Productsarecost‐effectiveandtheirdevelopmentiswell

establishedandefficientbythisphase.Therefore,asinnovationsentertheconservationphasewe

suggestthemostsuccessfulpolicyleversarethosethatallowaninnovationtofitintheexistingmature

systemratherthanradicallyalterit.Policiesthatprovidesubtlechangesinthesupplychainor

infrastructurerelatedtotheinnovationareimportantinthisphase.Tosomeextent,thesocialimpact

ofthesepoliciesandtheinnovationstheysupportismoreincrementalratherthantransformative.

Policiesalsomaysupporttheinevitablecreativedestructionordisturbancethatwillenterthe

systembyensuringacontinuedinvestmentinthenextinnovation.Governmentincentivesfor

environmentaltechnologies,suchashybridcars,geothermalheatingsystemsforresidences,water

andenergyefficientappliancesarethebestexampleforthisphasebecausetheyhelptocreatea


marketormarketmechanismsforinnovationsthatinmanyways,arealreadyestablished.For

instance,theincentivesfromgovernmentsforhybridcarsareforanitemthatalreadyhavebeen

introducedtothemarketandhasbeenrelativelyprovenasatechnology,although,knowledgewith

theproductwillcontinuetogrowforsometimeyet.Thepolicyisnotmeanttosupporttheinnovation

inthephasewhenitwasfirsttryingtocreatethehybrid.Itisonlyusefulifappliedatasuitablephase

anditisevenmoreusefulifinvestmentissimultaneouslymadeintothedevelopmentoffuture

technologies.Similarly,theCityofVictoria’sadjustmentofthesizeofsomestreetparkingspacesto

suitSmartcarsisanexampleofalteringinfrastructuretosupportstheadoptionofanexisting

innovation

Whilethisphasemaysoundlessdifficultthansomeoftheotherphasesorlesslikelytoleadto

significantchange,thisphaserequiresanextremelystrongcapacitytoadoptinnovations.Theother

phasesmayrequiregovernmenttocreatepoliciesthatsupport,enableorstimulatecreativenew

ideas,butthisphaserequiresagovernmenttodrawonandabsorbtheinnovationsandtheknowledge

surroundingit.Inmanycases,theinnovationmaynothavecomefromwithinthatspecificnationor

state,butratheristheresultofexternalefforts.Thecapacitytorecognizetheseinnovations,adopt

theminatimelyfashion,andadaptthemasneededtothelocalcontextisreferredtoasthe

“absorptivecapacity”(Cohen&Levinthal,1990).Thusfar,marketandconsumer‐basedincentivesare

oneoftheclearestexampleswherewecanseegovernmentpolicysupportingadoptionandcreatinga

marketforanexistinginnovation.

Proposition:Inthisphase,innovationsalreadyexistandhavebeentestedsuccessfully.Theneedexists

toadopttheinnovationandestablishitasthenewstatusquo.Policiesthatcreateamarketordemand

fortheinnovation,whetheritisanidea,program,ortechnologyarenecessary.


ConclusionandFutureResearch:

Inclosing,itwasarguedthatcertainpolicieshavegreaterimpactatspecificpointsoftime,and

thatrecognizingthedistinctphasesofsocialinnovationiscentraltounderstandingwhichpolicywillbe

mostsuitable.Thepapermovesscholarshiptowardsatheoryofphaseappropriategovernment

interventionsusingresiliencetheoryasameanstounderstandthecharacteristicsofeachphase.

Ultimately,weputforthfourpropositionsaboutpolicyoptionstosupportthedifferentphases

ofsocialinnovation,includingthefollowing:

Proposition:Whencomplexproblemsneedtobebetterunderstoodandnewideasareneeded,

processesthatenableinteractionsandbuildtrustbetweenpreviouslydisconnectedgroupsarehelpful

tothegenerationofsocialinnovations.

Proposition:policiesthatnotonlymotivateandrewardthegenerationofinnovativeideasbutalso

involveanevaluationprocesstoselectamongstthemanypotentialinnovations,isoneofthemore

successfuloptionsforthereorganizationphase.

Proposition:Policiesthatenablesocialinnovationsandtheinnovatorstoaccessresources,including

social,intellectualandfinancial,arecriticaltoscalingoutinnovationsfromlocalsuccessestobroader

systemicchange.Thesepoliciesofteninvolvedproactivelyaddressingstructuralbarrierstosocial

innovation,butmustbeveryspecificsoasnottoopenopportunitiesfornegativeorneedless

exploitationofscarceresources.

Proposition:Inthisphase,innovationsalreadyexistandhavebeentestedsuccessfully.Theneedexists

toadopttheinnovationandestablishitasthenewstatusquo.Policiesthatcreateamarketordemand

fortheinnovation,whetheritbeanidea,program,ortechnologyarenecessary.


Futureresearchneedstoexaminepolicyinstruments,includingsuccessesandfailures,fora

detailedempiricalevaluationofourpropositions.Additionally,researchneedstoexplorehowpolicy

instrumentscanbecombined,ifthereareindicatorsthatcanhelpgovernmentstomoreclearly

determinewhichlevertousewhen,andweareundertakingotherworktoexaminequestionsabout

theextenttowhichpolicyfromthestateisakeyfactorinsuccessfulsocialinnovationsversusthe

leadershipskillsofasocialentrepreneurorthemobilizationofnetworks.Areasofinterestmayinclude

socialfinance,educationandpublicawarenesscampaignsassourcesofsocialinnovations.


References

Bodin,Ö.,andCrona,B.2009.Theroleofsocialnetworksinnaturalresourcegovernance:What

relationalpatternsmakeadifference?GlobalEnvironmentalChange,19:366‐374.

Bornstein,S.2007.Howtochangetheworld:Socialentrepreneursandthepowerofnewideas.Oxford,

UK:OxfordUniversityPress.

Burt,R.S.1992.StructuralHoles.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Burt,R.S.2004.Structuralholesandgoodideas.AmericanJournalofSociology,110:349–399.

Cohen,W.,andLevinthal,D.1990.AbsorptiveCapacity:Anewperspectiveonlearningandinnovation.

AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,35:128‐152.

Dees,G.1998.Themeaningof"socialentrepreneurship".

Folke,C.,Hahn,T.,Olsson,P.,andNorberg,J.2005.Adaptivegovernanceofsocial‐ecologicalsystems.

AnnualReviewofEnvironmentandResources,30:441‐473

Gilsing,V.A.,andDuysters,G.M.2008.Understandinginexplorationnetworks–structuraland

relationalembeddednessjointlyconsidered.Technovation,28:693‐708.

Gunderson,L.H.,andHolling,C.S.editors.2002.Panarchy:Understandingtransformationsinhuman

andnaturalsystems.Washington:IslandUniversityPress.

Leadbeater,C.1997.Theriseofthesocialentrepreneur.London,UK:DEMOSOpenAccess.


Mason,W.A.,Jones,A.,andGoldstone,R.L.2008.Propagationofinnovationsinnetworkedgroups.

JournalofExperimentalPsychology,137(3):422‐433.

Nicholls,A.editor.2006.Socialentrepreneurship:newmodelsofsustainablesocialchange.Oxford:

OxfordUniversityPress.

Olsson,P.,Folke,C.,andBerkes,F.2004a.Adaptivecomanagementforbuildingresilienceinsocial‐

ecologicalsystems.EnvironmentalManagement,34(1):75‐90.

Olsson,P.,Folke,C.,andHahn,T.2004b.Social‐ecologicaltransformationforecosystemmanagement:

Thedevelopmentofadaptiveco‐managementofawetlandlandscapeinsouthernsweden.Ecology

andSociety,9(4[online]).

Olsson,P.,Gunderson,L.H.,Carpenter,S.R.,Ryan,P.,Lebel,L.,Folke,C.,andHolling,C.S.2006.

Shootingtherapids:navigatingtransitionstoadaptivegovernanceofsocial‐ecologicalsystems.11(1):

18[online].

Schumpeter,J.1942.Capitalism,socialism,anddemocracy.NewYork:HarperPublishing.

Uzzi,B.1997.Socialstructureandcompetitionininterfirmnetworks:theparadoxofembeddedness.

AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,42(1):35‐67.

Voß,J.P.,Bauknecht,D.,andKemp,R.2006.Reflexivegovernanceforsustainabledevelopment.

Cheltenham,UK:EdwardElgarPublishingLtd.

Westley,F.R.2008.TheSocialInnovationDynamic.PapersonSocialInnovationSeries.Waterloo,ON:

SiG@Waterloo.



AuthorBiographies

Michele‐LeeMoore

Michele‐LeeMooreisaPhDcandidateinGlobalGovernanceattheBalsillieSchoolofInternationalAffairsandaMcConnellFellowatSiG@Waterloo.Herresearchinterestsincludeglobalenvironmentalgovernance,networks,socialinnovation,andthemobilizationofdifferentformsofscientificknowledgeintopolicyandpractice.PreviouslyawaterstrategyadvisorfortheGovernmentofBritishColumbia,Michele‐LeecompletedherMScattheUniversityofVictoria.

FrancesWestley

FrancesWestleyistheJ.W.McConnellChairinSocialInnovationattheUniversityofWaterloo.Herresearch,writing,andteachingcentersonsocialinnovationincomplexproblemdomains,withparticularemphasisonleadershipandmanagingstrategicchange.HermostrecentbookentitledGettingtoMaybe(RandomHouse,2006)focusesontheinter‐relationshipofindividualandsystemdynamicsinsocialinnovationandtransformation.Dr.WestleyreceivedherPhDandMAinSociologyfromMcGillUniversity.

OlaTjornbo

OlaTjornboiscurrentlyaMcConnellFellowatSiG@Waterloo.OlahasbeendeeplyengagedinSiG’scasewritingproject,helpingtodevelopaSiGcasewritingtemplatetoassistresearchersandpractitionersinutilizingasocialinnovationtheoreticalframeworktolookatandunderstandexamplesofinnovativeprojects.Olahasalsobeguntoputthetemplateintopractice,developingtwoteachingcasesbasedonaseriesofqualitativeinterviewsconductedinBritishColumbiainApril2008.

CarinHolroyd

Dr.CarinHolroydisafacultymemberwithSiG@WaterlooaswellasanAssistantProfessorintheDepartmentofPoliticalScience,UniversityofWaterloo.SheisaSeniorFellow,CentreforInternationalGovernanceInnovationandaSeniorResearchAnalystwiththeAsia‐PacificFoundation(basedinVancouver,B.C.)CarinpreviouslytaughtatuniversitiesinCanada,NewZealandandJapan.Shehasbeenco‐PresidentoftheJapanStudiesAssociationofCanadaandisoneofthecoordinatorsofthe2008JapanStudiesAssociationofCanadaConference,slatedforWaterlooinOctober2008.Dr.Holroyd'sfieldofresearchinterestincludesgovernment‐businessrelations,Canada‐Japanrelations,internationaltradeandnationalinnovationpolicies.



AboutSocialInnovationGeneration

SocialInnovationGeneration(SiG)isacollaborativepartnershipbetweentheMontreal‐based

J.W.McConnellFamilyFoundation,theUniversityofWaterloo,theMaRSDiscoveryDistrictinToronto,

theCausewaynationalsocialfinanceproject,andthePLANInstituteinVancouver.Itseekstoaddress

Canada’ssocialandecologicalchallengesbycreatingacultureofcontinuoussocialinnovation.The

projectisdesignedtoenhancetheconditionsforsocialinnovationinCanada,includingproviding

practicalnewsupportforsocialinnovatorsincultivatingorganizationsandinitiatives.

TheSiGprojectisfocusedveryspecificallyonsocialinnovationsthathavedurability,impact

andscale.Ourinterestisonprofoundchangeprocessesandouroverallaimistoencourageeffective

methodsofaddressingpersistentsocialproblemsonanationalscale.

Tofindoutmore,pleasevisitwww.sigeneration.ca

AbouttheUniversityofWaterloo

SiG@WaterlooisanimportantpartnerinthenationalSiGcollaborationandishousedinthe

FacultyofArtsattheUniversityofWaterloo,recognizedasoneofCanada'smostinnovative

universities.Injusthalfacentury,theUniversityofWaterloo,locatedattheheartofCanada's

TechnologyTriangle,hasbecomeoneofCanada’sleadingcomprehensiveuniversitieswith28,000full

andpart‐timestudentsinundergraduateandgraduateprograms.Inthenextdecade,theuniversityis

committedtobuildingabetterfutureforCanadaandtheworldbychampioninginnovationand

collaborationtocreatesolutionsrelevanttotheneedsoftodayandtomorrow.Waterloo,ashometo

theworld’slargestpost‐secondaryco‐operativeeducationprogram,embracesitsconnectionstothe

worldandencouragesenterprisingpartnershipsinlearning,research,anddiscovery.

Tofindoutmore,pleasevisitwww.uwaterloo.ca



[email protected].,Suite202

Kitchener,ONN2G1B1

T:5198884490F:5195787168

W:www.sig.uwaterloo.ca

Documents

Using Resilience Theory to Examine Public Policy and Social Innovation