Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development

A Social Innovation Research and Development

---

LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights

Andrea Vitali

Ver 1.0 - Draft for discussion

14 /5 / 2012

LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitali

Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion

2

Table of Content

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................ 6

The Challenge ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Part 1 - Basic Research ................................................................................................................................... 10

What is Innovation ? ...................................................................................................................................... 11

Imitation ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

Invention .................................................................................................................................................... 13

Innovation .................................................................................................................................................. 15

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 18

What we learned ? ......................................................................................................................................... 19

The XX Century ........................................................................................................................................... 19

Research and Development - How the “D” got into R&D ........................................................................... 20

Research and Development - World’s top 10 leaders statistics ................................................................. 22

Research and Development - Regional average statistics .......................................................................... 24

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 25

Guilds ......................................................................................................................................................... 25

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 26

The Italian Renaissance .............................................................................................................................. 27

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 29

Leonardo da Vinci ....................................................................................................................................... 30

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 31

The Social Economy - a common point of view .............................................................................................. 33

The Social Enterprise Compass ................................................................................................................... 34

The Social Economy - a new point of view ..................................................................................................... 36

Background ................................................................................................................................................ 36

The architecture of the social economy ..................................................................................................... 41

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 44

Part 2 – Applied Research .............................................................................................................................. 45



3

The Social Economy - the institutional conditions for Innovation .................................................................. 46

The Public Economy ....................................................................................................................................... 46

Public Finance: methods to generate internal innovation .......................................................................... 47

Public labor: redesigning the labor contract............................................................................................... 49

Organizational forms .................................................................................................................................. 49

Metrics and assessment ............................................................................................................................. 50

The circuit of information ........................................................................................................................... 51

The Grant Economy ........................................................................................................................................ 51

Generation of Innovative projects .............................................................................................................. 52

Finance ....................................................................................................................................................... 52

Packages of Support ................................................................................................................................... 54

Platforms, tools and protocols for innovation ............................................................................................ 54

Governance and accountability .................................................................................................................. 54

Regulatory, fiscal, legal and other conditions for extending the social economy ....................................... 54

The Market Economy ..................................................................................................................................... 55

Generation and value creation ................................................................................................................... 55

Finance ....................................................................................................................................................... 55

Organizations and ownership ..................................................................................................................... 56

Information ................................................................................................................................................ 56

Regulatory, fiscal, legal and other conditions for generating innovation in the social economy................ 57

The Household Economy ................................................................................................................................ 57

Public spaces for social innovation ............................................................................................................. 57

Valorizing household time .......................................................................................................................... 58

The New Mutualism ................................................................................................................................... 58

Constructed households as sites of innovation .......................................................................................... 58

Social Movements ...................................................................................................................................... 59

The Social Economy - the process roots for Innovation ................................................................................. 59

John Dewey ................................................................................................................................................ 59

Roberto Mangabeira Unger ........................................................................................................................ 61

The Social Economy - the process for Innovation ........................................................................................... 63

Prompts, inspirations and diagnoses .......................................................................................................... 63

Proposals and ideas .................................................................................................................................... 65



4

Prototyping and pilots ................................................................................................................................ 67

Sustaining ................................................................................................................................................... 68

Scaling and diffusion................................................................................................................................... 71

Systemic change ......................................................................................................................................... 74

The Grant Economy – an economic evaluation .............................................................................................. 78

The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project ......................................................................... 78

The Global Civil Society - Statistics ............................................................................................................. 79

From Social Economy to Social Innovation ..................................................................................................... 87

What is social innovation? .......................................................................................................................... 87

Why social innovation? .............................................................................................................................. 87

Process dimension ...................................................................................................................................... 89

Risks associated with the concept, and what social innovation is not ........................................................ 90

A working definition ................................................................................................................................... 91

Barriers to social innovations ..................................................................................................................... 92

Barriers from the perspective of the ‘social demand’ approach ................................................................ 93

Barriers from the perspective of the ‘societal challenges’ approach ......................................................... 96

Barriers from the perspective of the ‘systemic change’ approach ............................................................. 98

Social enterprise ......................................................................................................................................... 99

Conclusion 2° part – Applied Research ......................................................................................................... 100

Social innovation ...................................................................................................................................... 101

Social economy......................................................................................................................................... 103

Policy for science ...................................................................................................................................... 106

Social value ............................................................................................................................................... 106

The linear model of innovation ................................................................................................................ 106

Part 3 – Development .................................................................................................................................. 108

A new model of Social Innovation ................................................................................................................ 109

Enhancement of previous Social Innovation model ................................................................................. 109

Social value ............................................................................................................................................... 109

Policy for science ...................................................................................................................................... 110

Human Rights ........................................................................................................................................... 110

Environment Rights .................................................................................................................................. 111

The Research and Development social taxonomies ................................................................................. 113



5

The Research role ..................................................................................................................................... 114

The process for the new model of Social Innovation................................................................................ 117

The social innovation economy ................................................................................................................ 119

LEONARDO for Human and Environment Rights .......................................................................................... 122

The Learning Environments ...................................................................................................................... 124

Orienting New Approaches ...................................................................................................................... 127

Research and Development Objectives .................................................................................................... 128

High Education ......................................................................................................................................... 134

The target – the demand side .................................................................................................................. 135

The knowledge and skills champion – the supply side ............................................................................. 135

Conclusion - the Challenge ........................................................................................................................... 136

References ................................................................................................................................................... 137

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... 140

Creative Commons Public License ................................................................................................................ 140



6

“Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto”

(I am a man: and I deem nothing pertaining to man is foreign to me)

Terence, 195/185–159 BC

“Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one”

John Lennon, Imagine - 1971

“Willingness to take risk and see value in absurdity”

S. Sundaram, GSI EDU-Research

Abstract

Object of this research is to provide the reader with a new model of Social Innovation based on:

the genealogical history of Innovation and his linear model of Innovation

the current research and definitions for Social Economy

a new Social Value framework driving the Social Innovation model proposed

Scope of this research is twofold:

1. A research centered on innovation: the 1° part of the document starts with a challenge issued by

Godin B. at UNESCO on the effective role of innovation for development countries, the document

present a genealogical history of the category innovation to understand which are the origin of this

term, its relation with imitation and invention, and how has been influenced by industrial evolution

and economy in its accepted linear model of innovation. The consequence of this analysis is that

nowadays innovation is commonly referred to technological innovation. The document continues

with an analysis on how research and development has changed in the last century and the role of

development in shifting from “policy for science” in “science for policy”, becoming R&D a standard

de facto all round the world: some supporting statistics are included. Afterwards, some historical

references about Guilds, Italian Renaissance and Leonardo da Vinci are introduced to focus how

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence

http://www.angolotesti.it/J/testi_canzoni_john_lennon_1719/

http://www.angolotesti.it/J/testi_canzoni_john_lennon_1719/



7

humanistic values have influenced the arrival of new form of knowledge and organization. The 1°

part concludes with an introduction framework about Social Economy. The 2° part of the document

begins with Innovation conditions for Social Economy: institutional requirements for the

constituting four sub-economies and the stages of Social Economy process: some supporting

statistics about economic evaluation of Grant Economy are presented. The 2° part concludes with

an analysis focused on Social innovation: definition, drivers and barriers to Social Innovations are

presented. The 3° and final part of the document concerns with a new model of Social Innovation: a

project research, whose aim is the development of the new model, is suggested.

2. A project research centered on a new model of Social Innovation: the 3° and final part of the

document concerns with a new model of Social Innovation, and the differences with the current

model, the reference values and the design structure are presented. Finally a project research,

whose aim is the development of the new model, is suggested.

The Challenge

This is the challenged issued by Godin’s communication at UNESCO on March 20111.

For fifty years, countries have measured their inventive and innovative efforts using precise methodological

rules. The OECD has developed influential manuals to this end. However, the manuals’ recommendations

are concerned mainly, if not entirely, with the supply side of invention and innovation. … Diffusion is

measured from the perspective of the innovating firm (process innovation), with no statistics from users

other than firms, whether they be customers, organizations, or whole countries. … Today, “user innovation”

has become a catchword. …

The majority of UNESCO countries are, first of all, and for the better and the worst, consumers of knowledge

and technology produced elsewhere. There is therefore a need to emphasize these countries’ efforts to

absorb what comes from outside as much as their own inventive and innovative efforts. This means that the

statistical tables should give equal attention to invention and imitation, which is not the case currently. To

this end, one must shift his attention from an exclusive focus on firms.

The OECD recently published a document intended to contribute to integrating innovation into the policy

agendas of developing countries. Innovation and the Development Agenda, published in 2010, is part of the

OECD Innovation Strategy of that same year. This document is most welcome. The explicit aim is to

introduce in innovation policies a “different lens” from that of industrialized countries. This short note

1 B. Godin (2011), A User-View of Innovation: Some Critical Thoughts on the Current STI Frameworks and Their

Relevance to Developing Countries, Communication presented at Expert Meeting on Innovation Statistics, UNESCO, 8-

10 March, 2011.



8

identifies four assumptions and biases on which Innovation and the Development Agenda rests. The

objective is to suggest the continuance of, and deeper thoughts on, what is certainly a beginning toward a

broader understanding of innovation.

1. Innovation is the (not-so) new (miracle) solution to development issues. To the OECD, “the last half-

century has seen different approaches to development which have achieved varying degrees of

success”. In their place, innovation should now be considered a strategy for development: “most

current social, economic and environmental challenges require creative solutions based on

innovation and technological advance”. But is it really the case and how precisely? The document,

as with most of the literature on innovation, starts with innovation as a panacea, not with problems

of development (except in general terms) or the extent (and limitations) to which innovation is or is

not a (THE) solution.

2. The document promotes, again as most of the literature on innovation does, a supply-side view of

innovation: firms, the commercialization of invention and the use of invention in industrial

production. I agree that this must be part of every innovation strategy. But a supply-side view needs

to be complemented by a user-side one. To a certain extent, a “different lens” is offered in the OECD

document: a certain emphasis is placed on the informal sector and non-technological innovation

and on the need to adapt the National Innovation System (NIS) framework to developing countries

such as: considering product innovation as much as process innovation (but the issue here is still

discussed in terms of the old, namely competitiveness), innovation in low-tech sectors, incremental

innovation, and adaptive capacities and learning. However, the framework remains a supply-side

view. Nothing in the document goes beyond innovation as commercialization.

3. A demand or user-side view, namely a consideration of the user or adopter of (already existing)

innovations, is poorly developed. Certainly, the document admits that, “If governments are to

support innovation activity, there is a case for policies that encourage the conversion of knowledge,

however that knowledge is gained”; “the demand-side of technology and innovation needs to be

stressed in addition to the conventional focus on the supply side”. Nevertheless, the document has

very little to say except general thoughts about absorptive capacities, mentions that developing

technologies need to be adapted to local needs. The document discusses the issues in terms of the

old: technology-flow– there is nothing on flows of scientific knowledge and how developing

countries get and use scientific knowledge from foreign sources. All in all, a user-side view still needs

to be articulated. It is one thing that a firm extracts value from innovation, but another if the end

user is not better for it – that it does not share in that added value.

4. There is little concern for “people” as innovators (doing things differently) except, again, as

introducers of new inventions to the market or as buyers of new inventions. Certainly, the

consideration of people as innovators in the larger sense gets some hearing in Innovation and the

Development Agenda, like the discussion of the informal sector. However, the issue is entirely

discussed in terms of the market. As if every solution to health, poverty and education need a firm, a

technology, a market. How do people change their behavior in response to new knowledge (like

AIDS)? How organizations (schools, hospitals) contribute to people adopting new behaviors? What

about microcredit, certainly one of the most innovative ideas of the last decades in the developing

country. Is it included in the statistics, as the current survey is constructed?



9

Why such a vision? Simply because the authors continue to use the dominant frameworks – and the OECD

itself urges implanting of its own methodology in developing countries, like reviews of innovation policies. …

In the last five decades, all frameworks used at the OECD have been supply-side including NIS.… NIS is

entirely centered on innovation in firms: the system gravitates around firms and the way other

organizations and institutions contribute to innovation in firms. The manual is entirely concerned with

surveying innovation in firms. Innovation is defined as “implementation”, namely introducing invention on

the market or bringing a new invention into industrial use. With regard to diffusion (“the spread of

innovation”) and transfer (“linkages and flows”), the manual deals only with how the firm acquires

knowledge and technology from outside. Residual attention is given to end-users, including individuals (in

their jobs), customers and organizations other than firms. There is nothing on end users, the capacity users

have to use invention, how a (potential) user like a developed country comes to know (foreign) knowledge

and technology, what mechanisms it has to this end, what supporting infrastructures, etc.

What would a survey of innovation look like if one starts with a user-based view? It would:

Address and focus on specific and precise problems or areas of development – like one does in the

case of specific surveys, like ICT, biotechnology – not innovation in general and broad terms

(“percentage of enterprise that introduced innovation”).

Survey end-users, not just producers.

Cover individuals, groups, organizations and government.

Measure diverse kinds of innovation: ideas, behaviors and things (and compared the new to the

old). Where does the innovation come from?

What use, if any, is made of the innovation? By whom?

Identify the mechanisms through which innovation diffuse and their presence or absence in a

developing country: Do and how knowledge about X gets into country Y? What lags? Why?

What effects (quality of life), including the bad ones? To what extent is the innovation adapted to a

country’s needs?

Evaluate the role of government as innovator in matter of policies (not only as “hampering factor”):

what infrastructures, policies and programs exist in country Y for supporting innovation? Moreover,

in order to increase its relevance, a survey of innovation (be it supply-based or user-based) should

look for facts rather than rely on questions with answers of a subjective nature.

A Radical Proposal

Forget OECD’s frameworks and statistics and start anew

Back to basic concepts: invention, diffusion and use

Very interesting Challenge, why don’t accept it ? How can we proceed and try to solve it ?



10

Part 1 - Basic Research



11

What is Innovation ?

Godin’s challenge requires a New Innovation Framework based on forgetting OECD’s frameworks2 (and it’s

statistics / measures) and to go back to basic concepts. But if we have to forget something we need, first of

all, to understand what we have to forget and it’s basic concept.

Therefore, it is necessary to point out:

what Innovation means

how Innovation meaning have been influenced by the OECD firm vision

To reach out these objectives some of Godin’s concepts3 are presented.

Innovation is everywhere … (and) is also a central idea in the popular imaginary, in the media, in public

policy and is part of everybody’s vocabulary. … To many, innovation is a relatively recent phenomenon and

its study more recent yet: innovation has acquired real importance in the twentieth century. In point of fact,

however, innovation has always existed. … Many people spontaneously understand innovation to be

technological innovation. The literature itself takes this for granted. More often than not, studies on

technological innovation simply use the term innovation, although they are really concerned with

technological innovation. However, etymologically and historically, the concept of innovation is much

broader. … (Moreover) innovation generally understood, in many milieus, as commercialized innovation …

but other types of innovation are either rapidly forgotten or rarely discussed. By contrast, every individual is

to a certain extent innovative; artists are innovative, scientists are innovative, and so are organizations in

their day-to-day operations. …

A genealogical history of the category “innovation” … concentrates on the “creative” dimension of

innovation … (and) identifies the concepts that have defined innovation through history, and that have led

to innovation as a central category of modern society.

Innovation … does not exist as such, it is constructed through the eyes and through discourses. The

genealogical study … (is analyzed) by three hypothesis:

Innovation is about novelty (arising from human creativity), as etymology, dictionaries and history

suggest. As such, innovation is of any kind, not only material or technological. In this sense,

innovation as category has a very long history. …

History of innovation as “creativity” is that of three concepts and their derivatives … (seen as)

sequential steps in the process leading to innovation:

Imitation → Invention → Innovation

2 As Godin point out in his communication “This is no judgment on OECD works, but its relevance to development” 3 Godin, B. (2008), Innovation: The History of a Category, Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation, INRS:

Montreal, Forthcoming



12

Innovation as a break with the past… in the sense that it suggests that invention per se is not

enough. There has to be use and adoption of the invention, namely innovation, in order for benefits

to accrue.

Imitation

Imitation is a concept of Greek origin … (and) Plato’s philosophy is entirely concerned with imitation and its

many senses and opposites: appearances (or images) – versus reality; falsity – versus truth. To Plato, even

physical objects are imitations, compared to God and true nature. But it is through Aristotle that the

concept of imitation got its main influence. To Aristotle, (practical) arts imitate nature (mimesis). Such an

understanding of art gave rise to imitatio as the central problem of art, with pejorative overtones, then to

imitation as inspiration. … The mimetic orientation was the most primitive aesthetic theory, art imitates the

world of appearance. The “artist” extracts the form of the natural world and imposes it upon an artificial

medium. … However, according to most theories, imitation is only instrumental toward producing effects, …

a literary mechanism for the production of difference.

Until the mid-eighteenth century, imitation was presented as a positive practice, not one that was

distrusted or pejorative (… a method for teaching, … selective borrowing and creative copying, … enriches

the tradition focusing on interpretation, … a way to come closer to real knowledge of nature by imitating

nature, … as a substitute for imported commodities): … briefly stated, imitation is taken for granted and is a

common practice. …

Imitation has often been portrayed as being invention itself. The view in the Middle Ages of the work of

artisans is that of art learned by imitating nature, but in so doing, the artisan changes nature, as claimed by

the alchemists. Equally, in Renaissance literary theory and visual arts, one finds recurrent descriptions of

imitation as rediscovery of the old, as something “new” to copy, as something never seen before. … An

argument frequently evoked is that imitation requires work, experimentation, judgment and imagination.

All these descriptions in literature, arts and crafts generally refer to an idea that has been very influential

among many authors in defining invention, and subsequently innovation: that of combination. Imitation is

invention because, when combining elements from nature, it combines the best of them, and by so doing

improves nature. Combination “creates a whole that is more perfect than nature”. Equally, in combining

previous schools of thought, the combination surpasses the work of past authors. Compilatio, a “wide

literary activity which encompassed various genres in the Middle Ages” and after, is combination of others’

material into a new work, a unio. … In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, patents and their precursors

in the fifteenth century like letters and privileges, were not granted to inventors, as they are today, but to

importers of existing inventions … Now, if we turn to the twentieth century, we clearly observe that

imitation gave rise to, and was often used as a term for, diffusion. … Contemporary theories on innovation

now include diffusion (or use) as a step in the innovation process. In summary, imitation has rarely been

separated from invention. To many, imitation has close links to invention, and even constitutes invention

itself. However, with time imitation came to be contrasted to invention. Starting from the mid-eighteenth

century, imitation was regarded as mere copying, while originality became the criterion for real invention.



13

Invention

Invention is a term that comes from rhetoric. In classical rhetoric, invention was the first of five divisions of

the rhetorical art. Invention is composed of guidelines to help speakers find and elaborate language. In De

Inventione, Cicero (106-43 BC) defined invention as the “discovery of valid or seemingly valid arguments to

render one’s cause probable”. However, in the history of rhetoric, invention as so conceived has been

eclipsed by one or more of the four other divisions (arrangement, style, memory and delivery).

Invention as a term in other domains really came to be used in the mid-fourteenth century as finding or

discovery, namely with regard to knowledge, or science (knowing). It came to be applied to making as well,

in poetry then in visual arts. From the sixteenth century, invention was used more and more to apply to

newly-created things (artifacts). … From late medieval Europe, the idea of invention spread everywhere, to

different degrees and under different terms. … In the Renaissance, there was “no unanimity in usage of

divino, ingegno, fantasia, immaginazione and invenzione”, … (and) the idea of progress is a major one

during the Renaissance. … In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the idea of novelty is everywhere and

becomes very much a (positive) cultural value: nowhere is the idea of novelty more presents than in science,

… frequently discussed as an active search or hunt (venatio), a very old metaphor. … One thing is clear: in

the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the idea of novelty is everywhere and becomes very much a

(positive) cultural value:

Philosophy: praxis4

Literary theory and visual arts: imagination, originality, creation

Arts and crafts (engineering): ingenium, invention

(Natural Philosophy and) science: discovery, experiment, scientific change

History: change, revolution, progress

“Evolutionists”5: growth, development, evolution, variation, mutation

Anthropology: culture (or cultural) change

Sociology: action, social change

Psychology: attitude change; creativity

Management and politics: organizational change

Economics: entrepreneurship, technological change, innovation

Change became a preoccupation of study in many emerging scientific disciplines, from sociology and history

to natural philosophy, or the sciences: … from the eighteenth century are the “men of science” who have

taken change most seriously. …

Whatever its name, the new is not without its opponents: the Querelle between the ancients and the

moderns, in literature and philosophy but also in science and education, is that between imitating (and

surpassing) the ancients versus a totally new enterprise, … perhaps the first systematic debate in history

4 In philosophy, praxis has not really been theorized because of the emphasis on mind. It slowly begins to be become an issue, quite imperfectly according to many, with expressiveness, utilitarianism (free will), existentialism (life, will, consciousness), pragmatism (experience, inquiry), and the philosophy of action 5 Evolutionists: early geology, early paleontology, natural history, and biology



14

about the new as opposed to tradition. … The defenders of invention often have an ideological aim: to

distinguish oneself (identity) and to justify one’s activities (image of scientists, inventors and writers), for

purposes of patronage, among other things. Hence, the construction of oppositions portraying tradition and

the like as static (transmission from generation to generation: irrational and arbitrary) versus invention and

the like as cumulative and progressive. Over time, invention in science came to share the vocabulary of

writers with the term discovery: … for some time, invention meant finding as well as making, and was

applied without qualification to both activities. … Later, a distinction was made between the two concepts:

discovery referred to facts or things that already exist out there and that one finds out, while invention

combines and makes new things, including scientific theories. … Literature and visual arts are other fields

where the idea of novelty is widespread. Contrary to science, with its emphasis on facts and method and its

negative assessment of imagination, the “power of imagination” is rehabilitated. In fact, literary theory and

visual arts (painting, sculpture) in the Renaissance adapted invention from the literature on rhetoric to a

psychological process of imagination. …, (and) originality came to define the artist and the metaphor of

creation (already present in Greek mythology). … Certainly, originality, as with imitation and invention,

plays his important role: … originality means origin, or source (authorship), … and a distinctive quality of

work, or novelty, as well. … As such, originality came to characterize the genius, an important figure in the

Renaissance, … and a concept with a long history: first defined as spirit (which gave inspiration), it came to

mean innate talent or ability (ingenium), then a person with superior creative powers. … (So), the term

invention was applied to ingenious things like “machines, artifices, devices, engines, methods”.

Ingenuity was also a key concept for the artisan from the Middle Ages onward: … the artisan, first of all

alchemists, through their art created new things in their opinion, and for the first time made art a creative

force rather than only an imitative entity. Equally, in Renaissance painters, ceramists and sculptors really

thought they were creating new things, not only practicing an imitative art. This creative power over nature

gave rise to the figure of the inventor, a genius or hero who, as to scientists and artists, was not without

opponents. As a matter of fact, it took time for inventors to be admitted to the pantheon of great men. Up

to the beginning of the nineteenth century, and again after the commercialization of technological

inventions on a large scale at the end of this same century, the inventor was anonymous.

The alignment of the term invention with technological invention was helped by the conventionalization, or

institutionalization, of technological invention through privileges and patent laws from the late fourteenth

and fifteenth centuries onward. … As patents attest, the qualities previously attributed to the genius or

artist (like originality) become those attributed to the commodity. Over time, technological invention

obtained a relative “monopoly” in the vocabulary of invention because of the culture of things, or material

culture, and patents are witness to this phenomenon. Over time, the culture of things has developed and

owes its existence to many factors. One such factor is the “consumer revolution”, … a second factor is what

came to be called the “industrial revolution” and the use of technologies in industrial processes, … (a third

factor), or innovation, occurred at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth

century: (large) firms began setting up research laboratories as a way to accelerate industrial development.

As A.N. Whitehead put it long ago, “the greatest invention of the nineteenth century was the invention of

the method of invention”, (in fact) men have invented a method for (systematic and cumulative) invention.

… Along with the patent system discussed above, the development of industries based on the research

laboratory and the commercialization of technological inventions on a large scale were major factors



15

contributing to a conception of invention as technological invention. Briefly stated, technological inventions

got increased attention because they have utilitarian value as opposed or contrasted to Ancient knowledge,

as it was often said from Bacon onward … Things, and utility, have a place in science too: … for F. Bacon, the

main exponent for more useful knowledge in science, namely for the mechanical arts and artificial objects,

“the real and legitimate goal of the sciences is the endowment of the human life with new inventions and

riches”.

Innovation

Novation is a term that first appeared in law in the thirteenth century. It meant renewing an obligation by

changing a contract for a new debtor. … Until the eighteenth century, a “novator” was still a suspicious

person, one to be mistrusted, … and the term was rarely used in the various arts and sciences before the

twentieth century. … Until innovation took on a central place in theories on social and economic change,

imitation and invention (under different terms, as discussed above) were seen as opposites, as was the case

in social practices. … While previous theories of invention were of a “psychological” kind and focused on

inspiration, imagination and genius, the end of the nineteenth century saw the emergence of new theories

for explaining novelty, and these were of a social kind. The first such theories arose in anthropology.

anthropology made very few uses of the term innovation. Innovation was nevertheless what

anthropologists of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century studied as culture change: changes in

culture traits, but also inventions in agriculture, trade, social and political organizations (law, customs,

religion, family) and technology. …

Many anthropologists framed the discussion in terms of invention versus diffusion (as imitation) to explain

stages of civilization. This gave rise to what came to be called the diffusion controversy. On one side were

evolutionists, to whom invention stems from multiple centers and occurs independently in different cultures:

parallel inventions, as they were called, reflect the psychic unity of human nature, and differences in culture

reflect steps of the same process, or varying speeds of evolution. … At the opposite end were diffusionists, to

whom man is essentially uninventive: culture emerges from one center, then diffuses through borrowings,

migrations and invasions. … Until about the mid-twentieth century, evolutionism was the framework

anthropologists used to study culture change. Then acculturation, as the study of cultural change resulting

from contacts between different cultures, developed. Anthropologists stopped looking at diffusion as mere

imitation contrasted to invention: diffusion is inventive adaptation. Barnett (an anthropologist) developed a

comprehensive theory of innovation, defined as “any thought, behavior, or thing that is new because it is

qualitatively different from existing forms”, … and everyone is an innovator. … We have to turn to

sociologists, and then economists, to find the systematic development of studies on innovation. What place

doe the term and category of innovation take in sociological theories? In studying the literature, one

observes a move from multiple terms used interchangeably to innovation: the most frequent terms are the

combined one invention/discovery and technology. …

The first theory of innovation comes from the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde (who) was interested in

explaining social change (or social evolution): grammar, language, religion, law, constitution, economic



16

regime, industry and arts. … The success of an invention (i.e.: imitation) depends on other inventions (or

opposition between inventions) and social factors. To Tarde, invention is the combination of previous or

elementary inventions …. Invention comes from individuals (not necessarily great men), and is socially

influenced. … Invention is the driving force of society, but society is mainly imitative. … However, to many

critics over time sociologists have been concerned with imitation (as socialization) rather than with creative

action: the study of individual creativity was left to psychology. … Ogburn and Gilfillan started looking at

inventions, above all technological inventions, as causes of cultural change or social change (social

organizations and behaviours). To Ogburn, “the use of material things is a very important part of the culture

of any people”. What he observed was the growth and acceleration of material culture. … Ogburn

developed the concept of the cultural lag to account for this process. There is an increasing lag between the

material culture (technology) and the rest of culture (adaptive culture) due to inertia and lack of social

adaptation. …

To the sociologists, technological invention is … a social process rather than an individual one. Certainly

“without the inventor there can be no inventions”, but “the inventors are not the only individuals

responsible for invention”: social forces like demographic (race) and geographic factors, and “cultural

heritage” play a part. Secondly, technological invention is social because it is cumulative (or evolutionary),

namely the result of accumulation and accretion of minor details, modifications, perfectings, and minute

additions over centuries, rather than a one-step creation. Finally, technological invention is social in a third

sense: it is more and more systematic, it comes from organized research laboratories specifically dedicated

to this end. … This meaning of innovation as technological invention used and adopted is the common

sociological understanding of innovation, although a fourth meaning would soon be used as well, following

the economists’ definition: technological invention as commercialized by industry. … Despite this

understanding, explicit definitions of innovation are rare among sociologists. The early few definitions that

exist differ considerably. Certainly, they all refer to the idea of novelty, but they differ in the sense that some

include the act itself (combination), others the impacts of innovation, still others the subjective perception of

it. … Innovation as process is also how economists understand the category. However economists add their

own stamp to the idea: innovation is the commercialization of (technological) invention. And unlike the

definitions of sociologists, this definition came with time to be accepted among economists, and by others,

including the sociologist.

Tarde (1820): Invention, imitation, op position

Ogburn (1920): Invention(and diffusion), maladjustment (lag)/ adjustment

Bernard (1923): Forumula, blue print, machine

Chapin (1928): Invention, accumulation, selection, diffusion

Ogburn and Gilfillan (1933): Idea, trial device (model or pl), demonstration, regular use, adoption

Gilfillan (1935): Idea, sketch, drawing; model, full-size experimental invention, commercial practice

Gilfillan (1937): Thought, model (patent), first practical use, commercial success, important use

US National Resources Committee (1937): Beginnings, development, diffusion, social influences

Ogburn and Nimkoff (1940): Idea, development, model, invention, improvement, marketing

Ogburn (1941): Idea, plan, tangible form, improvement, production, promotion, marketing, sales

Ogburn (1950): Invention, accumulation, diffusion, adjustment

Rogers (1962): Innovation, diffusion, adoption



17

Rogers (1983): Needs/problems, research, development, commercialization, diffusion and adoption,

consequences

The study of change is not the traditional concern of economics. Historically, economics is concerned with

equilibrium rather than dynamics. Although the concepts of work (labor), production and growth held

central place in early economic theories, the study of economic change is not a fundamental concept in

economics, as culture change is in anthropology or as social change is in sociology: change really got into

economics with the study of technology as a cause of economic growth, … called technological change, as

the use of technological inventions in industrial processes. …

Increased interest in technological change can be traced back to the years following the Great Depression,

where the bicentenarial debate on the role of mechanization on employment reemerged, … (and) the study

of technology developed via the measurement of productivity: increases in productivity as an indicator of

technology usage. … Subsequently, the formalization of the measurement developed through what was

called the production function, … an equation … that links quantity produced of a good (output) to

quantities of inputs. … Economists interpreted movements in the curve of the production function as

technological change (the substitution of capital for labor). … Then economists started correlating R&D with

productivity measures: beginning in the late 1950s, a whole literature developed, analyzing the contribution

of research to industrial development, and to performance, productivity and economic growth, first from

mainstream economists.

It is through evolutionary economics, among them J.A. Schumpeter, that innovation really got into

economics. To Schumpeter, capitalism is creative destruction: disturbance of existing structures, and

unceasing novelty and change. In his view, innovations are responsible for this phenomenon. Schumpeter

identified five types of innovation: 1) introduction of a new good; 2) introduction of a new method of

production; 3) opening of a new market; 4) conquest of a new source of supply of raw materials or half-

manufactured goods; and 5) implementation of a new form of organization. Part of the explanation for the

use of the term innovation in the economic literature has to do with a reaction against historians and

against the term invention. Following others, Schumpeter distinguished innovation from invention. To

Schumpeter, “innovation is possible without anything we should identify as invention and invention does not

necessarily induce innovation”. Invention is an act of intellectual creativity and “is without importance to

economic analysis”, while innovation is an economic decision: a firm applying an invention or adopting an

invention. However, it took time for the category to gain acceptance. In the early 1960s, the category was

still not widely accepted. … In the 1970s, the skepticism continued: the “use of the term innovation is

counterproductive”, … because each individual has his or her interpretation. … Schumpeter is usually

credited in the economic literature, particularly by evolutionary economists, as being the first theorist on

technological innovation: … Schumpeter did develop influential ideas on technological innovation as a

source of business cycles … (where) the entrepreneur (and, in a next stage, the large firm) is responsible for

technological innovation. But how? …

Over time, authors from business schools and economists developed theories or conceptual models of

technological innovation as a process from invention to diffusion, similar to those of the sociologists. In

these theories, technological innovation was defined as a step (the ultimate step) of a process starting with

invention – and defined as commercialized innovation. … The most popular and influential … theory



18

combining both production (of goods) and distribution … is what came to be called the “linear model of

innovation”: … technological innovation starts with basic research, then goes through applied research, then

development, and then production and diffusion. Such an understanding of technological innovation has

been very influential on science policy after 1945.

While innovation as technological innovation and as commercialized innovation came to dominate the

literature, other conceptions of innovation developed elsewhere. Inside the category of social innovation we

can include political innovation (innovation in public institutions such as schools and government agencies),

… organizational innovation (… study of innovative behaviors of research activities, … of organizations

developed such as organizational structure and management style).

What role did policy play in all this? A major one, indeed. Over the twentieth century, innovation was in fact

a policy-driven concept. Psychologists, sociologists, economists, including “evolutionary” economists, and

researchers from management, business schools and economics acted as consultants to governments, and

were concerned with offering policy recommendations for “social engineering”, productivity and economic

growth based on their theories, the more recent ones being conceptual frameworks like the knowledge-

based economy, the information economy, the information economy, the new economy, and national

innovation system. …. However, there has never been a “policy for science” period, as many authors argue,

only a “science for policy” one, during which public research and universities were urged to contribute to

technological innovation. Science policy has always been concerned with applying science to public goals.

From its very beginning, science policy, whether implicit or explicit, was constructed as a means to achieve

social, economic and political goals.

Conclusion

… Innovation as a (widely-used) category during the twentieth century is witness to a certain context or era

- capitalism - and to changes in political values. As J. Farr put it, “to understand conceptual change is in

large part to understand political changes”. Until early in the twentieth century, invention, ingenuity and

imagination were discussed as symbols of civilization and as attributes of geniuses, and their contribution to

the progress of the race. Then, the growing role of organizations in the twentieth century led to changes in

values. If there was to be increasing economic efficiency, there had to be innovation - through organizations

and the mobilization of their employees’ creative abilities. Such were the discourses of managers as well as

policy-makers. Theorists from many disciplines started studying innovation in terms of the effects of

technological innovation on the economy and society. To sociologists, gone was the lonely inventor as a

hero or genius. It was a myth created by past authors. Innovation is rather a social process. To economists,

gone was invention without market value. It is a subject for the historian. To the policy-maker, gone was (or

should be) research with no application. The golden age between the state and the funding of the basic

scientist, although short-lived, is finished. Innovation as a category in the twentieth century expresses

precisely these political changes: a demarcation with past understandings, values and practices. The

category’s previous meanings or predecessors (invention, ingenuity, imagination, etc.) came to be subsumed



19

under “innovation”, and the creative abilities of an individual placed in the service of organizations,

industrial development and economic growth.

Innovation is the last of a series of terms imagined to give meaning to modern practices. Certainly,

innovation is, to a certain extent, continuity with the past, in the sense that more often than not it refers to

technological invention. However, it is also a break with the past: invention per se is not enough. In fact,

many ideas and inventions fail, according to the history of technology. There has to be use of the invention,

namely innovation, in order for benefits to accrue. This is the first aspect of the break. Another concerns the

production of invention. While it was the individual, or genius, who was the source of invention in previous

representations, innovation places emphasis on the firm. And there is a third aspect of the break: benefits

deriving from invention concern economics, not culture or civilization.

There are now many people trying to broaden the understanding of innovation as technological innovation.

One now hears discourses on “social innovation”, meaning either major advances in the social sciences,

policy/institutional reforms for the betterment of society, or solutions to social needs and problems, coming

from the community sectors among others. Calls for do-it-yourself innovation, user-led innovation, open

innovation and “democratizing innovation” are in the same vein: technological innovation comes from many

sources, not only the research laboratory, but also users. … The OECD Oslo Manual itself, in its latest edition,

has broadened the definition of innovation to include organizational and marketing innovation, although

this is limited to firms. However, projects are now in progress for measuring innovation in the public sectors

in the near future.

The main goal of the promoters of these new ideas is ensuring that policy-makers takes account of non-

technological aspects of innovation in their policy. Whether the ideas will have an impact on the current

understanding of innovation remains to be seen. For the moment, they certainly contribute to extending the

discourses on, and the fascination with, innovation to more spheres of society, and mobilizing more people

in the name of innovation.

What we learned ?

How can we define a new paradigm for Social Innovation ? Thanks to Godin’s research presentation it is

possible to fix some starting points.

The XX Century

The last Century represented a turning point for invention and innovation concepts, seen as the

commercialization of invention and the use of invention in industrial production: this fact got to a new

capitalistic metric where technology and things culture lead science for policy and, as a consequence, for

human being. This revolution has radically influenced, and maybe substituted, the natural fulcrum of the



20

history of humanity: the human being. The humanity development, thanks to the central role of human

being, allowed during centuries flow an holistic vision of the word, where the different needs of human

being have been compared, from time to time, to individual or collective values “immanent” at the

belonging cultures: the apogee of human being centrality date back to Renaissance. The capitalism, and its

role in the transformation of innovation concept, took to a time continuum where the measure unit is

assumed “transcendent” to human being, the capital, which in turn standardize and trivialize human life to

a monetary value that follows a necessary and continuous growth in its material measure. The concept so

important for the economy for which “Invention is an act of intellectual creativity and is without importance

to economic analysis, while innovation is an economic decision” fully represents the paradoxical necessity

to take the capitalistic economy, “transcendent”, at being the only material asset that could measure and

substitute individual and collective values, which are “immanent”. The perversion of this model permeating

the XX Century is faithfully shown by recent facts where finance and world crisis that we are living and

subject to nowadays, as evolution and representation of a necessary and continuous growth, has become

itself “transcendent” with respect to capitalistic economic, which is in turn “transcendent” to human being.

To conclude we can say that this vision concerning with human being, capitalistic economy and at last

finance, for sure stressed but not so far from reality, remembers very well the poem by Goethe “The

Sorcerer’s Apprentice” where, for our case, the Sorcerer could be no other than the human being.

Research and Development - How the “D” got into R&D

One of the main issues raised by Godin is the role of Development as a firms’ domain.

R&D6 is a central component of official definitions of Science & Technology (S&T). Decades of work on

taxonomies and statistics on research are testimony to the construction behind the definition.

We can identify three stages in the construction of development as a category for statistical purposes:

1° Development was only a series or list of activities without a label, but identified for inclusion in questionnaire responses.

2° Development came to be identified as such by way of creating a subcategory of research, alongside basic and applied research. This was Huxley’s innovation, and Anthony was influential in its measurement.

3° Development became a separate category, alongside research. It gave us the acronym we now know and use: R&D.

The category had three main purposes:

1 Organizational. It corresponded to the type of research conducted in industry, to research divisions in firms, and to entire organizations that defined themselves according to both research and development.

6 B. Godin (2006), Research and Development - How the “D” got into R&D, Science and Public Policy, volume 33, number 1, February 2006, pages 59–76, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, England



21

2 Analytical. Here, it was industrialists, consultants and academics in business schools who developed models identifying development as a separate and decisive step in the innovation process.

3 Political. The category served political ends, among them the greater amount of money firms could obtain from public funds by including development in research expenditure.

Despite its widespread use, the category was not without its methodological problems. Early on, these

problems were discussed at a meeting organized by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1959, and at

the OECD meeting that launched the Frascati Manual in 1963. Most of the problems concerned the

demarcation between development and other activities, and the absence of precise accounting practices to

distinguish types of activity properly. This was an additional factor explaining the inclusion of development

in statistics on research.

Methodological difficulties also explain the exclusion of development from more recent statistics on S&T.

Development as an activity is in fact located somewhere between two other activities: research and

production. We have already alluded to the difficulty of separating applied research from development. This

became even more pronounced when the category was used for research other than industrial research. As

W H Shapley from the US Bureau of Budget commented at the NSF meeting in 1959:

“The practical problem results chiefly from the fact that a distinction between research and development is not recognized in the way Government does its business … Projects and contracts cover both research and development, and the distinction is usually not made even in the financial records at the local operating level … because of the large number of projects”.

The other demarcation problem concerned development and production. Since, for example, minor

developments can also occur during this later stage, “the main difficulty arises in determining the point at

which development work ceases and production begins” (OECD). This is particularly important in the case of

military research, because R&D is not a separate entity, but part of general expense appropriations or

procurement contracts. This practice has enormous consequences on statistics: many different statistical

estimates frequently coexist for measuring the same phenomenon. As a National Research Council report

(known as the Frank Press report) argued in the mid-1990s:

“Nearly half of traditional federal research and development spending involves initial production, maintenance, and upgrading of large-scale weapons and space systems … Those activities are neither long-term investments in new knowledge nor investments in creating substantially new applications. If they were excluded, the research and development investment budget — called the federal S&T (FS&T) budget in this report — would be between $35 billion and $40 billion annually”.

As a consequence, and in line with the Frank Press report, the US Government started compiling a Federal

Science and Technology Budget in 1999, different from Federal Research and Development Spending. The

two now appear in the Budget. Federal Research and Development Spending, on one hand, is the

conventional way of counting R&D expenditure, and amounted to over US$117 billion in 2003. Here,

expenditure is broken down according to the standard three categories — basic research, applied research,

and development — to which ‘facilities and equipment’ is added. The Federal Science and Technology

Budget, on the other hand, is a collection of federal programs designed to be easy to track in the budget

process, rather than constituting a comprehensive inventory of federal S&T investments. The budget for

these programs amounted to nearly US$60 billion in 2003.



22

The main difference between this and the Federal Research and Development Spending budget is that it

excludes most development, such as Department of Defense weapons systems development, and includes

some scientific and technical education and training activities.

The Federal Science and Technology Budget presents a new concept in measuring S&T, and allows no

comparisons with other countries’ statistics. It differs from both the OECD definitions and the Press report

suggestion. Since its first introduction in 1999, the definition has also changed regularly. It is the most

recent official response to the statistical challenges of measuring development: not abandoning the

historical and traditional methodology, but adding a second series of numbers. At the same time, it is a

(timid) acceptance of the decades-old complaint, initially offered by Bernal: the statistics on money spent on

research “is delusive because it includes money spent on non-profit making plant on a semi-industrial scale,

an expense far greater than that of scientific research proper”.

Research and Development - World’s top 10 leaders statistics

Fig 1 - World’s top 10 leaders in gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) by type of R&D activity, 2009

or latest available year7.

Notes:

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, UIS database, June 2011, Science and Technology Statistical

table 30.

Source for PPP conversion factor (local currency per international $): World Bank; World

Development Indicators, as of April 2011.

7 UNESCO Institute for Statistics

Basic

research

(%)

Applied

research

(%)

Experimental

development

(%)

Unknown

(%)

United States 2008 398.194.000 17,4 22,3 60,3

Japan 2008 148.719.235 11,4 21,7 62,6 4,3

China 2008 121.369.732 4,8 12,5 82,8

France 2008 46.262.320 25,4 39,0 35,6

Republic of Korea 2008 43.906.413 16,1 19,6 64,3

United Kingdom 2008 40.096.350 8,8 40,6 50,6

Russian Federation 2009 33.368.083 21,0 20,1 58,9

Italy 2008 24.510.194 27,0 45,6 27,4

Spain 2008 20.434.838 20,9 43,3 35,8

India 2005 19.617.935 18,1 25,1 22,0 34,8

89.647.910 17,1 29,0 50,0

Expenditure on R&D (GERD)

by type of R&D activity

Country

Latest

available

year

Expenditure

on

R&D (GERD)

in '000

current PPP$

Total Average



23

Fig 2 - World’s top 10 leaders in gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) by type of R&D funding, 20088.

Notes:

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, UIS database, June 2011, Science and Technology Statistical

table 30.

“NA” – Data not available

“Business enterprise” - R&D expenditure in the business sector, where the business sector in the

context of R&D statistics includes (Source OECD - 2002, Frascati Manual):

o All firms, organizations and institutions whose primary activity is the market production of

goods or services (other than higher education) for sale to the general public at an

economically significant price.

o The private non-profit institutions mainly serving them.

“Government” - R&D expenditure in the government sector, where the government sector in the

context of R&D statistics includes (Source OECD - 2002, Frascati Manual):

o All departments, offices and other bodies which furnish, but normally do not sell to the

community, those common services, other than higher education, which cannot otherwise

be conveniently and economically provided, as well as those that administer the state and

the economic and social policy of the community. Public enterprises are included in the

business enterprise sector.

o The non-profit institutions (NPIs) controlled and mainly financed by government but not

administered by the higher education sector.

“Higher education” - R&D expenditure in the higher education sector, where the higher education

sector in the context of R&D statistics includes (Source OECD - 2002, Frascati Manual):

o All universities, colleges of technology and other institutions of post-secondary education,

whatever their source of finance or legal status.

8 UNESCO Institute for Statistics

By

Business

enterprise

%

By

Government

%

By

Higher

education

%

By

Private

non-profit

%

By

Abroad

%

United States 2008 67,3 27,1 2,7 3,0 NA

Japan 2008 78,2 15,6 5,1 0,7 0,4

China 2008 71,7 23,6 NA NA 1,2

France 2008 50,7 38,9 1,2 1,1 8,0

Republic of Korea 2008 72,9 25,4 1,0 0,4 0,3

United Kingdom 2008 45,4 30,7 1,2 4,9 17,7

Russian Federation 2008 28,7 64,7 0,5 0,2 5,9

Italy 2008 45,2 42,9 1,3 2,8 7,8

Spain 2008 45,0 45,6 3,2 0,6 5,7

India 2008 NA NA NA NA Na

56,1 34,9 2,0 1,7 5,9

Latest

available

year

Expenditure on R&D (GERD)

by type of R&D funding

Country

Total Average



24

o It also includes all research institutes, experimental stations and clinics operating under the

direct control of or administered by or associated with higher education institutions.

“Private non-profit” - The Private non-profit sector in the context of R&D statistics includes (Source

OECD - 2002, Frascati Manual):

o Non-market, private non-profit institutions serving households (i.e. the general public).

o Private individuals or households.

“Abroad” - In the context of R&D statistics, abroad refers to (Source OECD - 2002, Frascati

Manual):

o All institutions and individuals located outside the political borders of a country; except

vehicles, ships, aircraft and space satellites operated by domestic entities and testing

grounds acquired by such entities.

o All international organizations (except business enterprises), including facilities and

operations within a country’s borders.

Research and Development - Regional average statistics

Fig 3 - Gross domestic expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP, 2009 or latest available year

The previous Fig 3 illustrates the percentage of GDP devoted to R&D activities. This indicator reflects

national R&D intensity by presenting gross domestic R&D expenditure relative to the size of the national

economy.



25

The 2007 regional averages, in descending order, are:

2.6% for North America;

1.9% for Oceania;

1.6% for Europe;

1.6% for Asia;

0.6% for Latin America and the Caribbean;

0.4% for Africa.

Conclusion

What we learned ?

Development has been a Research practice from the beginning

Development original mission has been modified for firm’s interests

The average of world’s top 10 leaders in gross domestic expenditure on R&D activity is assigned for

50% to Development

The average of world’s top 10 leaders in gross domestic expenditure on R&D funding is assigned for

56,1% to business enterprise

The so called “developing countries” present the lowest level of percentage of GDP devoted to R&D

activities

Guilds

Guilds have contributed at patent laws but they indicated an interesting approach to social organization as

well.

A guild9 is an association of craftsmen in a particular trade. The earliest types of guild were formed as

confraternities of workers. … An important result of the guild framework was the emergence of universities

at Bologna, Paris, and Oxford around the year 1200; they originated as guilds of students as at Bologna, or

of masters as at Paris. … The structures of the craftsmen's associations tended everywhere in similar

directions: a governing body, assisting functionaries and the members' assembly. The governing body

consisted of the leader and deputies. … The guild was made up by experienced and confirmed experts in

their field of handicraft. They were called master craftsmen. Before a new employee could rise to the level of

mastery, he had to go through a schooling period during which he was first called an apprentice. After this

period he could rise to the level of journeyman. Apprentices would typically not learn more than the most

basic techniques until they were trusted by their peers to keep the guild's or company's secrets.

9 Guild - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artisan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confraternity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_craftsman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apprenticeship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journeyman



26

Like journey, the distance that could be travelled in a day, the title 'journeyman' derives from the French

words for 'day' (jour and journée) from which came the middle English word journei. Journeymen were able

to work for other masters, unlike apprentices, and generally paid by the day and were thus day labourers.

After being employed by a master for several years, and after producing a qualifying piece of work, the

apprentice was granted the rank of journeyman and was given documents (letters or certificates from his

master and/or the guild itself) which certified him as a journeyman and entitled him to travel to other towns

and countries to learn the art from other masters. These journeys could span large parts of Europe and were

an unofficial way of communicating new methods and techniques, though by no means all journeymen

made such travels - they were most common in Germany and Italy, and in other countries journeymen from

small cities would often visit the capital. After this journey and several years of experience, a journeyman

could be received as master craftsman, though in some guilds this step could be made straight from

apprentice. This would typically require the approval of all masters of a guild, a donation of money and

other goods (often omitted for sons of existing members), and the production of a so-called masterpiece,

which would illustrate the abilities of the aspiring master craftsman; this was often retained by the guild.

The medieval guild was established by charters or letters patent or similar authority by the city or the ruler

and normally held a monopoly on trade in its craft within the city in which it operated: handicraft workers

were forbidden by law to run any business if they were not members of a guild, and only masters were

allowed to be members of a guild. Before these privileges were legislated, these groups of handicraft

workers were simply called 'handicraft associations'. The town authorities might be represented in the guild

meetings and thus had a means of controlling the handicraft activities. This was important since towns very

often depended on a good reputation for export of a narrow range of products, on which not only the

guild's, but the town's, reputation depended. Controls on the association of physical locations to well-known

exported products, helped to establish a town's place in global commerce — this led to modern trademarks.

The economic consequences of guilds have led to heated debates among European historians. Ogilvie

argues that their long apprenticeships were unnecessary to acquire skills, and their conservatism reduced

the rate of innovation and made the society poorer. She says their main goal was rent seeking, that is, to

shift money to the membership at the expense of the entire economy. Epstein and Prak's book rejects

Ogilvie's conclusions. Specifically, Epstein argues that guilds were cost-sharing rather than rent-seeking

institutions. They located and matched masters and likely apprentices through monitored learning. Whereas

the acquisition of craft skills required experience-based learning, he argues that this process necessitated

many years in apprenticeship.

Conclusion

What we learned ?

Guild played an important role to support knowledge and skills of a specific social domain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking



27

Guild formalized an organizational approach based on different levels of knowledge and skills, and

on three concepts seen as sequential steps in the process leading to innovation:

o imitation (as demanded to apprentice)

o invention (as demanded to journeyman)

o innovation (as demanded to craftsmen)

Guild, made up by experienced and confirmed experts in their field of handicraft called master

craftsmen “applied” what we know as the linear model of innovation:

o research (as knowledge)

o development (as apprenticeship)

o production (as journeyman)

o diffusion (as journey)

The Italian Renaissance

The Renaissance10 was a cultural movement that spanned roughly the 14th to the 17th century, beginning in

Florence in the Late Middle Ages and later spreading to the rest of Europe. The term is also used more

loosely to refer to the historical era, but since the changes of the Renaissance were not uniform across

Europe, this is a general use of the term. As a cultural movement, it encompassed a flowering of literature,

science, art, religion, and politics, and a resurgence of learning based on classical sources, the development

of linear perspective in painting, and gradual but widespread educational reform. Traditionally, this

intellectual transformation has resulted in the Renaissance being viewed as a bridge between the Middle

Ages and the Modern era. Although the Renaissance saw revolutions in many intellectual pursuits, as well

as social and political upheaval, it is perhaps best known for its artistic developments and the contributions

of such polymaths as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, who inspired the term "Renaissance man".

The Italian Renaissance11 began the opening phase of the Renaissance. Although the origins of a movement

that was confined largely to the literate culture of intellectual endeavor and patronage can be traced to the

earlier part of the 14th century, many aspects of Italian culture and society remained largely Medieval; the

Renaissance did not come into full swing until the end of the century. The word renaissance (Rinascimento

in Italian) means “rebirth”, and the era is best known for the renewed interest in the culture of classical

antiquity after the period that Renaissance humanists labeled the Dark Ages. The Italian Renaissance is best

known for its cultural achievements. Accounts of Renaissance literature usually begin with Petrarch (best

known for the elegantly polished vernacular sonnet sequence of the Canzoniere and for the craze for book

collecting that he initiated) and his friend and contemporary Boccaccio (author of the Decameron). Famous

vernacular poets of the 15th century include the renaissance epic authors Luigi Pulci (author of Morgante),

Matteo Maria Boiardo (Orlando Innamorato), and Ludovico Ariosto (Orlando Furioso). 15th century writers

such as the poet Poliziano and the Platonist philosopher Marsilio Ficino made extensive translations from

both Latin and Greek. In the early 16th century, Castiglione (The Book of the Courtier) laid out his vision of

10 Renaissance - Wikipedia 11

The Italian Renaissance - Wikipedia



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Middle_Ages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_antiquity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%28graphical%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_era

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_humanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_literature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrarch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canzoniere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_collecting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_collecting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boccaccio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decameron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Pulci

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgante

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matteo_Maria_Boiardo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Innamorato

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludovico_Ariosto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Furioso

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliziano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsilio_Ficino

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldassare_Castiglione

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Courtier



28

the ideal gentleman and lady, while Machiavelli cast a jaundiced eye on "la verità effettuale della cosa"—

the actual truth of things—in The Prince, composed, humanist style, chiefly of parallel ancient and modern

examples of Virtù. Italian Renaissance painting exercised a dominant influence on subsequent European

painting (see Western painting) for centuries afterwards, with artists such as Giotto di Bondone, Masaccio,

Piero della Francesca, Domenico Ghirlandaio, Perugino, Michelangelo, Raphael, Botticelli, Leonardo da

Vinci, and Titian. The same is true for architecture, as practiced by Brunelleschi, Leone Alberti, Andrea

Palladio, and Bramante. Their works include Florence Cathedral, St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, and the Tempio

Malatestiano in Rimini (to name a only a few, not to mention many splendid private residences: see

Renaissance architecture). Finally, the Aldine Press, founded by the printer Aldo Manuzio, active in Venice,

developed Italic type and the small, relatively portable and inexpensive printed book that could be carried in

one's pocket, as well as being the first to publish editions of books in Ancient Greek.

Lorenzo de' Medici12 was an Italian statesman and de facto ruler of the Florentine Republic during the

Italian Renaissance. Known as Lorenzo the Magnificent (Lorenzo il Magnifico) by contemporary Florentines,

he was a diplomat, politician and patron of scholars, artists and poets. His life coincided with the high point

of the early Italian Renaissance; his death marked the end of the Golden Age of Florence. The fragile peace

he helped maintain between the various Italian states collapsed with his death. Lorenzo de' Medici is buried

in the Medici Chapel in Florence. Lorenzo's grandfather, Cosimo de' Medici, was the first member of the

Medici family to combine running the Medici bank with leading the Republic. Cosimo, one of the wealthiest

men in Europe, spent a very large portion of his fortune in government and philanthropy. He was a patron of

the arts and funded public works. Lorenzo's father, Piero 'the Gouty' de' Medici, was also at the center of

Florentine life, active as an art patron and collector. His mother Lucrezia Tornabuoni was a poet and writer

of sonnets. She was also a friend to figures like Luigi Pulci and Agnolo Poliziano and became her son's

advisor when he took over power. Lorenzo's court included artists such as Piero and Antonio del Pollaiuolo,

Andrea del Verrocchio, Leonardo da Vinci, Sandro Botticelli, Domenico Ghirlandaio, and Michelangelo

Buonarroti who were involved in the 15th century Renaissance. Although he did not commission many

works himself, he helped them secure commissions from other patrons. Michelangelo lived with Lorenzo and

his family for five years, dining at the family table and attending meetings of the Neo-Platonic Academy.

Lorenzo was an artist himself, writing poetry in his native Tuscan. Cosimo had started the collection of books

which became the Medici Library (also called the Laurentian Library) and Lorenzo expanded it. Lorenzo's

agents retrieved from the East large numbers of classical works, and he employed a large workshop to copy

his books and disseminate their content across Europe. He supported the development of humanism

through his circle of scholarly friends who studied Greek philosophers, and attempted to merge the ideas of

Plato with Christianity; among this group were the philosophers Marsilio Ficino, Poliziano and Giovanni Pico

della Mirandola.

Renaissance humanism13 was an intellectual movement in Europe of the later Middle Ages and the Early

Modern period. The 19th-century German historian Georg Voigt (1827–91) identified Petrarch as the first

Renaissance humanist. Paul Johnson agrees that Petrarch was "the first to put into words the notion that

the centuries between the fall of Rome and the present had been the age of Darkness.” According to

Petrarch, what was needed to remedy this situation was the careful study and imitation of the great

12 Lorenzo de’ Medici - Wikipedia 13

Humanism - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virt%C3%B9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Renaissance_painting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_painting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giotto_di_Bondone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaccio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piero_della_Francesca

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domenico_Ghirlandaio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perugino

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botticelli



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_architecture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Brunelleschi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leone_Alberti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Palladio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Palladio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bramante

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Cathedral

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter%27s_Basilica

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempio_Malatestiano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempio_Malatestiano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_architecture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldo_Manuzio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_type

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentine_Republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Renaissance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici_Chapel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosimo_de%27_Medici

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici_bank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piero_di_Cosimo_de%27_Medici

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucrezia_Tornabuoni

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Pulci

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnolo_Poliziano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piero_del_Pollaiolo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_del_Pollaiuolo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_del_Verrocchio


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandro_Botticelli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domenico_Ghirlandaio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo_Buonarroti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo_Buonarroti


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuscan_dialect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentian_Library

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workshop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsilio_Ficino

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliziano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Pico_della_Mirandola

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Pico_della_Mirandola

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Voigt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrarch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_%28writer%29



29

classical authors. For Petrarch and Boccaccio, the greatest master was Cicero, whose prose became the

model for both learned (Latin) and vernacular (Italian) prose. Once the language was mastered

grammatically it could be used to attain the second stage, eloquence or rhetoric. This art of persuasion

[Cicero had held] was not art for its own sake, but the acquisition of the capacity to persuade others — all

men and women — to lead the good life. As Petrarch put it, 'it is better to will the good than to know the

truth.' Rhetoric thus led to and embraced philosophy. Leonardo Bruni (c.1369–1444), the outstanding

scholar of the new generation, insisted that it was Petrarch who “opened the way for us to show how to

acquire learning". The line from a drama of Terence, “Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto”,

meaning " I am a man: and I deem nothing pertaining to man is foreign to me", known since antiquity

through the endorsement of Saint Augustine, gained renewed currency as epitomizing the humanist

attitude. The influence of Terence’s felicitous phrase on Roman thinking about human rights can hardly be

overestimated.

Two hundred years later Seneca ended his seminal exposition of the unity of mankind with a clarion-call:

“There is one short rule that should regulate human relationships. All that you see, both divine and

human, is one. We are parts of the same great body. Nature created us from the same source and

to the same end. She imbued us with mutual affection and sociability, she taught us to be fair and

just, to suffer injury rather than to inflict it. She bid us extend or hands to all in need of help. Let that

well-known line be in our heart and on our lips: Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto."

It was in education that the humanists' program had the most lasting results, their curriculum and methods

“were followed everywhere, serving as models for the Protestant Reformers as well as the Jesuits. The

humanistic school, animated by the idea that the study of classical languages and literature provided

valuable information and intellectual discipline as well as moral standards and a civilized taste for future

rulers, leaders, and professionals of its society, flourished without interruption, through many significant

changes, until our own century, surviving many religious, political and social revolutions. It has but recently

been replaced, though not yet completely, by other more practical and less demanding forms of education”.

Just as artist and inventor Leonardo da Vinci — partaking of the zeitgeist though not himself a humanist —

advocated study of human anatomy, nature, and weather to enrich Renaissance works of art, craft, and

practical techniques to improve the formal teaching of Aristotelian philosophy at the universities, helping to

free them from the grip of Medieval Scholasticism. Thus, the stage was set for the adoption of an approach

to natural philosophy, based on empirical observations and experimentation of the physical universe,

making possible the advent of the age of scientific inquiry that followed the Renaissance.

Conclusion

What we learned ?

Italian renaissance played an important role to support culture as knowledge and skills of human

domain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boccaccio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_Bruni

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism



30

Italian renaissance based its innovation on three sequential concepts:

o imitation (as study of the great classical authors)

o invention (generated by the common and central role of human being)

o innovation (best known for its cultural achievements)

Italian renaissance, made up by experienced and confirmed experts in their field of handicraft

called master craftsmen “applied” what we know as the linear model of innovation:

o research (based on studies and empirical observations)

o development (as common ingenium)

o production (as personal ingenium)

o diffusion (as adoption of an approach to natural philosophy)

Leonardo da Vinci

One of the most known and important man of the Italian Renaissance is Leonardo da Vinci.

Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci14 (April 15, 1452 – May 2, 1519) was an Italian Renaissance polymath:

painter, sculptor, architect, musician, scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist,

cartographer, botanist and writer. Leonardo has often been described as the archetype of the Renaissance

Man, a man of "unquenchable curiosity" and "feverishly inventive imagination". He is widely considered to

be one of the greatest painters of all time and perhaps the most diversely talented person ever to have

lived. According to art historian Helen Gardner, the scope and depth of his interests were without precedent

and "his mind and personality seem to us superhuman, the man himself mysterious and remote". Marco

Rosci points out, however, that while there is much speculation about Leonardo, his vision of the world is

essentially logical rather than mysterious, and that the empirical methods he employed were unusual for his

time. Renaissance humanism saw no mutually exclusive polarities between the sciences and the arts, and

Leonardo's studies in science and engineering are as impressive and innovative as his artistic work. These

studies were recorded in 13,000 pages of notes and drawings, which fuse art and natural philosophy (the

forerunner of modern science), made and maintained daily throughout Leonardo's life and travels, as he

made continual observations of the world around him. Leonardo's notes appear to have been intended for

publication because many of the sheets have a form and order that would facilitate this. In many cases a

single topic, for example, the heart or the human foetus, is covered in detail in both words and pictures, on a

single sheet. Why they were not published within Leonardo's lifetime is unknown. A recent and exhaustive

analysis of Leonardo as Scientist by Frtijof Capra argues that Leonardo was a fundamentally different kind

of scientist from Galileo, Newton and other scientists who followed him. Leonardo's experimentation

followed clear scientific method approaches, and his theorizing and hypothesizing integrated the arts and

particularly painting; these, and Leonardo's unique integrated, holistic views of science make him a

forerunner of modern systems theory and complexity schools of thought. Giorgio Vasari, in the enlarged

edition of Lives of the Artists (1568), introduced his chapter on Leonardo da Vinci with the following words:

14

Leonardo da Vinci - Wikipedia





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sculptor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musician

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematician

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartographer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botanist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Gardner_%28art_historian%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_humanism


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_Vasari

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lives_of_the_Most_Excellent_Painters,_Sculptors,_and_Architects



31

“In the normal course of events many men and women are born with remarkable talents; but

occasionally, in a way that transcends nature, a single person is marvelously endowed by Heaven

with beauty, grace and talent in such abundance that he leaves other men far behind, all his actions

seem inspired and indeed everything he does clearly comes from God rather than from human skill.

Everyone acknowledged that this was true of Leonardo da Vinci, an artist of outstanding physical

beauty, who displayed infinite grace in everything that he did and who cultivated his genius so

brilliantly that all problems he studied he solved with ease.”

Conclusion

All these quotations and historical references imply a vision toward the past ?

Sure not. The choice to present some historical events is finalized to increase the value of what already

have been done in the history, from human being for human being. If so, which is the role of present ?

Present has a fundamental role because complementary and son of the past. In other words would mean

no sense try to propose a new model of Social Innovation without considering nowadays real life and the

concrete opportunities available today. Godin’s and Carty’s concepts, beyond historical examples, show us

a pre-existing alternative at the role of research “subordinated” at capitalistic economy. In fact the

proposed vision about basic and applied research is here revised to underline how “policy for science” can

trigger infinite capabilities if compared at the value model of human being as Subject of a culture like

Renaissance one. On the contrary “science for policy”, as we noted based on capitalistic economy values,

does not allow the same opportunities due to the capitalistic concept and aim, whether seen as

“transcendent” to human being, or as advocate of a “thing culture” more and more perceived as a status

symbol and an expression of money power.

For all these reasons we can affirm that a paradigm shift from capitalistic economy to social economy does

not require a change in the meaning of research concept, both basic and applied. This for sure obvious for

basic research (in the meaning of knowledge), the same we can state for applied research where, according

to Carty the latter “is always conducted with the purpose of accomplish some utilitarian end”15, where

utilitarian does not imply “market value” but, from latin “that for can be usable”, individually or socially.

If these arguments are true the Godin’s linear model of innovation maintain its soundness, because the

sequential association of Development and (Production and) Diffusion at the previous Research steps refers

to the social values of reference (see Fig 4).

15 J.J. Carty (1916), The Relation of Pure Science to Industrial Research, Reprint and Circular Series, No. 14, National Research Council



32

Fig 4 – The Linear Model of Innovation driven by Social Value

Next steps requires an analysis concerning with:

the identification of the Social Economy, as defined nowadays

the check if there are Social Values that drive Policy for Science, that in turn drive Social Economy



33

The Social Economy - a common point of view

What is Social Economy ?

Social economy16 refers to a third sector in economies between the private sector and business or, the public

sector and government.

Economies may be considered to have three sectors:

1. the business private sector, which is privately owned and profit motivated;

2. the public sector which is owned by the state on behalf of the people of the state;

3. the social economy, that embraces a wide range of community, voluntary and not-for-profit

activities.

Sometimes there is also reference to a fourth sector, the informal sector, where informal exchanges take

place between family and friends.

The third sector can be broken down into three sub-sectors; the community sector, the voluntary sector and

the social enterprise sector:

The community sector includes those organizations active on a local or community level, usually

small, modestly funded and largely dependent on voluntary, rather than paid, effort.

The UK's National Council for Voluntary Organizations describes the voluntary sector as including

those organizations that are: formal (they have a constitution); independent of government and

self-governing; not-for-profit and operate with a meaningful degree of volunteer involvement.

According to the UK government's definition, the social enterprise sector includes organizations

which "are businesses with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for

that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximize

profit for shareholders and owners".

The social economy spans economic activity in the community, voluntary and social enterprise sectors. The

social economy usually develops because of a need to find new and innovative solutions to issues (whether

they be socially, economically or environmentally based) and to satisfy the needs of members and users

which have been ignored or inadequately fulfilled by the private or public sectors. By using solutions to

achieve not-for-profit aims, it is generally believed that the social economy has a distinct and valuable role

to play in helping create a strong, sustainable, prosperous and inclusive society.

Defining the limits of the social economy sector is made especially difficult by the ‘moving sands’ of the

political and economic context. Consequently organizations may be ‘part in, part out’, ‘in this year, out the

next’ or moving within the social economy’s various sub-sectors. There is no single right or wrong definition

of the social economy. Many commentators and reports have consciously avoided trying to introduce a tight

definition for fear of causing more problems than they solve.

16

Social economy - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sector

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_sector

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_sector

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_for_Voluntary_Organisations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_enterprise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic



34

The Social Enterprise Compass

One solution can be to locate organizations in the Social Enterprise Compass17. The Social Enterprise

Compass locates enterprises and organizations in the field between the business private sector and the

public sector. The social enterprise compass is easily illustrated (see Fig 5.):

Fig 5 – The Social Enterprise Compass

The horizontal axis

On the horizontal axis each enterprise / organization is categorized by its ownership. On the left side the

ownership lies with the public authorities whereas on the right side the ownership lies with private people.

So the distinctive feature is the ownership of the enterprise:

Is it private? Def.: The term “private industry” contains all economic activity that deals with the

capital of one or many private owners with a view to making profits. The capital owners bear the

risk.

Or is it public? Def.: The term “public authorities” contains all economic activity where the public

authorities possess the capital on either European, federal, regional or local level. That includes all

nationalized and public industries.

17

Social economy - Wikipedia



35

The vertical axis

On the vertical axis, each enterprise / organization is categorized by the primary objective of the enterprise.

The dimensions range between social purpose on the top and commercial purpose at the bottom of the axis.

On the vertical axis an organization reaches the top, i.e. the social purpose is the primary objective of the

enterprise, if you fulfill the following criteria:

A. Ethical concept - core definition for enterprises / organizations of the social economy:

this core definition is the ideal of an enterprise / organization. Only these enterprises / organizations

belong to the social economy whose ideal is a clearly defined ethical concept.

B Mission - (key identification):

the primary objective of the enterprise is the improvement of the life situation and the chances of

disadvantaged people as well as social cohesion and support.

C Social economic creation of value and appropriation of earnings - qualitative key identification:

the profits and the resources are verifiably reinvested for the benefit of disadvantaged people.

If the criteria A, B and C are totally fulfilled, an organization can locate itself on top of the vertical axis.

There is one last criteria which is not definitional but a describing feature:

D Intermediary function - Social economical enterprises / organizations have an intermediary function

between public and private.

If none of the criteria above is fulfilled or the primary object of the enterprise is the commercial purpose

then an enterprise / organization is located on the bottom of the vertical axis.

Location between social and commercial purpose

If the criteria above are only partly fulfilled the enterprise is located between the top and the bottom of the

vertical axis according to its self-definition.



36

The Social Economy - a new point of view

Thanks to a major study18 being done by a team at the Young Foundation with support from NESTA, on the

methods being used to generate and grow social innovation around the world, we can fix some key points

on Social Economy and Innovation:

Background

The architecture of the social economy

The process of social innovation

Methods and supports

Background

We are currently in the midst of a period of transformative innovation. Two sometimes clashing, sometimes

coinciding, themes give it its distinctive character. One comes from technology: the spread of networks and

global infrastructures for information and social networking tools. The other comes from culture and values:

the growing emphasis on the human dimension, on putting people first, giving democratic voice and

starting with the individual and relationships rather than systems and structures. … For most of the 20th

century innovation policy and practice was primarily concerned with hardware and with the market

economy. Social innovation took place – in daily life, social movements and around the state. But it has only

recently come to be a conscious concern of policy discussion for three main reasons:

1. There are a range of problems that existing structures and policies have found it impossible to crack

– such as climate change, the world wide epidemic of chronic disease, and widening inequality.

These are all issues that cut across boundaries, between the state, the market and the household,

between different parts of the state, and between national states themselves. As a result the classic

tools of government policy on the one hand, and market solutions on the other, have proved

inadequate.

2. The prospective cost of dealing with these (quite apart from the rising costs of other social issues)

threatens to swamp public budgets … but effective prevention has been notoriously difficult to

introduce, in spite of its transparent economic and social benefits.

3. As in earlier technological and social transformations, there is a disjunction between the structures

and institutions formed in a previous period and the requirements of the new. This is as true for the

private as for the social economy. New paradigms tend to flourish in areas where the institutions

are most open to them, and where the forces of the old are weak. …

18 Murray R, Mulgan G, Caulier‐Grice J (2011), How to Innovate: the tools for social innovation, The Young Foundation, NESTA (Work in progress – circulated for comment)



37

We are currently at one of the rare moments when a new set of paradigms challenges the previous ones. In

place of the old world of mass production, with its standardized products and services, its reliance on

deskilled labour, its cumbrous system of innovation, its focus on scale and all that enables it, its centralized

structures of organization and information, and the long standing disjunction of home and overseas

markets, we have seen the emergence of a new world. This new world is one formed around distributed

systems as much as centralized structures. It handles complexity not by standardization and simplification

imposed from the centre, but by distributing complexity to the margins – to the local managers and workers

on the shop floor, as much as to the consumers themselves. Those at the margins have what central

managers can never have – knowledge of specificity ‐ specificity of time, of place, of particular events and in

the consumer’s case of need and desire. We enter a world of differentiation and the dissolution of the norm.

The micro can now be aggregated to the macro. In place of scale (which is the simple issue) the new

concerns are with economies of scope, of information, and most strikingly of trust.

In factories and workshops we have witnessed over the past twenty years a radical reorientation of the

governing principle of production – something like a magnetic reversal – from a push‐through to a

pull‐through economy: … this is itself a revolution within a revolution, enabling a whole productive system

to meet a differentiated demand. The role of the consumer changes as a result, from a passive to an active

player, not only as a navigator and even shaper of the emerging kingdom governed by the tyranny of

choice, but as a producer in their own right. … Firms that have failed to adapt to this new world have either

gone out of business or shifted production to the zones of cheaper labour in Eastern Europe and Asia

Similar shifts can be seen in the social economy. The mechanisms of service and institutional transformation

are different within government and in grant funded economies from those in competitive markets. They

also differ around the world, shaped by institutional, political and cultural histories which have lent very

different roles to the state, civil society and the market. … In both the market and the state, the rise of

distributed networks has coincided with a marked turn towards the human, the personal and the individual.

This has brought a greater interest in the quality of relationships: it has led to lively innovation around

personalization and to, a new world rich in information and feedback…. Some of what is happening in the

market entails the adoption of ideas from the social sector – collaboration, cooperation, trust‐based

networks, user involvement in service design, for example, are all familiar concepts in the social field and

are now seen as on the cutting edge of business.

A Hybrid Economy

So how can the innovations needed to address ever more pressing (and costly) social and environmental

demands be generated in the social economy, and grown in ways that spread power rather than

concentrating it?

Traditionally, those social tasks for which the private market is inadequate have fallen to three quite

different economies, the state, the household, and the grant economy. Each has its own means of obtaining

resources, each its own structures of control and allocation, its own rules and customs for the distribution of

its outputs, and its principles of reciprocity. In the industrial economies of the twentieth century, nations

reached different settlements about the border lines and responsibilities of each. In Western Europe and

Canada, the state played the leading role. In the USA a tradition of resistance to ‘big government’ left



38

households to manage as best they could, with a greater role played by charitable foundations (though still

with a large state by historical standards, and one that has played a role in funding a number of major

commercial innovations).

Social innovation, in this context, refers not to any particular sector of the economy, but to innovation in the

creation of social outputs and outcomes regardless of where they spring from. This is illustrated by the

shaded area in Fig 6. None of the four economies is wholly concerned with the social economy as defined

above ‐ production oriented to social needs and aspirations. The market economy itself, although largely

private, nevertheless engages in the social economy in the form, for example, of corporate social

responsibility or movements like fair trade. The household, like the market, is in part purely private, but

forms a critical part of the social economy both through labour in the household, and via the contribution to

the substance and direction of social production of informal networks, associations and social movements.

The grant economy, on the other hand, is by its nature largely concerned with the delivery of services as a

counterpoint to the private market, as is much state spending. The shaded area therefore represents those

parts of each of the four sub economies that together constitute the social economy.

Fig 6 - The Social Economy

The boundaries and responsibilities of each of these social sectors as established in the period of mass

production are being brought into question, as is the distinction between the market and the social

economy. The binary opposition between the market and the state, which was the fulcrum of twentieth

century politics (and its ideologies), is being contextualized into a more complex set of relations as the

market reaches into the state, and the state into the market, and as both find new accommodations with

civil society and the grant economy.

The old boundary criteria of private and public goods, the one being assigned to the market and the other to

the state, is no longer adequate. It is not just a question of the characteristics of a good or a service and its



39

intrinsic capacity to be commodified that determines whether it should be undertaken in the private or the

public sphere. It is also a question first of the kind of market, the kind of state, and the nature of the

interface between them, and second of how the state and the market relate to those two other economic

types, the household and the grant economy.

When it comes to considering social innovation, therefore, the inquiry can in no way be confined to any one

sector – such as the so called third sector. It has to cover all these sectors, and the dynamics of the relations

between them. Its capacity to innovate will depend as much on innovation in the structures, the goals and

the cross border relations of each of the four economic spheres, as on any specific role that each has

traditionally played. Reaching beyond the limitations of categories allows us to explore how markets can be

re-institutionalized so that they meet the goals of the social economy – so those operating in the market can

include in their goals and their calculus what was previously excluded. This is the burden of much recent

environmental policy that seeks to redefine the responsibilities of private property, to internalize costs and

benefits that were previously external, reframing regulations and incentives to this end. It runs in parallel

with the question of how to re-institutionalize the state, including transforming concepts of public property

and the means of ‘commensurating’ social production, and reshaping the state’s methods of allocation and

control.

Considering social innovation as stemming from multiple sources encourages us to recognize emergent

trends from outside the state and the private market. One is new forms of mutual action between

individuals within the household economy – whether in the form of open source software, or web based

social networking around specific issues. … The implications of peer‐to‐peer collaboration of this kind for

many of the contemporary social economic issues have only begun to be explored, and prompt the question

of whether and how such systems of highly distributed innovation and mutual support can be encouraged –

how do they relate to the state and the market, and to their terms of funding and employment. Who will

provide the necessary tools and platforms? Who will determine the protocols? Can they be self managed, or

will they need hosts and intermediaries? These are some of the questions thrown up by this explosive area

of innovation.

Another striking development has been the growth of social enterprise operating within the market. These

are companies with a social mission, often socially owned and investing their profits in pursuit of their

mission. One of the most visible examples of social enterprise is the Grameen Bank and its network of 27

enterprises and imitators, whose driving goal is to improve the incomes and well being of the poorest. The

rural villages of Bangledesh, where its work is centered, could hardly be farther from Silicon Valley, yet

Grameen has many of the characteristics of the new paradigm – a highly distributed credit network in

39,000 villages, by far the most extensive in the country, a method for personalizing loans and easing their

repayment, and a support structure based on networks of women. As a social enterprise, it is majority

owned and governed by its borrowers, 98% of them women. Significantly it calls its lending ‘micro’ credit

and it has grown both by the spread of its model internationally. … How this is done and its underlying

economic and organizational model has a significance that extends well beyond the rural poor of

Bangladesh. Here the point is that Grameen operates in the market with the same freedom and discipline as

a private company, but with a social goal, social ownership and a social distribution and re‐investment of

profits.



40

The economics of social innovation

Over the past twenty five years the predominant economic discourse in relation to the social economy has

been a modern version of the classical debate between Smith and Ricardo, the one emphasizing micro

commodity exchange through the market, the other macro distribution through the agency of the state. In

modern dress, the former has been applied to the public sector as a means of reducing costs and increasing

efficiency. It has been advanced through the actual or simulated commodification of what had previously

been commensurated and distributed according to the non market conventions of public finance. The latter

has struggled with the question of state led redistribution in the context of the international mobility of

capital and entrepreneurial labor. Yet neither of these traditions adequately addressed the economy wide

issues of accumulation and what Schumpeter later called capitalism’s process of creative destruction, with

its focus on the material characteristics of production and technological innovation. We want to suggest a

Schumpeterian approach to social innovation, that is, examining what type of economy can generate and

accumulate social innovation, and what if any are the processes of creative destruction in the social

economy that allow new ways of meeting social needs to supersede or reconstitute the old. Traditionally,

the primary site of innovation has been taken to be the private market because it has well developed

structures, mechanisms and incentives that drive innovation. States and the grant economy still dominate

fundamental research into new cures and new technologies. But they cannot match the scope and diffusion

of innovation seen in the market. The household – that most distributed of economic systems – generates

ideas but on its own lacks the capital, surplus time and organizational capacity to fully develop them. The

question suggested by developments such as social networking, open source software, and Grameen, is

whether the social economy can develop a capacity to foster and generalize innovations that matches the

private market. Can it move from a responsive filling of the gaps left by the private market, to generate an

economic dynamic of its own?

Posing the issue of social innovation in this way suggests, in order to mark three areas of social innovation,

that there are three principal levels of inquiry that we need to pursue:

1° The institutional conditions: a macro one about innovations in the structures and mechanisms of

the social economy, that would strengthen its capacity to develop and diffuse innovation. It asks

what types of institutions and modes of economic operation are necessary to generate adequate

responses to the social imperatives now confronting us.

2° The distinct processes: a micro enquiry into the process of social innovation, also in the

Schumpeterian tradition, about how new ideas are generated and tested out in practice, how they

can establish themselves sustainably, how they extend and spread, and how they can confront,

by‐pass or transform the restrictive structures of the old order.

3° The systemic innovations: an inquiry into innovation in productive systems. What are the

strategies and processes that lead to the re‐shaping of the complex topography of critical areas of

social production and distribution ‐ of who does what, how and with whom – in ways that reflect the

changing paradigm.

The three levels of inquiry mark three areas of social innovation.



41

The architecture of the social economy

Here, we outline the architecture for three principal levels of the inquiry, and our analysis of the shape of

the social economy. The next three diagrams deal with the reconfiguration of the first of these spheres (the

institutional conditions for Social innovation) of the social economy. In Fig 7, we set out the four sub

economies and suggest some of the key areas of change for the promotion of endogenous innovation.

Fig 7 - The architecture for the analysis of social innovation

These sub economies are not in any way isolated. Though they have their own distinct economic

mechanisms, they form part of an inter‐connected system, and it is the relationships between them which

are as significant as the relationships within them. The enquiry will consider the key interfaces and how they

can be modified in order to promote innovation.

Formally, if there are four sub economies, there will be six interfaces, as shown in Fig 8 below.



42

Fig 8 - The six key interfaces of the social economy

State Grant

State Market

State Household

Central to these interfaces is the way finance crosses the borders, inwards in the form of taxation

and fees, outwards in the form of grants, procurement and investment. There are many others,

including the regulatory, fiscal and legal conditions determined by the state, and the platforms and

tools provided by the state for the actors in other parts of the social economy. Each of these can be

critical for innovation (for example changes in personal tax to allow new forms of caring) and are

subject to innovation in themselves (for example the creation of community interest company status

as an element in company law).

Market Grant

These relations include, for example, corporate sponsorship, charitable donations, mentoring and

various types of corporate social responsibility. There are also emergent forms of productive

collaboration between private corporations and NGOs,...combining commercial provision of goods

and services with mutual support and roles for NGOs.

Market Household

This is of course the space where firms operate, selling products and services to households and

engaging individuals as workers. In some cases firms have used the particular relations that

characterize households as a channel for selling. The extent to which social networks and a gift

economy operate in the sphere of consumption has long been remarked on by anthropologists for

example. … But there are broader connections as in the way social movements have allied with



43

sections of the private sector to press for systemic changes – for example the current political

economy of environmental change.

Household Grant

Between the grant and the household economies there are also two way movements, of donations

and volunteering from one direction to a multitude of services from the other. One of the most

sensitive areas of this interface is when associations and movements from the household economy

partially transfer themselves into the grant economy, appointing professionals paid for by

subscriptions or grants.

These examples are the tidy, analytical depiction of the interfaces. In practice, however, each sub economy

may relate simultaneously to a number of the others. For example, the state can promote social innovation

in the market as well as the grant economy by applying certain policy and regulatory levers such as

minimum trading standards and compulsory targets for the employment of people with disabilities. This is

also the case with household generated innovation; there are a number of areas to explore that cut across

and apply to the three interfaces between the household and the other sub economies. … For example the

development of new systems of support economy … closely linked to the development of co‐creation and

co‐production representing a partnership between households and professionals…. There is then the whole

subject of household time and how it relates to social production and innovation. One of the questions here

is how if at all it would be possible to acknowledge the voluntary time contributed by the household sector,

either individually or collectively, in some form of credits for cash or public rights and reduced obligations.

This is already becoming a key issue in relation to ageing – how to recognize and reward different types of

care and volunteering. Finally, there is the complex issue of managing space – moving beyond the sharp

public/private distinction, to degrees of the social, and how public space is allocated and administered. This

question is of course central to current discussions of urban and rural policy (from lighting, to curfews, to

concierges and street wardens, and of course to many aspects of urban transport). Here we want to focus

on how spatial issues of this kind bear on the capacity for the household sector to innovate – for example in

forms of recreation

In the following Fig 9, we have picked out a couple of key examples for each of the six interfaces. These

examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive but are meant to highlight the issues of relevance to the

present enquiry.

Fig 9 – Example of the six key interfaces of the social economy



44

Conclusion

What we learned ?

Social economy definition has evolved from the previous identification with the third sector

Social economy evolution and growth must be holistic with reference to all its sub-economy

The different sub-economies composing social economy have equal rights and duties

Social economy so defined doesn’t include a clear definition of the social value that in turn drive

the policy for science pushing the social economy itself

So, the previous figure of the linear model of innovation for social economy, which should be driven by

social value, should be updated like this

Fig 10 – The Linear Model of Innovation for Social Economy

What about Social Innovation ?



45

Part 2 – Applied Research



46

The Social Economy - the institutional conditions for Innovation

The following sections cover some of the key enablers, methods or tools for social innovation – the

background conditions, funding flows and institutions that support the emergence of new ideas in the four

sub economies of the social economy, illustrated by the shaded area in the diagram below: the public, grant,

market and household economies. We examine these sub economies one by one.

Fig 11 - The Social Economy

The Public Economy

A key to transforming the conditions for encouraging the generation and adoption of innovation within the

public sector and through its procurement, grants and investment programs is a change in the tax

relationship, in public budgeting and in the structure of financial accountability. Where the sources of funds

and accountability shift from upwards to outwards there is greater scope for innovation and for the

prompting of innovation.

Fig 12 - The Public Economy



47

Public Finance: methods to generate internal innovation

Changing the tax relationship

Voluntary taxes (es: Community Pledgebanks, public subscriptions, lotteries, and competitions)

Local bonds (es: Tax Increment Financing - TIF, Business Improvement Districts - BID)

Quasi Currencies and environmental permits (es: Packaging Recovery Notes, emissions trading,

targets, rewards and penalties)

Hypothecated taxes and obligations for households and corporations (es: BBC license fee, London

Congestion Charge, Climate Change Levy, Extended Producer Responsibility)

Socializing risk (es: new forms of social insurance for long term care to create incentives for

providers to develop innovative solutions which will reduce demand for services)

Budgetary practice to promote internal innovation

Top slicing (es: departmental budgets for innovation)

Dedicated innovation funds and internal public venture funds (es: the UK’s ‘Invest to Save’ budget

for cross‐cutting innovations, The Enterprise Challenge in Singapore)

Outcome based budgets which can be used to promote innovation (es: cross cutting outcome based

budgets)

Ring fencing financial gains from innovation (es: for initiators and developers)

Innovation‐related pay (es: institutional, team and personal performance bonuses linked to

innovation)

Distributed accountability and democratic innovation

Participatory budgeting (es: citizens define local priorities and allocate public money accordingly)

Large scale government‐led exercises (es: involve the public in generating ideas and possibilities)

Citizen petitions (es: citizen online petitions, the petitioners who receive the most support get the

chance to discuss their ideas in parliament)

Parliamentary structures to develop citizen ideas (es: Korea’s Tribunis Plebis a committee of senior

legislators committed to putting ideas into legislation)

Methods for participation and ideas generation and deliberation (es: the methods promoted by

AmericaSpeaks, as well as Deliberation Days, Consensus Decision‐Making, Fishbowls)

Online petitions (es: the No 10 website in the UK which allows citizens to petition the Prime

Minister)

‘Open’ Government (es: including open forms of consultation and participation)

Ideas and imagination Banks (es: to draw in public ideas for improving public services like Seoul

Metropolitan government launched its Imagination Bank in 2006 and in 2007 received 74000



48

proposals, 140 per day. All have to receive a reply within a week. 1300 were adopted wholesale and

many others partially)

Processes for involving children (es: in generating innovations, decision‐making, urban design,

planning, school management)

Opt out rights for communities (es: to design and run their own services)

Audit and inspection regimes (es: assess and support innovation)

Open source auditing (es: a mechanism for public accountability)

Tracking the public finances (es: public balance sheet accounting, the transparency of public finance

in Estonia)

User feedback on service quality (es: web based models such as patientopinion.org.uk and

Iwantgreatcare.org that hold service providers to account, or the Kafka Brigades in the Netherlands)

‘Open Politics’ (es: online platforms such as MoveOn.org and MeetUp.org which mobilize and

galvanize grassroots support for political parties)

A public medium of exchange

Direct payments and personal service budgets (es: the UK’s In Control, which enable people to

choose, arrange and pay for their own care and services)

Personal public accounts for credits and debits (es: the Danish Nemkonto Easy Account where

Danish citizens and companies nominate one of their bank accounts as their Nemkonto Account into

which all payments to and from public institutions are transferred directly. Such accounts would

enable the design of new public products, including loans and payments)

Smart cards (es: an extended version of the Oyster Card which would enable innovation by

connecting service users with multiple providers and by enabling improved data flows)

Transaction charges and payments (es: fees, variable charges, penalties, rewards, discounts, and

hypothecated fees for services by the state such as the transportation, waste and local food

transactions scheme in Curitiba, Brazil)

Public investment, loans and means of payment

Hybrid financing and joint ventures (es: the finance models used by Woking Borough Council and

the London Climate Change Agency (LCCA) to develop sustainable energy programmes)

Differential tax, credits, allowances and estate duties for personal public investment (es: those for

higher education, elder care and environmental investment)

Valorizing public investment by internalizing public returns (es: Community Land Trusts)

Financial instruments for preventative and service investment (es: the UK ‘Invest to Save’ budget,

the US Justice Re‐Investment programme and contingent revenue bonds such as the proposed Social

Savings or Social Impact Bonds)



49

Public labor: redesigning the labor contract

Public sector unions (es: the Fire Brigades Union in the UK which helps firemen find part time

employment as benefits advisors alongside their roles as firemen)

Front line workers as innovators (es: the nurses as social entrepreneurs program developed at

Oxford University’s Saïd Business School)

Tithes of working time (es: to generate collaborative public innovation, as extension of the Google

model whereby staff spend one day a week developing their own projects. The parallel in the public

sector could include making it easier to take sabbaticals to work on socially innovative projects)

Incentives for successful innovation (es: pension increments for proven innovation)

Secondments (es: public sector employees into skunk works, innovation teams and projects to

develop service innovation)

New professional definitions (es: to promote service innovation to include intramediaries,

intermediaries and innovation managers)

New funding and management methods (es: to separate project failure from redundancy including

a move from project to career employment terms and conditions)

Accreditation, search and recruitment of public innovators (es: commercial head hunters or

government agencies)

Innovation experience (es: a requirement for public advancement and formally integrated into the

appraisal process)

Formation and training (es: National School of Government – NSG, the Improvement and

Development Agency for local government – IdeA)

Organizational forms

Internal

Individuals (es: innovation champions and entrepreneurs, or individual consultants working as sole

traders)

Specialist innovation units (es: skunk works)

In house innovation and spin off teams (es: the Innovation Unit in the UK or Mindlab in Denmark

which was set up by the Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs, the Ministry of Taxation, and the

Ministry of Employment to bring together government, private enterprises and the research

community under one roof to promote user‐centered innovation)

Quality circles (es: to drive continuous improvement)

Innovation agencies (es: the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement in the UK)

Public venturing (es: the venture capital fund to promote green technologies being considered by

the Indian government)



50

Brokers & intermediaries

Intermediaries (es: Innovation Xchange in Australia and the Innovation Exchange and Innovation

Unit in the UK)

Mobile innovation units (es: specialised consultancies or service design agencies such as RED at the

Design Council)

Innovation accelerators (es: NESTA’s Public Services Innovation Laboratory)

Inside/outside grant administration and commissioning bodies (es: Futurebuilders which offers

financial support to third sector organizations to deliver publics services)

Bridging foundations (es: NESTA and Edge that aim to connect research and practice)

Sector specialist institutions and academies (es: WRAP and sectoral training colleges)

Professional collaboratives

Communities of practice (es. bring together practitioners in formal mutual learning)

Service collaborative (es: health collaborative)

Professional action learning groups (es: the Innovation Unit’s Next Practice model)

Metrics and assessment

Operational metrics (es: for statistical production control to spot emergent problems as prompts for

innovation, including the example of renal treatment in the US)

Comparative metrics (es: benchmarking to identify sources for learning)

Financial metrics (es: granular metrics of conventional methods and services)

Social and environmental metrics (es: Social Return on Investment - SROI, methods for measuring

Social Impact and cost/benefit analyses)

User oriented and generated metrics (es: surveys used to gather chronic disease data in Sheffield

and metrics geared to self‐monitoring such as those used by Activemobs in Kent)

Cross government innovation metrics (es: the Government Innovation Index developed by the

Government of South Korea to measure current levels of innovation, and the results of new

innovation)

Multi‐stakeholder dialogue and other forms of stakeholder assessment.

Assessment as learning (es: peer reviews and real time evaluation methods to promote

cross‐pollination such as NESTA’s evaluation of Health Launchpad)

Mission guardians, golden shares and independent reporting



51

The circuit of information

Integrated user centered data (es: Electronic Patient Records in the UK)

Electronic data bases (es: the Electronic Court Records for King County, Washington)

Search services for user and professional accessibility (es: platforms such as NHS Direct)

User generated feedback systems and response (es: fixmystreet.com and

petitions.number10.gov.uk)

Citizen led traffic planning (es: the use of web tools for changing travel patterns)

Practitioner networks and communities of practice (es: those organized by the Improvement and

Development Agency for local government - IDeA)

Information brokers, editors, intermediaries and scouts (es: to search out and highlight innovative

practice)

Engaging contributors and recipients in service innovation (es: the work undertaken by design

consultancies like Think Public, Participle, Live Work and RED at the Design Council, or the Hope

Institute’s citizen teams around public service improvements)

The Grant Economy

Transforming the conditions for encouraging the generation and adoption of innovation within the grant

economy requires new kinds of finance, platforms, packages of support, and regulatory, governance and

accountability frameworks. There is a key role to be played by government and charitable foundations in

re‐shaping these structures.

Fig 13 - The Grant Economy



52

Generation of Innovative projects

Competitions for technology ideas (es: Innocentive, X prizes, The Big Green Challenge and NESTA’s

Innovation Challenge in Mental Health)

Open Source soliciting of ideas for strategy, projects and grantees (es: Ashoka Changemakers, the

Case Foundation’s Make It Your Own Awards, the Nevada Community Foundation and the Omidyar

Network)

Community Angels for project generation (es: those supported by A Glimmer of Hope in Austin,

Texas)

Ideas banks (es: the Global Ideas Bank and the Hope Institute’s many methods for engaging citizens

in promoting ideas)

Finance

Grant giving

Direct funding for individuals (es: the grants given by UnLtd, The Skoll Foundation and Ashoka)

Fast grants (es: those distributed by the Sobrato Family Foundation)

Donor platforms (es: Kiva, GlobalGiving, Donors Choose, Altruistiq, Network for Good, Brazil’s Social

and Environmental Stock Exchange)

Initial Public Offerings – IPOs (es: Do Something or Teach for America)

Creative destruction: term limited charities and spending down assets (es: the John M. Olin

Foundation)

Competitions, prizes and challenge funds (es: the Community Development Fund’s Grassroots

Grants program in the UK)

Grant allocation through public voting (es: the ITV/Big Lottery Fund competition ‘The People’s 50

Million)

Grant recipient circles.

Micro grants for R&D (es: for concept development and prototyping)

Grants as investment (es: tapered grant funding, public equity and preference shares)

Grants as complements to innovation investment packages. (es: grant funding for off balance sheet

expenditure, for example Cordaid’s investment and development packages for commodity

development projects, or the UK’s DFID Frich grant program for UK market development for African

supply chains)

Inverse tapering (es: grant growth based on performance)

Endowment finance (es: the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts – NESTA in

the UK)

Social innovation partnerships (es: tax holidays and contributions in kind)



53

The grant relationship

Intermediaries for contributions in kind (es: labour and skills matching for volunteering, such as the

Taproot Foundation’s Service Grant program which provides not‐profits with pro bono marketing,

human resources and IT consulting services)

Philanthropic eBays (es: philanthropic platforms such as Volunteer Match)

Purchasing and commissioning

Outcomes based commissioning

Procurement as collaborative venturing (es: promoting disruptive innovation through public

procurement)

Collaborative procuring (es: for search, diversity, prototyping and scale)

Public contracting methods (es: enablement of small scale and innovative commissioning and

sub‐contracting)

Pre‐finance of service innovation development

Contestability and multiple providers to promote diversity of innovation

Exploratory service contracts to ensure overt funding of innovation discovery.

Secure service contracts as a basis for collateral.

Independent progress review bodies as safe ‘holders’ of innovation

Investment

Investment guarantees with future year payment of guarantees (es: the Sheffield model)

Public venture funding

Public investment aimed at social innovation growth strategies (es: the Social Investment Bank, the

Toronto Atmospheric Fund and Enterprise Boards)

R&D tax credits for the design and development of innovations.

Venture philanthropy focused on innovation in particular sectors (es: the Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation’s Pioneer Portfolio which specializes in health and IT)

Philanthropic mutual funds (es: the Acumen Fund and the Global Fund for Women)

Strategic investments to transform social sector provisioning (es: the Bill and Melinda Gates

Foundation’s investment in High Schools across America)



54

Packages of Support

Support services for innovators (es: mentoring, information and advice, connections and networks,

public visibility, such as Cleveland’s Civic Innovation Lab in Michigan and the Social Innovation

Generator in Toronto, Canada)

R&D mentored funding prior to start up lending (es: Mondragon’s Caja Laboral)

Platforms, tools and protocols for innovation

Tools (es: Diabetes Agenda cards that help people imagine innovative alternatives)

Interactive platforms (es: internal platforms such as intranets, external platforms such as the BBC’s

Community Channel, hosted chronic conditions networks, the Open University and Enabled by

Design)

Service infrastructure (es: digital spines)

Support services (es: personal health and fitness coaches)

Found in translation (es: language facilities as sources of innovations for access and service design)

Physical incubators and co‐housing to promote cross‐pollination (es: the Mezzanine in the UK and

the Centre for Social Innovation in Toronto)

Governance and accountability

User and beneficiary representation on management boards (es: board champions for innovation

and pipeline reviews)

Innovation assessments commissioned by users and beneficiaries.

Members and associates as sources of innovation and review.

Metrics for venture philanthropy (es: those developed by Homeward Bound, a project to end

homelessness in the US, or ‘blended value’ measures and Social Return on Investment measures

used for stakeholder communications)

Regulatory, fiscal, legal and other conditions for extending the social economy

Planning and tax rules to promote creative economies (es: subsidized rent in arts districts including

SoHo in New York)

Legal forms and requirements (es: Community Interest Companies - CICs and the Charity

Commission’s public benefit test)



55

Local public currencies (es: the Wörgl in Austria during the 1930s, or more recently, the Patacón in

Argentina)

New forms of property ownership (es: communities owning their assets such as the Goodwin Trust

in Hull, and Community Land Trusts, enabling new uses of land and buildings)

The Market Economy

Fig 14 - The innovation in the Market Economy

Generation and value creation

Pro‐ams as social innovators.

Social markets (es: Slivers of Time)

CSR and social uses of marginal business assets.

Finance

Micro credit for micro production (es: Grameen and BRAC in Bangladesh, and the multiple versions

of micro credit inspired by them, as well as much older traditions of micro‐credit in Europe)

Planning gain and other devices for generating commercial funding for social value.

Social stock markets (es. the subject of an ongoing Rockefeller Foundation study, and the Brazilian

social stock market which provides an online platform linking donors with projects).

Commercial investment aimed at social targets (es: Bridges Community Ventures in the UK)

Bank‐based funding for social enterprises and not‐for‐profits (es: Banca Prossima in Italy)

Philanthropic investment for growth (es: the CAN Breakthrough Social Investment Fund)



56

Crowd funding (es: Myfootballclub.com as a web based co‐op to purchase and run a football club)

Organizations and ownership

Foundations as owners of corporations (es: the Bertelsmann Foundation and the Robert Bosch

Foundation)

Social enterprises, especially those with a strong asset base.

Businesses with social missions built into governance (es: Banca Intesa, the Coop Bank and Welsh

Water)

Extending the co‐operative economy in production (es: the ‘Third Italy, Mondragon and Peruvian

coffee co‐ops)

Consumer co‐ops (es: the Japanese food co‐ops)

Consumer shareholding as an instrument of social policy including (es: Cafédirect)

Social enterprise mutuals as aggregators of service provision from small social enterprises (es:

WorkVentures)

Socializing intellectual property (es: social needs in the case of AIDS drugs in Africa)

Social enterprise partnerships between corporations and not‐for‐distributed profits (es:

Grameen‐Danone)

Corporate not for profit management of social provision (es: Academy Schools in the UK and Charter

Schools in the US)

Information

Improving market information to achieve social goals (es: better food labelling, environmental

performance ratings and carbon footprints)

Social marks and brands to secure a premium for social innovation (es: ‘organic’, ‘forest

stewardship’ and ‘fair trade’)

Consortia for co‐operatives to search out innovative practice and support its dissemination and

adoption.

Social movement campaigns around corporate conduct (es: the Nestle baby milk campaign,

MacLibel).



57

Regulatory, fiscal, legal and other conditions for generating innovation in the

social economy

Policy instruments to re‐make markets in order to promote the social economy (es: compulsory

targets including the employment of people with disabilities, regulations for renewable energy,

fiscal measures and planning conditions)

Exemptions and assistance (es: tax relief along the lines of the Enterprise Investment Scheme - EIS

for social enterprises)

Obligations and expectations (es: focused CSR)

The Household Economy

Fig 15 - The innovation in the Household Economy

Public spaces for social innovation

Mobilizing the street as a unit of innovation (es: concierges, guardians and wardens)

Extending public spaces for domestic production (es: allotments, parks, the new doctor’s surgeries,

street markets, community centers, internet libraries and street festivals)

Reclaiming the streets and managing public spaces with multiple uses (es: the Night for Women’ in

Bogotá, Columbia, or car free periods in Canadian cities)

Protests through activity (es: guerrilla gardening, or reverse strikes such as road building by the

unemployed in Sicily)



58

Complaints Choirs – which gather groups of citizens to discuss complaints and turn into lyrics and

then perform as songs. The idea was first conceived in Finland; first put into practice in Birmingham

in England, and has now spread around the world.

Valorizing household time

Recognizing household time for social production by valorizing voluntary work and support (es:

public tax credits, community commissioning and grant supported projects)

Inter household reciprocity and forms of exchange including time banks (es: SPICE, Local Exchange

Trading Systems - LETS, local currencies and airtime as currency)

Creating productive time (es: social sabbaticals)

Flexible terms of formal employment to enable a sustainable informal economy.

The volunteer economy (es: organization, training, meaning and incentives for volunteers)

The New Mutualism

Enabling the informal social economy (es: mobs and mutual support services, local networks like

free cycle or lift share networks such as liftshare.org)

The support economy (es: advising, coaching, mediating, supplementing and communicating for

household production. This could include educational coaching service, relief and back up for home

careers, health coaches, birthing and post birth support and support teams for end of life care)

User groups (es: rail user groups or park user associations)

Informal‐formal partnerships (es: Green Communities, a national network of not for profit

organizations developing and delivering innovative green solutions to households and communities

across Canada.

Constructed households as sites of innovation

Residential communities for care and cure (es: moving beyond addiction at San Patrignano)

Group services for networks of households, generalizing the principle of sheltered accommodation.



59

Social Movements

Social movements focused on lifestyle innovation and transformation (es: the feminist and green

movements but also including, for example, transition towns. There is a key role for pioneers, the

media and web‐based groupings)

Our Space: web based platforms for the household economy (es: freecycle.org)

The Social Economy - the process roots for Innovation

Between the policy and its realization lies the shadow. For many years politics centered on the content of

policy. In the past 20 years it has been forced to turn its attention to the shadow, and recognize that policy

and its means of realization are interwoven. We live in a post‐Enlightenment world, where the pragmatic

tradition of the interplay between thinking and doing, between theory and practice, offers an approach

appropriate to the inquiry outlined here.

We are, in other words, working in the tradition of John Dewey (and more recently of figures such as

Roberto Mangabeira Unger) rather than that of social engineers and planners. Who are these persons ?

John Dewey

John Dewey19 (October 20, 1859 – June 1, 1952) was an American philosopher, psychologist and educational

reformer whose ideas have been influential in education and social reform. Dewey was an important early

developer of the philosophy of pragmatism and one of the founders of functional psychology. He was a

major representative of the progressive and progressive populist philosophies of schooling during the first

half of the 20th century in the USA.

Although Dewey is known best for his publications concerning education, he also wrote about many other

topics, including experience, nature, art, logic, inquiry, democracy, and ethics.

In his advocacy of democracy, Dewey considered two fundamental elements—schools and civil society—as

being major topics needing attention and reconstruction to encourage experimental intelligence and

plurality. Dewey asserted that complete democracy was to be obtained not just by extending voting rights

but also by ensuring that there exists a fully formed public opinion, accomplished by effective

communication among citizens, experts, and politicians, with the latter being accountable for the policies

they adopt.

19

John Dewey - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_philosopher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_reform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_reform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_psychology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_education

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion



60

On Education

Dewey's educational theories were presented in My Pedagogic Creed (1897), The School and Society (1900),

The Child and the Curriculum (1902), Democracy and Education (1916) and Experience and Education

(1938). Throughout these writings, several recurrent themes ring true; Dewey continually argues that

education and learning are social and interactive processes, and thus the school itself is a social institution

through which social reform can and should take place. In addition, he believed that students thrive in an

environment where they are allowed to experience and interact with the curriculum, and all students should

have the opportunity to take part in their own learning.

The ideas of democracy and social reform are continually discussed in Dewey’s writings on education.

Dewey makes a strong case for the importance of education not only as a place to gain content knowledge,

but also as a place to learn how to live. In his eyes, the purpose of education should not revolve around the

acquisition of a pre-determined set of skills, but rather the realization of one’s full potential and the ability

to use those skills for the greater good. He notes that “to prepare him for the future life means to give him

command of himself; it means so to train him that he will have the full and ready use of all his capacities”. In

addition to helping students realize their full potential, Dewey goes on to acknowledge that education and

schooling are instrumental in creating social change and reform. He notes that “education is a regulation of

the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on

the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction”.

In addition to his ideas regarding what education is and what effect it should have on society, Dewey also

had specific notions regarding how education should take place within the classroom. In The Child and the

Curriculum (1902), Dewey discusses two major conflicting schools of thought regarding educational

pedagogy. The first is centered on the curriculum and focuses almost solely on the subject matter to be

taught. Dewey argues that the major flaw in this methodology is the inactivity of the student; within this

particular framework, “the child is simply the immature being who is to be matured; he is the superficial

being who is to be deepened”. He argues that in order for education to be most effective, content must be

presented in a way that allows the student to relate the information to prior experiences, thus deepening

the connection with this new knowledge.

At the same time, Dewey was alarmed by many of the "child-centered" excesses of educational-school

pedagogues who claimed to be his followers, and he argued that too much reliance on the child could be

equally detrimental to the learning process. In this second school of thought, “we must take our stand with

the child and our departure from him. It is he and not the subject-matter which determines both quality and

quantity of learning”. According to Dewey, the potential flaw in this line of thinking is that it minimizes the

importance of the content as well as the role of the teacher.

In order to rectify this dilemma, Dewey advocated for an educational structure that strikes a balance

between delivering knowledge while also taking into account the interests and experiences of the student.

He notes that “the child and the curriculum are simply two limits which define a single process. Just as two

points define a straight line, so the present standpoint of the child and the facts and truths of studies define

instruction”. It is through this reasoning that Dewey became one of the most famous proponents of hands-

on learning or experiential education, which is related to, but not synonymous with experiential learning. He

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Pedagogic_Creed&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_and_Education

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hands-on_learning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hands-on_learning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_education

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_learning



61

argued that “if knowledge comes from the impressions made upon us by natural objects, it is impossible to

procure knowledge without the use of objects which impress the mind”. Dewey’s ideas went on to influence

many other influential experiential models and advocates. Many researchers even credit him with the

influence of Project Based Learning (PBL) which places students in the active role of researchers.

Dewey not only re-imagined the way that the learning process should take place, but also the role that the

teacher should play within that process. According to Dewey, the teacher should not be one to stand at the

front of the room doling out bits of information to be absorbed by passive students. Instead, the teacher’s

role should be that of facilitator and guide. As Dewey (1897) explains it:

“The teacher is not in the school to impose certain ideas or to form certain habits in the child, but is

there as a member of the community to select the influences which shall affect the child and to

assist him in properly responding to these influences.”

Thus the teacher becomes a partner in the learning process, guiding students to independently discover

meaning within the subject area. This philosophy has become an increasingly popular idea within present-

day teacher preparatory programs.

Roberto Mangabeira Unger

Roberto Mangabeira20 Unger (b. March 24, 1947, Rio de Janeiro) is a Brazilian politician, social theorist,

and Harvard Law School faculty. He was a co-founder of the Critical Legal Studies movement, and his

subsequent writings on philosophy and social theory have been widely influential. His theories of false

necessity, formative context, and negative capability have laid the philosophical and theoretical

groundwork for reimagining and remaking social and political order.

The theory of false necessity claims that our social worlds are the artifact of our own human endeavors.

There is no pre-set institutional arrangement that our societies adhere to, and there is no necessary

historical mold of development that they will follow. Rather we are free to choose and develop the forms

and the paths that our societies will take through a process of conflicts and resolutions. However, there are

groups of institutional arrangements that work together to bring out certain institutional forms, liberal

democracy, for example. These forms are the basis of a social structure, and which Unger calls formative

contexts. In order to explain how we move from one formative context to another without the conventional

social theory constraints of historical necessity (e.g. feudalism to capitalism), and to do so while remaining

true to the key insight of individual human empowerment and false necessity, Unger recognized that there

are an infinite number of ways of resisting social and institutional constraints, which can lead to an infinite

number of outcomes. This variety of forms of resistance and empowerment (i.e. negative capability) make

change possible. Negative capability does not reduce the individual to a simple actor possessing only the

dual capacity of compliance or rebellion, but rather sees him as able to partake in a variety of activities of

self empowerment

20

Roberto Mangabeira Unger - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Based_Learning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_School

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Legal_Studies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_necessity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_necessity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formative_context

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_capability



62

Unger has long been active in Brazilian politics, working in opposition groups, advising presidential

candidates, and serving as the Minister of Strategic Affairs under Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. He was an advisor

to Mexican president Vicente Fox,[1] and also taught Barack Obama at Harvard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicente_Fox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Mangabeira_Unger#cite_note-0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama



63

The Social Economy - the process for Innovation We have identified six stages21 that take ideas from inception to impact. These stages are not always

sequential (some innovations jump straight into ‘practice’ or even ‘scaling’), and there are feedback loops

between them. They can also be thought of as overlapping spaces, with distinct cultures and skills. They

provide a useful framework for thinking about the different kinds of support that innovators and

innovations need in order to grow.

1. Prompts, inspirations and diagnoses

2. Proposals and ideas

3. Prototyping and pilots

4. Sustaining

5. Scaling and diffusion

6. Systemic change

Prompts, inspirations and diagnoses

In this stage we include all the factors which highlight the need for innovation – such as crisis, public

spending cuts, poor performance, strategy – as well as the inspirations which spark it, from creative

imagination to new evidence. This stage involves diagnosing the problem and framing the question in such a

way that the root causes of the problem, not just its symptoms, will be tackled. Framing the right question is

halfway to finding the right solution. This means going beyond symptoms to identifying the causes of a

particular problem.

Framing the question

All innovations start with a central idea. But the idea itself is often prompted by an experience or event or

new evidence which brings to light a social need or injustice. Some organisations initiate the prompts

themselves – using feedback systems to identify possible problems. Creative leaders can use symbols and

demonstrations to prompt social imagination. In many cases, research, mapping and data collection are

used to uncover problems, as a first step to identifying solutions. One of the critical challenges at this stage

is in identifying the right problem. A ‘good’ problem contains within it the seeds of the solution. The trick is

in framing the question.

21

Murray R, Caulier‐Grice J, Mulgan G (2010), The Open Book of Social Innovation, The Young Foundation, NESTA



64

Triggers and inspirations

Here we describe some of the triggers and inspirations that prompt innovation, that demand action on an

issue, or that mobilize belief that action is possible.

Some examples include: Crisis, Efficiency savings, Poor performance, New technologies, New evidence,

Urban acupuncture.

Recognizing problems

Problems need to be recognized. Too often they are hidden, or marginalized. Or there is a belief that

nothing can be done about them. Much research is about bringing problems to light. A lot of politics is

about getting problems a hearing.

1. Research and mapping

Many innovations are triggered by new data and research. In recent years, there has been a rise in the use

of mapping techniques to reveal hidden needs and unused assets. The Latin origin of the word evidence

(evidentia) is to make clear and visible, and visibility generates ideas.

Some examples include: Mapping needs, Identifying differential needs and capacities, Mapping physical

assets, Mapping systems, Mapping flows, Communities researching themselves, Participatory Rural

Appraisal, Ethnographic research techniques, Action research, Literature surveys and reviews

2. The circuit of information

New needs can also be brought to the fore through effective feedback systems. Such systems can help

practitioners and front line staff understand the needs of users and better tailor services accordingly.

Some examples include: Feedback systems, Integrated user-centered data, Citizen-controlled data, Holistic

services, Tools for handling knowledge across a system

3. New perspectives

New ideas are often prompted by new ways of seeing that put familiar things in a new light. These may be

paradigms or models, and may be encouraged by formal roles that are designed to help organizations think

in fresh ways.

Some examples include: Generative paradigms, Generative ‘scripts’, Changing roles, Thinkers in Residence,

A-teams



65

4. Making problems visible and tangible

Social phenomena are not automatically visible. One of the crucial roles of social science, and of statistics, is

to bring patterns to the surface that are otherwise invisible to people living within them, or governing them.

Seeing an issue in a new way can then prompt more creative thinking about alternatives.

Some examples include: Tools for visibilità, Walking, Media Spotlight

5. Commanding attention

In today’s media-intensive environment, one of the most valuable resources is attention. Without it, social

change is painfully slow. A key stage in many innovations is securing people’s attention – particularly of

those with power.

Some examples include: User and public pressure, Campaigns

From symptom to cause

Diagnosing problems is a first step to developing solutions. A key challenge is to get to the underlying causes

of a problem. To a hammer every problem looks like a nail. It’s always easier to deal with symptoms rather

than causes. Some of the methods for digging deeper involve the analysis of systems while others involve

mobilizing people’s own experiences and perspectives.

Some examples include: The diagnostic process, Diagnostic professions, Systems thinking models

Proposals and ideas

This is the stage of idea generation. This can involve formal methods – such as design or creativity methods

to widen the menu of options available. Many of the methods help to draw in insights and experiences from

a wide range of sources.

Imagining Solutions

There are a series of methods, especially within the field of design, which bring people together to develop

solutions. Often this is called ‘co-design’. Increasingly, some of these approaches are being used within the

public sector to re-design services.

Some examples include: User-led design, Re-designing services with users and producers, Engagement of

ex-users, Web-based tools for co-design, Creative thinking methods, Forum theatre, Continuous

improvement methods, Quality circles, Applying proprietary knowledge to social issues, Engaging citizens

through media,



66

Thinking differently

New solutions come from many sources – e.g. adapting an idea from one field to another, or connecting

apparently diverse elements in a novel way. It’s very rare for an idea to arrive alone. More often, ideas grow

out of other ones, or out of creative reflection on experience. They are often prompted by thinking about

things in new or different ways.

Some examples include: Starting with the user, ‘Positive deviance’, Reviewing extremes, Rethinking space

Open innovation

Open innovation describes the process of harnessing the distributed and collective intelligence of crowds. It

is based on a number of principles, including: collaboration, sharing, self-organization, decentralization,

transparency of process, and plurality of participants. The term was first used by Henry Chesbrough to

describe a new model of product development based on the free flow of information and ideas across

departments and organisations.5 It has taken on a wider meaning and application thanks to the internet,

which has enabled large numbers of people to interact and participate at a relatively low cost.6 Over the

last few decades, there has been an explosion of methods designed to tap the public’s imagination for ideas,

perhaps in part a reaction against excessive deference to professions, and the idea that ‘the expert knows

best’. Many of these methods have been greatly helped by the ability of the internet to draw in a far wider

range of people and ideas.

Some examples include: Calls for ideas, Ideas marketplaces, Competitions and challenges, Ideas banks, City

ideas banks, Video booths, Suggestion boxes

Participation

Many governments, at every tier, are now trying to find ways of engaging the public in shaping what they

do, not just through elections every few years. These methods are still being experimented with, and are as

much about creating a culture of openness to ideas as they are about generating ideas themselves.

Some examples include: Large scale government-led exercises, Platforms for engaging citizens, Methods for

participation, idea generation and deliberation, Processes for involving children, ‘Wiki government’,

Participatory planning, Parliamentary structures to develop citizen ideas, Citizen petitions, Citizen juries,

Citizen’s panels, Legislative theatre,

Facilitating participation

There are also a range of techniques – widely used in the developing world – for engaging participants in

more effective and meaningful ways. Many meetings remain unproductive and uncreative they may not



67

always be the place where new ideas first come into people’s heads, but they play a crucial role in

innovation. However they are decisive in shaping ideas and building support. Much attention is now being

given to meetings to make them more effective – sometimes with much more open processes, sometimes

with much more formal structures. Face to face meetings remain the most important in generating

commitment to innovations, but increasingly technologies of all kinds are helping to transform meetings,

enabling people to interact verbally, visually, and through simulations.

Some examples include: Events and conferences for networking and learning, Seedcamp, Virtual meetings,

Webinars, Dialogue Café, Open space events, Participatory workshops, Seating arrangements,

Institutions

There are a range of organizations and multidisciplinary teams involved in the generation of workable ideas.

Elsewhere, we look at institutions involved in all stages of innovation and across all sectors, but here we

look at the innovation animators, those who can bring in different perspectives, and come up with

innovative solutions.

Some examples include: Think tanks, Do tanks, Design labs

Prototyping and pilots

This is where ideas get tested in practice. This can be done through simply trying things out, or through

more formal pilots, prototypes and randomized controlled trials. The process of refining and testing ideas is

particularly important in the social economy because it’s through iteration, and trial and error, that

coalitions gather strength (for example, linking users to professionals) and conflicts are resolved (including

battles with entrenched interests). It’s also through these processes that measures of success come to be

agreed upon.

Prototypes, pilots and trials

As an idea progresses through multiple stages of rapid prototyping, it faces many challenges: the feasibility

of making the product, delivering the service, how to deal with particular issues, what the economics look

like, and how it could be made cheaper. The driving principles at this stage are speed, keeping costs low,

tangibility and feedback loops from users and specialists.

Some examples include: Prototyping, Fast prototyping, Slow prototyping, Proof of concept testing, Beta

testing, Partnership pilots, Public pilots and experiments, Randomized Controlled Trials, Whole System

Demonstration Pilots, Open testing



68

Finance for emerging ideas

A wide range of financial tools can be used at these early stages: small grants, convertible loans, to quasi

equity, prizes, direct commissions, and tendering. Some of the most useful approaches link money to

development.

Some examples include: Grants and support for early ideas, Small grants, Challenge funds, Prizes and public

challenges, Funding of networks, Funding for incubation, In-house venturing capacities, Paying for time,

Vouchers, Collective voice and credits, Funding public private social partnerships, Direct commissions,

Tendering for results, Creating new markets through procurement

Sustaining

This is when the idea becomes everyday practice. It involves sharpening ideas (and often streamlining

them), and identifying income streams to ensure the long term financial sustainability of the firm, social

enterprise or charity, that will carry the innovation forward. In the public sector this means identifying

budgets, teams and other resources such as legislation.

Outside the public sector, sustaining an innovation will involve six key things:

A business model that runs parallel to the core idea of the venture and which sets out how it can

become sustainable

A governance model that provides a clear map of control and accountability, as well as protective

safeguards (not least to protect it from predators if the project is a success)

Sources of finance, both start-up capital in the short term and income streams over the longer term

A network and communications model to develop what we refer to as the venture’s ‘relational

capital’

A staffing model including the role of volunteers

A development plan for operational systems – including management information, reporting and

financial systems, IT, supply chain systems and systems for risk management

These will be translated into an economic or business plan, which details the service or initiative, how it will

be provided, by whom, with what inputs, how much it will cost, and how it will generate income.

Creating a business

Turning a good idea into something sustainable outside of the public sector depends on a business model –

a clear idea of how it will generate a sufficient income stream that covers more than costs. Effective supply

and effective demand need to be brought together. Effective supply means that whatever is being provided

has been shown to work and to be cost-effective. Effective demand refers to the willingness of someone to

pay for what’s on offer, which may be a public agency or the public themselves.



69

Some examples include: Innovative business models, Business strategies, Incomes and outcomes, Business

plans, Business plan assessment methods

Ownership and organizational form

There comes a point when every venture has to decide what organizational form to take, what kind of

decision making and accountability processes to adopt, and which kinds of information and financial

management systems to put in place. These decisions can be costly and time consuming. But getting it right

early on provides structures and systems which act as skeletons that help hold the organization together.

Forms of ownership set out rules related to an organization’s mission, its governance structures, and how its

yield is distributed. But ownership can also be how a project mobilizes support, encouraging a sense in

others that the project is theirs. In the social economy, ownership is an ambiguous concept. Its

organizational structures are the site of contending pressures of goals and interests. The organization may

have a social goal of benefitting others, but to do so it involves those with some measure of private interests

– finance, staff, suppliers, and purchasers. Some may exercise their interests at arm’s length – and their

market or financial power may be such as to reduce the social project to little more than a sub-contractor or

agent, severely restricting the autonomy of the owners. But others may seek closer involvement in the

project’s direction. How can the forms of ownership and governance accommodate these pressures and turn

them to good account?

Some examples include: Informal structures, Private companies, Adapted private companies, Limited

Liability Partnerships, Co-ops and Associations, Mutuals, Partnerships, Charities, Community Interest

Companies

Governance

Ownership structures bring with them important dynamics that may help or hinder the organization in

realizing its mission. The best forms of ownership and governance reinforce relational capital, creating a

source of resilience for when the enterprise goes through difficult times.

Some examples include: Boards, Boards for innovation, Membership involvement, Stakeholder governance,

Open guides, Consumer shareholding, Gold Standards and Golden Shares

Organization and management models

Some examples include: Hierarchical organizations committed to social purposes, User orientation and

autonomous work groups, Distributed organizations, Dimensions of management, Managing systems and

structures to maintain innovation



70

Operations

The distinctive value and values of a social venture show up not just in its structures but in its operations –

how it works with others, uses technologies or works in partnership.

Some examples include: Socially-oriented supply chains, Socially-oriented demand chains, Shared backroom

economies, Collaborative technologies

Relational capital

New ventures put much of their energy into securing financial capital – money to invest in fixed assets on

the one hand, and working capital on the other. But relational capital is just as important. This is both the

knowledge and trust built up between a venture and its users and suppliers, and the relationships between a

venture and its staff and volunteers. Conventional accounting takes little account of this intangible capital,

yet in all social ventures it is the foundation of their strength, and of their distinctiveness. We use the

concept of relational capital to capture the quality of relationships

within which economic exchanges take place. This is the issue of greatest relevance for a social venture, as

its fortunes depend on the range and depth of its relationships that. These relationships are multifaceted.

They include the nature of its connections: to users and investors; to suppliers and distributors; and with its

own staff, board and volunteers. With many of them there will be formal agreements, but whereas in the

private market economy relationships take place across a territory demarcated by the interests and

boundaries of private property and contract, for a social venture the boundaries are more porous – internal

and external interests mesh. It is one of its greatest potential assets that a social venture can attract

support and resources from outside itself, as well as motivation from within, on the basis of its ideas and the

way it works to realise them. This creates particular issues for management.

Some examples include: Keeping it ‘open’, Systems for user feedback, Web presence, Marketing and

branding, A working museum, Open events, Open forms of intellectual property, Formation for developing

skills and cultures, Values-based policies for people and pay, Valuing the voluntary

Venture finance

Every innovation process requires some finance. For social ventures it is key that the sources of finance

should share the venture’s social goals as the primary driver of the enterprise. This may not always be

possible. Raising capital may involve some compromise with the providers of capital, but the goal should

always be to find ways for the core finance to come from those who share the venture’s mission. … To

finance new ventures there are a range of ethical banks and social funding agencies devoted to supporting

new and expanding ventures. All forms of finance bring with them power relationships, which can

sometimes threaten the values and relationships which the venture is built on. To guarantee that the initial

venture funding remains subordinate to the values of the social mission, enterprises can raise social equity,



71

limit the quantity of common shares, and seek subordinated loans from sources ready to share early risk

without demanding a counterbalancing share in the project’s equity.

Some examples include: Grant funding, Loan finance, Equity, Crowdfunding, Public share issues, Social

Impact Bonds, Venture philanthropy

Sustaining innovations through the public sector

Sustaining ideas in the public sector involves different tools to those needed in markets or for social

ventures. There are similar issues of effective supply (the proof that a particular model works) and effective

demand (mobilizing sources of finance to pay for the idea or service).

Some examples include: Business cases within the public sector, Public policy, Public programs, Public

regulations

Scaling and diffusion

At this stage there are a range of strategies for growing and spreading an innovation – from organizational

growth, through licensing and franchising to federations and looser diffusion. Emulation and inspiration also

play a critical role in spreading an idea or practice. Demand matters as much as supply: how market

demand, or demand from commissioners and policymakers is mobilized to spread a successful new model.

This process is often referred to as ‘scaling’, and in some cases the word is appropriate, as the innovation is

generalized within an organization or the organization itself expands. But scaling is a concept from the mass

production age, and innovations take hold in the social economy in many other ways, whether through

inspiration and emulation, or through the provision of support and know-how from one to another in a

more organic and adaptive kind of growth.

Generative diffusion

There are marked differences in the spread and diffusion of innovations between the social and market

economies. The private economy is structured to reserve the benefits of an innovation to its own

organization or to those licensees or franchisees willing to pay for it. The social economy – being primarily

oriented around social missions, favours the rapid diffusion of an innovation, rather than keeping it private.

This is one reason why the social economy has less compulsion to organizational growth and more towards

collaborative networking as a way of sharing innovation. As a result of these differences, the spread of a

social innovation tends to be a more complex flow-like process of interaction and modification. We refer to

it as ‘generative diffusion’ – ‘generative’ because the adoption of an innovation will take different forms

rather than replicate a given model, ‘diffusion’ because it spreads, sometimes chaotically, along multiple

paths. Irrespective of the particular type of growth, the successful diffusion of an innovation depends on



72

effective supply and effective demand: effective supply refers to the growth of evidence to show that the

innovation really works. Effective demand refers to the willingness to pay. Both are needed – but sometimes

the priority is to prove effectiveness while in other cases the priority is to create demand – both by

persuading people that there is a need to be met, and then persuading people or organizations with the

ability to pay that they should do so.4 This is rarely easy – people usually have good reasons to resist

innovations, and only adopt them if there are strong pressures (from competitors, peers, consumers,

bosses), strong incentives (clear advantages over what went before), or strong emotional motivations.

The spread of an idea also often depends on stripping out whatever is inessential. Ideas spread more easily

if they are simple; modular; and don’t require new skills. But complex ideas can also spread on a wide scale,

though this generally takes longer, and requires more investment in professional skills.

Inspiration

Some ideas spread because of their qualities as ideas – they are inherently inspiring, arresting, and

engaging. Relatively few, however, spread on their own – more often clusters of ideas spread together, each

creating the conditions for others to be received more easily.

Some examples include: Inspiration, Distributed diffusion through provision as a social movement

Diffusing demand

The promotion of social innovation has tended to focus on the supply side and how innovations can be

diffused among service providers through experts, intermediaries, and collaboration. However, we argue

that the design of services should start from the user, and that its diffusion should be approached from the

perspective of users, not least because they are in many cases also co producers. We also argue that a

distinction should be made between services where demand can be expressed in the market (for fair trade

or green goods, for example), those where demand is expressed through the state (lobbying for disability

provisions or swimming pools, for example), and those involving intermediate demand (public

commissioning on behalf of citizens).

Some examples include: Information for consumers, User groups and their campaigns, Promotion and

marketing of innovative services and programs, Brands and marks, Financial or other inducements, Social

targets

Scaling and diffusion in the public sector

Scaling in the public sector has some overlaps with other fields but also important differences. Governments

can grow an idea simply by legislating it, or turning it into a program. Or they can encourage it by

persuasion, or through the influence of regulators. The methods described above for sustaining an idea are

also key to spreading it, including defining the idea in policy or programs.



73

Some examples include: Distributed diffusion through public policy, Endorsement by regulators, Creating

intermediate demand, Dissemination of best practice, Global diffusion and encouragement, Change through

standards

Commissioning and procurement

Governments are big customers of goods and services. Alongside initiation, escalation and embedding,

public procurement plays a role in relation to consolidation by purchasing services at scale.

Some examples include: Commissioning innovative services, Outcomes based commissioning, Developing

new markets, Contestability, Practice-based commissioning, Payment by results, Exploratory service

contracts, E-procurement, E-auctions, Framework contracts, Commitments from commissioners, Joint

commissioning, ‘Share in savings’ contracts, Personalized budgets

Suppliers of innovation

In particular, we will look at how the organizational structure can remain open and innovative, and reduce

the overhead costs of centralized production.

Some examples include: Developing organizational capacity, Growth through people, Mobilizing existing

organizational capacity, Support structures, Securing adequate supply chains for expanded production,

Adapting models, Open brands

Transmitters

We look at platforms as the nodes of the new economy, and at other ways in which users and originators

can engage in the evaluation and adaption of innovation.

Some examples include: Platforms, Diffusion through events, Trade fairs, , Diffusion through media,

Associations and quasi-professional bodies, Growth through intermediaries, Diffusion through the web,

Handbooks and how to do it guides, Barefoot consultants

Organization and scale

There are currently pressures to promote mergers and takeovers within the grant economy. However, we

suggest that in a distributed economy a different conception of scale is needed, one that focuses on

economies of information and communication, and structures that can deliver that. Organizations within

the social economy have less compulsion to organizational growth and more towards collaborative

networking as a means of sharing innovation.



74

Some examples include: Organizational growth, Growth through collaboration, Small units in large systems,

The consortium model, Federations, Licensing, Social franchising, Mergers and acquisitions

Metrics to show what works and what deserves to be grown

There are many metrics for judging whether innovations are working – at various stages of development.

Metrics can play a decisive role in determining whether innovations are scaled up, or deserve to be. Over

several decades a great deal of work has gone into the design of measures of social value. A recent survey

found 150 different metrics in use in the non-profit sector. However, relatively few of these are actually used

to make decisions. One reason why this field has failed to make progress is that there is often confusion

between three different tasks performed by metrics: to provide funders or investors with data on impact;

and to provide a tool for organizations to manage their own choices internally; to better understand long-

term processes of social change and impact. Although these purposes overlap, any one metric cannot do all

three of these tasks simultaneously, and there are direct conflicts of interest between the players involved in

each of these. Here we list a few of the methods currently in use – most of which fall into the first category –

or provide a means for providers of money to judge between alternatives.

Some examples include: Standard investment appraisal methods, Cost-benefit analysis, Stated preference

methods, Revealed preference methods, Social accounting matrices, QALYs and DALYs (Quality- and

Disability-Adjusted Life Years), Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements, Value-added measures, Social

impact assessment, Social Return on Investment, Social accounting methods, Blended value methods,

Measuring public value, Life satisfaction measures, Methods within the built environment, Operational

metrics, Comparative metrics, Balanced scorecards, User-oriented and user-generated metrics, User

Experience Surveys, Outcome benchmarks, Assessment as learning

Systemic change

This is the ultimate goal of social innovation. Systemic change usually involves the interaction of many

elements: social movements, business models, laws and regulations, data and infrastructures, and entirely

new ways of thinking and doing. Systemic change generally involves new frameworks or architectures made

up of many smaller innovations. Social innovations commonly come up against the barriers and hostility of

an old order. Pioneers may sidestep these barriers, but the extent to which they can grow will often depend

on the creation of new conditions to make the innovations economically viable. These conditions include

new technologies, supply chains, institutional forms, skills, and regulatory and fiscal frameworks. Systemic

innovation commonly involves changes in the public sector, private sector, grant economy and household

sector, usually over long periods of time.

Systemic innovation is very different from innovation in products or services. It involves changes to concepts

and mindsets as well as to economic flows: systems only change when people think and see in new ways. It

involves changes to power, replacing prior power holders with new ones. And it usually involves all four



75

sectors – business, government, civil society, and the household: models for thinking about innovation that

only look at one sector miss the crucial ways in which they interact. …

Systemic innovations can be suddenly pushed forward by a crisis or a disruptive technology. More often,

they are the result of slow but cumulative processes entailing changing infrastructures, behaviours, and

cultures. …

The very complexity of systemic innovation makes it hard to define specific tools which can advance it. Every

system has some unique properties, and unique power structures. But there are some common elements,

and looking back through history it is clear that strategies for systemic innovation usually include:

The formation of progressive coalitions that bring together different partners

Intensive processes to build up shared diagnoses and visions

Efforts to grow a critical mass of practical examples

New rights

Training a group of professionals and practitioners with both new skills and attitudes

Pre-empting inflexible conventional technologies that freeze disruptive forms of innovation.

Accessing professional and other expertise for the contest of evidence.

Implementing legal and regulatory devices to embed change.

Empowering the beneficiaries of the new system.

Such top-down efforts succeed only to the extent that they mobilize the enthusiasm and commitment of

thousands of practitioners.

Ideas that energize systemic innovations

We have shown how new frames and ideas can prompt innovation. These can be even more important in

giving shape to systemic changes – helping the participants to make sense of their changing roles. Here we

list a few of the generative paradigms that are prompting systemic innovation in some fields.

Some examples include: Distributed production, Changing the ‘scripts’ around services, Prevention,

Investing early, New models of the support economy, Low or zero carbon living, Holistic support models for

services, Personalized support services, Support models that mobilize citizen energy, Systemic drives to

energize and empower marginalized groups, Post-chronologism, Radical democratization, Trust-creating

devices

Infrastructures and interstructures to support new systems

Some new systems depend on infrastructures. Widespread broadband infrastructures, for example, are the

precondition for some new models of care in the home; mobile phone infrastructures may be the

precondition for organizing new models of low-cost banking.



76

Some examples include: Creating new infrastructure, Data infrastructures, Platform infrastructures,

Rewiring economies, Technical innovations for key points in the chain

Formation of users and producers

Users and citizens often need to play a part in the design and implementation of new systems. They may

require new skills and approaches (what the French term ‘formation’) as may professionals and managers.

Some examples include: Innovation academies, Mutual help and mentoring by users, Engaging citizens in

whole system change processes, Support for new patterns of power and responsibility

Strategic moves that accelerate systems change

Every story of systemic innovation involves key moments when the tables are turned on older models and

incumbents.

Some examples include: Creating new evidence, Establishing working prototypes of the new system,

Designing and trialling platforms to trigger systemic innovation, Comprehensive pilots, Blocking technology,

Frames for change

Regulatory and fiscal changes

Almost every systemic change involves legislation and the state at some point. There are a few exceptions,

such as the rise of new online infrastructures for retailing. But every movement involved in profound

change, from the environment to equality, has depended on recognition of its principles in law. New

legislative and regulatory architectures can be the keys to unlocking systemic change, whether through new

rights or new trading or building standards, social and environmental performance requirements, or new

ways of handling or measuring value.

Some examples include: New rights, New responsibilities, New forms of property, Legal bans, Enforcement,

Formal classifications, Targets with penalties, Regulatory requirements, Tax and fiscal structures

Information, accounting and statistics

Information and accounting systems can block innovation – in many cases, they will need to be reorganised

to enable or reinforce systemic change. What gets measured shapes what gets done. In many fields,

attempts are underway to reshape measurement to better handle holistic systems effects. So while familiar

data on income, employment, diseases or educational achievement continues to be gathered, there is

growing interest in other types of measurement that may give more insights into what needs to be done



77

Some examples include: Information systems that reinforce systemic change, Restructured public

accounting, Measures of true progress

Progressive coalitions and social movements

Social movements often act as champions of systemic alternatives, for example mobilising people with

disabilities to engage in the redesign of cities, and lobbying for reforms to legislation and regulation.

Progressive coalitions play a critical role in mobilizing support for systemic changes.

Some examples include: Social movements focused on lifestyle innovation and transformation, Growing

self-organizing social movements, Organizing formal coalitions for change

Systemic finance

We describe many different finance tools in other sections which can contribute to systemic change. For

investment funds to finance truly systemic ideas they need different methods to those used for investment

in established systems. At an early stage there is unlikely to be any clear revenue model, or any benchmarks

to draw on. Instead, assessments need to include some judgement of the broader direction of change in the

field as a whole; some judgement about the qualities of the key individuals; and some rough assessments of

the relational capital they bring. Not surprisingly, these tools and approaches are rare – and require a great

deal of confidence in the funding agency as well as in those receiving funds.

Some examples include: Public finance for systems change, The creation of new investment flows, Finance

for systemic prevention



78

The Grant Economy – an economic evaluation

With respect the four sub-economies presented in previous sections only the grant economy has a partial

evaluation of his economy.

The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project

The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project (CNP)22 is a systematic effort to analyze the scope,

structure, financing, and role of the private nonprofit sector in a cross-section of countries around the world

in order to improve our knowledge and enrich our theoretical understanding of this sector, and to provide a

sounder basis for both public and private action towards it.

This project has increased the visibility of the civil society sector in policy debates worldwide. It grows out of

the increased need for basic information about civil society organizations as a result of a dramatic

"associational revolution"; the reappraisal of the respective roles of the market and the state that lies

behind it have focused new attention on the role of private, nonprofit organizations. Despite their growing

importance, however, these organizations remain poorly understood almost everywhere, making it difficult

to determine what their capabilities really are or to attract attention to the challenges they face.

The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project was designed to fill these gaps in knowledge by

developing the first systematic body of information about this crucial, but long-overlooked, set of

institutions at the international level.

Objectives

More specifically, the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project seeks to:

Document the scope, structure, financing, and role of the nonprofit sector for the first time in solid

empirical terms in a significant number of countries scattered widely throughout the world;

Explain why this sector varies in size and character from place to place and identify factors that

seem to encourage or retard its development;

Evaluate the impact these organizations are having and the contribution they make;

Publicize the existence of this set of institutions and increase public awareness of them; and

Build local capacity to carry on this work into the future.

Approach

To pursue these objectives, the Project utilizes a comparative empirical approach that features heavy

reliance on a team of Local Associates in the target countries, a common framework, set of definitions, and

22

Center for Civil Society Studies at the Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies



79

information-gathering strategies; and a network of national and international advisory committees to

oversee progress and help disseminate results.

Coverage

Project work began in 1990 in 13 countries and now extends to more than 40 countries spanning all the

regions of the world:

Fig 16 - The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project Coverage

The Global Civil Society - Statistics23

Background

Work in 26 countries under the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project has unveiled important

new information about the private, nonprofit sector throughout the world.

This set of organizations has attracted increased attention in recent years, but solid empirical information

on them has long been lacking. This “brief” summarizes some of the most salient findings from the work we

have undertaken to close this gap in Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the

Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the U.K. in Western Europe; the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland,

Romania, and Slovakia in Central Europe; Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru in Latin America;

and Australia, Israel, Japan, and the United States.

23 Johns Hopkins University (1999), Global Civil Society At-a-Glance, Major Findings of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, Institute for Policy Studies Center for Civil Society Studies



80

The focus of this work is on entities that are:

Organizations, whether formal or informal;

Private, i.e., not part of the apparatus of government;

Not profit-distributing, i.e., do not distribute profits to their owners;

Self-governing; and

Voluntary, i.e., non-compulsory.

Here are the key findings

1. A Major Economic Force

The nonprofit sector is a major economic force in the world. In the 26 countries for which we have

assembled data, nonprofit organizations as of the mid-1990s accounted for:

$1.2 trillion in expenditures;

31 million full-time equivalent workers, or 6.8 percent of the nonagricultural workforce including:

o 19.7 million full-time equivalent paid workers and

o 11.3 million full-time equivalent volunteer workers;

Six times more paid employees than work in the largest private firm in each of these countries, as

noted in Fig 175

Fig 17 - Paid employment in nonprofits vs. largest firm (26 countries, ca 1995)

2. A Truly Global Presence

Nonprofit organizations are not restricted to any one country or region: they are present in virtually every

part of the world. In particular, as noted in Fig 18:

In 4 of the 26 countries we examined (the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, and Israel), nonprofit paid

employment is a larger share of total employment than it is in the United States, long regarded as

the country with the most advanced nonprofit sphere.



81

In 7 of the 26 countries, nonprofit paid employment alone exceeds 5 percent of the nonagricultural

workforce, and in 10 of these countries, nonprofit paid and volunteer labor exceeds 9 percent of the

nonagricultural workforce.

Generally speaking, the nonprofit sector is larger in developed countries than in developing ones,

but it still constitutes a significant force in parts of the developing world. Thus:

o Nonprofits employ 6 percent of the paid and volunteer labor force in Argentina and 4

percent in Peru;

o The nonprofit sector in the developing world goes well beyond the “NGOs” that have long

attracted the bulk of the attention and includes schools, hospitals, and other organizations.

Fig 18 - Nonprofit share of total employment, with and without volunteers, by country (ca 1995)



82

3. Welfare Services Dominate

On average, two-thirds of all nonprofit paid employment is concentrated in the three traditional fields of

welfare services: education, health, and social services. But this pattern varies by country and region. In

particular, as reflected in Fig 19:

Education, social services, and health account for 73 percent of total nonprofit paid employment in

Western Europe;

In Central and Eastern Europe, by contrast, these fields account for only 40 percent of total

nonprofit employment while professional, cultural, and recreational activities absorb 45 percent;

In the other developed countries (Japan, the U.S., Israel, and Australia), health is by far the largest

component of the nonprofit sector;

In Latin America, nonprofit employment is concentrated most heavily in education.

Fig 19 - Composition of nonprofit paid employment, by region (ca 1995)



83

4. Volunteer Involvement

On average, volunteers account for 2.4 percent of total nonagricultural labor, or over one-third of

nonprofit labor (see Fig 18)

In three countries (Sweden, Norway, and Finland) volunteers account for over half of the nonprofit

workforce (see Fig 18).

As shown in Fig 20, two major fields, social services and culture/recreation absorb more than half of

all volunteer time accounted for by nonprofits. The remaining fields account for roughly 5 to 8

percent each.

Relative to paid employment, volunteer labor is especially important in the field of environment and

advocacy.

In contrast, in the fields of health and education, volunteer involvement is considerably lower than

paid employment

Fig 20 - Composition of volunteering for nonprofit organizations, except places of worship (25 countries, ca 1995)



84

5. Revenue Sources

Fees and charges, not philanthropy, are the major source of nonprofit income, followed closely by

government.

As shown in Fig 21, private philanthropy—from individuals, corporations, and foundations

combined— accounts for only 10 percent of nonprofit cash income on average.

By contrast, fees and other commercial income account for about half (51 percent) of all nonprofit

revenue.

Public sector payments account for 39 percent of total nonprofit revenue.

Fig 21 - Sources of nonprofit revenue, 1995 (26-country average)

These revenue patterns vary considerably among regions. Thus, as shown in Fig 22:

Public sector payments account for half (50 percent) of nonprofit income in Western Europe, but

only 15 percent in Latin America;

In Latin America, fees and charges account for 74 percent of nonprofit revenue;

In only one region (Central Europe) does private giving comprise significantly more than 10 percent

of nonprofit income, though with volunteering included, such income exceeds 20 percent of the

total in 19 of the 26 countries.



85

Fig 22 - Sources of nonprofit revenue, by region (ca 1995)

With the value of volunteer work included, private philanthropy’s share of nonprofit income jumps from

10 percent to 28 percent, but the relative ranks of the three sources do not change (see Fig 23).

Fig 23 - Sources of nonprofit revenue with volunteers, ca 1995 (26-country average)



86

6. Growth

Nonprofit organizations have been an important source of employment growth in recent years.

Employment in nonprofit organizations grew three times faster than overall employment in the

early 1990s in the eight countries for which time series data are available.

Fig 24 - Growth in nonprofit employment vs. total employment, 1990-1995 (8 countries)



87

From Social Economy to Social Innovation

In conjunction with the previous documents I would like to conclude the 2° part of this project research

with a final presentation of the main issues faced by Innovation in Social Economy24. As the Social Economy

sections, most of the work that have been presented till now is mainly based on European experience but

most of the references can be applied at a more global level, also for the main meaning and impact of the

words Social, Economy and Innovation.

What is social innovation?

Definitions of social innovation abound and a casual observer can quickly become entangled in a debate

over meaning and nuance. In general, social innovation can be defined “as new responses to pressing social

demands, which affect the process of social interactions. It is aimed at improving human well-being”. …

Amongst other recent definitions, the suggestion made in the study commissioned for this report is short

and universal: Social innovations are innovations that are social in both their ends and their means. It is

complemented by the following: Specifically, we define social innovations as new ideas (products, services

and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than 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. The process of social interactions between individuals undertaken to

reach certain outcomes is participative, involves a number of actors and stakeholders who have a vested

interest in solving a social problem, and empowers the beneficiaries. It is in itself an outcome as it produces

social capital.

Why social innovation?

The need has emerged for major societal trends such as progress in the level of education, greater

awareness of the environment, claims for gender balance and the development of local responses to global

issues as part of a wider movement to promote autonomy as a key driver for the welfare of citizens. The

level of well-being and social cohesion that ultimately provide the conditions of economic growth are also

linked with the value of non-market goods and services, natural resources and other informal and unpaid

activities which are not included in the composition of GDP. Social innovation is precisely about the

development of what are currently viewed as assets for sustainable development: environmental, human

and social capital. …

24 Bureau of European Policy Advisors at the European Commission (2010), Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union



88

Nonetheless, social needs are growing in importance for a number of reasons. Combined with globalization,

rapid technological change has wide-ranging impacts on society and profound implications on

unemployment profiles. It increases the demand for skills, widening the gap between the skilled and

unskilled. The overriding social issue for the longer term is how to equip individuals with the right skills to

give them the best chance in the modern economy as workers, entrepreneurs and consumers….

Despite the economic benefits of migration, the social benefits of diversity and migrants’ contributions to

the social welfare of society — in the caring services and performing the essential public service jobs that

might otherwise go unfilled — the treatment of migrants in society leaves a lot to be desired. Although

some progress has been made in tackling overt racism and intolerance, there remain huge problems of

discrimination, unemployment and access to decent public services such as housing, health and good

schools. The number of people who are inactive or unemployed is dramatically increasing. … The financial

crisis has changed the overall perspective dramatically. … The problem with respect to youth unemployment

is particularly acute. … Too many people live in poverty and social isolation. … Among these, an increasing

number of children and young people are living in poverty.

World’s future depends on its youth. However, the life chances of many young people are blighted — they

lack the opportunities and the access to education and training to realize their full potential. The last three

decades have seen a pervasive increase in child poverty rates. … In an increasingly individualistic society, the

risks of isolation and social exclusion for the elderly increase, while the burden on social security systems

poses fundamental issues of intergenerational sustainability and even social justice…. Climate change will

require major changes: new sources of energy, new infrastructures, working patterns, methods of

production, distribution and transport, new forms of interaction, behaviors and beliefs. Beyond these

economic consequences (which are indeed economic if we consider unemployment risks), those of a social

nature are just as relevant. Climate change will result in unprecedented migration flows and increase the

risks of poverty for those that will be more exposed to its effects, while impacting labor markets through the

reorientation of skills and jobs towards new technologies and sectors. …

On top of this far-reaching set of societal changes, the worst economic and financial crisis in decades has hit

the world hard with a sharp economic recession. … Collective action to save the financial system and to

boost demand and confidence through public intervention has helped to prevent an economic meltdown. In

responding to the crisis, governments have implemented major fiscal stimulus packages, but have also

introduced major budgetary constraints. … At a time when resources are limited, new solutions must be

found to respond to these demands, making better use of existing resources and transforming them into

sources of growth. …

In most Member States, civil society organizations play an important role in meeting social needs. They

provide both niche and mainstream services meeting social needs alongside public sector providers and

often offer innovative solutions to the problems concerned. However, most of these institutions are small

and underfunded: consequently, the services they can provide on their own are often short-lived,

fragmented and patchy. Furthermore, many of the organizations concerned are solely dependent on public

funding, which can create tension between what they perceive to be their mission and the aims of the

government funders. Moreover, the crisis is likely to have a paradoxical effect: while it may prompt civil

society social actors to devise, out of necessity, more innovations and more solutions to difficult situations, it



89

will also cause them to suffer badly due to the public expenditure cuts made in its wake. … Firstly, solutions

must be found, in a time of major budgetary constraints, to deliver better services making more effective

use of available resources. Second, the traditional ways in which the market, the public and the civil sector

have provided answers to social demands are no longer sufficient. In this context, social innovation

represents an important option to be enhanced at different levels (local, regional, national, international)

and sectors (public, private, civil) as its purpose is to innovate in a different way (through the active

engagement of society itself) and to generate primarily social value. … It is argued that change is systemic

and policy-makers would benefit from a general theory of social innovation to respond to major structural

adjustment challenges of the current historical paradigm shift. They argue that many countries have

responded to this shift by increasing their investments in research, education and new infrastructures, but

that, ‘as important as these policy measures are, they will not be sufficient for securing good economic

performance and social welfare in the coming decades’. This perspective places social innovation not only as

a way to respond to new social problems that cannot be fixed with old policy instruments but also as a tool

to address global challenges (for instance climate change) and ensure economic performance during major

structural transformations.

‘Social innovations in organizations, policies, rules and regulations as well as in collective norms,

values and cognitive frames are needed to complement the more traditional technological and

economic innovations, in order to reach systemic synergies, productivity growth, increasing returns

and steadily growing incomes’.

They underline the interdependence of systems at different levels and in different sectors, arguing that

narrowly focused or partial innovation only produces growing contradictions, poor productivity, decreasing

returns and stagnating incomes.

Process dimension

Examples25 of characteristics that highlight the change in the process dimension implied by social innovation

are the following:

Solutions must focus on the beneficiaries and be created with them, preferably by them, and never

without them

Focusing on the strengths of individuals and communities rather than on their weaknesses

Capitalizing on the diversity of ethnicities, ages, religions, gender, etc. and not just combating

discrimination

Developing a holistic approach rather than fragmented responses to people’s diverse problems

Reinforcing and extending partnerships rather than having each organization individually handling

‘its’ services and ‘its’ responsibilities

Collaborative working and networking as ways to stimulate social innovation

25

Social Innovation, New Perspectives by Ana Vale, Societade e Trabalho Booklets 12- 2009



90

Creating outreach solutions based in the local community rather than global solutions, remote from

people and communities

Investing more in cooperation than in competition

Mainstreaming and sustaining social innovation in order to optimize investment in new solutions

and multiply their added value

Valuing not only certifiable skills but also new skills associated with the innovation and the

discovery of what’s new, what has future and what works

Recognizing and valuing social artists

Putting in place a new governance for learning

In this sense, the concept of social innovation stems from the need for change both in terms of the outcomes

that innovation is expected to deliver and the process through which these outcomes are generated. As it is

used now in public and scientific debates, it relates not only to developing innovative solutions but also to

new forms of organization and interactions to tackle social issues.

Risks associated with the concept, and what social innovation is not

Like every new attractive concept, social innovation holds some risks. We examine below the four main

types.

1 To view social innovation as renaming or relabeling all those initiatives and practices carrying some

social dimension: … social innovation cannot be seen simply as a rebranding of current programs. As

social innovation has been defined here, the social outcome is a necessary, but not sufficient,

component. However, the process that leads to the outcome should also carry elements of novelty

in reshaping social interactions.

2 The respective roes of the private, public and third sectors. Of course, the private sector has an

important role to play not just in the need for additional resources in a time of limited public

budgets, but also for injecting the creativity, flexibility and innovativeness that characterize the

business world. However, such an involvement also raises issues of ethics, responsibility, quality of

services, and access. In this sense, social innovation should not be seen as simply a way of

privatizing social services. It is intended to rather encourage an existing change of behavior by

people and institutions regarding the responsibility of finding the most appropriate solutions to

respond to unmet social demands.

3 To confine social innovation to bottom-up or grassroots initiatives. Social innovation is not

necessarily about bottom-up initiatives that stem at the micro level from the activities of

autonomous individuals and groups. Often, social innovation emerges at the local level from sharing

and networking between a wide range of actors; it can also be generated by market initiatives with

a social concern. … Social innovation can also stem from the macro/policy level, when policy-

makers, public administrators, business and opinion leaders or academics reflect, propose and



91

implement new ways to address social issues. Moreover, social innovation places an increased role

on the involvement of citizens in the design and implementation of solutions to social needs,

encouraging participatory processes, the empowerment of social actors and users, and a focus on

learning. But vis-à-vis policy-makers, such a role shall not be seen as a substitution, but rather as a

means to support policy-making bodies in being more effective.

4 Last, as for any new concept, one should avoid seeing social innovation as a panacea for solving all

problems.

A working definition

It is now clear that social innovation, as a new and emerging concept, cannot be encapsulated within a tight

definition with strictly designated actors, objectives and means. It is also clear that social innovation is part

of a broader movement towards a knowledge-based society where innovation is widely shared and enriched

by its very sharing. Nevertheless, if, as was advocated by stakeholders …social innovators should be

recognized and valued, a working definition is essential. Moreover, for designing more systematic policies to

promote social innovation and to measure its impact, it is important to agree upon a definition that includes

objectives which have to be met according to the approach which frames social innovation. The general

definition proposed earlier — ‘social innovations are innovations that are social in both their ends and their

means’ — expresses the necessary condition to recognize a social innovation in terms of both process (it

affects the process of social interaction) and outcome (it produces social return). However, it needs to be

complemented by a further articulation of what we mean by ‘social’ (in its strictly social or broad societal

definition) and of the scope of change in social interactions that is specifically implied. …

Social Innovation relates to the development of new forms of organization and interactions to respond to

social issues (the process dimension). It aims at addressing (the outcome dimension):

1 Social demand approach: social demands that are traditionally not addressed by the market or

existing institutions and are directed towards vulnerable groups in society. This approach seems to

be more appropriate when dealing with concrete grassroots cases.

2 Societal challenges approach: societal challenges in which the boundary between ‘social’ and

‘economic’ blurs, and which are directed towards society as a whole. This approach seems to be a

trend in the policy-making world towards broadening the concept towards the idea of ‘societal’

especially in innovation, research, and education policies.

3 Systemic change approach: the need to reform society in the direction of a more participative arena

where empowerment and learning are sources and outcomes of well-being. This approach gains

increasing attention in policy-making as the benefits of a network society emerge.

These approaches are not mutually exclusive, but rather interdependent: the first approach is the

foundation for the second which creates the conditions for the third — an innovation that addresses a social



92

demand (e.g. care of the elderly) contributes to addressing a societal challenge (ageing society) and,

through its process dimension (e.g. the active engagement of the elderly), it contributes to reshape society

in the direction of participation and empowerment. This could signal a development of social innovation

from a phase in which it is viewed as dealing with those issues not dealt with by traditional economics, to a

phase in which, on the one hand, the very concept of what is economic is reviewed, criticized and reformed,

and on the other, the transformation of modern societies into more user-centered, open and participative

models is actively supported.

Barriers to social innovations

Up to now, these innovation and social policies have been developing almost independently from one

another. …

Social innovation is a risk-taking operation that requires imagination, perseverance and confidence to

develop a creative idea of a product or service, and then implement a participative process and establish

strong partnerships for its implementation and subsequent scaling-up. Social innovators are confronted with

barriers that are often linked to an incompatible audit or regulatory culture. …A number of obstacles to the

development and mainstreaming of social innovations, including the traditional risk-averse and cautious

organizational cultures of administrations, closed systems which favor single-issue solutions developed

within clusters of organizations lacking mutual awareness, communication, networking and trust,

fragmented capacities (resources, infrastructures and intermediaries) and skills (training, design tools,

monitoring, validation and evaluation) preventing the development of a rich ‘eco-system’ for enabling social

innovations, and insufficient stable, seamless and sustainable funding throughout all stages of the

innovation cycle.

The issues of funding, governance, skills and measurement of social innovation are the most commonly

raised. … Furthermore, while financing is a key issue at the different process development stages, there are

also clear gaps in other types of support needed by individuals and organizations working in the field. Few

robust models for scaling up social innovations exist, due to the fact that few commissioning and

procurement structures are suited to social innovation ventures. In addition, there is a dearth of skills across

sectors and relating to all stages of the innovation lifecycle. This situation is partly due to training programs

lacking coherence, comprehensiveness or a global outlook, and also due to there being few developed

channels for spreading skills, knowledge and experience. The field of social innovation remains fragmented

and there is a need for more developed networks as well as innovation intermediaries for brokering the

connections needed to nurture and scale up social innovations….

Barriers are identified in this section according to three different approaches (the ‘social demand’ approach,

the ‘societal challenges’ approach, and the ‘systemic change’ approach) put forward to define social

innovation. The type of challenge presented in order to overcome barriers varies according to the

broadness/narrowness we give to the concept of social innovation: while the first approach calls for

schemes and actions aimed at creating framework conditions to support the development of innovations

which are not supported by state or market mechanisms, the societal challenge approach leads to a deeper



93

reflection on the distinction between what is social and economic, calling into question fundamental issues

such as sustainability, intergenerational justice and the very meaning of growth and wellbeing. Finally, a

systemic approach to social innovation questions the way in which the traditional welfare state has been

designed and incrementally adapted up to now, allowing for social learning and citizens’ involvement,

empowerment and participation.

Barriers from the perspective of the ‘social demand’ approach

Financing and scaling up

According to the ‘social demand’ approach, the main barriers are generally considered to be the difficulties

associated with accessing finance, risk capital and scaling up for social enterprises. The issue of finance is

particularly critical for social innovation, mainly due to its particular nature.

From an individual or small group perspective, apart from some exceptions promoted by foundations, there

is little equivalent to the angel finance that plays a critical role in business and technology-driven

innovation, and neither are there forms of finance currently provided in ways that make it possible for

groups of citizens, or coalitions of service providers and users, to apply for small sums of money to develop

concepts. Such a gap is particularly critical in the flow and development of good ideas and concepts in their

early stage, up to a point in which these take the form of a viable model.

Indeed, as many examples of social innovation have shown, it should also be underlined that many of those

did not depend on new technological developments but rather on a better use of existing technologies. In

this sense, a focus on technological advancement as a value per se could represent an obstacle to social

innovation as many groups and users are unable to afford the adoption of new-generation technologies.

Governance and coordination

Beyond financing and scaling up, social innovation faces a series of barriers which are rooted in a lack of

coordination between the various actors engaged in social innovation within the policy domain (policy

coordination), but also among the various players (networking between social innovators, financing

institutions, incubators, etc., referred to here in below as ‘operational coordination’).

Governance: there are few examples of institutions or institutional roles which have a specific responsibility

in this field. In general, policy competences linked to social innovation are spread and scattered among a

wide range of institutional actors and levels, which generates overlaps, lack of coordination, or even

inconsistencies (e.g. technologies which do not fit a social demand). While this situation also finds its roots

in the transverse nature of social innovation and the many policy fields concerned (ranging from social,

environmental and innovation policies), such a lack of coordination nonetheless often leads to subcritical

interventions, or policies that might be inconsistent or overlapping with each other. Indeed, the value of the



94

heterogeneous fields and competences at stake suggests not to centralize the governance of social

innovation in a single institution (which would replicate a silos approach), but rather to increase

coordination while conjugating it with a higher level guidance able to sketch the line of a common strategy

and to ensure consistency of actions. Such a view is applicable at regional, national and international level

and, in this sense, actions to promote coordination among these levels is essential.

Operational coordination: highly innovative fields are strongly networked, aiding the spread of learning, and

sharing and disseminating best practice and new models. Many have already underlined the role of

clustering, networking and proximity in creating innovation ecosystems able to promote innovation at all its

stages. While such networks are emerging in the field of social innovation … the field remains largely

fragmented within silos, existing between sectors and sub-sectors, disciplines, stages of innovation and

routes to innovate, and characterized by a lack of mutual awareness, trust and communication

Legal and cultural recognition

Another barrier to social innovation lies in the weak recognition of social entrepreneurs and enterprises and

their concrete contribution in generating innovations to address social demands. Such a lack of recognition

is rooted in both legal (the status of social entrepreneurs) and cultural dimensions (the idea that innovation

is confined to the business domain). From the first perspective, there is not a common framework to define

important sectors and players such as social entrepreneurs and enterprises, or third-sector or non-profit

sectors. Moreover, those concerned with addressing social demands are not necessarily innovators, while

many business innovators do address social demands. Such a lack in definition leads both to a lack of data

to assess the size and impact of the social innovation sector, and a lack of recognition of social innovators

which are often seen as being at the boundaries of other well-defined sectors. This again impacts social

innovation at many levels, ranging from access to finance (as social innovators are not seen as socially

recognized operators) to education (as education demands are often led by the needs of established roles

and professions). Finally, and related to this, social innovators are not seen as part of our innovation culture.

Skills and training

Related to recognition, the issue of skills and training has to be underlined. Indeed, the lack of skills, training

and skills-development for social innovators leads not only to an issue of human resources availability and

professionalism, but also to a weak recognition of social innovators as a recognized ‘profession’ and

structured around a well defined CV. Indeed, the transverse nature of social innovation requires new skills

and curricula that are able to connect the various sectors, policy domains and interests at stake.

Furthermore, it requires an ability to cross the boundaries between domains that were traditionally

separated. If such a boundary spanning skill has already been needed in recent innovation developments, it

has now become even more important as social innovation broadens and expands the number and

heterogeneity of the actors involved. There are many existing courses and programs for social

entrepreneurship and a few for social innovation. However, while some existing training programs have

some good elements, many lack coherence, comprehensiveness or a global outlook. There are scattered



95

elements of what is needed in civil service colleges … and most practitioners learn on the job, through trial

and error, and with the help of the networks they themselves create. No existing training provision makes

use of the full range of learning tools now available. Thus, there are few developed channels for spreading

skills, knowledge and experience. … Such an issue goes beyond a mere call for interdisciplinary training to

supply the workforce for an emerging sector. As is known, the professionalization and legitimacy of a group

also depends also on the availability of recognized skills-development and training, both for academics and

practitioners. In this sense, the availability of dedicated training and skills development paths could play the

important role of making the ‘social innovator’ a recognized role and skill.

The lack of data and measurements

Data: The lack of data on the social innovation sector has various causes — first and foremost, as we have

shown, the very concept of social innovation is far from having a clear definition. In this sense, the difficulty

in categorizing a social innovation as such depends on the broadness/narrowness of the definition. Related

to this, the boundaries and players of the sector are not homogeneously defined, and even those major

sectors traditionally related to social innovation lack comprehensive and homogeneous data. Indeed, there

is a lack of data on the social sector itself (which, incidentally, does not necessarily imply the innovation

component) whose scale and scope across Europe remains somewhat of an unknown factor. In part, as

mentioned above, this is due to issues of legal and cultural recognition. As social enterprises are not

homogeneously defined and could take different legal forms, most countries do not collect information on

the number of social enterprises; instead, they collect data on the number of organizations with particular

legal forms. … As a result, only a small proportion of social enterprise activity is collected in official statistics.

In this sense there are some proxy measurements — such as the size and scope of the non-profit sector and

the social economy — but clearly, it is not possible to extrapolate information on social innovation directly

from these proxies.

Measurement: The large array and variety of actions and projects which relate to social innovation have

given a rather dispersed knowledge about policies and practices that work and at what cost. Nevertheless,

lessons are difficult to draw in a transversal way for three reasons in particular.

1 The real impact of social innovations is hard to evaluate in quantitative terms. When estimated, the

numbers of initiatives and of participants or beneficiaries are used, but these will most often be poor

indicators of the real contribution of a social innovation to resolve a specific social problem or

respond to a societal challenge or, more difficult still, to produce changes in behaviors. This is often

due to the very nature of the phenomena in which the innovation is occurring. Many important

benefits that accrue from effective social programs are rarely monetized. If evaluation of the policy

itself is hardly achievable, then neither is the impact and extent of the innovation. …

2 There seems to be an insufficient culture for ex-post evaluation in the operators involved in the

implementation of projects related to social innovation. … Where social innovation is not amongst

the explicit objectives, it will not be evaluated specifically. Indeed, much of the evaluation is carried



96

out through questionnaires or cost-benefit analysis. While the first instrument requires extreme care

in the drafting of the questionnaire, the second one leaves much space for subjectivity in the

analysis (how can one identify the real costs and benefits of the policy? What is the right discount

rate for their evaluation?). This lack of evaluation tools, however, is not specific to the European

Institutions alone, as it reflects a generalized delay in the development of a social outcome

evaluation infrastructure by the social sector with respect to corporations. The Return-on-

Investment (ROI) calculations have taken a long time to affirm themselves as best practice for

corporate investment assessment, and debates still rage today on the best ways to measure

economic value generated by a company. Indeed, such a need is also witnessed by the many

ongoing reflections on the new ways and approaches of measuring the social, besides the economic,

return on investment.

3 The same reasons, combined with a weak attitude towards ex-ante and ex-post assessment, pose

an issue of measurement of impact. This is usually based on anecdotal evidence or success stories.

While such evidence can trigger public and policy curiosity, it risks confining social innovation as

simply being one of those practices able to refresh the look of older policies. However, new ways of

conceiving, measuring and evaluating the efficacy and success of social ventures, initiatives and

services, which incorporate social as well as financial impact, are also coming into play, as

encompassed within the concept of Blended Value, and practical applications in the form of tools

such as Social Returns on Investment (SROI) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis methods.

Barriers from the perspective of the ‘societal challenges’ approach

When considering a broader approach (the societal challenges) the same barriers apply. However, due to

the blurring boundary between what is social and what is economic, these barriers may be of a greater

magnitude than before, and new barriers may also come into play.

Measurement

A major consequence is in terms of measurement, both in term of ex-ante and ex-post impact. Indeed, such

an issue is twofold. In terms of process, the very nature of innovation is changing. Innovations in the public

sector, together with new trends in open and user-led innovation, are highlighting the need for new metrics

to measure innovation performance. From a process perspective, they also call for a broader view of

innovation, encompassing dimensions that go beyond the traditional view in which R&D is the main driver.

Around the world, policy-makers are demanding new ways to measure this new face of innovation, and

much work is currently underway in developing better indices for innovation. … The issue of measuring

societal innovation is even more complex when considering the outcome dimension, namely the ‘social’. As

we have shown, according to the societal challenges approach, the boundary between what is economic

and what is social (see climate change or ageing) poses the imperative of rethinking the way in which we

conceive wealth and well-being through new parameters and indices able to make marketable — i.e.



97

‘valuable’ — the capacity to address new demands (such as quality of life). However, it poses fundamental

questions such as how to define sustainability, intergenerational justice, resource consumption and

efficiency, etc. In a sense, the measurement issue becomes key, as new definitions of well-being would drive

the way in which resources are allocated and its use is evaluated.

The Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission on the Measurement of Economic and Social Progress, created in 2008,

has also made significant progress in this area. The final report by the commission stresses the need for our

measurement system to ‘shift emphasis from measuring economic production to measuring people’s well-

being’ and that measurements of well-being should be put in the context of sustainability. Additionally, the

report recognizes the need for a multi-dimensional definition of well-being and stresses that measuring all

of these dimensions of well-being requires both objective as well as subjective data.

Financing

According to this broader view, financing social innovation becomes a synonym of financing innovation in

general rather than a subset of innovations. This is because according to the societal challenges approach,

innovation is intended as a major instrument to address the socio-economic challenges ahead.

Governance

Indeed, the governance issue becomes even more complex and systemic. The call to address societal

challenges requires even stronger coordination and integration among different policy streams and levels of

governance. In terms of policy fields, while the first approach requires better collaboration among those

public and private bodies concerned with pressing social demands, the second requires a general and

deeper rethinking of policy-making in general; namely, a view of policy-making as an intrinsically

transversal activity in which decisions taken in a field deeply affect and constrain those taken in others (see

energy and environment). Taking climate change as an example, it is rather obvious that decisions related

to the environment have dramatic impacts on issues such as fiscal policy, energy security and R&D. In terms

of levels, the systemic nature of societal challenges imposes coordinated actions at local, regional, national

and global levels. Indeed, if there is a common feature that characterizes the challenges ahead, it is that

they can be addressed only through globally concerted action (see climate change).

Education

As far as education and skills-development are concerned, the societal challenges approach demands a

deeper reform of education systems. This implies a call for greater interdisciplinarity, a stronger interplay

between basic and applied research, and greater accountability and a deeper understanding of the social

impacts of technological developments, both in terms of opportunities but also in terms of threats. Issues

such as social responsibility, the critical impacts of technological developments, and a fundamental

rethinking of growth models would be part of this. From a methodological perspective, the participatory



98

and active learning approaches become more important. These needs are up against the barriers of an

education system still heavily based on a disciplinary orientation and a view of learners as passive

knowledge receivers. Moreover, for the importance that education plays in providing the skills needed to

address societal challenges, issues such as underfunding and lack of accountability call for structural

reforms.

Barriers from the perspective of the ‘systemic change’ approach

Finally, new barriers to social innovation emerge when considering a systemic approach — the approach

that aims to reshape society towards greater empowerment and participation. The first such barrier is an

administrative culture that is still rooted in a top-down approach whereby policies are designed and tested

at the political level, then applied and used at the citizens’ level. Only the failure of a policy leads to its

revision. Another such barrier lies in a general culture that views the solution to social demands as a

prerogative of public institutions, thereby giving only a passive role to citizens, stakeholders and users, who

thus are not involved in defining and designing social policies. This leads to a lack of education needed to

foster active citizenships, awareness of the role of empowerment, mutual learning, and participation in

reforming society. Furthermore, this also reinforces the lack of recognition of those civil society

organizations and initiatives that aim to improve the capacity of citizens to take an active role in policy-

shaping and local development. This is confirmed by reviews and evaluations … which have highlighted

severe barriers to the development and mainstreaming of social innovations, notably:

The traditional risk-averse and cautious organizational cultures of the relevant administrations,

which is linked to a lack of political will and leadership, a sub-critical mass of social innovators in the

public sector, and an audit-driven implementation of programs and actions;

Closed systems which favor single-issue solutions developed within clusters of

administrations/organizations or sectors lacking mutual awareness, communication, networking

and trust;

Fragmented capacities (resources, infrastructures and intermediaries) and skills (training, design

tools, monitoring, validation and evaluation) preventing the development of a rich ‘eco-system’ for

enabling social innovations;

Insufficient stable, seamless and sustainable funding throughout all stages of the innovation cycle

(made worse by the absence of robust scaling-up models that might act as benchmarks).

In terms of governance, the third approach to social innovation itself requires a change on how policies

should be formulated, proposed, tested and implemented. Needless to say, the social innovation philosophy

underscores the role of citizens, stakeholders, users and target groups in the definition and implementation

of new policies, challenging the traditional view of policy-making as a top-down process. In this sense, the

major barriers are a political culture based on a clear-cut distinction between policy-makers and policy

users, and a general view of politics as a process that puts citizens in a reactive and passive position. In this



99

sense, policy education, experimentation and cultural change all become essential ways of overcoming

these barriers.

Social enterprise

A recent phenomenon has been the growth of social enterprises from and within the social economy sector

which lies between the market and the state and is often associated with concepts such as ‘third sector’ or

‘non-profit sector’. Social enterprises are new types of business which may earn profit but are focused on

their social goal. Social enterprises will take different organizational forms according to existing legal

frameworks, on the political economy of welfare provision and on the cultural and historical traditions of

non-profit development in each country. This variety makes it difficult to identify as a sector.

‘Social enterprises include new types of organizations as well as traditional third-sector

organizations refashioned by a new entrepreneurial dynamic. In this respect, the social enterprise

concept does not seek to replace concepts of the non-profit sector or social economy. Rather, it is

intended to bridge these two concepts, by focusing on new entrepreneurial dynamics of civic

initiatives that pursue social aims’ OECD, Leed programme

Social enterprise activity falls mainly into two categories. The first is social service provision — childcare,

elderly care, care for the disabled and so on. The second is ‘work integration’ or ‘work insertion’ —

integrating the long-term unemployed or disadvantaged and marginalized groups into the labour market.

Definitions of social enterprise vary, but the main features are the primacy of the social mission, the

presence of trading income and the provision of services (i.e. they do more than campaign, lobby or

advocate). …

Social enterprises can also be identified by the types of relationships they have with their beneficiaries, the

way in which they are able to attract voluntary support or the way in which they are embedded within their

local communities. For example:

‘the key feature of social enterprises seems to be their ability to strengthen the fiduciary relationship

within and around the organization, and to mobilize resources from individuals and from the local

community (social capital). They do so using institutional and organizational mechanisms that rely,

inter alia, on the forceful and broader representation of the interests of stakeholders, on a

participatory and democratic governance system, and on the use of volunteer labor.’26

As a result of these relationships, social enterprises are often embedded within their local communities.

Consequently, they are attuned and responsive to the needs of beneficiaries. Social enterprises tend to be

relatively small, although some have established themselves in the mainstream.

26 A. Bacchiega & C. Borzaga, ‘Social enterprises as incentive structures: an economic analysis’ in C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (eds.) (2001)



100

Conclusion 2° part – Applied Research

What we learned ?

Considered the big part dedicated to Social Innovation I prefer to split the final summary of the main

concepts with respect to the linear model of innovation for social innovation, which replaces the one for

social economy.

Fig 25 – The Linear Model of Innovation for Social Innovation

The following are the main entities:

Social innovation

Social economy

Policy for science

Social value

The linear model of innovation



101

Social innovation

1) Social innovations are innovations that are social in both their ends and their means. It is

complemented by the following: Specifically, we define social innovations as new ideas (products,

services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than 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.

Social innovation has a definition

Social innovation is focus on people for people, in term of human being, of knowledge, of skills,

of action

2) Social innovation is important because:

is precisely about the development of what are currently viewed as assets for sustainable

development: environmental, human and social capital

social needs are growing in importance for a number of reasons, among them:

o globalization

o technological change

o the gap between the skilled and unskilled

o huge problems of discrimination

o unemployment

o access to housing, health and schools

o people in poverty and social isolation

o an individualistic society

o social justice

o climate change

o unprecedented migration flows

o the worst economic and financial crisis in decades

o major budgetary constraints

o civil society organizations dependent on public funding

o market, public and civil sector answers to social demands no longer sufficient

o different scopes (local, regional, national and international)

o benefit from a general theory of social innovation

o the interdependence of systems at different levels and in different sectors

3) Social innovation relates not only to developing innovative solutions but also to new forms of

organization and interactions to tackle social issues:

Solutions must focus on the beneficiaries and be created with them, preferably by them, and

never without them




102


discrimination


Reinforcing and extending partnerships rather than having each organization individually

handling ‘its’ services and ‘its’ responsibilities


Creating outreach solutions based in the local community rather than global solutions, remote

from people and communities


Mainstreaming and sustaining social innovation in order to optimize investment in new

solutions and multiply their added value



Recognizing and valuing social artists


4) Social Innovation addresses outcome dimensions rather interdependent:

Social demand approach: social demands that are traditionally not addressed by the market or

existing institutions and are directed towards vulnerable groups in society. This approach seems

to be more appropriate when dealing with concrete grassroots cases.

Societal challenges approach: societal challenges in which the boundary between ‘social’ and

‘economic’ blurs, and which are directed towards society as a whole. This approach seems to be

a trend in the policy-making world towards broadening the concept towards the idea of

‘societal’ especially in innovation, research, and education policies.

Systemic change approach: the need to reform society in the direction of a more participative

arena where empowerment and learning are sources and outcomes of well-being. This

approach gains increasing attention in policy-making as the benefits of a network society

emerge.

5) Social innovation barriers from the perspective of the ‘social demand’ and ‘societal challenges’

approach

difficulties associated with accessing finance, risk capital and scaling up for social enterprises

the flow and development of good ideas and concepts in their early stage, up to a point in which

these take the form of a viable model

a better use of existing technologies

the transverse nature of social innovation and the many policy fields concerned

a lack of coordination that might be inconsistent or overlapping

a common strategy and a consistency of actions

the role of clustering, networking and proximity in creating innovation ecosystems



103

a lack of mutual awareness, trust and communication

cultural dimensions, for which the idea that innovation is confined to the business domain

the lack of skills, training and skills-development for social innovators

the transverse nature of social innovation requires new skills and curricula

few developed channels for spreading skills, knowledge and experience

a lack of data to assess the size and impact of the social innovation

the boundaries and players of the sector are not homogeneously defined

the real impact of social innovations is hard to evaluate in quantitative terms

an insufficient culture for ex-post evaluation in the operators involved in the implementation of

projects related to social innovation

6) Social innovation barriers from the perspective of the ‘systemic change’ approach

The traditional risk-averse and cautious organizational cultures of the relevant administrations,

which is linked to a lack of political will and leadership, a sub-critical mass of social innovators in

the public sector, and an audit-driven implementation of programs and actions;

Closed systems which favor single-issue solutions developed within clusters of

administrations/organizations or sectors lacking mutual awareness, communication,

networking and trust;

Fragmented capacities (resources, infrastructures and intermediaries) and skills (training,

design tools, monitoring, validation and evaluation) preventing the development of a rich ‘eco-

system’ for enabling social innovations;

Insufficient stable, seamless and sustainable funding throughout all stages of the innovation

cycle (made worse by the absence of robust scaling-up models that might act as benchmarks).

Social economy

1) Social economy is composed by four sub economies with six interfaces

2) The institutional conditions for Public Economy innovation

changing the tax relationship

budgetary practice to promote internal innovation

distributed accountability and democratic innovation

a public medium of exchange

public investment, loans and means of payment

redesigning the labor contract

internal organizational forms

brokers & intermediaries

Professional collaboratives



104

metrics and assessment

the circuit of information

3) The institutional conditions for Grant Economy innovation

generation of Innovative projects

grant giving

grant relationship

purchasing and commissioning

investment

packages of support

platforms, tools and protocols for innovation

governance and accountability

Regulatory, fiscal, legal and other conditions for extending the social economy

4) The institutional conditions for Market Economy innovation

Generation and value creation

Finance

Organizations and ownership

Information

Regulatory, fiscal, legal and other conditions for generating innovation in the social economy

5) The institutional conditions for Household Economy innovation

Public spaces for social innovation

Valorizing household time

The New Mutualism

Constructed households as sites of innovation

Social Movements

6) The process for Social Economy Innovation:

Prompts, inspirations and diagnoses

o Framing the question

o Triggers and inspirations

o Recognizing problems

o From symptom to cause

Proposals and ideas

o Imagining Solutions

o Thinking differently



105

o Open innovation

o Participation

o Facilitating participation

o Institutions

Prototyping and pilots

o Prototypes, pilots and trials

o Finance for emerging ideas

Sustaining

o Creating a business

o Ownership and organizational form

o Governance

o Organization and management models

o Operations

o Relational capital

o Venture finance

o Sustaining innovations through the public sector

Scaling and diffusion

o Generative diffusion

o Inspiration

o Diffusing demand

o Scaling and diffusion in the public sector

o Commissioning and procurement

o Suppliers of innovation

o Transmitters

o Organization and scale

o Metrics to show what works and what deserves to be grown

Systemic change

o Ideas that energize systemic innovations

o Infrastructures and interstructures to support new systems

o Formation of users and producers

o Strategic moves that accelerate systems change

o Regulatory and fiscal changes

o Information, accounting and statistics

o Progressive coalitions and social movements

o Systemic finance

7) The process for Social Economy Innovation is at the base of Social Innovation



106

Policy for science

1) Both social economy and social innovation have policy for science that are:

Not driven by specific, formalized and shared social values

Not perceived so “tangible” because mostly referred to the demand side of innovation

Not perceived so important as quick win solutions, because the return of investment apply on

medium – long period

Heterogeneous in term of legislations and countries

Not funded as industrial “science for policy”

Social value

1) For social economy the social value has been driven by:

the lack of business return for market economy

the lack of budget or competencies by the public economy, or the effects of political choices by

the public institutions

2) The definition of social innovation itself doesn’t help to understand the underline social value because:

“social in both their ends and their means”

“new ideas (products, services and models)”

“simultaneously meet social needs and create new social relationships or collaborations”

“not only good for society but also enhance society’s capacity to act”

all previous terms show the effects of social innovation but it’s not clear which are the value of

reference

3) For social innovation the social value is not clearly formalized

The linear model of innovation

1) The common linear model of innovation, for social economy and social innovation, have some

similitude’s with the process of social economy innovation in term of sequential steps:

from analysis, which correspond to Prompts, inspirations and diagnoses

to diffusion, which correspond to Scaling and diffusion



107

2) The Prototyping and pilots stage of social economy innovation reflect some influence and

characteristics presented for the Development category of industrial Research and Development

After the final summary and the considerations dedicated to Part 2 of this document it is possible to update

the linear model of innovation for Social Innovation, which replaces the one for social economy.




108

Part 3 – Development



109

A new model of Social Innovation

Object of this final Part 3 is to provide the reader with a new model of Social Innovation based on:

the genealogical history of Innovation and his linear model of Innovation

the latest research and definitions for Social Economy

a new Social Value framework driving the Social Innovation model proposed

The new model, in my opinion, could be object of a project research and development, creating a new

starting point for subsequent future researches and implementation.

Enhancement of previous Social Innovation model

Let’s start from the last figure of Part 2 purged by the part concerning capitalistic economic.


As mentioned in the conclusion of part 2 some of the problems for Social Economy and Social innovation

are derived from:

Social value For social economy the social value has been driven by:

o the lack of business return for market economy



110

o the lack of budget or competencies by the public economy, or the effects of political

choices by the public institutions

The definition of social innovation itself doesn’t help to understand the underline social value

because:

o “social in both their ends and their means”

o “new ideas (products, services and models)”

o “simultaneously meet social needs and create new social relationships or collaborations”

o “not only good for society but also enhance society’s capacity to act”

o all previous terms show the effects of social innovation but it’s not clear which are the

value of reference

and

Policy for science

Both social economy and social innovation have policies for science that are:

o Not driven by specific, formalized and shared social values

o Not perceived so “tangible” because mostly referred to the demand side of innovation

o Not perceived so important as quick win solutions, because the return of investment apply

on medium – long period

o Heterogeneous in term of legislations and countries

o Not funded as industrial “science for policy”

For social innovation the social value is not clearly formalized

For these reasons we have to start from social values definitions which aggregate the social innovation

chain: which values can be of reference for human being and the environment where all of us live ?

Two are the categories for the proposed social values:

Human rights

Environment rights

Human Rights

The human rights choice as social value setting social innovations is given by two simple reasons:

Human rights are human being focused

Human rights have universal value



111

In particular we refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights27 of UN (10/12/1948). The declaration

does not represent itself a legal instrument binding nations that have signed it: the binding issue, which is

not retroactive, is specified in the rules that are contained in the different covenants signed by nations and

applying the principles of the declaration itself.

There are nine core international human rights treaties28: each of these treaties has established a

committee of experts to monitor implementation of the treaty provisions by its States parties. Some of the

treaties are supplemented by optional protocols dealing with specific concerns:

21/12/1965 - International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

16/12/1966 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

16/12/1966 - International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

18/12/1979 - Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

10/12/1984 - Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment

20/11/1989 - Convention on the Rights of the Child

18/12/1990 - International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and

Members of Their Families

13/12/2006 - Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

20/12/2006 - International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced

Disappearance

In addition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the core human rights treaties, there are

many other universal instruments relating to human rights. The legal status of these instruments varies:

declarations, principles, guidelines, standard rules and recommendations have no binding legal effect, but

such instruments have an undeniable moral force and provide practical guidance to States in their conduct;

covenants, statutes, protocols and conventions are legally-binding for those States that ratify or accede to

them.

Environment Rights

There are three main dimensions of the interrelationship between human rights and environmental

protection:

The environment as a pre-requisite for the enjoyment of human rights (implying that human rights

obligations of States should include the duty to ensure the level of environmental protection

necessary to allow the full exercise of protected rights);

27 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – United Nations 28 The core international human rights instruments and their monitoring bodies – Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cedaw.htm

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm


http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cmw.htm


http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/disabilities-convention.htm

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/disappearance-convention.htm




112

Certain human rights, especially access to information, participation in decision-making, and access

to justice in environmental matters, as essential to good environmental decision-making (implying

that human rights must be implemented in order to ensure environmental protection); and

The right to a safe, healthy and ecologically-balanced environment as a human right in itself (this is

a debated approach).

For environment rights there are different declaration to which make reference:

the Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972)

the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992)

the United Nations Millennium Declaration (2000)

the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development (2002)

If we consider Human and Environment Rights as the founding social values for Social Innovation we can

modify the previous model obtaining the following figure:




113

What can we point out from previous figure ?

Human and Environment Rights are the specific social values drivers for Social Innovation

The Social values influence the linear model of innovation composed by the four macro phases

The linear model of innovation based on social values guides and is guided by “policy for science”,

having as common values Human and Environment Rights

The Research and Development social taxonomies

Let’s see now the macro phases composing the linear model of innovation:

Basic research

Applied research

Development

(Production and) Diffusion

As we argued in the second part of this document the main issues, compared to the classification and

evolution of innovation concept, raised against the first three phases (Research and Development). To

overcome issues and to propose a new role for research and development, according to the new model of

social innovation, let’s start with a common definition for all of them.

Basic research:

Theoretical analysis, exploration, concepts or measures that impact, or are impacted by, social and/or

environment phenomena and directed:

to the extension of knowledge of the general principles,

to provide a foundation for subsequent research,

to provide reference data.

As reference see the 1° part – Basic Research of this document

Applied research:

Research projects that represent investigation directed to the advancement of basic research, or discovery

of new scientific knowledge, and have specific useful objectives or practical aims, that impact, or are

impacted by social and/or environment phenomena.

As reference see the 2° part – Applied Research of this document



114

Development:

Technical activity concerned with non-routine problems that are encountered in translating research

findings or other general scientific knowledge into one or more useful:

models,

processes,

techniques,

products,

services,

or the improvement of existing ones, with respect to social and/or environment phenomena.

As reference see the 3° part – Development of this document

Production and Diffusion, at the moment, remain concepts that do not need to be explained, due to the

fact that are more intuitive than the previous and, moreover, don not request a different taxonomy than

the common ones.

Now, which would be the role of research for the new model of Social Innovation based on Human and

Environment Rights ?

The Research role

Due to the spirit and the reference values of Renaissance, which the contribute offered by research to the

Social Innovation of XXI century, based on Human and Environment Rights ?

Starting from the linear model of innovation, for which innovation itself happens step by step through:

Basic research Applied research Development (Production and) Diffusion

it is necessary to take back the aims of research not in the service of capitalist economy, but in the service

of knowledge per sé and of his utilitarian end application with respect of human being value, so important

and productive as we saw in the Renaissance.

J.J. Carty, Vice-President American Telephone and Telegraph Company, speaking before the US Chamber of

Commerce in 1924, expressed so deep and important concepts that seem prophetic in nowadays

situation29:

29

J.J. Carty (1924), Science and Business, Reprint and Circular Series, No. 24, National Research Council



115

So much has already been said and so much remains to be said urging upon us the importance of scientific

research conducted for the sake of utility and for increasing the convenience and comfort of mankind, that

there is danger of losing sight of another form of scientific research which as for its primary object none of

this things. I refer to pure scientific research conducted for the sake of extending the boundaries of

knowledge. Pure scientific research is conducted with a philosophic purpose, for the discovery of truth, and

for the advancement of learning. The investigator in pure science may be likened to explorers who discover

new continents or islands, or hitherto unknown territories. They are continually seeking to push forward the

frontiers of knowledge. ….. The pure scientist is the advance guard of civilization. …. Unless the work of the

pure scientist is continued and push forward with ever increasing energy, the achievements of industrial

scientist will diminish and degenerate. Many practical problems now confronting mankind cannot be solved

by the industrial scientist alone, but must await further fundamental discoveries and new scientific

generalizations. When considered with reference to a single branch of industry, no particular discovery in

pure science appears as a rule to be of appreciable benefit. When, however, the total contributions of pure

science are reviewed with regard to the industries as a whole, it is found that they have become of

incalculable value through adaptation to practical uses by the industrial scientist … While the discoveries of

the pure scientists are of the greatest importance to the higher interest of mankind, the practical benefits

flowing from them, though certain, are usually indirect, intangible or remote. From its very nature pure

science cannot support itself. Nevertheless it must be conducted regardless of its lack of pecuniary returns.

Which is, for Carty30, the difference between Basic research (called “Pure research”) and Applied research

(called “Industrial scientific research”) ?

In the minds of many there is confusion between industrial scientific research and this purely scientific

research, particularly as the industrial research involves the use of advanced scientific methods and calls for

the highest degrees of scientific attainment. The confusion is worse because the same scientific principles

and method of investigation are frequently employed in each case and even the subject matter under the

investigation may sometimes be identical. The misunderstanding arises from considering only the subject

matter of the two classes of research. The distinction is to be found not in the subject matter of the

research, but in the motive. … Industrial research is always conducted with the purpose of accomplish some

utilitarian end. Pure scientific research is conducted with a philosophic purpose, for the discovery of truth,

and for the advancement of the boundaries of human knowledge.

These inspiring words sustain and push the fundamental role of research: which is the deputy institution31 ?

In matters of science the function of university is two-fold, the discovery of the unknown and the teaching of

known. It is a high function of the universities to make advances in pure science, to test reported new

scientific discoveries and to place upon those which are found to be true the stamp of their approval. In this

way they can determine what shall be taught as scientific true to those who, relying upon their authority,

come to them for knowledge and believe what they teach.

30 J.J. Carty (1916), The Relation of Pure Science to Industrial Research, Reprint and Circular Series, No. 14, National Research Council 31

J.J. Carty (1924), Science and Business, Reprint and Circular Series, No. 24, National Research Council



116

To emphasize the University role, as institution for knowledge, it is important to remember that the first

university of “the west world” as a center of knowledge discovery and diffusion has been founded in 1088

in Bologna (Italy), nearly 400 years before Renaissance. For sure, nowadays, there are others important

institutions for knowledge, for example research centers that are “not under or part of” industrial or

political framework. In any case from now on Institutions for Knowledge, based on the presented social

values, will be referred to as “High Education”.

How can we leverage the linear model of innovation with the innovation process for Social Economy, at the

base of Social Innovation, presented in previous chapters ?



117

The process for the new model of Social Innovation

The innovation process for Social Innovation, as a consequence of Social Economy, is composed by six

macro activities: how can we merge these macro activities with our discourse about the new model of

Social Innovation ? If we start from the meanings of all of them compared to the linear model of

innovation, based on Human and Environment Rights, we can focus on the following features. To each of

the previous macro activities we can associate different concepts, like:

WHY ? Prompts, inspirations and diagnoses

WHAT ? Proposals and ideas

HOW ? Prototyping and pilots

WHERE ? Sustaining

GLOCAL ? Scaling and diffusion

WHO ? Systemic change

The last three questions (“Where ?” “Glocal ?” and “Who ?”) explain a deep focus on innovation dimension

measured in term of localization, span, impact. In fact, with respect to the theory of innovation diffusion32

we can add a new dimension, and modify the axis reference from the capitalistic economy market share to

the new Social Innovation knowledge share, as depicted in the next figure.

Fig 29 – The Diffusion of Innovation for Social Innovation

32

Diffusion of innovations - Wikipedia



118

The first three questions can be matched with the previous taxonomies of research and development and,

the result is the following:

WHY ? Basic Research Prompts, inspirations and diagnoses

WHAT ? Applied Research Proposals and ideas

HOW ? Development Prototyping and pilots

What about the other two steps of linear model of innovation ?

WHERE ? Production Sustaining

GLOCAL ? Diffusion Scaling and diffusion

As we see we have split the previous “(Production and) Diffusion” in two distinct steps, as depicted in the

next figure. The resulting model is the linear process model of innovation.

Fig 30 – The new Linear Process Model of Innovation for Social Innovation

But what about the “systemic change” ? In this case, considering the associated question “Who ?” the only

possible answer can be structured in term of Actors, or sub-economies as mentioned in Social Innovations

part:



119

WHO ? Social Innovation sub economies Systemic change

The social innovation economy

Compared to the sub economies of Social Economy there are two new sub economies to add (see next

figure).

Fig 31 - The Social Innovation Economy

The central role of High Education is justified by:

the preeminence research role in the new linear model of innovation

the theories of Roberto Mangabeira Unger and John Dewey

the historical examples provided us by Italian Renaissance and Guilds

the issues and the accomplishments requested by Human and Environments Rights

The new role of International Institutions is justified by:

their guiding role in nowadays life

their political and economical role

the representation and advocacy role of different interest

Going back to the previous question about “systemic change” we can say that the only possible answer is

structured in term of Actors, or Social Innovations sub-economies:

WHO ? High Education The Household The Grant Economy

Systemic change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Mangabeira_Unger



120

The Market The State The International institution

What are the consequences due to the new actors, their role and the new meaning of “systemic change”

for the new model of Social Innovation (see the next figure) ?

Fig 32 - The new model for Social Innovation

In this model is interesting to see that:

“systemic change” is connected with Social Innovation sub economies by “Policy for science”

“systemic change” identifies the real impact of change toward the Social Innovation operative

schema (composed by the linear process model of innovation driven by Human and Environment

social values)

the arrow connecting the Social Innovation operative schema is bi-directional



121

the sub economy main interface for “Policy for science” is High Educational, which emphasize the

role of the deputy institutions for research, first macro activity triggering the linear process model

of Social Innovation



122

LEONARDO for Human and Environment Rights

What is LEONARDO for Human and Environment Rights ? LEONARDO is a proposal whose aim is to develop

an operative project for the implementation of the new Social Innovation model.

In other words, compared to the steps of the linear process model of innovation we can say that the

following paragraphs constitute the “Development” part of a Social Innovation project: the hope of doing

this is to find a Research center interested and cooperating in:

the review and the enhancement of the previous steps of the project itself (basic research, applied

research and development)

the implementation of the subsequent steps (production and diffusion)

Why do I choose the name LEONARDO ? What does it mean this term ?

First, the name is a tribute to the genius of Leonardo Da Vinci and, as one of the most famous

representative of Italian Renaissance, I thought that this name could have been the best testimonial for a

project on the new model of Social Innovation.

Second, the name Leonardo can be seen as an acronym whose meaning is:

Learning

Environments

Orienting

New

Approaches to

Research and

Development

Objectives

Moreover, adding at LEONARDO the terms “for Human and Environment Rights” was clear to me that I

have found the right name to the project for the proposed model of Social Innovation.

As we can see, with this project name, we have some specific features like:

Learning environments, with a focus on cooperation, networking, knowledge and skills

New approaches, with a focus on distributed cooperation driven by human being demand

Research and development, with a focus on the demand side of the new linear model innovation as

a bridge toward production and diffusion



123

First we have to better specify how are connected the single Actors defined for the new model of Social

Innovation (see next figure):

Fig 33 - The LEONARDO project architecture for Social Innovation

LEONARDO project architecture benefit

The architecture covers three principal levels of social innovations:

o The institutional conditions: a macro one about innovations in the structures and

mechanisms of the social economy

o The distinct processes: a micro enquiry into the process of social innovation

o The systemic innovations: an inquiry into innovation in productive systems

The architecture, thank to the six sub economies, covers all the key interfaces of social innovations

Policy for science could include the most part of methods defined in previous chapter (Institutional

conditions for Innovations)



124

The Learning Environments

The main reference for the learning environments of LEONARDO project, whose aim is to be a point of

reference for local needs thanks to global cooperation from people spread all over the world, is based on

Connectivism theory. Briefly we can affirm that:

Connectivism33 was introduced as a theory of learning based on the premise that knowledge exists in the

world rather than in the head of an individual. Connectivism proposes a perspective similar to the Activity

theory of Vygotsky as it regards knowledge to exist within systems which are accessed through people

participating in activities. It also bears some similarity with the Social Learning Theory of Bandura that

proposes that people learn through contact. The add-on "a learning theory for the digital age", that appears

on Siemens paper indicates the special importance that is given to the effect technology has on how people

live, how they communicate, and how they learn.

One aspect of connectivism is the use of a network with nodes and connections as a central metaphor for

learning. In this metaphor, a node is anything that can be connected to another node within a network such

as an organization: information, data, feelings, images. Connectivism sees learning as the process of

creating connections and developing a network. Not all connections are of equal strength in this metaphor;

in fact, many connections may be quite weak. The idea of organizations being cognitive systems where

knowledge is distributed across a network of nodes can be traced back to the work on the Perceptron….

Principles of connectivism

Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.

Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.

Learning may reside in non-human appliances.

Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known

Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.

Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.

Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.

Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming

information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may

be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.

For learning framework we can make reference to the Graphic Map of Learning34 derived by the

Connectivism theory (see next figure).

33 Connectivism - Wikipedia 34

G. Siemens – (http://octette.cs.man.ac.uk/jitt/images/0/06/Siemens_learning_ecology_large.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Learning_Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron



125

Fig 35 – Graphic map of learning

As we see the depicted learning environment is design for maximum flexibility that meets the LEONARDO

operative process needs.

For the ICT platform, which can be identified with a Personal Learning Environment, some features can be

identified:

Learning scope:

o Why ? What ? Basic and applied research: research content

o How? Development: research content, instruments, template and content for

business

o Where ? Production: research content, instruments, template and content for

business

o Glocal ? Diffusion: research content, instruments, template and content for

business feedback

o Who ? Social Innovation sub economies: research content



126

Learning design:

o The proposed design is based on the PENTHA ID Model35 (Personalization, Environment,

Networks, Tutoring, Hypermedia, Activity ID Model) that is a multi perspective Instructional

Design model based on five dimensions (see next figure)

Fig 36 – The PENTHA dimensions

Learning environments:

o In particular we can imagine so many learning environments as much are the themes

defined for Human and Environment Rights (see next figure).

Fig 34 – Example of learning environments scope

35 Dr. Luisa dall’Acqua - Epistemological Base and Didactical Characteristics of aDynamic Hybrid Intelligent e-Learning Environment (DHILE) – Sie-L 2011



127

Orienting New Approaches

Which are the main features of the new approaches oriented by learning environments ?

Learning environment is a dynamic hybrid intelligent platform driven by a mix of:

User needs

Knowledge champion objectives

This specific mix can be different in function of:

the linear process model of social innovation: different macro activities mean different mix

human and environment social innovation values: different macro activities mean different

operative application of values

networking degree: different macro activities mean different level and span of cooperation among

actors

the span of social innovation: different macro activities mean different boarders of innovation

Let’s see next figure for a synthetic schema:

Fig 37 – The new approaches features



128

The beneath idea is that the flexibility of learning environment should be aligned to the different aims and

features of the macro activities composing the new linear process of innovation for Social Innovation. A

more detailed explanation of the previous figure will be hold in the next paragraph.

Research and Development Objectives

In previous chapters we presented the following associations:

WHY ? Basic Research Prompts, inspirations and diagnoses

WHAT ? Applied Research Proposals and ideas

HOW ? Development Prototyping and pilots

WHERE ? Production Sustaining

GLOCAL ? Diffusion Scaling and diffusion

As presented in previous figure we can focus some peculiar features of singles macro activities.

Basic research

Question

o Why ?

Aim

o Knowledge for knowledge

Human and environment social innovation values

o Basic research is based on pure knowledge about principles of human and environment

rights; there is no specific meaning in real application and, for this reason, we can say that

are static values because there is no constrain in basic research that is based on specific

and real social innovation requests or needs

Networking degree

o The assigned value is high, because pure research needs a cooperation with all possible

institutions and people in order to discover and share new knowledge

Social innovation span

o The assigned value is global, because pure research and knowledge should be shared all

over he world and in attendance of all people who care about social innovation and his

subsequent possible application in the real world

Required mix

o The mix for this macro activity is not homogeneous, because pure research and knowledge

aims are driven by knowledge champion, whatever they are institutions and/or people. The



129

detachment from real social innovation applications put aside the role of the user. For

these reasons the involvement value for user is low and for knowledge champion is high

Sub economies / actors

o All sub economies should be involved in basic research, each one for different reasons and

in different modes, but all sharing the common human and environment values. So,

international institutions, the state, the market, the grant economy and the household are

“necessary” in basic research, all of them supporting high education institutions

Life cycle

o Long, depending on the type and scope of the pure research

Approach

o Imitation, as combination

Applied research

Question

o What ?

Aim

o Knowledge for the advancement of basic research, or discovery of new scientific

knowledge, and have specific useful objectives or practical aims


o Applied research is based on knowledge that have specific useful objectives in human and

environment rights and, for this reason, we can say that are static or dynamic values

depending on the level of practical aim

Networking degree

o The assigned value is medium, because applied research needs a cooperation inside

specific institutions that are focused on the specific aim, in order to push research results

towards development macro activity


o Global or local are the assigned values, because applied research and knowledge could be

shared or focused, respectively, to global or local practical aims

Required mix

o The mix for this macro activity is not homogeneous, because applied research and

knowledge aims are driven here as well by knowledge champion, whatever they are

institutions and/or people, maybe with some support from users who are interested in

possible evolutions of applying research discoveries to development and production macro

activities. For these reasons the involvement value for user is quite low and for knowledge

champion is high


o All sub economies could be involved in basic research, each one for different reasons and in

different modes, and depending of the scope of the applied research. For global scope all of

them should be involved, for a more local scope (and depending on the criticality of the



130

practical aim) maybe the sub economies more involved are the market, the grant economy

and the household, all of them supporting high education institutions

Life cycle

o Long or medium, depending on the type and scope of the applied research

Approach

o Imitation, as combination

Development

Question

o How ?

Aim

o Knowledge for practical usage, which means specific for solving something real or for

starting a social innovation non profit business


o Development is based on dynamic knowledge where specific user needs are approached

and formalized in order to match social values with the specific social instance

Networking degree

o The assigned value is small, because development needs a cooperation among few persons

and the user, all of them focused on the specific need or instance, in order to push research

results towards as specific “how to” framework ready to be implemented or delivered in

production macro activity


o Local is the assigned value, because development is focused on local user needs

Required mix

o The mix for this macro activity is homogeneous, because development is driven by few

knowledge champions and the user who is interested in applying research results in

concrete production. For these reasons the involvement value for user and for knowledge

champion is high


o Not all sub economies are involved in development, due to the local scope of the user

need. For a more local scope (and depending on the criticality of the practical aim) the sub

economies more involved are the market, the grant economy and the household, all of

them supporting the user

Life cycle

o Medium or short, depending on the type and scope of the development macro activity

Approach

o Invention, as discovery, imagination, creation



131

All previous macro activities (research and development) are the drivers and the main steps for subsequent

Production and Diffusion. In particular, the Development role is huge because is the bridge between

research and the real application for social innovation. In this model, differently from capitalism economy,

the development macro activity is not focus on prototype but on pure knowledge (tools, model, procedure

..) transfer about HOW to do something, it is a strong link between knowledge champion and user, is a way

to share and spread common knowledge, to transform knowledge in skills for all who care social innovation

and share common values.

Production

Question

o Where ?

Aim

o Knowledge and skills for practical usage, which means daily activities to realize what have

been specified in development macro activity, for solving something real or for a social

innovation non profit business


o Production is based on dynamic and static knowledge and skills where specific user apply

and make what is necessary to match social values with the specific social instance

Networking degree

o The assigned value is small, because production needs a few cooperation among

knowledge champion and the user, both focused on the specific daily need or instance to

implement or deliver the product / service planned in development macro activity


o Local is the assigned value, because production is focused on user need based on specific

location

Required mix

o The mix for this macro activity is not homogeneous, because production is driven mainly by

the user who is leading his social innovation non profit business


o Not all sub economies are involved in production, due to the local scope of the user

activity. For a local scope the sub economies more involved are the market, the grant

economy and possibly the household, all of them interacting with the user

Life cycle

o Medium or long, depending on the type and scope of the production macro activity

Approach

o Innovation, as invention used and adopted



132

Diffusion

Question

o Glocal ?

Aim

o Knowledge and skills acquired for research, which means measures and reporting about

what have been implemented in production macro activity


o Diffusion is based on static knowledge and skills that were necessary to the user in

production macro activity to match social values with the specific social instance

Networking degree

o The assigned value is medium, because production results may needs some cooperation

among knowledge champions and the user, both focused on the results and feedbacks

raised from production macro activity to implement or deliver the product / service

planned in development macro activity


o Global is the assigned value, because diffusion must impact on most people as possible,

regardless of the location of the production macro activity

Required mix

o The mix for this macro activity is not homogeneous, because diffusion is driven mainly by

the user who is leading his social innovation non profit business


o Not all sub economies are directly involved in diffusion, due to the different needs of them.

High education is the natural and primary interface for diffusion, afterwards the other sub

economies could be involved depending on the type of feedback and measures performed

Life cycle

o Medium or long, according to the production macro activity

Approach

o Innovation, as cultural change, social change

Diffusion benefits

The survey of innovation would:

Address and focus on specific and precise problems or areas of development

o based on the local user need triggering the linear process model of innovation chain

composed by development, production and diffusion

Survey end-users, not just producers

o in extended chain where social innovator involves no profit end user

Cover individuals, groups, organizations and government

o going backwards towards the linear process model of innovation and analyzing the

feedback impact for the sub economies



133

Measure diverse kinds of innovation: ideas, behaviors and things (and compared the new to the

old). Where does the innovation come from?

o from the linear process model of innovation and policy for science

What use, if any, is made of the innovation? By whom?

o this questions are answered by the log of social innovation no profit business along the

linear process model of innovation

Identify the mechanisms through which innovation diffuse and their presence or absence in a

developing country: Do and how knowledge about X gets into country Y? What lags? Why?

o it is a wider analysis made by historical data based on different projects

What effects (quality of life), including the bad ones? To what extent is the innovation adapted to a

country’s needs?

o effects and extent are analyzed at Development stage and measured at the Diffusion stage

Evaluate the role of government as innovator in matter of policies (not only as “hampering factor”):

what infrastructures, policies and programs exist in country Y for supporting innovation? Moreover,

in order to increase its relevance, a survey of innovation (be it supply-based or user-based) should

look for facts rather than rely on questions with answers of a subjective nature.

o this is specific of State and International Institution policies for science, and could be part of

an applied research project

Diffusion could include the most part of metrics and assessment defined in previous chapter

(Institutional conditions for Innovations)

Diffusion could feed the most part of information and tools defined in previous chapter


Linear process model of innovation benefits

Solutions focus on the beneficiaries and be created with them, preferably by them, and never

without them



discrimination


Reinforcing and extending partnerships rather than having each organization individually handling

‘its’ services and ‘its’ responsibilities


Creating outreach solutions based in the local community rather than global solutions, remote from

people and communities


Mainstreaming and sustaining social innovation in order to optimize investment in new solutions

and multiply their added value



Recognizing and valuing social end-users



134


Social demand approach

Societal challenges approach

Systemic change approach

High Education

High Education has a central role for LEONARDO project because:

It represents the process innovation frame work

It is the administrator of the technological platform, assuring the correct flow of content inside

innovation process

It is the administrator of the learning content for the innovation process

It represents the leader role for basic and applied research activities

It is the collecting center, by the platform infrastructure, of all the measures and feedbacks raising

from Production and Diffusion macro activities

It is the focal point for collecting household and grant economy needs

It takes the advocacy role, because it is the reference point for sub economies requesting data and

information concerning with social and environment phenomena

It takes a provider role, because supply different learning environment necessary to the specific

macro activities aims, with respect to Human and Environment Rights social values

High education benefit

The proposed approach reflects the Academia institution of Italian renaissance: people with

different cultural extractions that cooperate for a common aim

To push an humanism intellectual movement

To propose a new value model that could match the most lasting results in obtain in the

renaissance humanists’ education, curriculum and methods program

To include the most part of information, tools and protocols features defined in previous chapter


To valorize a Dewey’s democratic innovation based on two fundamental elements like schools and

civil society



135

The target – the demand side

Who are the targets for learning environments ? According to the specific macro activity, all the PEOPLE,

not institutions, that:

Share Human and Environment Rights social value

Want to study / go in more depth in social innovation

Want to share and develop the results of a social innovation research activity

Want to start a social innovation non profit business

Want to develop, in a distributed and cooperative way, a project in social innovation

Want to be a part of a network composed by people caring for social innovation

Is available to share with the network his social innovation needs

The knowledge and skills champion – the supply side

Who are the knowledge champions for social innovation ? According to the specific macro activity, all the

PEOPLE, not institutions, that:

Share Human and Environment Rights social value

Want to study / go in more depth in social innovation

Want to be a part of a network composed by people caring for social innovation

Want to share a social innovation research activity

Is available to share with the network his social innovation knowledge and skills

Want to be a Tutor or Coach for people that want to study / go in more depth in social innovation

Want to help starting a social innovation non profit activity acting in a cooperative way with a user

around the world

Who could become a knowledge champion ? If we exclude the persons that are officially and

internationally recognized as such in specific matters, we can imagine that an initial user that approached

LEONARDO project as an apprentice (using the Guilds terminology of previous chapter), could rise to the

level of journeymen for other local no profit activities and finally could be received as master craftsmen,

thanks to the acquisition of specific experience-based learning.



136

Conclusion - the Challenge

The Godin’s challenge identifies four assumptions and biases on which Innovation and the OECD

Development Agenda rests. Considering that the objective of the four assumptions is to suggest the

continuance of, and deeper thoughts on, what is certainly a beginning toward a broader understanding of

innovation, let’s review them by what we learned in previous parts.

The linear model of innovation, based on the three concepts seen as sequential steps (imitation

invention innovation) in the process leading to innovation itself, can be shifted from firms / capitalistic

view to human / social point of view, and the new model for Social Innovation has pointed out that:

Innovation is the (not-so) new (miracle) solution to development issues and the proposed new

model for social innovation propose a strategy for development, where “most current social,

economic and environmental challenges require creative solutions based on innovation and

technological advance”.

The new model of social innovation is not supply-side view and driven by firms, thanks to the

human and environment social values and the aim of the linear process model for innovation.

The new model of social innovation is based on user-side view, thanks to the following factors:

o the human and environment social values

o the aim of the linear process model for innovation

o developing technologies adapted to local needs

o the flows of scientific knowledge and how developing countries get and use scientific

knowledge from foreign sources

The great support for “people” as innovators (doing things differently), not discussed in term of

markets.



137

References

This document had been issued only by Open Source Knowledge. The reasons for this were threefold:

to act as the LEONARDO Human Being Project has already started, as I believe it is

to propose that the Linear Model of Innovation can be a starting point for social innovation by

applying the Research Development (Production and) Diffusion approach to the concepts

Imitation Invention Innovation of knowledge

finally, I could not ask to someone else to pursue LEONARDO for Human and Environment Rights

Project without giving an example

Disclaimer The analysis contained in this document is personal to the author and does not necessarily reflect the views

of the sources or of the referenced authors.

Bureau of European Policy Advisors at the European Commission (2010), Empowering people, driving

change: Social innovation in the European Union

Carty, J.J. (1916), The Relation of Pure Science to Industrial Research, Reprint and Circular Series, No. 14,

National Research Council

Carty, J.J. (1924), Science and Business, Reprint and Circular Series, No. 24, National Research Council

Connectivism - Wikipedia

Diffusion of innovations - Wikipedia

Godin, B. (2006), The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework,

Project on the History and Sociology of STI Statistics - Science, Technology, and Human Values

Godin, B. (2006), Research and Development - How the “D” got into R&D, Science and Public Policy, volume

33, number 1, February 2006, pages 59–76, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1

2EP, England

Godin, B. (2008), Innovation: The History of a Category, Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation,

INRS: Montreal, Forthcoming

Godin, B (2011), A User-View of Innovation: Some Critical Thoughts on the Current STI Frameworks and

Their Relevance to Developing Countries, Communication presented at Expert Meeting on Innovation

Statistics, UNESCO, 8-10 March, 2011

Guild, Wikipedia

http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/pdf/publications_pdf/social_innovation.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/pdf/publications_pdf/social_innovation.pdf

http://bhl.ala.org.au/item/76030#page/8/mode/1up

http://books.google.com/books?id=TygrAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA73&lpg=RA1-PA73&dq=carty+reprint+and+circular+series&source=bl&ots=eV3yzhtt7v&sig=NCprVQzqADbJt-XaLNsMEOhn5-8&hl=it&ei=bjVMToblGIWnsAL2z_ztCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectivism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_30.pdf

http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_28.pdf

http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/IntellectualNo1.pdf

http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/UNESCO_UserView.pdf

http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/UNESCO_UserView.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild



138

Humanism, Wikipedia

Johns Hopkins University (1999), Global Civil Society At-a-Glance, Major Findings of the Johns Hopkins

Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, Institute for Policy Studies Center for Civil Society Studies

John Dewey - Wikipedia

Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, Center for Civil Society Studies at the Johns Hopkins

Institute for Policy Studies

Leonardo da Vinci, Wikipedia

Lorenzo de’ Medici, Wikipedia

Luisa dall’Acqua (2011), Epistemological Base and Didactical Characteristics of aDynamic Hybrid Intelligent

e-Learning Environment (DHILE) – Sie-L 2011

Murray R, Mulgan G, Caulier‐Grice J (2011), How to Innovate: the tools for social innovation, The Young

Foundation, NESTA

Murray R, Caulier‐Grice J, Mulgan G (2010), The Open Book of Social Innovation, The Young Foundation,

NESTA

NESTA – Making Innovation Flourish

Renaissance, Wikipedia

Rights

Human rights:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – United Nations

The core international human rights instruments and their monitoring bodies – Office of the United

Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Human rights international treaties:

21/12/1965 - International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

16/12/1966 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

16/12/1966 - International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

18/12/1979 - Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

10/12/1984 - Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment

20/11/1989 - Convention on the Rights of the Child

18/12/1990 - International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and

Members of Their Families

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

http://www.ccss.jhu.edu/pdfs/CNP/CNP_At_a_glance.pdf

http://www.ccss.jhu.edu/pdfs/CNP/CNP_At_a_glance.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey

http://ccss.jhu.edu/index.php?section=content&view=9&sub=3&tri=7


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_de%27_Medici

http://www.siel2011.it/phocadownload/atti-siel2011.pdf

http://www.siel2011.it/phocadownload/atti-siel2011.pdf

http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/publications/Generating_Social_Innovation_0.pdf

http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/Open_Book_of_Social_Innovation.pdf

http://www.nesta.org.uk/home1


http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cedaw.htm



http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm





139

13/12/2006 - Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

20/12/2006 - International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced

Disappearance

Environment rights international declarations:

16/6/1972 - Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment

14/6/1992 - Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

8/9/2000 - United Nations Millennium Declaration

4/9/2002 - Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development

Roberto Mangabeira Unger - Wikipedia

Social Economy, Wikipedia

Social Innovation, Wikipedia

The Italian Renaissance, Wikipedia

The Young Foundation, institutional internet site

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/disabilities-convention.htm



http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=97&articleid=1503

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163

http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POI_PD.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Mangabeira_Unger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_innovation#cite_note-13


http://www.youngfoundation.org/



140

Acknowledgements

This document would not be possible without some marvelous persons that I had the fortune to walk with

along this way of life:

My Wife and my Children, always patient with me, source of energy for my believes and bridge for

the future

Dr. Luisa dall’Acqua, the master who chose me to guide me, as Virgil, in the discovery of the ever

changing world of Innovation: fantastic Tutor, Coach and Person

Dr. Attilio Pedrazzoli, CEO of Gsi Research Group and Director of Managing Innovation Course 2011,

always supporting me with his deep professional experience, counseling and discussions on

Innovation themes during the Course

Dr Shyam Sundaram, the master of technology, the person who make you comfortable in

approaching new knowledge by providing me with the exactly amount of information and sources

necessary to start the required personal reflections

All researchers, persons and institutions that have shared their knowledge by Open Source

philosophy

Creative Commons Public License

This research document is available under Creative Commons Public License:

Attribution

Non Commercial

ShareAlike