The Future of Social Innovation in the Public Sector

Transcription

1 The Future of Social Innovation in the Public Sector Maastricht, EPSA 17 November 2015 Prof. dr. Victor Bekkers Erasmus University Rotterdam

2 The past: Outline The public sector innovation challenge The present Social innovation as co-creation practices The future Scenarios Implications

3 The public sector innovation challenge Societal challenges + financial austerity Fragmentation (silos) Integration and reintegration Supply driven Need based holism Legitimacy Passive citizen as consumer or voter Active citizen as coproducer

4 The public sector innovation challenge Innovation capacity as cross boundary social learning in open systems Governance capacity as collective problemsolving through collaboration Digital governance as connective capacity

5 Drivers and barriers innovation process Environmental factors Pressure Participation networks Regulation Competition Copying Public sector innovation: the focal organization perspective Organizational factors Slack Leadership Risk aversion Incentives/rewards Conflicts Structure organization Innovation characteristics Ease in use Relative advantage Comptability Triability Individual factors Autonomy Position Professionalism Creativity Demography

6 Social innovation as co-creation Social innovation as a magic concept Societal challenges To produce need-oriented outcomes Open process of co-creation and collaboration with relevant stakeholders, like citizens Game-changer: new rules, new relationships, new positions in order to create a discontinuity with the past

7 The LIPSE Puzzle: themes and working packages Innovation capacity of innovation environments: leadership and trust Social innovation indicators Accountability, ombudman and audit Trends and scenarios: the future of social innovation Risk selection and risk govenance Co-creation citizens Diffusion, adoption and upscaling Dissemination of results

8 LIPSE Partners 1. Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL) 2. Ecole Nationale d'administration 3. ESADE (Sp) 4. Hertie School of Governance (G) 5. KU Leuven (B) 6. Luigi Bocconi Commercial University (It) 7. Matej Bel University Banska Bystrica (Sl) 8. National School of Political Studies and Public Administration (Ro) 9. Radboud University Nijmegen (NL) 10. Roskilde University (Den) 11. Tallinn University of Technology (Es) 12. The University of Edinburgh (UK)

9 The LIPSE co-creation project Six countries, linked with different state and governance traditions: Netherlands, Scotland, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Slovakia, Estonia Two sectors: Urban regeneration Welfare New collaborative arrangements Focus on citizens as initiators and co-designers of service innovation Professionals Government Citizens Source of information Co-implementer Co-designer Co-initiator

10 Drivers, barriers and outcomes State and governance traditions Organizational side: Risk aversion Administrative culture No clear incentives Policy entrepeneur as boundary spanner Compatability Citizen side Willingness and ability Awareness and Ownership Social capital Social entrepreneurship as boundary spanner Additional actions: Inviting policy Professional autonomy Co-creation process Additional actions: Inviting policy Financial rewards and support Outcomes: Lack of reported outcomes Mixed findings efficiency effectiviness Problems with equity, accountability and access: weak interests Improved community building Co-creation as a virtue on it own Along side existing practices

11 The future: four scenarios Th Degree of citizen participation: willingness High Low Degree of government participation: willingness High Low Let s dance The lone ranger Flogging a dead horse The waste land

12 Some implications It takes two to tango From governance to meta-governance Other roles: facilitating, supporting, stimulating, playing rules and level playing fields Protecting vital interests Other culture: open, participation

13 Some implications The role of state and governance traditions and the adoption of cocreation Fundamental changes: Administrative capacity building in terms of change capacity Societal capacity building in terms of creating a civil society Change agents and leadership

14 Some implications Re-invention of publicness The need to organize collective action The replacement of the monopoly on publicness by the state Bringing society back in From public private partnership to public private societal partnerships New arrangements, new roles, new collaborations New democratic arrangements, that link other forms of democracy to representative democracy