Gorgi Krlev

Measuring What Matters: Indicators of Social Innovativeness on the National Level

This article presents an approach to measuring social innovation. Indicators emerge from: (1) the development of a theoretically grounded measurement model, (2) a systematic review of 30 established measurement approaches. The article serves three purposes: First, it develops the conceptual understanding for social innovation. Second, through operationalization it strengthens the link between theory and empirical phenomena. Third, it paves ground for national or regional measurement of social innovation and is thus, relevant to policy making.

Welfare Regimes, Policy Reforms, and Hybridity

Hybridity is an umbrella term that can be applied to a multitude of organizational phenomena. They have in common that formerly separate, distinct elements are being combined: social and economic (social entrepreneurship) in terms of objectives, public and private organizations (quangos) in regard to legal status, or formal and informal organizational cultures (cooperatives emerging from social movements). For the most part, the emergent research on hybridity focuses on its alleged positive aspects: It is said to increase competitiveness and to provide broader community engagement and support at the same time (Smith, 2010) and to play an enabling role by filling institutional voids (Mair & Marti, 2009). What is more, hybrid organizations and the individuals steering them, driven by an unfamiliar combination of motivations, are ascribed a power of transformation, with an often very distinct emphasis (Bornstein, 2007; Koppell, 2001). Finally, it is suggested that hybrids’ combination of a strong ideological foundation with the provision of services acts as a catalyst for social change (Hasenfeld & Gidron, 2005). However, critical voices in view of hybridity are on the rise and challenge the positively charged discourse surrounding the phenomenon (Dey, 2006). They describe hybridity as self-reflexive, as a field that floats toward a predetermined state, which is directed by the individual agendas of involved actors rather than based on facts (Nicholls, 2010). Certain buzzwords are being used to keep the hybridity agenda “dangerous” (Steyaert & Dey, 2010). In view of the increasing empirical research, hybrid organizations’ significance is put into question, specifically in terms of the number of organizations and the size of the organizational field, which is overestimated in policy talk if compared to actual figures (Teasdale, Lyon, & Baldock, 2013). Irrespective of these debates, no systematic assessments are available that go beyond a particular

Mapping the Area of Social Entrepreneurship: The Social Entrepreneurship Scheme

Scholars currently discuss various concepts affecting the social sphere. One of the most prominent phenomena is the one of Social Entrepreneurship (SE). Due to the fact that definitions of the term get increasingly precise, there is less remaining confusion about the meaning of SE itself, however, many related discussions are taking place simultaneously pointing into a similar direction. Neighboring concepts covered by scholarly research include shifts in the ‘traditional’ nonprofit sector, the Social Business concept, ‘strategic Corporate Social Responsibility’ and ‘Base-of-the-Pyramid’ business. It becomes evident that we witness an increasing tendency towards hybridity that surpasses boundaries of sectors traditionally held distinct – a development regularly referred to as a ‘blurring of boundaries’ between the spheres of the state, the market and civil society. This paper aims at shedding some more light on the field of social impact activity and at putting existing concepts in relation to each other by conceptualizing a ‘Social Entrepreneurship Scheme’. The scheme shall also serve as a tool to enhance studies of ‘Social Entrepreneurial Organizations’ by offering a framework for integrating the examined entities into the larger context.

Special issue on innovation and societal transformation – what changes when the ‘social’ comes in?

• How does the concept of social innovation relate to theories of social change generally, especially in relation to discontinuities and disruptive change (e.g. revolutions) and more gradual changes (e.g. reforms)? • Which theories and models of economic and social change are best suited for the study of social innovation and how can they be applied empirically? • How does social innovation challenge innovation theory in that they are typically promoted under conditions of relative non-rivalry and non-competition, that is within innovation actor settings marked by collaboration? • What are the effects of social innovation in fields that have received increasing attention: microfinance, social impact bonds, fair trade, sustainable agriculture and fashion, decentralised energy production etc? • How does social innovation relate to and promote other sought after social outcomes such as justice, political stability or economic prosperity?