Advertisement

Social Innovation in Practice: Opportunities for Citizens and Governments

  • Alina OstlingEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 25)

Abstract

One of the emerging innovations in the public sector is social innovation. National governments, international organisations and the civil society around the world are experimenting with new models for producing and monitoring public services not only to bring down the costs and increase efficiency, but also to improve transparency. At the core of social innovation is civic engagement and novel types of interactions between government and citizens. This chapter examines if and when social innovation improves transparency and civic participation. The author has carried out four case studies of crowdsourcing in health and education sectors in Asia and Europe, which are analysed by using Elinor Ostrom’s theory on co-production. The findings suggest that social innovation can, under certain conditions, open up government and facilitate the monitoring of service delivery. Conditions that favour these processes are not only complementarity of government and the civil society actions, established and formalised commitments, and financial and practical incentives to work in synergy, as suggested by Ostrom, but also strong organisational tactics, extensive community networks and skilled volunteers at the local level working for the civil society organisations behind social innovations.

Keywords

Civil Society Public Participation Civic Engagement Civil Society Organisation Social Innovation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aitamurto, T. and Landemore, H. (2016), Crowdsourced Deliberation: The Case of the Law on Off-Road Traffic in Finland. Policy & Internet.Google Scholar
  2. Alford, J, 1998, A public management road less travelled: Clients as co-producers of public services, Australian Journal of Public Administration 57, 4, 128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, T., Curtis A. and Wittig C. (2015). Definition and Theory in Social Innovation. The theory of social innovation and international approaches. In: ZSI Discussion Paper, Nr. 33. Vienna.Google Scholar
  4. Babovic, A. (2013). Serbian citizens take on corruption in the health sector. Blogpost. Dated: April 30, 2013. http://europeandcis.undp.org/blog/2013/04/30/serbian-citizens-take-on-corruption-in-the-health-sector/
  5. Bason, C. (2010). Co-creation is key to innovation in government. Ipsos MORI. Understanding society. Winder 2001.Google Scholar
  6. BEPA (Bureau of European Policy Advisers) (2010). Empowering people, driving change, social innovation in the European Union. European Union, European Commission. Luxembourg: EUR-OP.Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, St. and Freelon, D. (2015), Introduction: conceptualising digital politics, In: Coleman S; Freelon D (eds.) Handbook of Digital Politics. Elgar Original Reference Series. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Couldry, N. (2015). The social foundations of future digital politics, In: Coleman S; Freelon D (eds.) Handbook of Digital Politics. Elgar Original Reference Series. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  9. Dahlgren, P. (2015). The internet as a civic space, In: Coleman S; Freelon D (eds.) Handbook of Digital Politics. Elgar Original Reference Series. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  10. Djurovic K. (2012). WHO: Serbian healthcare system making progress. Southeast European Times. 17 October 2012.Google Scholar
  11. Fung A., Shkabatur J. and Russon Gilman H. (2013). Six Models of Internet+Politics. International Studies Review. Vol. 15 (2013): 30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gigler B-S., Bailur S. and Anand N. (2014). The Loch Ness Model: Can ICTs Bridge the “Accountability Gap”? World Bank.Google Scholar
  13. Heacock and Sasaki (2011). ICT4 Transparency in Sub-Saharan Africa. Published in the edition ‘Increasing transparency and fighting corruption through ICT empowering people and communities’. The Swedish Program for ICT in Developing Regions (SPIDER) ICT4D Series No. 3, 2010. Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  14. IAP2 spectrum of Public Participation (2007). IAP2. www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/spectrum.pdf
  15. Joshi A. (2013). Do They Work? Assessing the Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives in Service Delivery. Development Policy Review 31.S1 (2013). https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/IETAAnnex1ServicedeliveryJoshiFinal28Oct2010.pdf
  16. Gilman H. (2015). Democracy Reinvented: Participatory Budgeting and Civic Innovation in America. Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kosack S. and Fung A. (2014). Does Transparency Improve Governance? Annual Review of Political Science. 2014. 17:65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McGee R. and Gaventa J. (2010). Review of Impact and Effectiveness of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives: Synthesis Report prepared for the Transparency and Accountability Initiative Workshop, October 14 – 15, 2010.Google Scholar
  19. Mulgan, G. (2007). Social Innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, University of Oxford. http://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Social-Innovation-what-it-is-why-it-matters-how-it-can-be-accelerated-March-2007.pdf
  20. Ostling (forthcoming). People’s engagement in service delivery: Empowering citizens and civil society through ICTs. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre (Chr. Michelsen Institute).Google Scholar
  21. Ostrom E. 1996, Crossing the great divide: Co-production, synergy and development, World Development 24, 6, 1073–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parafina, R. (2014). Executive Director of ANSA-EAP. Statement during the “GPSA Webinar Promoting Social Accountability in the Education Sector: Experiences from the Philippines”. September 2, 2014. http://gpsaknowledge.org/events/gpsa-webinarpromoting-social-accountability-in-the-education-sector-experiences-from-the-philippines/#.VA9AhmSSxQY
  23. Rumbul, R. (2015). Who Benefits From Civic Technology? Demographic and public attitudes research into the users of civic technology. mySociety. https://www.mysociety.org/research/who-benefits-from-civic-technology
  24. Serbia on the move (2012). Civil Society Advocacy Initiative (CSAI) Quarterly Narrative Report: “www.kakavjedoktor.org”. Report Period: 09th August – 09th November 2012. Dated: 20 November 2012.
  25. Shkabatur J. (2012). Check My School. A Case Study on Citizens’ Monitoring of the Education Sector in the Philippines. World BankGoogle Scholar
  26. UNDP (2011). Making The State Responsive: Experience With Democratic Governance Assessments. Edited by Göran Hydén and John Samuel.Google Scholar
  27. Vila S. (2013).Notes From Last Week’s Skill Share on Citizen Reporting. The Engine Room. Posted October 3, 2013. www.theengineroom.org/notes-from-last-weeks-skill-share-on-citizen-reporting
  28. World Bank. 2004. World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF)European University InstituteFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations