Social  Innovation  and  Welfare  Reform  

Exploring  the  institutional,  normative  and  knowledge  

dimensions  of  their  relationship  through  case  studies  of  

local  social  innovation  for  social  inclusion  in  England  and  

Flanders.    

Pieter  Cools    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Supervisor:  Stijn  Oosterlynck  

Dissertation  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  in  Sociology  

University  of  Antwerp  –  Faculty  of  Social  Sciences  

Antwerp,  2017  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  2  

Social  Innovation  and  Welfare  Reform    

Exploring  their  institutional,  normative  and  knowledge  dimensions  of  their  

relationship  through  case  studies  of  local  social  innovation  for  social  inclusion  in  

England  and  Flanders.  

 

 

Sociale  innovatie  en  welvaartstaathervorming    

Een  onderzoek    naar  de  institutionele,  normatieve  en  kennis  dimensies  van  hun  

relatie  aan  de  hand  van  gevalsstudies  van  lokale  sociale  innovatie  voor  sociale  

inclusie  in  Engeland  en  Vlaanderen  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Members  of  the  jury:  

Prof.  dr.  Stijn  Oosterlynck       University  of  Antwerp  –  Supervisor  

Prof.  dr.  Bea  Cantillon         University  of  Antwerp  –  chairwoman  

Emeritus  Prof.  dr.  Maria  Bouverne-‐De  Bie   Ghent  University  

Prof.  dr.  Maarten  Loopmans       KULeuven  

Emeritus  Prof.  dr.  Adalbert  Evers     Justus-‐Liebig-‐Universität  Gießen  

Prof.  dr.  Gert  Verschraegen       University  of  Antwerp  

 

 

 

Pieter  Cools  

Research  Centre  Inequality,  Poverty,  Social  Exclusion  and  The  City  (OASeS)  

Department  of  Sociology,  University  of  Antwerp  

Sint-‐Jacobstraat  2,  2000  Antwerp  –  Z.  508  

Pieter.cools@uantwerpen.be    

  3  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For  Bompa,  a  friend  of  the  homeless.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  4  

Acknowledgements  

 The  past  years  at   the  University  of  Antwerp  have  been  a  privilege   in   several   regards.   I  am  

grateful   for  the  many   interesting   interviews  with  practitioners,   talks  with  other  academics,  

travels,  field  visits  and  reading  that  I  was  able  to  do.  These  learning  experiences  allowed  me  

to  grow  as  a  thinker,  a  writer  and  a  person.  

 

This   journey  was  not  possible  without  my  supervisor  Stijn  Oosterlynck  who  offered  me  an  

interesting  and  challenging  job  at  a  time  that  I  was  still  getting  by  baking  fries.  He  supported  

me  throughout  the  years  with  his  critical,  but  always  constructive  feedback.  He  believed  in  

my  capabilities  as  an  academic  and  encouraged  me  to  finish  what  we  started.  His  work  ethic  

and   they   ways   in   which   he   combines   a   great   interest   in   theory   with   being   sincerely  

interested  in  and  engaged  with  practitioners  is  inspiring  to  me.  He  gave  me  the  freedom  to  

explore   the   theory   and   practice   of   our   research   topic   in   a  way   to   that   forced  me   to   take  

initiative  and  learn  from  my  mistakes.  He  stimulated  and  allowed  me  to  bring  in  and  develop  

new  insights,  ideas  and  suggestions  in  our  research  project  and  my  dissertation.  I  thank  him  

for  that.    

 

I   also   want   to   thank   the   other   members   of   the   PhD   commission   Bea   Cantillon,   Maria  

Bouverne-‐De  Bie  and  Maarten  Loopmans.  The  present  text  benefited  a  lot  from  pitching  my  

ideas  to  them  during  commission  meetings  and  at  other  occasions.  Some  of  their  interesting  

suggestions  became  crucial  elements  of  my  research.   I  would  also   like  to  acknowledge  the  

jury   members   Adalbert   Evers   and   Gert   Verschraegen   for   their   critical   and   confident  

assessment.    

 

Of   course,   I   also  owe  gratitude   to   the  European  Commission   for   funding   the  FP7   ImPRovE  

research   project   that   employed   me   for   four   stimulating   years.   I   learned   a   lot   from   the  

challenging  dialogues  with   the   social   scientist   of   this   diverse   consortium  and   I   cherish   the  

personal   relations   I   built  with   our   Italian   and   Austrian   colleagues   of   the   Social   Innovation  

team.   During   the   project   I   lived   in   London   for   five   months   to   carry   out   the   English   case  

studies.  I  benefited  a  lot  from  the  hospitality  of  CASE  and  its  director  Professor  John  Hills  at  

the   London  School  of   Economics   and  Political   Science.   Living  and  working  abroad  was  not  

only   instrumental   to   the   research,   it   was   also   a   valuable   and   unforgettable   personal  

  5  

experience.  I  am  very  grateful  for  this  opportunity.  Closer  to  home  I  also  want  to  thank  the  

OASeS  colleagues  for  the  pleasant  times  and  many  talks  we  had.    

 

A  special  thank  you  goes  out  to  all  the  social  workers,  service  managers,  project  participants  

and   policy   makers   who   shared   their   experiences   with   me   during   the   interviews,   focus  

groups,  email  correspondence  and  study  days.    

 

On  a  more  personal  note,  my  deepest  gratitude  goes  to  my  parents,  my  brother,  my  sister  

and  her  family,  my  girlfriend  and  my  friends  for  being  who  they  are  and  being  there  for  me.  

They  know  that  my  character  and  aspirations  did  not  always  fit  well  with  the  expectations,  

activities  and  tempo  of  academic  life.  They  saw  how  I  sometimes  struggled  and  provided  me  

with  the  outlets,   love,  comfort,  conversations  and  distractions  I  needed.  The  fact  that  they  

did  not   really  care  about  what   I  did  exactly,  but  still   cared  enough  to  appreciate   the   fact   I  

was  putting  effort   in   this   topic  was   important   to  me.   It  helped  me   to   start   again   the  next  

morning  after  days  when  I  had  forgotten  why  I  was  writing  this  thesis.  Their  care,  creativity,  

honesty   and   commitment   to   social   justice   always   revive   and   strengthen  my   ambitions   to  

become  a  ‘wereldverbeteraar’  when  I  grow  up,  despite  the  fact  I  am  more  than  ever  aware  

of  my  limits  to  do  so.  I  guess  that  if  my  academic  life  is  about  reason,  the  life  with  my  family  

and  friends  is  about  poetry.  I  love  poetry.      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  6  

Index  Acknowledgements  ...................................................................................................................  4  1.  Introduction  ..........................................................................................................................  8  

1.1.   Local  social  innovation  and  the  provision  of  welfare  .................................................  8  1.2.   The  rise  and  current  state  of  social  innovation  scholarship  ....................................  10  

1.2.1.   An  unavoidable  quasi-‐concept  .........................................................................  10  1.2.2.   Many  have  tried:  grasping  the  processes  and  outcomes  of  ‘desirable’  social  change   12  1.2.3.   Two  agenda’s  of  social  innovation  research  and  practice  ................................  16  

1.3.   Beyond  ImPRovE:  From  research  experiences  to  problems  and  foci.  .....................  19  1.3.1.   Bottom-‐linked  social  innovation?  The  institutional  dimension  ........................  20  1.3.2.   Politics  of  need  interpretation  and  the  normative  dimension  .........................  24  1.3.3.   The  epistemic  dimension:  Knowledge  for  social  innovation.  ...........................  27  

1.4.   Methodology  and  methods  .....................................................................................  29  1.4.1.   Theory  driven  case  studies  and  a  meaning  oriented  approach  ........................  29  1.4.2.   Data  collection  and  feedback  loops  .................................................................  33  

1.5.   The  structure  of  this  dissertation  .............................................................................  35  PART  I:  THE  INSTITUTIONAL  DIMENSION  ................................................................................  38  2.   Social  enterprises  driving  social  innovation  in  changing  welfare  regimes:  comparing  the  re-‐use  social  economy  in  England  and  Flanders  .....................................................................  39  

2.1.   Introduction:  the  diverse  trajectories  of  ere-‐use  ECO-‐WISE  ....................................  39  2.2.   The  institutionalisation  of  social  innovation:  connecting  organisational  and  macro-‐level  policy  making  perspectives  ........................................................................................  41  2.2.   ECO-‐WISE  and  (social)  policy:  case  selection  and  methodology  ..............................  45  2.3.   Analysing  the  differential  institutionalization  of  re-‐use  ECO-‐WISE  in  Flanders  and  England  ...............................................................................................................................  48  

2.3.1.   Different  identities  and  roots  ...........................................................................  49  2.3.2.   Regional  and  local  policy  embedding  ...............................................................  51  2.3.3.   Growth,  managerialism  and  competing  logics  .................................................  56  2.3.4.   Changing  policies  and  future  challenges  ..........................................................  60  

2.4.   Conclusions  ..............................................................................................................  63  3.   Local  Social  innovation  and  welfare  reform  as  social  learning:  a  case  study  of  and  innovative  training  to  work  trajectory  in  Belgium  ..................................................................  66  

3.1.   Introduction  .............................................................................................................  66  3.2.   Social  innovation  and  welfare-‐institutional  change  .................................................  69  

3.2.1.   Beyond  structuralism  .......................................................................................  69  3.2.2.   Welfare  recalibration  and  habits  in  motion  as  social  learning  .........................  71  

3.4.   The  case  study  ..........................................................................................................  77  3.4.1.   The  development  of  a  new  local  social  policy  instrument  ...............................  78  3.4.2.   Changing  habits  and  normative  orientations  through  deliberation  and  implementation  ..............................................................................................................  83  3.4.3.   Learning  from  Ten  for  Cooking?  .......................................................................  86  

3.5.   Conclusion  ................................................................................................................  88  PART  II:  THE  NORMATIVE  DIMENSION  ....................................................................................  92  4.   Social  innovation,  ‘parity  of  participation’  and  the  politics  of  needs  interpretation:  Engagement  with  Roma  migrants  in  Manchester  ...................................................................  93  

4.1.   Introduction:  Migration  and  innovation  in  social  service  provision  ........................  93  4.2.   Social  innovation  as  the  politics  of  needs  interpretation  ........................................  95  4.3.   Roma  migrants  in  Manchester:  The  emergence  of  a  public  concern  ......................  98  4.4.   Two  strands  of  Roma  engagement  ........................................................................  104  

  7  

4.5.   Conclusion  ..............................................................................................................  109  5.  Translating  needs  into  social  rights:  urban  social  innovation  for  homeless  families  in  Ghent  ..............................................................................................................................................  112  

5.1.   Introduction  ...........................................................................................................  112  5.2.   From  needs  to  rights  in  the  western  welfare  regimes  ...........................................  114  5.3.   SI  and  the  politics  of  need  interpretation  ..............................................................  116  5.4.   The  right  to  housing  of  homeless  families  with  children  in  Ghent  ........................  118  5.5.   The  Movement  Right  to  Housing  in  Ghent  ............................................................  120  

5.5.1.   Publicizing  the  unmet  social  needs  of  homeless  families  ...............................  122  5.5.2.   From  critique  to  alternative  services:  ‘the  monastery  experiment’  ...............  125  5.5.3.   A  need  to  rights  SI  perspective  as  leverage  for  recalibrating  urban  welfare?  129  

5.6.   Conclusion  ..............................................................................................................  131  PART  III:  THE  KNOWLEDGE  DIMENSION  ...............................................................................  134  6.   Knowledge  for  social  innovation  ...................................................................................  135  

6.1.   Introduction  ...........................................................................................................  135  6.2.   Two  ideal-‐types  of  knowledge  production  and  diffusion  for  SI  .............................  138  6.2.1.   The  positivist  mainstream:  Linear  change  and  standardized  knowledge  ...........  138  

6.2.2.   Context-‐sensitivity  and  tacit  knowledge  for  transformative  alternatives  ......  141  6.3.   Using  different  types  of  knowledge  for  social  innovation  .....................................  142  6.4.   Findings  from  the  case  studies  ...............................................................................  144  

6.4.1.   Housing  First  in  Europe:  diffusion  through  an  international  community  of  practice  146  6.4.2.   Re-‐use  social  economy:  proving  impacts  for  support  ....................................  151  

6.5.   Conclusions  ............................................................................................................  157  7.   Conclusions  and  discussion  ...........................................................................................  161  

7.1.   Case  studies  on  local  social  innovation  for  social  inclusion  ...................................  161  7.2.   Relating  social  innovation  to  welfare  reform:  overall  conclusions  ........................  163  

7.2.1.   No  ‘neutral’  experiments  for  policy  reform  ...................................................  164  7.2.2.   (Public)  Institutions  matter  ............................................................................  165  

7.3.   Three  ‘dimensions’  of  SI  and  policy  change:  main  findings  ...................................  170  7.3.1.   Local  SI  and  welfare-‐institutional  change:  bridging  the  gap?  .........................  170  7.3.2.   The  normative  dimension  ..............................................................................  175  7.3.3.   An  exploration  of  SI  knowledge  dynamics  .....................................................  180  

7.4.   How  did  this  research  contribute  to  the  work  of  practitioners?  ...........................  183  7.5.   Outline  of  a  future  research  agenda  ......................................................................  185  

Appendix:  Brief  description  of  the  nine  ImPRovE  case  studies  I  conducted  .........................  192  References  ............................................................................................................................  199  

 

 

 

 

 

 

  8  

1.  Introduction    

Pieter  Cools  

 

1.1.  Local  social  innovation  and  the  provision  of  welfare  

 

Over  the  last  decade  social  innovation  (hence  SI)  reached  the  heart  of  EU  policy  documents  

and  Europe’s  largest  public  research  funding  programme  ‘Horizon  2020’  (Baglioni  &  Sinclair,  

2014;   Sabato,   Vanhercke  &  Verschraegen,   2015).   Influential   policy   communities   at   the   EU  

level   promoted   SI   as   a   new   ‘paradigm’   for   social   policy   interventions   that   could  

simultaneously   tackle   issues   of   budgetary   restraint,   unmet   social   needs   and   societal  

challenges   “with,   rather   than   for,   stakeholders”,   holding   the   promise   of   a   new   “enabling  

welfare   state”   (Bureau   of   European   Policy   Adivsors   [BEPA],   2010:   14).   In   this   discourse   SI  

refers   to   societies’   capacity   to   develop   new   or   alternative   solutions   to   unmet   needs   and  

societal   challenges   ‘beyond   the   state’   through   an   active   civil   society,   social   entrepreneurs  

and   various   possible   partnerships   between   not-‐for-‐profit,   for   profit   and   public   actors  

(Swyngedouw,  2009;  Jenson,  2013,  2015).  Driven  by  this  EU  policy  attention  and  resources,  

European  SI  scholarship  expanded  vastly  over  the  past  years  (see  Brandsen  et  al.,  [2016]  for  

an  overview  of  EU  FP  funded  research  and  a  ‘co-‐created  social   innovation  research  agenda  

for  Europe’).  

 

Nowadays   policymakers   showcase   remarkable   high   hopes   and   ambitions   to   learn   from  or  

capitalize  upon  local  SI  experiences  (cf.  Evers  &  Ewert,  2015).  Given  its  increasing  popularity  

within   policy   circles   at   the   EU   and   national   levels   it   is   remarkable   the   idea   that   SI   might  

provide   blueprints   for   structural   welfare   reform   received   little   resonance   in   social   policy  

studies.   SI   remains   largely   under   the   radar   of   mainstream   social   policy   analysis   (Ewert   &  

Evers,  2014;  Ayob  et  al.,  2016).  “Social  innovation  and  change  through  welfare  reform  seem  

to  be  quite  different  topics”  (Ewert  &  Evers  2014:  424)  as  the  scope  and  territorial  scale  of  

‘institutional   change’   and   ‘innovation’   in   comparative   welfare   studies   and   SI   scholarship  

differ  substantially.  SIs  are   localized,   tailor-‐made  and  highly  context  specific   initiatives  that  

tend  to  operate  at  the  margins  of  institutionalised  macro-‐level  social  policies  (Oosterlynck  et  

al.,  2015).  They  are  therefore  often  regarded  as  (statistically)   insignificant  in  comparison  to  

macro  level  policy  schemes  and  reform.  However,  this  view  is  gradually  changing  as  scholars  

  9  

in  both   fields  are   calling   for  more   in-‐depth  analysis  of  how   local   SI   is   implicated   in   the  on  

going  transformation  of  welfare  regimes  (Ferrera  &  Maino,  2014;  Cantillon  &  Van  Mechelen,  

2014;  Evers  &  Ewert,  2015;  Oosterlynck  et  al.,  2015).    

 

Over  the  past  four  years   ‘social   innovation  in  social  policy’  emerged  as  a  promising  field  of  

scholarship  and  progress  is  being  made  to  think  through  the  relationships  between  local  SIs  

and  the  transformation  of  welfare  regimes  (see  for  instance  Martinelli  [2013];  Jenson  [2013,  

2015];   Oosterlynck   et   al.   [2013,   2015,   2016];   Evers,   Ewert   &   Brandsen   [2014];   Sinclair   &  

Baglioni   [2014];   Evers   &   Ewert   [2015]).   Two   recent   EU   funded   FP7   research   projects  

focussed   specifically   on   analysing   “local   social   innovations   in   their   welfare-‐institutional  

contexts”  (Brandsen  et  al.,  2016:  9)  to  better  understand  their  interactive  dynamics.  WILCO1  

(Welfare   innovations  at   the   local   level   in   favour  of  cohesion)   focussed  on  specific   types  of  

welfare  innovations  for  social  cohesion  in  urban  contexts.  A  subgroup  within  the  ImPRovE2  

(Poverty   Reduction   in   Europe:   Social   Policy   and   Innovation)   consortium   focussed   on   the  

mutual  implication  of  local  SI  and  dynamics  of  macro-‐level  welfare  reform.    

 

The  present  thesis  engages  with  this  on-‐going,  multifaceted  debate  on  the  relation  between  

local   SI   and   social   policy   reform.   This   dissertation   presents   five   articles   that   investigate  

theoretical  and  actual  relations  between  local  social  innovation  against  social  exclusion  and  

social   policy   reform   in   European   welfare   regimes.   These   articles   draw   on   the   case   study  

research   that  was   conducted   in   the   context   of   the   ImPRovE   project   (2012-‐2016).   The   five  

articles   focus,   predominantly,   on   cases   from   two   European   regions,   namely   Flanders  

(Belgium)   and   England   (UK).   Following   the   tradition   of   theory   driven   case   study   analysis  

(Flyvbjerg,   2006;   Eisenhardt   &   Graebner,   2007)   the   articles   present   case   narratives   and  

middle  range  theories   to  address  more  specific   research  question  within  the   larger  debate  

on   local   SI   and   social   policy   reform.   These   are   structured   along   three   broad   ‘issues’   or  

dimensions,  namely:  dynamics  of   institutional   change,   ‘politics  of  need   interpretation’  and  

the   production   and   use   of   knowledge   in   and   on   social   innovation.   Succinctly   stated,   the  

three  parts  of  this  thesis  respectively  focus  on  the  institutional,  political  and  epistemological  

dimensions  of  the  relation  between  local  SI  and  reform  in  the  provision  of  welfare.  

 

                                                                                                               1  Online:  http://www.wilcoproject.eu/  (last  accessed  30/09/2016)  2  Online:  http://improve-‐research.eu/  (last  accessed  30/09/2016)  

  10  

This   introductory  chapter   first  discusses   the  history,  definitions  and  on  going  debates   in  SI  

scholarship   that   will   help   to   better   situate   the   research   problems   and   questions   of   the  

thesis.   Next   it   elaborates   briefly   on   the   ImPRovE   research   experiences   before   introducing  

the   three   main   dimension   and   related   research   problems   more   in   depth.   Thereafter   it  

presents   case   study   methodology   and   research   methods.   The   closing   section   of   this  

introduction  provides  a  concise  overview  of  the  structure  and  content  of  this  dissertation.    

 

1.2.  The  rise  and  current  state  of  social  innovation  scholarship  

 

1.2.1. An  unavoidable  quasi-‐concept  

 

Over  the  past  decade  the  notion  of  SI  became  virtually  unavoidable   in  various  branches  of  

policy  making,  entrepreneurship,  social  activism  and  research.  Today  it  is  used  to  designate  a  

plethora  of  creative  and  alternative  practices,  partnerships  and  service  models  with  a  social  

aim   that   started   from  a   concrete   idea  or   localized   experience  but   show   the   ambition   and  

potential   to   have   a   much   broader   impact   and   become   part   of   our   established   way   of  

addressing   social   needs   (cf.   Chambon  et   al.,   1982;  Murray,  Gaulier-‐Grice  &  Mulgan,   2010;  

Moulaert   et   al.,   2013a).   Examples   range   across   various  domains   and   levels   of   action   from  

participatory   budgeting   or   urban   gardening   in   local   communities   to   ecological   social  

enterprises,  micro-‐finance,  worldwide  solidarity  schemes  and  many  more3.  SI  discourses  and  

strategies  are  being  spread  through  (regional)  SI  funds  (like  ‘De  Sociale   Innovatiefabriek’   in  

Flanders),   global   networks   (such   as   the   Social   Innovation   Exchange   SIX   and   Ashoka)   and  

policy  offices  (such  as  the  European  Commission,  the  ‘Social  Innovation  Mayor’  in  Seoul  and  

the   US   Whitehouse’s   Office   for   Social   Innovation   and   Civic   Participation)   (BEPA,   2010;  

Moulaert,   MacCallum   &   Hillier,   2013;   Nicholls,   Simon   &   Gabriel,   2015b).  More   than   ever  

people,   groups,   movements,   sectors,   companies,   regions,   states   and   societies   describe  

themselves  as  being  innovative.  Sometimes  it  seems  that  ‘being  innovative’  or  ‘being  about  

social   innovation’   is   regarded   as   a   valuable   asset   irrespective   of   why,   how   and   what   is  

actually  taking  place  (cf.  Jessop  et  al.,  2013).    

 

Because   of   the   various   ways   it   is   used   and   defined   by   academics,   practitioners   and  

policymakers  SI  is  best  understood  as  a  ‘quasi-‐concept’  (EC,  2013).  Its  use  by  scholars  as  an  

                                                                                                               3  For  a  wide  range  of  examples,  case  studies  and  discussion  on  social  innovation  see  for  instance  ‘The  Open   Book   of   Social   Innovation’   (Murray,   Caulier-‐Grice   &   Mulgan,   2010)   and   ‘The   International  Handbook  of  Social  Innovation’  (Moulaert  et  al.,  2013a).  

  11  

analytical  concept  ensures   it  “benefits  from  the  legitimizing  aura  of  the  scientific  method”.  

At   the   same   time   it   has   an   indeterminate  quality   that   “makes   it   adaptable   to   a   variety   of  

situations  and  flexible  enough  to  follow  the  twists  and  turns  of  policy”  (Ibid.:  14-‐15)  through  

everyday   politics.   While   having   reputable   intellectual   basis   its   indeterminate   quality   and  

(ideological)  flexibility  makes  it  vulnerable  on  analytical  and  empirical  grounds,  which  drove  

some  commentators  to  question  its  added  value  as  an  analytical  concept  altogether  (see  for  

instance   Borzaga  &  Bodini   [2014];  Grisolia  &   Ferragina   [2015]).   As   a   concept   that   aims   to  

grasp  dynamics  of  social  change,  SI   inhibits  “the  unavoidable  [normative]  tensions  that  are  

always  present   in  any  kind  of  social  change,  since  all  societies  argue  about  what  counts  as  

social  good  or  social  value”  (Mulgan,  2015:  x  brackets  added).  So  despite  that  fact  that  it  is  

so   often   used   SI   is   very  much   surrounded   by   polysemy,   ambiguity   and   confusion.   Various  

definitions   are   still   competing   to   delineate   the   field   (see   further).   This   explains  why   even  

some   of   its  main   proponents   describe   the   relatively   young   field   of   SI   research   as   ‘vague’,  

‘pre-‐paradigmatic’   or   ‘chaotic’   (Moulaert   et   al.,   2013b;   Sinclair   &   Baglioni,   2014;   Nicholls,  

Simon  &  Gabriel  2015a;  cf.  Nicholls,  2010)  

 

This   dissertation   engages  with   SI   as   a   useful   ‘holding   concept’   –   a   concept   onto  which   all  

kinds   of   meanings   have   been   projected   and   may   thus   help   to   connect   various,   related  

problems  and  debates,  but  is  also  ambiguous  (Benneworth  et  al.,  2014).  Its  added  value  is  in  

bringing   together  different  societal  perspectives,  academic  disciplines  and  questions  about  

change  and  progress   ‘from  below’   in   late  capitalist   societies   (cf.  Nicholls,  Simon  &  Gabriel,  

2015a).    

 

Considered   in   its  historical   context   “the  appearance  of   the  concept  of   social   innovation  at  

the   end  of   the   20th   century   is   linked   to   the   crisis   of   the   synergy  between   the  market   and  

state”   (Brandsen  et   al.,   2016:   12)   that   reached   its   pinnacle   during   the   ‘golden   age’   of   the  

post-‐war   European   welfare   states   (cf.   Oosterlynck   et   al.,   2013).   In   this   regard   the   five  

research  articles  below  are  the  result  of  joining  the  endeavour  of  searching  and  scrutinizing  

promising  examples  of  new  synergies  between  state,  market  and  civil  society  that  hold  the  

promise   of   addressing   unmet   social   needs   and   larger   societal   challenges.   My   search  

focussed   on   three   particular   challenges   for   contemporary   European   welfare   regimes,  

namely:  labour  market  participation  of  people  at  risk  of  long-‐term  unemployment,  the  social  

inclusion  of  Roma  migrant  groups  and  access  to  affordable  housing  for  people  with  multiple  

  12  

support   needs.   It   is   worthwhile   to   first   situate   this   search   within   the   longer   history   and  

debates  on  SI.  

 

1.2.2. Many  have  tried:  grasping  the  processes  and  outcomes  of  ‘desirable’  social  

change    

 

While   it   has   only   become   a   buzzword   over   the   past   decade,   the   concept   SI   has   a   much  

longer   history   (Jessop   et   al.,   2013;   Sinclair   &   Baglioni,   2014;   Godin,   2015).   Contrary   to  

popular   belief   the   term   is   much   older   than   the   Schumpeterian   inspired   ‘technological  

innovation’   and   ‘business   innovation’   (Schumpeter,   1942).   According   to   Godin   (2015,  

chapter  6)   its   chequered  history  dates  back   to   the  early  19th   century  where   it  was   initially  

used   as   a   pejorative   term   to   discredit   social   reformers   and   particularly   utopian   socialist  

experiments  like  those  of  Fourier  and  Saint-‐Simon.  The  word  ‘social  innovation’  emerged  in  

the  context  of  counter  movements  and  alternatives  to  the  processes  and  disruptive  effects  

of  capitalist  development  and  industrialization  (cf.  Jessop  et  al.,  2013).      

 

The  first  scholarly  work  to  use  the  term  SI  was  in  the  field  of  sociology  and  is  traced  back  to  

Gabriel   Tarde   and   Frances   Hoggan   at   the   turn   of   the   20th   century.   Back   then   SI   was   not  

considered   to   be   ‘for   the   better’   by   definition.   Early   research  was   concerned  with  macro  

level  change,  focussing  either  on  social  processes  leading  to  technical  innovation  and  social  

reform   or   the   social   consequences   of   such   innovations   (Ayob   et   al.,   2016:   3).   For   several  

decades  the  concept  played  little  or  no  significant  role  in  academic  debates.    

 

SI  re-‐emerged  in  academic  and  social  activist  circles  since  the  1970’s.  On  the  one  hand  it  was  

mobilized  as  a  concept   to  counter   the  hegemony  of   technological   innovation,  arguing   that  

plenty  of  technologic  innovations  and  on  going  societal  change  should  not  be  confused  with  

‘progress’.  As  such  SI  was  used  to  promote  a  broader,  more  socially  oriented  development  

agenda  (Moulaert  &  Sekia,  2003;  Moulaert  et  al.,  2013).  On  the  other  hand  and  particularly  

in   France   ‘innovation   sociale’   was   intimately   connected   to   bottom   up,   community-‐   and  

solidarity  based  initiatives.  In  the  spirit  of  the  post-‐1968  democratization  and  emancipation  

movements  it  was  put  forward  as  an  antidote  to  the  exploitative  logic  of  the  market  and  the  

paralyzing  effects  of   intrusive   state  bureaucracy   (Chambon  et  al.,  1982;  Oosterlynck  et  al.,  

2015;   Godin,   2015).   Since   the   late   1980’s   it   was   most   prominent   in   the   literature   and  

practice  of  regional  development  strategies,  urban  revitalization  and  social  entrepreneurship  

  13  

(Sharra  &  Nyssens,  2009;  Oosterlynck  et  al.,  2013).  Over  the  last  two  decades  SI  spread  to  a  

wide   variety   of   domains   including   environmental   sustainability,   participatory   governance,  

planning   and   design,   human   resources   management,   social   inclusion,   arts   and   creativity,  

public  governance,  social  policy  and  welfare  reform  (Moulaert  et  al.,  2013a;  Murray,  Gaulier-‐

Grice  &  Mulgan,  2010).  

   

Bibliometric   and   content   analysis   of   SI   scholarship   since   1989   (Ayob   et   al.,   2016)   shows   a  

growing  contestation  over  the  concept  in  the  late  1990’s  and  2000’s.  Broadly  speaking  there  

were  two  competing  strands.  One  that  focussed  on  SI  as  processes  challenging  extant  power  

relations  and  another  that  focussed  on  the  creation  of  utilitarian  societal  value.  The  former  

focuses  on  the  transformation  of  social  relations  and  grew  largely  out  of  the  study  of  social  

movements  and  alternative  models   for   regional  and  urban  development.  The   latter   strand  

focuses  on  social  impact  and  is  generally  associated  with  the  study  of  technological  change,  

social   entrepreneurship   and   management   science.   For   many   years   this   difference   in  

approach   was   reflected   in   different   definitions   that   focussed   either   on   process   (social  

relations)  or  outcomes  (social  impact).    

 

While   the  distinction  between  a   ‘transformative’  and   ‘utilitarian’   strand  of  SI   research  and  

practice   continues   to   be   relevant   (see   further),   most   definitions   now   consider   SI   as   both  

process   and   outcome   of   transforming   social   relations   (Ayob   et   al.,   2016).   This   relatively  

recent,   ‘consensual’  way  of  defining  SI   is  best   illustrated  by  the  definition   launched  by   the  

British  Young  Foundation  (2006),  perhaps  one  of  the  most  widely  spread  and  adopted  by  the  

European   Commission.   These   organisations   consider   SIs   as   “innovations   that   are   social   in  

both  their  ends  and  their  means”  (BEPA,  2010:  9).  They  often  specify  that  SIs  are  about  “new  

ideas   (products,   services   and   models)   that   simultaneously   meet   social   needs   (more  

effectively  than  alternatives)  and  create  new  social  relationships  or  collaborations”  (Ibid.).    

 

The  majority  of   influential  SI  definitions  nowadays   internalize  this  double   focus  on  process  

and  outcomes.  However   they   identify   different   key   characteristics.   According   to   Klein   and  

colleagues   (2012:   11)   for   instance,   SI   “concerns   the   implementation   of   new   social   and  

institutional  arrangements,  new   forms  of   resource  mobilization,  new  answers   to  problems  

for   which   available   solutions   have   proven   inadequate   or   new   social   aspirations”.   For  

Mumford  SI   is  about  “the  generation  and   implementation  of  new   ideas  about  how  people  

should  organize  interpersonal  activities,  or  social  interactions,  to  meet  one  or  more  common  

  14  

goals”   (Mumford,   2002:   253).  Hämäläinen   and  Heiskala   from   their   part   stress   “changes   in  

the   cultural,  normative  or   regulative   structures  of   the   society  which  enhance   its   collective  

power   resources   and   improve   its   economic   and   social   performance”   (Hämäläinen   &  

Heiskala,  2007:  74).  Moulaert  and  colleagues  (2005,  2013)  also  emphasize  the  importance  of  

transforming  power   relations  but  add   the  empowerment  of  deprived  groups  as  a  defining  

feature.   They   distinguish   three   basic   dimensions:   (a)   the   satisfaction   of   basic   social   needs  

(content  dimension);   (b)   the   transformation  of   social   relations   (process  dimension)  and   (c)  

the  increase  of  socio-‐political  capabilities  and  access  to  resources  (empowerment  dimension  

linking  process  and  content).  Notwithstanding  this  variety  in  identifying  the  key  dynamics  of  

social  change,  there  is  a  shared  understanding  of  the  basic  elements  of  SI  processes  (means)  

and  outcomes  (ends).    

 

‘Social   means’   are   generally   understood   as   social   relations.   As   such   SI   implies   a  

transformation   of   social   relations   through   participatory   procedures,   social   learning   and  

pursuing   a   shared   interest   through   new   partnerships   and   methods   of   collaboration   and  

sharing  information  (BEPA,  2010;  Oosterlynck  &  Cools,  2012;  Moulaert  et  al.,  2005,  2013a).  

In  social  services  this  includes,  amongst  others,  new  methods  of  involving  clients  and  various  

stakeholders  in  service  governance  and  delivery,  lowering  participation  thresholds,  collective  

or   shared  ownership,   community   solidarity   schemes  or   support   services  and   so   forth.  This  

relational  perspective  also  implies  that  models  and  schemes  do  not  have  to  be  ‘new’  in  the  

sense  of  never  being  invented  or  used  before.  In  fact,  many  contemporary  SIs,  for  instance  

related  to  collective  ownership  of  public  goods,  draw  on  experiences  from  the  past  (see  for  

instance  De  Moor  [2013]  on  the  history  of  cooperatives).  In  the  case  of  SI  ‘innovative’  is  best  

understood   as   alternative   practices   and   social   relations   in   a   particular   social   context   (cf.  

Sinclair  &  Baglioni,  2014).  

 

'Social  ends'  are  commonly  understood  in  their  most  basic  form  as  alleviating  unmet  social  

needs.  Many  authors  also  propose  a  broader  understanding,  which  includes  the  prevention  

of  social  risks  and  tackling  societal  challenges  or  so  called  ‘wicked  problems’  such  as  poverty,  

global   warming   and   challenges   related   to   migration   (Chambon   et   al.,   1982;   Young  

Foundation,  2006;  BEPA,  2010;  Oosterlynck  &  Cools,  2012;  Nichols,  Simon  &  Gabriel  2015).  

The  goals  of  SI  in  the  field  of  social  policy  can  be  very  different  ranging  from  enhancing  client  

satisfaction   or   access   to   services   to   lowering   the   percentage   of   people   living   under   the  

poverty  line  or  ending  homelessness.  It  is  here,  in  trying  to  identify  the  ends  and  triggers  of  

  15  

SI,   that   its   normative   overtones   appear   because   social   needs   and   pressing   societal  

challenges   cannot   be   defined   outside   an   ethical   position   and   normative   framework  

(Oosterlynck  et  al.  2015;  Moulaert,  MacCallum  &  Hillier  2013).    

“In   this   understanding,   ‘social’   is   not   defined   by   being   substantively   different   from  

technical   innovation   in   the   analytical   sense   (as   related   to   the   relationships   of   the  

actors  and  their  behavioural  practices).  Instead  social  is  really  used  in  the  normative  

sense  of  a  concept  aimed  at  the  common  good  (Howaldt  &  Schwartz,  2010:  26)”.    

 

Indeed,  many  recent  definitions  embed  SI  in  a  normative  discourse  of  changing  societies  ‘for  

the  better’  (Ayob  et  al.,  2016).  However,  a  clear  and  explicit  normative  argument  or  criteria  

about   what   distinguishes   ‘good’   from   ‘bad’   SI   is   regularly   lacking   (European   Commission,  

2013).  This  feeds  into  the  problematic  assumption  that  SIs  are  good  by  definition  (Lindhult,  

2008;  Howaldt  &   Schwartz,   2010).   It   inspires   the   often   heard   phrase   that   ‘nobody   can   be  

against   social   innovation’  and   the  naïve   idea   that  SI   “is  an  unproblematic  and  consistently  

positive  phenomenon  without  drawbacks  or  unintended  consequences”  (Nicholls,  Simon  &  

Gabriel,   2015:   2).   Furthermore,   it   also   informs   the   (often   implicit)   misunderstanding   that  

socially   innovative   practices   and   policies   can   be   regarded   as   politically   and   normatively  

neutral  experiments  to  improve  social  systems  (cf.  Sabato  et  al.,  2015).  The  present  research  

strongly   refutes   the   ideas   that   SI   is   either   ‘a   neutral   experiment’   or   ‘for   the   better   by  

definition’.   Instead   it   regards   SI   as  being  decisively  bound  up  with  politics   (cf.   Sinclair   and  

Baglioni,  2014;  Mulgan,  2015).    

 

My   ImPRovE   colleagues   and  myself   (Oosterlynck   et   al.,   2013,   2015)   aimed   to   incorporate  

these  insights  when  defining  local  social  innovation  in  the  context  of  poverty  reduction  as    

 

“locally  embedded  practices,  actions  and  policies   that  enable   socially  excluded  and  

impoverished  individuals  and  social  groups  to  satisfy  basic  needs  for  which  they  find  

no  adequate   solution   in   the  private  market  or   institutionalized  macro-‐level  welfare  

policies.”  (Oosterlynck  et  al.,  2015:  4)    

In  our   view,   SI   involves  processes  of   generating   knowledge  about  unmet   social   needs  and  

possible   responses,   social   learning   and   collective   mobilization.   Building   on   the   work   of  

Moulaert   and   colleagues   (2005,   2013)  we  also  distinguish   three   core  dimensions  of   SI:   (a)  

the   satisfaction  of  basic   social   needs   (content  dimension);   (b)   the   transformation  of   social  

  16  

relations   (process   dimension)   and   (c)   normative   claims   about   ‘being   for   the   better’   and  

producing   capacitating,   emancipatory   effects   for   target   group   participants   (the   socio-‐

political  dimensions  linking  process  and  content).  While  SI  should  not  be  considered  as  ‘for  

the   better’   by   definition,   in   practice   SI   does   always   entail   a   normative   claim   or   utopian  

vision.  Our  third  dimension  is  therefore  different  from  Moulaert  in  the  sense  that  we  do  not  

regard   ‘emancipation’   but   ‘making   claims   about   emancipation’   as   a   defining   feature  of   SI.  

Whether  concrete  SI   initiatives  are   indeed  emancipatory,  empowering  or   ‘for  the  better’   is  

an   empirical   question,   based   on   a   particular   (and   inevitably   normatively   grounded)  

understanding  of  emancipation.    

 

The   above   definitions   go   some   distance   in   distinguishing   social   from   other   types   of  

innovation   and   identifying   key   dimension   but   leave   “fuzzy   edges”   in   terms   of   analytical  

clarity   and   the   issue   of   normativity   (cf.  Mulgan   et   al.,   2015).   Decades   before   the   current  

buzz,  Chambon  and  colleagues  (1982)  pointed  out  that  from  an  analytical  point  of  view  SI  is  

difficult   to   demarcate   by   nature   because   it   focuses   on   phenomena   that   are   emerging  

alternatives   to,  but  never  entirely   independent  or   separate   from,  what  already  exists.   It   is  

therefore  very  difficult  to  clearly  delineate  the  phenomenon  from  its  surroundings  and  key  

factors   of   failure   or   success   are   often   only   visible   with   the   benefit   of   hindsight.   In   other  

words  uncertainty,  contingency  and  normative  ambiguity  will  always  accompany  SI  research  

and  practice  to  a  certain  extent.  However,  a  lot  of  confusion  can  be  avoided  and  competing  

agendas  and  epistemological  perspectives  can  be   identified  when  the  two  aforementioned  

SI  strands  or  agenda’s  are  distinguished  from  one  another.    

 

1.2.3. Two  agenda’s  of  social  innovation  research  and  practice  

 

Recent   bibliometric   analysis   (Ayob   et   al.,   2016)   and   philosophical   reflections   on   SI  

movements   (Unger,   2015)   came   to  a   similar  distinction  between  a   ‘strong’  or   ‘maximalist’  

and   a   ‘weak’   or   ‘minimalist’   approaches.   The   ‘weak’   SI   agenda   can   be   understood   as   the  

largely   output   or   product   focused   utilitarian   approach   “which   emphasizes   the   societal  

impact  of  any  innovation  as  defined  by  changes  in  aggregate  individual  utility”  (Ayob  et  al.,  

2016:   14).   This   tradition   aims   to   improve   the   performance   of   particular   systems   or  

instruments   to   address   immediate   social   needs   and   problems,   without   profoundly  

questioning   or   transforming   established   power   relations   or  mainstream   assumptions.   The  

‘strong’   strand   can   be   understood   as   the   more   radical   or   transformative   tradition   that  

  17  

focuses  on  processes  of  collaboration  and  contestation  to  transform  social  (power)  relations  

in  wider  society.  While  also  about  developing  practical   responses   to   immediate  needs  and  

problems,   in   this   tradition   SI   always   points   beyond   their   specific   goal   and   situation   to  

suggest  a  path  of  reform  for  the  larger  society.  It  has  an  explicit  transformative  ambition.    

 

The  ‘utilitarian  strand’  gained  influence  throughout  the  1990’s  and  2000’s.  As  SI  got  picked  

up  in  the  fields  of  social  entrepreneurship,  management  science  and  corporate  organization    

 

“some   of   the   leading   organizations   involved   in   the   fields   of   entrepreneurship   did  

their   best   to   push   politics   and   argument   out.   They   also   airbrushed   out   the   role   of  

social  movements,  contention  and  mobilisation”  (Mulgan,  2015:  xvii).    

 

The  more  ‘utilitarian’  and  functionalist  use  of  the  term  does  away  with  the  historical  focus  

on   societal   transformation   and   collective   empowerment.   It   proposes   a  more   technocratic  

and  market-‐logic   oriented   perspective   that   definitely   fed   into   the   current  mainstream   EU  

policy   discourse   of   SI   (cf.   Jenson,   2015),   which   critics   have   associated   with   ‘caring  

neoliberalism’4  (Jessop  et  al.,  2013;  See  Sabato  et  al.,  [2015]  for  and  overview  of  how  the  EU  

supported  social  innovation  in  the  past  decades).  While  the  ‘issue  of  normativity’  is  certainly  

relevant   when   engaging   with   the   ‘transformative   strand’5,   which   often   explicitly   invokes  

principles   of   democracy,   justice   and   equality,   it   is   equally   relevant   for   this   ‘utilitarian’  

strand’,   which   often   portraits   itself   as   a   ‘neutral’   search   for   efficiency,   effectiveness   and  

social  impact.  The  latter  tends  to  be  underpinned  by  market-‐based  ontology  and  evaluative  

standards  (Moulaert  &  Sekia,  2003),  which  offers  a  particularly  influential,  but  still  normative  

framework  for  SI.    

 

The   so-‐called   ‘utilitarian’   or   ‘minimalist’   strand   represents   an   approach  of   SI   research   and  

knowledge  production  that  is  profoundly  different  from  the  original  SI  research  (Ayob  et  al.,  

2016)  and  is  nowadays  very  influential  in  evaluations,  tendering  procedures,  social  return  on  

investment  measurements  etc.  (Antadze  &  Westley,  2012;  see  also  ch.  6).    

                                                                                                               4  According   to   Jessop   et   al.   (2013:   121)   “this   posture   of   ‘minimal   social   consciousness’   could   be  summarized  as   follows:   ‘We  care  about   social   issues  along  with   the  modernization  of   the  economy  and  the  improvement  of  the  economic  competitiveness  through  R&D  and  technological  innovation’”.    5  This   ‘radical’   tradition   (see   for   instance  Moulaert   et   al.,   2005,   2013;   Novy   and   Leubolt,   2005)   is  regularly   designated   as   ‘the   normative   tradition’   (Ayob   et   al.,   2016).   Although   these   authors   are  indeed  oftentimes  explicitly  normative   in  their  understanding  and  assessment  of  social   innovation,   I  refute   this   label   because   it   insinuates   that   the   other   tradition   would   be   normatively   ‘neutral’   and  ‘apolitical’.    

  18  

 

The   present   research   does   not   focus   on   evaluating   or   assessing   the   social   impact,  

effectiveness  or  efficiency  of   SI   in   social   policy   and   social   service  provisions.  More  aligned  

with   the   ‘transformative’   or   ‘maximalist’   strand   this   research   is   interested   in   institutional  

change.   It   focuses   on   understanding   changing   social   relations,   governance   dynamics   and  

challenges  of  concrete  practices   in  relation  to   its  broader  welfare   institutional  context  and  

related   critical   questions   on   universal   access,   social   rights   and   the   role   of   the   state   (cf.  

Unger,  2015).    

 

To   focus   beyond   the   direct   impact   of   concrete   initiatives   is   particularly   important   when  

studying  complex  social  phenomena  like  poverty  and  social  exclusion  in  open  social  systems,  

where   various   factors   and   schemes   can   impact   people’s   poverty   or   social   exclusion  

experience.  In  the  field  of  poverty  reduction  it  has  been  argued  convincingly  that  successful  

local   socially   innovative   practices   as   such   are   not   enough.   Substantial   structural  

redistribution  remains  indispensible  (Ravaillon,  2012;  Cantillon  &  Van  Mechelen,  2014;  Ghys  

&   Oosterlynck,   2014;   Ghys,   2016).   Others   point   towards   a   fundamental   tension   between  

context-‐   and   group   sensitive   approaches   and   the   welfare   state’s   core   principle   of  

guaranteeing   universal   social   rights   to   all   citizens.   They   observe   that   SI   against   social  

exclusion   faces   the   challenge   of   balancing   the   fulfilment   of   diverse   needs   through  

participation  with  equality  through  effective  social  rights  and  equal  standards  (Novy,  Swiatek  

&   Moulaert,   2012;   Andreotti,   Mignioni   &   Polizzi,   2012;   Martinelli,   2013;   Evers,   Ewert   &  

Brandsen,   2014;   Oosterlynck   et   al.,   2015).   Lastly   and   relatedly,   the   utilitarian   approach   is  

often  associated  with  policies  that  mobilize  SI  as  a  paradigm  to  pursue  efficiency  in  delivery  

and  activate   civil   society   and  business   resources   as   a   Trojan  horse   for   state   retrenchment  

and   austerity   (Oosterlynck   &   Cools,   2012;   Grisolia   &   Ferragina,   2015;   Oosterlynck   et   al.,  

forthcoming).   It   is   crucial   for   critical   scholarship   to   look   beyond   the   performance   of  

individual  initiatives  to  unveil  such  political  agendas.  

 

In   reaction   to   the   current   surge   of   the   ‘utilitarian’   or   ‘minimalist’   SI   agenda,   some   of   the  

leading  scholars  in  the  field  are  renewing  the  idea  of  SI  as  a  movement  with  transformative  

ambitions   (Unger,   2015;   Jessop   et   al.,   2013).   Such   a   view   puts   the   political   dimension   of  

social   change   through   SI   at   the   centre   and   purposely   connects   local   responses   to   unmet  

social   needs   to   more   systemic   and   structural   issues   by   studying   institutional   (power)  

relations  and  policies’  often  implicit  assumptions  about  people’s  needs  and  desirable  social  

  19  

change.  Proponents  of  this  perspective  have  called  for  “more  research  on  the  alignment  and  

misalignment   of   social   innovation   and   structural   reform”   (Mulgan,   2015:   xvii).   It   is   in   the  

spirit   of   this   ‘maximalist   understanding’   of   SI   that   I   engaged  with   the   study   of   local   SI   in  

social  policy  and  questions  about  the  mutual   implication  of  grassroots   innovation  and  top-‐

down  policy  making.  

 

1.3. Beyond  ImPRovE:  From  research  experiences  to  problems  and  foci.    

The   previous   sections   introduced   the   concept   of   social   innovation,   its   history   and   current  

uses   to   broadly   situate   the   present   dissertation   in   relation   to   on-‐going   debates.   The  

following   paragraphs   provide   a   more   detailed   description   of   the   research   problems   that  

drove  me  to  write  the  five  research  articles  below.  These  research  problems  and  my  choice  

to   focus   on   the   institutional,   normative   and   epistemological   dimensions   of   the   interactive  

relationships  between  SI  and  social  policy  grew  throughout  the  processes  of   reading  other  

research,  discussing  with   colleagues  and  most   importantly,   investigating   concrete   cases  of  

local   social   innovation   in   social   services.   I   conducted   nine   case   studies   for   the  

aforementioned  ImPRovE  research  project  (2012-‐2016)6.  Table  1  provides  an  overview  and  

very   brief   description   of   these   cases   in   alphabetical   order   (see   Appendix   for   a   more  

elaborate,  but  still  brief,  description).  In  what  follows,  I  will  make  clear  how  the  case  study  

research  decisively  shaped  the  content  and  focus  of  this  thesis.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                               6  The  eighteen  research  reports  I  co-‐authored  for  the  ImPRovE  project  (including  case  study  reports,  working  papers  and  country  background  notes)  can  be  retrieved  online   from  the  page  of  OASeS  on  the   ImPRovE   website   under   ‘Papers   created   by   Pieter   Cools’   http://improve-‐research.eu/?page_id=406  (last  accessed  20-‐11-‐2016).  

  20  

Table  1:  The  nine  cases  I  studied  for  the  ImPRovE  project  

Name  of  the  initiative    

(Country:  B  or  E)  

Brief  description  

Camden  Housing  First  (E)  

 

Supporting  chronic  homeless  people  who  have  been  stuck  in  the  shelter  system  to  attain  and  

maintain  their  own  rent  contract  in  London.  

De  Kringwinkel  (B)  

 

Flemish  network  of  work  integration  social  enterprises  that  organize  re-‐use  of  used  goods.  The  

report  focuses  on  the  network  but  zooms  in  on  one  large  re-‐use  centre  in  an  urban  

environment.  

DOMO  vzw  Leuven  (B)   Preventive  family  support  for  socially  excluded  low-‐income  families  by  volunteers  in  the  

Leuven  area.  

Emmaüs  Monastery  Housing  

First  Experiment  (B)  

 

A  politically  contentious  housing  first  experiment  with  Slovakian  Roma  in  a  regularized  squat.  A  

social  movement  that  advocates  the  ‘right  to  housing’  in  the  city  of  Ghent  supported  this  

project.    

Energy  for  all  (B)   Training  for  local  projects  working  on  energy  poverty.  The  case  study  focuses  on  a  project  from  

Samenlevingsopbouw  that  develops  funding  and  support  schemes  to  replace  inefficient  

electrical  appliances  in  the  region  Kempen  and  Westhoek.    

Furniture  Reuse  Network  (E)  

 

UK  wide  network  of  work  integration  social  enterprises  that  organize  re-‐use  of  used  goods.  The  

report  focuses  on  the  network  but  zooms  in  on  one  large  re-‐use  centre  in  an  urban  

environment.  

Inspire!  NEET  programme   A  project,  co-‐funded  by  ESF,  to  get  disengaged  youngsters  in  North  London  back  into  

education,  employment  or  training.  

MigRom  (E)  

 

Roma  engagement  project  in  Manchester,  which  is  part  and  parcel  of  a  FP7  European  Research  

project  on  the  migration  of  Romanian  Roma  in  Europe.  

Ten  for  Cooking  (B)  

 

An  ESF  funded  training  project  for  people  on  minimum  subsistence  income,  mainly  foreign  

language  newcomers,  to  work  in  the  catering  sector  in  the  Leuven  area.    

 

1.3.1. Bottom-‐linked  social  innovation?  The  institutional  dimension  

 

The   SI-‐team   within   the   ImPRovE   consortium   aimed   to   “analyse   the   relationship   between  

local   social   innovation   and   the   changing   welfare   state   […]   from   an   institutionalist  

perspective”   (Oosterlynck   et   al.,   2015:   5).   For   several   years   the   study   of   the   relationship  

between  on  going  welfare  reform  and  (innovative)  social  services  at  the  local  level  has  been  

most   central   to   Italian   social   policy   scholarship   (Kazepov   2008;   Andreotti   et   al.,   2012;  

Andreotti   &   Mingione,   2014),   with   their   distinction   between   First   Welfare   –   large   social  

security   programmes   and   minimum   subsistence   schemes   -‐   and   Second   welfare   –   socially  

innovative   services   and   initiatives   with   and   beyond   the   state.   According   to   Ferrera   and  

Maino   (2014:   7)   “the   specific   division   of   labour   between   the   two   is   highly   dependent   on  

country-‐specific   legacies   and   institutional   configurations”.   In   a   similar   vein   our   general  

research   interest   was   driven   by   the   hypothesis   that   “different   welfare   regimes/systems  

produce  specific  governance  arrangements  that  create  different  contextual  condition  able  to  

hinder  or  to  facilitate  the  development  of  SI  practices”  (Kazepov  et  al.,  2013:  34).  Therefore  

  21  

we   considered   the  historical,   spatial   and   institutional   context   of   different  welfare   regimes  

(referring  to  the   ‘worlds  of  welfare’   literature  pioneered  by  Esping-‐Andersen  [1990,  1999])  

as  an   independent  variable  to  explain  dynamics  of  how  local  SIs  were  governed  and  found  

partners  and  resources  to  pursue  their  agenda  (cf.  Emmenerger  et  al.  2015).  

 

Recent   surveys   of   the   SI   literature   (Ayob   et   al.,   2016;   Brandsen   et   al.,   2016)   suggest   that  

looking   at   how   SI   dynamics   and   policies   relate   to   different   welfare   regimes   is   indeed   a  

promising  avenue  for  further  research.  However,  throughout  our  case  study  analysis  it  soon  

appeared   that   the   way   we   aimed   to   link   local   SI   and   welfare   regime   typologies   failed   to  

grasp  the  complexity  of  actual  SI  processes.    

 

“The  collected  cases  study  material,  despite  being  both  rich  in  empirical  detail  as  well  

as  formally  organized  for  cross-‐case  comparison,  did  not  allow  us  to  test  a  range  of  a  

priori   formulated   hypotheses   on   the   relationship   between   the  welfare-‐institutional  

context  and  social  innovation  governance  dynamics  […].  We  learned  that  we  cannot  

sufficiently  explain  the  governance  of  local  social  innovations  based  on  a  limited  set  

of  welfare-‐institutional  variables.”  (Oosterlynck  et  al.,  2016:  4-‐5)

This  insight  raised  various  questions  about  the  research  design  and  whether  it  is  possible  to  

determine  such  a  direct  relationship.  It  can  also  be  regarded  as  supporting  the  argument  of  

scholars  presuming  that  the  local,  urban  context  might  be  more  important  to  understand  SI  

dynamics  than  the  national  welfare  regime  type  (see  for  instance  Evers  et  al.,  [2014]).  In  any  

case,  this  learning  experience  drove  me  to  move  beyond  the  rather  crude  initial  hypothesis  

of   a   linear   relationship   between   welfare   regimes   and   types   of   social   innovation   and   the  

associated   comparative   strategy.   Starting   from   the   specificities   of   the   different   case  

narratives  I  engaged  in  theory  building  on  particular  aspects  and  dimensions  of  the  complex  

relationships  between  SI  and  welfare-‐institutional  change.    

 

The   first   part   of   this   dissertation   focuses  on  processes  of  welfare-‐institutional   change  and  

presents   two   articles   on   cases   in   the   field   of   employment   policies   (see   section   4   of   this  

introduction   on   case   selection).   It   is   the   closest   to   ImPRovE   as   it   reflects   my   search   for  

theories   and   concepts   to   bridge   the   gap   between   the   perspectives   of   local   SI   and  macro-‐

level   welfare   reform.   To   investigate   both   perspectives   in   relation   to   one   another   it   was  

important   to   overcome   the   simplistic   distinction   between   policy   reform   evolving   either  

‘bottom-‐up’  from  the  local  to  the  national  level  (associated  with  local  SI)  or  ‘top-‐down’  from  

  22  

the  national  to  the  local  (associated  with  macro  level  reform).  Instead  I  wanted  to  focus  on  

what  could  be  described  as  ‘bottom-‐links’.    

 

Within   the   social   innovation   scholarship  Garçia   (2006)   introduced   the  concept  of   ‘bottom-‐

linked   strategies’   to   grasp   the   importance   for   local   social   innovation   projects   of   gathering  

resources   and   influencing   regulation   at   different   policy   levels   as   well   as   the   role   of  

intermediary  bodies  (like  umbrella  organisations,  networks,  supra-‐local  funding  schemes)  for  

driving  social  innovation.  The  idea  of  ‘bottom-‐linked  SI’  offers  a  relational  and  ‘multi-‐scalar’  

perspective   that   integrates   the   insight   that   contemporary   social   policy   reform   in   Europe  

develops  through  processes  of  multilevel  policymaking  (Kazepov  2010,  cf.  Cantillon,  Popelier  

&   Mussche,   2011).   The   importance   of   this   bottom-‐linked   and   multilevel   perspective  

appeared   to   me,   amongst   others,   during   the   ‘Inspire!   NEETs   Programme’   case   in   North  

London.  Various   training-‐  and  outreach  services   joined   forces  and   installed  mechanisms  to  

bear   the   financial   risk   of   smaller   partners   in   order   to   bid   for   substantial   ESF   funding  

together.   Larger   organisations   in   the   consortium   recognized   the   added   value   of   smaller  

outreach  organisations  for  developing  context  sensitive  programmes  that  reach  youngsters  

who   generally   remained   under   the   radar   of   larger   education   and   employment   schemes.  

Coordinating   their   efforts   in   the   usage   of   EU   funding   within   national   and   citywide  

regulations   these   different   organisations   drew  on   their   respective   local   networks   to  meet  

their  goals  in  the  different  boroughs.    

 

Starting  from  the  concrete  experiences  and  the  perspectives  of  social   innovators  operating  

‘on  the  ground’,  I  drew  from  different  theoretical  perspectives  to  relate  their  ambitions  and  

challenges  to  the  broader  (policy)  context.  As  such,  the  historical  welfare  regime  and  recent  

policy  evolutions  still  feature  as  relevant  variables  to  explain  how  SI  took  shape  in  my  cases,  

but  the  focus  is  no  longer  on  unveiling  a  linear  relationship  with  a  specific  type  of  SI.  Instead  

I   put   much  more   focus   on   the   agency   of   reflexive   actors   and   how   they   draw   on   various  

possible   (policy)   instruments,   logics   and   resources   to   alleviate   unmet   needs   and   drive  

institutional   change.   In   my   relational   approach   to   SI   and   institutional   change   I   follow  

Hollingsworth  (2000:  619-‐20)  who  argues  that  for   institutional  analysis  of   innovations  “it   is  

less   useful   to   separate   independent   from   dependent   variables,   and   more   useful   to  

understand   the   interacting   and   co-‐evolutionary   processes”.   The   choice   to   focus   on  

interactions   rather   than   considering   SI   as   the   dependent   and   policy   (regimes)   as   the  

independent  variable  emerged,  for  instance,  from  the  re-‐use  social  economy  cases.  EU  level  

  23  

waste   policy   after   2002   was   an   important   enabling   factor   for   these   networks   of   social  

enterprises   to   expand   their   activities.   These   advantageous   policy   developments   were   at  

least  partly  the  result  of  intensive  lobbying  by  sector  representatives  and  their  efforts  in  co-‐

creating  national  implementation  strategies  and  quality  standards.  In  this  instance  it  would  

be  problematic  to  take  macro-‐level  policy  developments  as  ‘independent’  variables.    

   

The   first   of   the   two   articles   in   the   first   part   presents   a   comparison   between   two   large  

networks  of  re-‐use  social  economy  firms  in  Flanders  and  the  UK.  Arguably  the  closest  to  the  

original   ImPRovE   approach,   it   compares   how   these   social   enterprises   and   their   umbrella  

organisation   institutionalized   themselves   in   their   respective   welfare   regime   and   how   the  

institutional  context  in  which  they  were  trying  to  embed  themselves  shaped  their  respective  

strategies   and   trajectories.   Special   attention   goes   to   the   role   of   public   institutions   in  

enabling  or  hampering  SI  developments.  On  a  theoretical  level,  this  paper  uses  the  concept  

of   ‘welfare   mix’,   (Seibel,   2015)   which   has   well   developed   research   traditions   in   both   the  

study  of  hybrid  organizations   (Evers,  2005;  Bode,  2014)  and   the   study  of  different  welfare  

regimes  (Esping-‐Andersen,  1999;  Powell  &  Barrientos,  2004:  2011).  Focussing  on  how  these  

organizational   and   societal  perspectives  are   related  and  drawing  on   recent  applications  of  

the   Institutional  Logic  Approach   (ILA)   in   the  study  of  hybrid  non-‐profits   (Skelcher  &  Smith,  

2015),   this   paper   present   a   conceptual   frame   to   study   the   strategies   of   innovative   social  

enterprises  in  relation  to  their  institutional  context.  

 

The  second  article  presents  a  single  case  study  of  an  innovative  training  trajectory  for  clients  

of   a   Public   Centre   for   Social  Welfare   in   a  medium   sized   city   in   Flanders.   Trying   to   better  

understand   the   interactive   dynamics   between   local   social   policy   innovations   and   the  

broader   policy   frameworks   this   article   zooms   in   on   the  micro   dynamics   of   this   innovative  

practice  and  the  agency  of  some  of  its  key  actors  who  creatively  use  the  available  resources,  

rules  and  discourse  for  SI.  This  article  focuses  on   ‘social   learning’,  a  key  characteristic  of  SI  

processes   (cf.   Moulaert   et   al.,   2013a).   The   theory   of   institutional   change   as   ‘habits   in  

motion’   (Berk   &   Galvan,   2009),   which   addresses   on   the   micro   dynamics   of   institutional  

change,  and  the  heuristic  of  ‘welfare  recalibration’  (Hemerijck,  2013),  which  focuses  on  on-‐

going  macro   level  welfare   reform,   both   put   social   learning   at   the   centre   of   their   analysis.  

Using  both  perspectives  to  analyse  the  defining  features  of  the  project  and  the  experiences  

of   those   who   implement   this   innovative   policy,   this   paper   aims   to   add   another   layer   to  

understanding  the  institutional  dimension  of  SI  in  relation  to  welfare  reform.  

  24  

1.3.2. Politics  of  need  interpretation  and  the  normative  dimension  

 

Earlier   in   this   introduction   (section   2)   I   stressed   that   SI   is   not   normatively   neutral   or  

inherently   ‘for   the   better’   (cf.   Howaldt   &   Schwarz,   2010).   The   substantial   attention   I  

attributed  to  this  ‘issue  of  normativity’  reflects  the  fact  that  it  occupied  me  throughout  the  

past  four  years.  Some  of  my  cases,  like  the  occupation  of  the  Emmaüs  monastery  to  house  

Roma   migrants   in   Ghent,   were   particularly   controversial   and   ambiguous:   squatting  

temporarily   realised   these   families’   social   right   to   housing   but   what   about   the   quality   of  

support  and  access  to  housing  on  the  long  term?  These  experiences  raised  questions  of  how  

to  appreciate  cases  of  local  SI.   It  was  often  not  easy  to  determine  which  cases  were  ‘good’  

and  which  were  ‘bad’.  The  Domo  case  of  volunteers  supporting  poor  families,  for   instance,  

only   received   financial   support  of   the  Flemish  government  after  20  years  of   local  practice.  

Before   it  was   regarded   as   an  undesirable   replacement   of   professional   care,   but  when   the  

Flemish   government   launched   their   ‘re-‐socialization   of   care’   policy   the   initiative   gained  

recognition   as   an   innovative   example   that   overcomes   the   presumed   hierarchical   relations  

and   stigmatizing   effects   of   professional   family   support.   Here   the   appreciation   of   the  

initiative   changed   due   to   changes   in   how   policymakers   framed   societal   challenges   and  

possible  solutions.  However,  I  also  discussed  with  scholars  and  professionals  who  were  quite  

critical   of   this   case   and   policy   evolution,   which   they   critiqued   as   offloading   public  

responsibilities   to   volunteers   in   times   of   budgetary   restraint.   These   conflicting   views  

illustrate   that   SI   initiatives   are   not   normatively   neutral,   but   ambiguous   and   that   different  

actors  could  use  the  label  of  SI  on  the  one  hand  

 

“as  a  basis  for  providing  responsive  and  user-‐led  services  which  offer  a  participatory  

and  empowering  response  to  social  problems;  such  an  interpretation  could  cultivate  

community   capacity   and   enhance   resilience.   On   the   other   hand,   the   SI   discourse  

could   be   used   to   promote   a   Smilesean7  idea   of   self-‐   help   and   a   justification   for  

reducing  or  withdrawing  public  services.”  (Sinclair  &  Baglioni,  2014:  474)  

Because  of  this  normative  ambiguity  and  the  fact  that  SI  research  is  often  critiqued  for  being  

too   normative   (which   was   also   the   case   during   the   ImPRovE   consortium   discussions),   I  

decided   to   zoom   in   on   the   normative   dimension.   It   appeared   to   me   that   the   ‘issue   of  

                                                                                                               7  Referring  to  the  Scottish  author  and  politician  Samuel  Smiles  (1812-‐1904)  who  claimed  that  poverty  was  largely  caused  by  irresponsibly  habits  and  authored  the  then  popular  book  ‘Self-‐help’  (1859)  that  opens  with  the  sentence  “Heaven  helps  those  who  help  themselves”.  

  25  

normativity’  was  mainly  situated  in  two  important  elements  of  SI  research:  (a)  in  the  ‘social  

ends’   of   SI   initiatives   as   well   as   the   behaviour   and   often   implicit   convictions   of   social  

innovators;   (b)   in   the   ambitions   and   attempts   of   researchers   and   stakeholders   to   make  

statements  about  the  value  of  the  initiative  and  the  direction  of  social  change  in  relation  to  

unmet  needs  and  the  evolution  of  contemporary  welfare  regimes.      

In  order  to  address  these  issues  I  thus  first  needed  a  frame  of  analysis  that  would  help  me  to  

unveil   the   often-‐implicit   normative   assumptions   at   play   in   concrete   SI   processes.   This   is  

important   to   interpret   the   meaning   of   SI   initiatives   and   welfare-‐institutional   change   in  

relation  to  one  another.  Second,  I  needed  to  explore  possible  normative  criteria  that  could  

serve  to  distinguish  ‘better’  from  ‘worse’  SI   in  social  policy.  This  search  materialized  in  two  

articles  on  Roma  migrant  inclusion  policies  that  make  up  the  second  part  of  my  dissertation.    

To  analyse  the  normative-‐political  dimension  of  SI  I  drew  on  the  work  feminist  philosopher  

and  social  theorist  Nancy  Fraser  on  ‘politics  of  need  interpretation’  (1989  chapter  7  and  8).  

As  mentioned  above,  the  normative  character  of  SI  initiatives  resides  to  a  great  extent  in  the  

specification   of   its   ends   because   social   needs   and   pressing   societal   challenges   cannot   be  

defined  outside  an  ethical  position  and  normative  framework  (cf.  Moulaert  et  al.,  2013b).  SI  

is  not   simply  about   finding  new  ways   to  better  alleviate   ‘natural’  or  pre-‐determined  social