Learning for Change: humanization of the economy through social innovation
At the TRANSIT conference, 25 people gathered to discuss the topic of system changes based on alternative social relations. The session was entitled “humanization of the economy through social innovation” and organized by ICIS researchers Julia Backhaus, René Kemp, Paul Weaver and Tim Strasser.
In an initial plenary discussion led by René Kemp, the group discussed why social innovation is still so much ‘under the political radar’. Considering that social innovation initiatives based on relational values and voluntary association are viewed as valuable to society by politicians and policy makers, why is social innovation not receiving more attention and funding from government?
Different explanations were offered. One reason suggested was that social innovation initiatives based on transformative values are anti-establishment. For those who are less anti-establishment – and thus less of an “existential threat” – the core value of autonomy leads them to seek independence. Another reason raised was that SI initiatives represent a dispersed phenomenon, which occurs under different names. There is no overriding idea behind it in terms of an “-ism”. If there was, the media probably would have jumped on it, as they did with “cultural Marxism” and “right-wing populism”. A related element is that the names under which social innovation are practised (transition town, time bank, and slow food) don’t give away the core principles of self-organisation, relational autonomy, reciprocity and collective management. In fact, the label of social innovation could be considered a misnomer because cooperatives and community benefit societies have a long history. Comparatively new, however, are the elements of relational autonomy and technologies used. A psychological explanation provided for the ‘under the radar’ paradox is that you can only understand what it’s about if you have experienced it.
The discussion about social innovation being under the radar took an unexpected turn based on the remark that social innovation practices are receiving plentiful attention in the lifestyle sections of the weekend supplements, which celebrate food based on traditional seeds (produced by the seed movement) cultivated on the basis of permaculture principles (used in transition town initiatives and in eco-villages). The celebration of practices based on alternative social relations is not limited to food but also include aspects of autonomy, self-development and living a meaningful and ethical life. The irony is that such articles appear next to ads about weekend holidays and designer clothes and watches. The lifestyle supplements are unlikely to discuss the need for an alternative welfare indicator different from GDP. Such discussions are taking place elsewhere, for instance in the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. A sentence easily missed in the report of the Commission proposes that the fraction of time that people spend on activities they enjoy versus the fraction spent on activities they don’t enjoy could be used as a progress measure for wellbeing.
Four break-out groups were then formed to discuss the roles of alternative social relations in transforming the systems of education and science, social welfare (including the care sector), cities and company law.
The discussion on science and education, led by Tim Strasser, centered on possible contributions and on limitations to be addressed. Disciplinary knowledge offers a too narrow basis for understanding and offering possible solutions to the big problems of society. These require an interdisciplinary approach applying different perspectives, methods and data on an issue and which is mindful about the limits of knowledge and the importance of power and interests. Problem-based education goes some way but it also needs to be complemented by critical investigations of root causes for societal problems. Next to studying problems of change and root causes for this, science should be involved in attempts at change, through action research. Kurt Lewin once remarked: ‘If you want truly to understand something, try to change it’. Fortunately this is happening. Examples are: student-led sustainability initiatives as promoted by the Green Office model, the DESIS network of design schools and universities supporting social innovation for sustainability and innovative research institutes like the Institute for Integral Studies. To truly change science, changes in funding and evaluation criteria are needed. A key intervention here may be measurement approaches and evaluation criteria that take into account the societal relevance of research. Most social innovation research still operates on 'extractive models' that draw upon the time and energy of research subjects without offering any value in return. There is a lot that science can contribute, like legal knowledge, software, reflexivity and legitimacy. For this academics have to engage with TSI actors in a concrete way, in projects of coproduction. A deeper mental transformation among academics and funding actors is needed for this, besides changes in incentives, opportunities and evaluation criteria.
Cities as the locations of work, administration and land use and places of physical infrastructures and cultural diversity are interesting from a social innovation perspective and addressed in two rounds of lively discussion facilitated by Julia Backhaus. In view of the continuing growth of, especially, bigger cities, session participants agreed that cities are bound to become more powerful actors in national or even global governance arrangements. To date, most municipal governments operate within the ‘old paradigm’ and commonly sell property to commercial parties or decide on urban and infrastructural design ‘top-down’. There are, however, an increasing number of towns and cities that venture off the ‘beaten track’ and infuse the old paradigm with social innovation. Examples in case are participatory budgeting initiatives or citizen councils like in Genk (Belgium) or Amersfoort (Netherlands). Other cities provide support for cooperatives and social innovation initiatives more generally. Session participants dreamed of ‘urban social innovation centers’ as hybrid work spheres for ‘city makers’ and ‘civil servants’ and as platforms where different social innovation initiatives can meet and network – all to establish stable, long-term collaborative relationships. Other ideas for transformative social innovation initiatives to get ‘on the radar’ and bring about transformative change included connecting cities to stimulate learning and exchange, lobbying for more local economy initiatives, including local public procurement, and offering trainings to officials in participatory tools, processes and institutions – or, inspired by citizen movements in Barcelona and Madrid: run for office.
In the break-out groups facilitated by René Kemp, company law was revealed to act a constraining factor for social enterprises in some countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, in the absence of a formal legal basis. Social enterprises in the UK, Belgium and Switzerland were less constrained legally but things are presently not always moving in the right direction. Belgium has a legal form for social enterprise for as much as 20 years but this is currently under attack because of a political project of administrative simplification. So far, platforms of sharing are subject to light forms of regulation but this is likely to change because of the expansion of commercial forms (such as Uber and Airbnb). In the case of shared ownership of a resource (as in the case of cohousing), there are complicated issues of partnership, equity, accountability and ownership to be managed. A lot of coordination is needed beyond choosing an organizational form. Most eco-villages fail in the stage of planning. In general, the restricted nature of forms available for social innovation activities is not the biggest limiting factor. A culture of individual ownership and traditional structures of ownership (of land and companies) constitute far bigger problems for shared ownership and for producing social value.
In the social welfare group discussion hosted by Paul Weaver there was broad agreement that government and professional welfare organisations have lost sight of core values of care-taking in family and community. What is our goal as a society? Is it to make profit, to be efficient? Or is it to create wellbeing for everyone, to care for the unfortunate, to care for ourselves and each other, to arrange care giving and receiving as people want? Societal goals, progress indicators and even the tax system set perverse incentives. GDP is bigger if more people are sick and more money is spent treating symptoms of (often avoidable) sickness. A re-orientation to focus on health and wellbeing creation could reduce avoidable cost, but the political system is locked in a point-scoring debate around marginal changes to the existing welfare systems or in stigmatizing and blaming system users even when what is needed is system change. There’s a need to organise and empower people to take care of each other. Social innovation initiatives can contribute to care-taking in the community and to creating wellbeing directly through their activities. There are already bottom-up self-organised social insurance initiatives that mobilise community members and look, not at people’s needs, but at the assets they bring and the contributions they can make.
