Micro and Macro Approaches to Social Innovation: Mapping the Approaches of Significant Funders and Advocates Beryl A. Radin, Georgetown University And Wai Fung Lam, The University of Hong Kong

 Top down vs bottom up approaches  Concern about “getting to scale” Why this Topic?

 The Social Innovation Fund Initiative, US  USAID Forward, US  The Innovations in American Government Program, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, US  Social Innovation in the European Commission, Europe  Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development Fund (SIE Fund), Hong Kong  Social Innovation movement: South Korea Examination of Six Experiences

 Funders’ attributes  Source of funds  Goals/focus of activity  Definition of social innovation  Antecedents of activity  Criteria for funding  Funding processes  Free standing or integrated  Intermediaries  The role of other actors  Research/evaluation activities  Dissemination Issues Examined

Patterns of funders and advocates US Social Innovation Fund USAIDKennedy SchoolEuropean CommissionHong KongSouth Korea Funders’ attributesGovernment Foundation/ universityGovernment Source of fundsSeparate fundsGeneral fundsFoundationSeparate and general funds Separate fundsSeparate and other sources Goals/focus of activityEconomic opportunity, future, youth development New partnerships, innovation, focus on results, shifts in foreign policy Publicizing good news in government Integrate into existing programmes, meet unmet social needs Support existing social innovation, leverage existing networks Local and national efforts, jobs and employment Definition of social innovationEmbedded in venture philanthropy Policy goals, efficient and businesslike Found in existing programmes No single definitionCreation of new products and services Ecosystem for new ideas Research/evaluation activitiesUsed evaluation to avoid cronyism Focused on results to assess effectiveness Relied on research to assess effectiveness Used stories to document efforts Knowledge transfer, interdisciplinary studies Did not emphasize DisseminationRelied on intermediariesDid not emphasizeRelationships to research community Case studies as dissemination strategy Emphasized role of intermediaries Antecedents of activityWar on Poverty, venture philanthropy Past development activities Funding by Ford Foundation Past efforts of European Union Hong Kong Commission on Poverty Mayor of Seoul, civil society organisations Criteria for fundingSuccessful or promising non-profits Tied to policy and budget management efforts Novelty, effectiveness, significance, transferability Find new and unmet needs Limited role of government Facilitated cooperation and collaboration Funding processesConstrained by government processes Use of analytic toolsInvolved academics and practitioners Multidisciplinary and participative, demand driven Public awareness, broad involvement Leadership development, engagement Freestanding or integratedFreestanding in government but integrated into non- government activities Freestanding Integrated into SOPsIntegrated into other government efforts Linked to Ministry of Employment and Labor IntermediariesNGOs designated in policy areas No formal intermediaries Used contacts in member countries NGOs, academic unit, investors, philanthropic organisation Variety of organisations Role of other actorsDrew on others, especially political actors Involved political actorsNot with NGOsMultiple playersMostly NGOsMultiple players Comparison of the Six Experiences

 Diverse definitions of social innovation and use of different policy tools  Search for new ways of generating social values  Stages of social innovation and building of ecosystems  Importance of funding mechanisms  Difficulty in finding ways of operating in a governmental system Preliminary Findings

 Use of the intermediary strategy  Different approaches