Conclusive Remarks and Theoretical Framework

Page 36 of 181

Page 37 of 181

dimension. As it can be noticed within the figure 6 here below, all the dimensions are interconnected with one another: any change happening within one of the dimensions, will alter the entire shape of the figure (Buijs et al., 2016).

Figure 6: Policy arrangements visualized as a tetrahedron. Adapted from Arts et al. (2006).

● Discourse can be understood as “the specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, categorizations that are produced, reproduced and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities” (Hajer, 1995:44). In other words, it consists of the concerns and interests shared among the actors involved.

● Actors or networks of actors indicates all the individuals and organizations involved in a specific area and able to exercise influence.

● Resources consist of all the types of tangible and intangible assets that can be mobilized to achieve certain outcomes. Among others, can be found financial resources, knowledge, skills, as well as social and relational capital e.g. networks. Strictly related to the Resources dimension is the concept of Power intended as the mobilization, division and deployment of resources. Most importantly, it is the power relations among actors that largely determines the influence actors have on the issue being analyzed.

● Rules of the game can be either formal or informal and determine opportunities and barriers to act. In other words, rules refer to the institutional context in which initiatives are embedded as the internal regulations and the accepted practices.

Page 38 of 181

Therefore, following this model, we depict governance arrangements as a group of actors that, influenced by the institutional context, organize themselves in particular ways as to adequately deal with the content of a particular policy domain.

As we described in the introduction, this research deals with a case of social innovation that is undergoing the development stage and has scaled out, namely it has been adopted by multiple formal or informal organizations and group of individuals but is encountering obstacles in the process of scaling up, namely, it is not institutionalized yet. In the next paragraphs we are going to elaborate on our version of the tetrahedron (see figure 7 below).

The ‘discourse’ of our tetrahedron will be the diffusion of social innovation at the city level. In other words, the concerns, interests and views of the multiple actors involved in terms of diffusion and modes of diffusion of social innovation, challenges to diffusion and approaches adopted to overcome these challenges.

An important aspect of the discourses is also the benefits that actors would derive from the diffusion of social innovation and the realization of its impact.

As the focus of this thesis is on the interaction between non-state actors and state actors and the latter are deemed crucial for the expansion of social innovation across scales, the ‘actors’ dimension of the tetrahedron will be social innovators and their formal or non-formal networks (e.g. shadow networks⁷), facilitators of the diffusion of social innovation as well as the actors that will be affected by the social innovation. These are broadly categorized into state and non-state actors even though in the specific case of some actors, the two categories might happen to overlap. Examples of this and particularly important in this dimension of the framework, are the previously mentioned

‘hybrid’ figures: the institutional entrepreneur, bridging the gap among state and non-state actors through mobilizing his/her networks and the policy entrepreneur, promoter of the collaborative innovation process between state

7 We remind the reader of the definition we previously gave of ‘shadow networks’: groups of individuals who collaborate to develop an idea that proposes innovative product, programs or processes.

Page 39 of 181

and non-state actors, enabling citizens (understood as implementer, co-designer or initiators of programs or public services) to innovate within the existing policy framework.

The interactions among the different actors partaking in the process of social innovation can be analyzed through the lenses of resources and power. Arts et al. (2006) identify as resources all the types of tangible and intangible assets that can be mobilized to achieve certain outcomes (e.g. financial resources, knowledge, skills, as well as social and relational capital). We add to this dimension of the tetrahedron the “organizational capabilities” we reviewed in section 4.1.3.1. i.e. Communication, Alliance-building, Lobbying and Stimulating Market Forces. We also dealt extensively with the institutional aspects of scaling. In a social capital perspective, government support becomes a resource to the non-state actor social innovator. According to the model discussed in paragraph 4.1.3, power can be exerted by social innovators by mobilizing networks of urban actors and to obtain governance arrangement that are more conducive to the diffusion of social innovation. Also, networks and their inherent social capital can be considered as resources worth leveraging for alliance-building in the face of shared challenges (e.g. the needs that social innovation aims at meeting) or objectives (e.g. the intended positive outcomes of social innovation). To such end, communication is seen as a crucial means to attract actors to the cause advanced by social innovators and to make them contribute to its diffusion. From the perspective of the state actors, a resource is constituted by the knowledge and the creativity of the civil society and its capacity to innovate that can be used to produce public value.

The power relationships among actors and the way power is distributed are also determinant to analyze the interactions among actors, the governance arrangements adopted to manage it and, ultimately, how the diffusion of social innovation in the urban context happens.

To complete our framework, we will focus on the rules of the game, the institutional context in which the social innovation is embedded. In this research we are interested in the formal or informal arrangements governing the social innovation process at the city level taking into account the interaction and

Page 40 of 181

collaboration between state and non-state actors. As we reviewed, social innovation can be co-created and co-produced by state and non-state actors in a collaborative regime, and decision making related to social innovation can see the active participation of the civil society. This will take different shapes as the focus of the participation moves from a predominance of governmental regulations to self-governance of the civil society and from a focus on hands on activities to a focus on political activities (see figure 4).

To conclude, we argue that it is by striking an ideal balance among these four dimensions and by strategically designing the governance arrangements among state and non-state actors, that potential benefits of social innovation can be unlocked to the benefit of the urban community at large. The elaborated framework is going to guide our empirical investigation and will help us visualize the four dimensions and their interplay in the context of the chosen case study.

Figure 7: Final framework - adapted from Arts et al. (2006) (own creation)

Page 41 of 181