Advertisement

Third Sector and Social Innovation in Local Communities in Portugal: Dilemmas Concerning Framing and Measurement of Social Impact

  • Cristina Pinto AlbuquerqueEmail author
  • Sara Rocha
Chapter
Part of the Studies on Entrepreneurship, Structural Change and Industrial Dynamics book series (ESID)

Abstract

The main goal of this chapter is to reflect about the role of the Third Sector (TS) in generating social innovation on a local scale basis. Social innovation will be putted in the forefront of the discussion, as well as the way to evaluate it in context. A particular focus is thus given to discussions about the dilemmas concerning which indicators and theoretical framework can be more appropriate to evaluate the impact of social innovations. This is a very central and actual exigency in the framework of public policies and social development but very few consensuses exist at this level. So, it is critical to identify the innovation presuppositions and indicators to consider, according to scale, scope and local specificities. This will help to make “good decisions” in a local level and to shape evidence-based social policies and social entrepreneurship initiatives, as well as the right framework conditions for social innovation.

The reflection and proposals under these topics are illustrated by the general results of a local project based in the assessment of social and ecological experimentation initiatives in Portugal.

Keywords

Third sector Development Local communities Social innovation Evaluation 

References

  1. Amaro, R. R. (2011). Projeto ECOS. Revista de Economia Solidária, 3, 157–171.Google Scholar
  2. Anheier, H. K., Krlev, G., Preuss, S., Mildenberger, G., Bekkers, R., Mensink, W., Bauer, A., Knapp, M., Wistow, G., & Hernandez, A. B. (2014). Social innovation as impact of the third sector. A deliverable of the project: “Impact of the third sector as social innovation” (ITSSOIN), European Commission – 7th framework programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.Google Scholar
  3. Assogba, Y. (2007). Innovation Sociale et Communauté. Une Relecture à partir des Sociologues Classiques. Recherches, 5, 1–17. Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO) ET Alliance de recherché université-communauté/Innovation Sociale et Développement des Communautés (ARUC-ISDC).Google Scholar
  4. Baker, S., & Mehmood, M. (2015). Social innovation and the governance of sustainable places. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 20(3), 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baturina, D., & Bežovan, G. (2015). Social innovation impact-review no. 9. Seventh framework programme (grant agreement 613034), European Union. Brussels: Third Sector Impact.Google Scholar
  6. Bauman, Z. (1993). Modernity and ambivalence. Bristol: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society. Towards a new modernity. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  8. BEPA. (2014). Social innovation a decade of changes. http://espas.eu/orbis/
  9. Borzaga, C., & Bodini, R. (2012). What to make of social innovation? Towards a framework for policy development (Euricse working paper, no. 036 | 12).Google Scholar
  10. Brandsen, T. (2014b). Innovations in local welfare: How good ideas are spread (and how not). Berlin conference: Towards inclusive employment and welfare systems. Challenges for a social Europe. In D. Baturina, G. Bežovan (2015). Social innovation impact-review No. 9. Seventh framework programme (grant agreement 613034), European Union. Brussels: Third sector impact.Google Scholar
  11. Carmin, J. (2010). Civic engagement in environmental governance in central and Eastern Europe. In M. R. Redclift, & G. Woodgate (Eds.), The international handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 394–407). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. CATALYSIS Project Report. (2016). Experimentação Socioecológica: Novos caminhos para a participação no desenvolvimento local sustentável e integral. In Relatório Científico do Projeto de Investigação CATALISE – Capacitar para a Transição Local e Inovação Social. Lisboa: FCG.Google Scholar
  13. Caulier-Grice, J., Davies, A., Patrick, R., & Norman, W. (2012a). Defining social innovation. A deliverable of the project: The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th framework programme. Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.Google Scholar
  14. Caulier-Grice, J., Davies, A., Patrick, R., & Norman, W. (2012b). Social innovation context and responses. A deliverable of the project: The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th framework programme. Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.Google Scholar
  15. Cloutier, J. (2003). Qu’est-ce que l’innovation sociale? Cahier du CRISES no ET0314. Collection Études Théoriques, Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, pp. 1–46.Google Scholar
  16. Durant, R. F., Fiorino, D. J., & O’Leary, R. (2004). Environmental governance reconsidered: Challenges, choices, and opportunities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2013). Social innovation research in the European union approaches, findings and future directions policy review. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://www.gppq.fct.pt/h2020/_docs/brochuras/society/social_innovation%20in%20the%20EU.pdf
  18. Evers, A., Ewert, B., & Brandsen, T. (Eds.). (2013). Social innovations for social cohesion-transnational patterns and approaches from 20 European cities. Liege: Emes.Google Scholar
  19. GECES, Sub-group on Impact Measurement. (2014). Proposed approaches to social impact measurement in the European Commission legislation and practice relating to: EuSEFs and the EaSI. GECES Group.Google Scholar
  20. Gibson-Graham, J. K., & Roelvink, G. (2009). Social innovation for community economies. In D. MacCallum, F. Moulaert, J. Gillier, & S. Haddock (Eds.), Social innovation and territorial development. England: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  21. Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Greffe, X. (2003). Innovation, value added and evaluation in the third system: A European perspective. In OECD (Ed.), The non-profit sector in a changing economy. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  23. Heinelt, H., Held, G., Kopp-Malek, T., Matthiensen, U., Reinsenger, E., & Zimmermann, K. (2006). Governance for sustainability. Conceptual framework, Darmstadt Erkner, G-FORS.Google Scholar
  24. Jensen, H. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaplan, R. S. (2001). Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(3), 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kemp, R., Parto, S., & Gibson, R. B. (2005). Governance for sustainable development: Moving from theory to practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1/2), 12–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kendall, J., & Knapp, M. (2000, December). The third sector and welfare state modernisation: Inputs, activities and comparative performance. Civil society working paper 14.Google Scholar
  28. Krlev, G., Bund, E., & Mildenberger, G. (2014). Measuring what matters—indicators of social innovativeness on the national level. Information Systems Management, 31(3), 200–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maas, K. (2008). Social impact measurement: Towards a guideline for managers. In M. Csutora, & Z. M. Szerényi (Eds.), Sustainability and corporate responsibility accounting – measuring and managing business benefits. Budapest: EMAN-EU 2008 conference proceeding.Google Scholar
  30. Martinelli, F. (2012). Social innovation or social exclusion? Innovating social services in the context of a retrenching welfare state. In F. Hans-Werner, J. Hochgerner, & J. Howaldt (Eds.), Challenge social innovation potentials for business, social entrepreneurship, welfare and civil society. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Milando, J. (2005). Cooperação sem Desenvolvimento. Lisboa: ICS – Imprensa de Ciências Sociais.Google Scholar
  32. Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., & Gonzalez, S. (2005). Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation. Urban Studies, 42(11), 969–990.Google Scholar
  33. Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A., & Hamdouch, A. (Eds.). (2013). The international handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  34. Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). Social Innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. Oxford: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship.Google Scholar
  35. Mulgan, G. (2012). Social innovation theories: Can theory catch up with practice? In H. W. Franz, J. Hochgerner, & J. Howaldt (Eds.), Challenge social innovation - potentials for business, social entrepreneurship, welfare and civil society. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. London: NESTA and The Young Foundation. https://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-Open-Book-of-SocialInnovationg.pdf
  37. Nicholls, A. (2009). ‘We do good things, don’t we?’: ‘Blended value accounting’ in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6–7), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nussbaum, M. (2012). Crear capacidades. Propuesta para el desarollo humano. Madrid, Paidós.Google Scholar
  39. OECD. (2010). Measuring innovation. A new perspective. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  40. OECD. (2015). Policy brief on social impact measurement for social enterprises policies for social entrepreneurship. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  41. Olsson, P., & Gallaz, V. (2012). Social-ecological innovation and transformation. In A. Nicholls, & A. Murdock (Eds.), Social innovation: Blurring boundaries to reconfigure markets. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Oosterlynck, S., Kazepov, Y., Novy, A., Cools, P., Barberis, E., Wukovitsch, F., Sarius, T., & Leubolt, B. (2013). The butterfly and the elephant: Local social innovation, the welfare state and new poverty dynamics (ImPRovE discussion paper no. 13/03). Antwerp: Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy – University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
  43. Osborne, S., & Brown, K. (2005). Managing change and innovation in public service organizations. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Salamon, L., & Sokolowski, S. (2014). The third sector in Europe: Towards a consensus conceptualization (Working paper no. 02/2014). http://thirdsectorimpact.eu/site/assets/uploads/documentations/tsi-working-paper-no-2-third-sector-europe-towards-consensus-conceptualization/TSI-Wrkg-Ppr-2-Conceptualiza-fnl-2-17-15-.pdf
  45. Salamon, L., Hems, L., & Chinnock, K. (2000). The nonprofit sector: For what and for whom? Working papers of the Johns Hopkins comparative nonprofit sector project (No 37). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Centre for Civil Society Studies.Google Scholar
  46. Sen, A. (2003). Desenvolvimento como Liberdade. Lisboa: Gradiva.Google Scholar
  47. Simsa, R., & Rauscher, O. (2014). Methodological guideline for impact assessment. TSI working paper series no. 1. Seventh framework programme (grant agreement 613034), European Union. Brussels: Third Sector Impact.Google Scholar
  48. Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004). New risks, new welfare: The transformation of the European welfare state. USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vale, A. (2009). Um Novo Paradigma para a Intervenção Social. In Cadernos Sociedade e Trabalho XII - Inovação Social (pp. 5–15). Lisboa: MTSS/GEP, EQUAL.Google Scholar
  50. Westwood, A. (2009). Inovação Orientada pelos Utilizadores – Um Futuro para a Política Social? In Cadernos Sociedade e Trabalho XII - Inovação Social (pp. 91–109). Lisboa: MTSS/GEP, EQUAL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations