Impacts of Social Innovation on Spatiality in Mountain–Lowland Relationships — Trajectories of Two Swiss Regional Initiatives in the Context of New Policy Regimes

Manfred Perlik

doi:10.3390/su13073823

Abstract

This article places the topic of “social innovation” in the context of the paradigm shift of the 1980s. This shift from Fordism to post-Fordism has led to a weakening of the model of the European welfare state. Social innovation has become an instrument to promote regional self-responsibility and entrepreneurial activity by local authorities. The concept of social innovation has become widespread among various disciplines and controversially used by them. Referring to regional and corporate success stories based on the commitment of grassroots movements and civil society has its shortcomings, as the new spatiality regimes show increasing disparities. The article shows the different lines of conflict in the discussion about social innovations and makes suggestions for the specification and delimitation of the concept. Using two case studies on social innovations from mountain regions of Switzerland, based on standardized interviews, including the results of a social network analysis, the article distinguishes between adaptive and transformative social innovations. The adaptive social innovations analysed did not result in changing the inferior position of the regions; however, they prevented even greater destabilization by mobilizing the dynamic actors in the valley to work together. This is helpful for ensuring that the urban majority continues to show solidarity with the population in rural and mountain areas. The constructive interaction between public, private, and civil society institutions is seen as the key factor of social innovation in the European peripheral areas to which most mountain areas belong.

Highlights

The Ambiguous Character of SIIn the past decade, the term social innovation (SI) has become popular
It is associated with the hope to solve regional disparities and ecological crises; this is especially true in mountain regions, where the two issues are interconnected
A change in strategy in this direction is, on the one hand, not a social, but an economic innovation. It is not new; economic actors have always tried to align political institutions and public services according to the interests of regional value adding, as it ameliorates the conditions for their entrepreneurial milieu

Summary

Introduction

The Ambiguous Character of SIIn the past decade, the term social innovation (SI) has become popular. It is associated with the hope to solve regional disparities and ecological crises; this is especially true in mountain regions, where the two issues are interconnected Both are social fields whose development paths (trajectories) are driven by the interactions of actors residing and working in the territory. Due to different expectations from its proponents (researchers and practitioners), and due to its double functions in outcomes (economic performance and sharing of power), the concept of SI proves to be highly ambivalent. This concerns the single terms “innovation” (what is really new?) and “social” (what concerns societal thinking, what concerns group egoisms?) as well as its combination (what is the difference in terms of other innovations, e.g., economic or technological?)Social innovation

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion