Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to offer a critical overview of claims and counter claims around increased expectations that the third sector organisations (TSOs) will compete for contracts to deliver public services. It does this through the lens of contested notions of being "businesslike" and "entrepreneurial" across the public and third sectors. Then it assesses how some of these tensions are currently played out between public sector commissioners and third sector service providers.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is based on a one‐year project funded under the ESRC Business Engagement Opportunities scheme (2009‐2010) in which the authors are working with NHS Manchester (responsible for commissioning and directing NHS funds into a wide range of services for communities across the city) and local third sector delivery and infrastructure organisations. The project consists of a set of knowledge exchange activities (scoping, workshops, placements and an on‐line tool) intended to help NHS Manchester reshape its local provider profile through market making and commissioning new service contracts from TSOs, especially social enterprises. Preliminary findings are reported from the review of academic and policy literature that formed the scoping stage of this project.FindingsPublic sector commissioners and TSOs often struggle to make sense of each others' world views and working assumptions. This cannot be easily overcome but ways of improving dialogue are proposed through exploration of third sector outcomes and entrepreneurial language, practices and mindsets.Originality/valueThis paper offers a new, grounded reflection on the nexus of public sector contracts, entrepreneurship and third sector values.

Abstract
This paper makes a novel contribution by turning an 'asset' lens onto social and technical innovation in the context of the small-scale generation of renewable energy. The authors draw on learning from an international project that aimed to develop innovative technologies for the micro generation of energy using wastes and residues. Variations on innovation that cut across the social and technical are introduced. It is noted that although emanating from different traditions, a common theme is emphasis on a distributed knowledge base in which the roles of innovator, producer and consumer overlap or merge. This implies that the (social) innovation process is also one of co-creation. The authors borrow from international development studies the Sustainable Livelihood Analysis (SLA) framework, which is usually used for working with poor households to foreground strengths and resources rather than needs and deficits. To illustrate the utility of SLA for social innovation at local and community level, findings are presented from UK fieldwork on socio economic barriers and opportunities affecting the feasibility of new community energy generation and enterprise options. The importance and the fragility of human assets are highlighted.

There is a lack of empirical research around sub‐national Social Investment programs, and a lack of connectivity with social innovation. This paper addresses these gaps by drawing on twenty individual case study evaluations, conducted across ten EU member states as part of a larger Horizon 2020 project (Innovative Social Investment: Strengthening communities in Europe, grant agreement number: 649189). It does so through a "governance of activation" lens. We find that volunteering was a significant feature of many of the cases we researched, as both a means of funding Social Investment, and a means by which activation (through the development of human and social capital) might be achieved. Yet volunteering is a gap in the theoretical literature around Social Investment, and one that needs to be addressed. We also find that examining Social Investment at the local level provides a much more nuanced and complex picture than nationally focused extant research.

Available Open Access digitally under CC-BY-NC-ND licence. This book examines the idea and practice of co-creation in public services. Informed by practical action, lived experience and research from 10 countries across Europe, including the UK, it shines new light on the theory and reality of co-creation by conceptualising it in terms of human rights, social justice and social innovation. Focusing on human dimensions, the book presents real life examples in public services as diverse as social care, health, work activation, housing and criminal justice. It also highlights the ways digital technologies can accelerate or hinder co-creation. The book confronts a paradox at the heart of co-creation: standardisation and inflexibility in planning and resourcing, or 'concrete-ness', counters the 'elasticity' required to sustain co-creation in complex contexts.