Suchergebnisse

In this article, we conduct a critical reading of the European Union social innovation policy discourse. We argue that rather than being a transformative discourse within European Union policy, European Union social innovation policy discourse reinforces neoliberal hegemony by (re)legitimizing it. Inspired by post-foundational discourse theory and Glynos and Howarth's logics of critical explanation, we analyse three central European Union social innovation policy documents. We characterize what kind of political project is articulated in and through European Union social innovation policy discourse, and uncover how it relates to neoliberal political rationality. Our contribution lies in showing (1) how the social logics of European Union social innovation policy can be understood as both 'roll-out' and 'roll-with-it' neoliberalization, thereby relegitimizing and naturalizing neoliberalism; (2) how the political logics of European Union social innovation policy pre-empt the critique of 'roll-back' neoliberalization and thus legitimize decreased public expenditure; and (3) how the fantasmatic logics make European Union social innovation policy ideologically useful in relegitimizing neoliberalism through the win-win-win fantasy and the ethical responsibilization of subjects. We argue that resisting the neoliberalizing power of European Union social innovation policy discourse implies resisting the fantasmatic grip of social innovation as carrying a sublime win-win-win. Instead of accepting social innovation as driven by a replication of best practices, we need to understand social innovations as conceived and suited for particular social issues in particular contexts: we call for a different win-win mindset that does not blind innovators to possible negative impacts of social innovations.

Innovation is almost always seen as a "good thing". Challenging the Innovation Paradigm is a critical analysis of the innovation frenzy and contemporary innovation research. The one-sided focus on desirable effects of innovation misses many opportunities to reduce the undesirable consequences. Authors in this book show how systemic effects outside the innovating firms reduce the net benefits of innovation for individual employees, customers, as well as for society as a whole - also the innovators' own organizations. This book analyzes the dominant discourses that construct and reconstruct the assumptions and one-sidedness of contemporary innovation research (generally known as the pro-innovation bias) by focusing on consequences of innovation, distinguishing between intended and unintended as well as desirable and undesirable consequences. Contributors illustrate how both the discourses of innovation and the consequences of innovation permeate all levels of society: in policy discourse, in academic discourse, in research funding, in national innovation systems, in the financial sector, in organizational and work contexts, and in environmental pollution. The volume offers a critical, multidisciplinary, and multinational perspective on the topic, with authors from diverse academic fields examining and making comparisons between a variety of national contexts.

"Innovation is almost always seen as a "good thing". Challenging the Innovation Paradigm is a critical analysis of the innovation frenzy and contemporary innovation research. The one-sided focus on desirable effects of innovation misses many opportunities to reduce the undesirable consequences. Authors in this book show how systemic effects outside the innovating firms reduce the net benefits of innovation for individual employees, customers, as well as for society as a whole - also the innovators' own organizations. This book analyzes the dominant discourses that construct and reconstruct the assumptions and one-sidedness of contemporary innovation research (generally known as the pro-innovation bias) by focusing on consequences of innovation, distinguishing between intended and unintended as well as desirable and undesirable consequences. Contributors illustrate how both the discourses of innovation and the consequences of innovation permeate all levels of society: in policy discourse, in academic discourse, in research funding, in national innovation systems, in the financial sector, in organizational and work contexts, and in environmental pollution. The volume offers a critical, multidisciplinary, and multinational perspective on the topic, with authors from diverse academic fields examining and making comparisons between a variety of national contexts."--Provided by publisher

In this article, we conduct a critical reading of the European Union social innovation policy discourse. We argue that rather than being a transformative discourse within European Union policy, European Union social innovation policy discourse reinforces neoliberal hegemony by (re)legitimizing it. Inspired by post-foundational discourse theory and Glynos and Howarth's logics of critical explanation, we analyse three central European Union social innovation policy documents. We characterize what kind of political project is articulated in and through European Union social innovation policy discourse, and uncover how it relates to neoliberal political rationality. Our contribution lies in showing (1) how the social logics of European Union social innovation policy can be understood as both 'roll-out' and 'roll-with-it' neoliberalization, thereby relegitimizing and naturalizing neoliberalism; (2) how the political logics of European Union social innovation policy pre-empt the critique of 'roll-back' neoliberalization and thus legitimize decreased public expenditure; and (3) how the fantasmatic logics make European Union social innovation policy ideologically useful in relegitimizing neoliberalism through the win-win-win fantasy and the ethical responsibilization of subjects. We argue that resisting the neoliberalizing power of European Union social innovation policy discourse implies resisting the fantasmatic grip of social innovation as carrying a sublime win-win-win. Instead of accepting social innovation as driven by a replication of best practices, we need to understand social innovations as conceived and suited for particular social issues in particular contexts: we call for a different win-win mindset that does not blind innovators to possible negative impacts of social innovations. ; Peer reviewed