civic entrepreneurship

The reference to “civic entrepreneurs” in this week’s readings caught my eye. While “civic” and “social” are often used interchangeably to characterize social enterprise, the author of the Economist article specifically means innovation in the context of bureaucracy. It’s not clear to what extent that’s even possible, let alone a good idea.

Taxpayer-funded public administration just can’t assume risk or pursue novelty in the same way as private initiatives, which are funded selectively and voluntarily. On the other hand, it seems appropriate for governments to be an engine of economic and social improvement, given their unique means, scope, and equity imperative. This complication cuts to the heart of our discussion topic this week: how the public sector can at once support and thwart innovation.

Two years ago, I heard Michele Jolin speak about the White House Office of Social Innovation. She was addressing a roomful of community and private grant-makers. Everyone seemed to agree that multiyear general operating grants are an unmet need. However, the audience questions betrayed some skepticism about how the White House would actually reach the grassroots – whether matching grants and strict program evaluation were universally feasible, and whether this approach would, in fact, mean another layer of intermediaries and overhead between sources of capital and promising social ventures.

While the official program website lists some eminent early-round Social Innovation Fund grantees, including REDF and New Profit Inc., so far there isn’t much outcome assessment. The creation of the new office generated a lot of press in 2009, but the most recent follow-up articles I could find are from January 2010: Obama's $50-Million Fund to Spur Innovation Prompts Much Debate and Social Innovation Fund Sends Important Signal to Grant Makers, both from The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

In combination, those two articles effectively portray the promise and pitfalls of the Social Innovation Fund. Perry writes that, for many, the Fund represents a new kind of cross-sector partnership that stresses measurable results. Dorsey and Schmitz assert that the Fund signals how grant-making should better resemble capital markets. Yet, both articles acknowledge that the program tends to favor established, relatively large-scale organizations, which could be a natural result of public administration constraints.

Is there a place in government for “civic entrepreneurs”? How can they balance complex stakeholder interests and administrative requirements to do something that’s simultaneously unproven and amenable (or at least justifiable) to everyone?