Government as a Driver of Innovation? Not with a SHUTDOWN

I cannot help but notice the irony of the timing of the readings for this week, as on the day that the US Government has shutdown, we are set to discuss policies that are meant to nurture social innovation.  The articles that we read discuss initiatives in Brazil, the US, and the UK that seek to fund and spur social innovation, ranging from feeding the poorest of the poor to awarding prizes for innovative solutions to societal ills.  Chief among the policies discussed in the articles were President Obama’s Social Innovation Fund (SIF), Office of Social Innovation and Civil Participation (OSICP) and i3.  All three of these were the result of Obama’s desire to see a government that aided social innovation as a way aid those innovators dedicated to social issues. 

Today, as the Shutdown unfolds on Capitol Hill, I read a Forbes article written by Paul Cartarr, Obama’s first director of the SIF, titled “Why We Aren’t Getting the Full Benefit of Social Innovation—And What the Government Can Do About It.”  In the article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/skollworldforum/2012/11/12/why-we-arent-getting-the-full-benefit-of-social-innovation-and-what-the-government-should-do-about-it/) Cartarr lays out an eloquent argument in favor of robust government support of social innovation.  The primary argument made by Cartarr is that the government has the biggest purse, and can therefore be the primary benefactor of innovation.  He then goes on to say that the government need not increase its funding efforts, but that instead the government needs to fund in a smarter fashion.   Cartarr also gives three detailed suggestions of how the government can achieve this level of smart support. 

Cartarr’s three suggestions for improved government support of social innovation seem like they would help innovation in a productive manner.  The first suggestion is to ensure that the government expands its support of the best solutions to the biggest problems, even if such solutions do not fall in line with political priorities.  The second solution he has is that the government must make sure the evidence-based programs supported by the government are being managed to maximize value to the beneficiary, which is Cartarr’s way of saying that government inefficiency must be kept out of the realm of social innovation.  His third suggestion states that all agencies employing pro-innovation funding and management should be proactive in spreading the benefits of such programs. These suggestions, if followed in a well-managed manner could have vast positive impacts on society. 

I want to like Cartarr’s article and arguments, but I cannot, and I wonder if you can.  The first reason that I have a hard time accepting this article is that the author was already in a position in which he could have helped to enact these changes.  He was the inaugural director of the SIF, so he had a front row view of the government’s role in innovation.  Why didn’t these changes come about when he was in office? Why did he write about them, and the need for government cooperation after he left office? Can we really trust the government to efficiently use tax dollars to spur and support innovation if we don’t have a functioning government?  Before we ask the government to fix the ills of society, we should ask the government to fix itself.  As of 11:59PM September 30^th, the US ceased to have a functioning government.  That was the time that Obama’s director of the OMB sent a memo to all federal agencies ordering them to begin shutting down operations in an orderly manner.