Government funds Social Innovation

This week’s reading topics explored the way that government and social innovation intertwine. As one of the primary capital providers for many of today's social innovations, government has put priority in ensuring that sound and sustainable solutions are given a chance to help those who need them most. With a long list of ventures to invest in, key performance indicators and tangible benchmarks are a major focal point for those working on a project to address and relay back to those providing the capital. For this relationship to be the most profitable for all involved, the government is expected looks towards programs that can actually benefit those in priority situations, while not posing a major or unrealistic burden on the citizens within that country.

              When looking at the article “Finland Wants to Replace Welfare Programs With a Minimum Income for All Residents” we looked at two key issues: how beneficial a minimum income program would be, and if cutting the social programs that are in place today would result in a better outcome for all. With the benefit of being able to decrease the large tax placed on the citizens of Finland, many are for this option. Additionally, with everyone being given 550 to 800 euros a month, people would be able to use that money to go towards medical expenses, as well as any personal use when unemployed. While Finland still plans to test its initial outcomes further, the initial tests for this financial model have proven to be beneficial. With Finland weighing its options, they have decided that this risk is worth taking, and that this program has the ability to spread to other Nordic and European nations if it continues its successful track record.

              I would have to agree that this model does seem as if it could provide those who are not currently employed with a supplement to their already existing benefits. I would lean more towards the plan of giving only 550 Euros, while only keeping the social beneficial programs that are necessary. Even though the problem of overlapping programs may persist, I feel that with some money going towards this new income, any overlap could be promptly eliminated, keeping only programs that serve a priority purpose. This in turn could cause the current high tax rate to fall, since the government would now only need to provide funding for a few programs that hit all the necessary target points, instead of many that can be askew. So far, it seems that this program’s benefit may greatly outweigh the cost: making it a worthwhile venture for the government to embark on.

Overall,governments should look to expand into the social sector, especially with innovations such as the minimum income proposal. They are the force that should be tasked with taking care of their citizens over all other non-profits and investors, and should take this responsibility into account when looking where to put any future funding. With the US, and a few other countries, now having a Department of Social Innovation, we should hopefully see many of our high priority issues resolved as this field continues to rapidly grow.