Goal Shifts Resulting From Government Shifts

This week’s readings regarding policies and ecosystems for social innovation ranged over ten years of publication dates from 2007 to 2017. The political climate has changed significantly over that timeframe, which inevitably led to a shift in federal policy. After reading Michele Jolin’s “Innovating the White House” article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review published in the spring prior to the 2008 election, I was curious as to how the sentiment and goals might have changed between that publication and the most recent election and turned to the same source for clues.

One of the main ideas for new White House Office solutions in the 2008 article was the suggestion to create a “White House Office of Social Innovation and Impact” in order to coordinate the reorganization of the federal government and its resources. A year later, the “White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation” was indeed created. As Claire Dunning explained in her November 2016 “Advocating and Giving During the Trump Administration: Five History Lessons for the Social Sector” article immediately following Trump’s election, this implementation encouraged a private charitable sector using governing tools. I felt that one of the most relevant lessons from history that Dunning identified was the idea of considering personal donations part of a mass movement. Often donations will be made as “a means of participating in a progressive movement,” such as the current surge of donors to organizations like Planned Parenthood. It seems possible that social innovation might receive funding based on similar motivations in this current government situation.

While the 2008 election centered on the creation of programs for social innovation, the challenge in the most recent election pointed to the importance of nuancing these developments from the past eight years. Another November 2016 article, “Structuring Innovation in the Next Administration,” noted that it was time to shift “social innovation policy from pilot programs and one-off experiments toward an embedded practice in government.” To improve policy for the future, both articles noted that these changes would require taking lessons from history and building on past success. However, one of the biggest differences in suggestions from 2016 vs 2008 was the new idea of embracing a culture that enables risk. Historically, governments are typically risk averse by nature. On the other hand, social innovation requires a certain level of trial and error. Overall, it seems as if the goal of social innovation in government has evolved from filling gaps to promoting experimentation and creativity. Embracing this shift would require a significant amount of buy-in from the current government officials. Unfortunately, while the previous administration was making significant progress in this direction, there is definitely a concern unique to this political climate that the new administration will allow these efforts to evaporate.

Assuming these efforts do continue, is the future of social innovation policy limited to focusing programs put in place over the past 8 years, or is there room for evolution, expansion, and risk over future presidential terms?

https://ssir.org/articles/entry/advocating_and_giving_during_the_trump_administration_five_history_lessons

https://ssir.org/articles/entry/structuring_innovation_in_the_next_administration