Hell..to the Funder-in-Chief

My submission this week pertains to the political climate that is necessary to foster social innovation. This relates to this week’s readings because the political ecosystem is inextricably linked to the ecosystem that is required to spark social innovation at a national scale.

Paul Carttar’s article described the government’s role in fostering social innovation as that of “funder-in-chief.” The article suggests that this status provides the federal government with a unique responsibility to increase social innovation and impact. The Obama Administration embraced this role when it established its Office of Social innovation and Civic Participation.

At first glance, Michele Jolin’s Innovating the White House article was eerily prophetic. She predicted the creation of the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation and the creation of a Social Innovation Fund. However, I discovered that after President Obama was elected, she was appointed as a Senior Advisor on Social Innovation.

Among other things, as the Opportunity for All and Social Innovation article notes, the administration pioneered Pay for Success, or Social Impact Bond (SIB) financing to promote and expand social innovation. We touched on SIBs in last week’s reading and it seemed to me that this would attract bipartisan support. However, I am much more doubtful after reading this week’s readings. We now have an administration that seems hell bent on erasing all remnants of the previous administration, irrespective of the financial and societal costs. This commitment, paired with a do-nothing congress, seems likely to damage the climate necessary for the “funder-in-chief” to expand on innovation.

Again, I am left wondering, if the toxicity of the politically climate does not change, what are the effects this will have on the larger social innovation ecosystem?