Creating an enabling environment for social entrepreneurship in tackling complex socio‐economic challenges is at the forefront of government policy agendas globally. Although several policy mechanisms have been proposed to this end, whether and to what extent those policy mechanisms may (re)shape the social entrepreneurship environments have rarely been explored. By examining the Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development Fund (SIE Fund), a recent policy project aimed at fostering social innovation in Hong Kong, this article presents a rare empirical exploration to illustrate how public policies can potentially drive social innovation. We explore first the impact of the SIE Fund in fostering innovation among its funded social enterprises, and second, how the SIE Fund may have influenced Hong Kong's social entrepreneurship environment. Results show that the projects under the SIE Fund exhibit characteristics distinct from the social enterprises prior to the inception of the SIE Fund. In addition, evidence of innovations in terms of product, process, marketing, and innovation in developing new or improved social practices were also identified. This study illustrates how specific public policy mechanisms may potentially facilitate the diversification, inclusion, innovation, and expansion of the social entrepreneurship environment. Findings carry substantial policy implications, in particular to neighbouring East Asian societies typically characterized by a strong government, and face similar structural, demographic and socio‐economic challenges that necessitate innovative solutions.

ObjectivesThis study examined the interaction effects of individual and neighbourhood socioeconomic status (SES) in older adults in Hong Kong, considering all-cause and cause-specific mortality from respiratory disease, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, nonmedical disease and suicide.DesignA retrospective follow-up study.SettingHong Kong Special Administrative Region, a rapidly ageing society with 16.1% residents aged 65 years or older in 2020.Participants43 910 people aged 65 years or older were enrolled at baseline. They had participated in health check-ups during 2000–2003 in one of the Elderly Health Centres. Observation periods started on the date of the participant’s first health check-up, and ended at death, or 31 December 2011, whichever occurred first.Outcome measuresAll-cause and cause-specific mortality over the study timeframe.AnalysisCox’s proportional hazards regression models were applied to estimate the adjusted HRs of mortality, by including covariates at neighbourhood (deprivation) and individual levels (poverty, education and type of housing).ResultsThe ‘double tragedy theory’ (ie, lower SES persons living in lower SES neighbourhoods have worst health outcomes) was more related to cancer, while the ‘psychosocial comparison theory’ (ie, lower SES persons living in higher SES neighbourhoods have poorer health outcomes) was more related to cardiovascular, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke.ConclusionThere were important interaction effects between neighbourhood and individual factors on mortality. Policies based on the interaction between individual and neighbourhood SES should be considered. For instance, for cancer, targeted services (ie, free consultation, relevant treatment information, health check-up, etc) could be allocated in socioeconomically deprived areas to support individuals with low SES. On the other hand, more free public services to reduce psychological stresses (ie, psychological support services, recreational services, health knowledge information, etc) could be provided for those individuals with low SES living in higher SES areas to reduce stroke, cardiovascular and ischaemic heart diseases.