The politics of austerity has pushed the third sector to the centre of attention as governments turn to non-governmental institutions to pick up the social deficits created by economic recession and the state’s retreat from social provision. Some governments have begun supporting alternative service funding through such innovations as social impact bonds (SIBs), a financial product used to encourage the upfront investment of project-oriented service delivery. This paper provides a clearer understanding of what SIBs are and traces their emergence within Canada while linking them to their cross national origins. SIBs are situated conceptually within broader contemporary developments within the non-profit sector, particularly the agenda of public sector reform and third sector marketization. The analysis focuses on the potential impact of SIBs on non-profit policy voice and capacity to represent and meet diverse community needs as it is this function that to a significant degree defines the third sector’s ability to be innovative.

No abstract

The urban crisis—poverty and inequality, un—and under-employment, inadequate and unaffordable housing and public transportation, pollution and climate disasters—is the result of the failure of the neoliberal agenda to produce adequate funds and capacities to ensure the provision of services necessary for the city to function and its residents to thrive, especially the most vulnerable, and increasingly, the middle class. In the last few years, there appears to be a potential for a new more radical direction in urban policy. Yet, urban scholars and practitioners have been slow to notice the new possibilities that reopens the question of whether cities may engage in redistributive policies. In reviewing the history and current practice of progressive politics and policy in cities, this paper explores what a policy agenda for a progressive city might entail and identifies themes and questions for a renewed urban politics research agenda.

Social impact bonds (SIBs) are spreading worldwide in the absence of public debate and proof that they improve social outcomes, despite claims to advance evidence-based policymaking and transparency in government. A critical policy reading of SIBs elucidates this conundrum. We argue that SIBs are part of a neoliberal political project that uses austerity as an economic and moral symbol to manufacture consent for social service reform. The intent of this research provocation is to identify future avenues for empirical research on SIBs to further assess how the tool reconfigures social policy in a profoundly neoliberal direction.

No abstract