A critical reading of the European Union’s social innovation policy discourse: (Re)legitimizing neoliberalism

Abstract

In this paper we conduct a critical reading of the European Union's social innovation policy (EUSIP) discourse. We argue that, rather than being a transformative discourse within EU policy, EUSIP discourse reinforces neoliberal hegemony by (re)legitimizing it. Inspired by post-foundational discourse theory and Glynos and Howarth's logics of critical explanation we analyse three central EUSIP documents. We characterize what kind of political project is articulated in and through EUSIP discourse, and uncover how it relates to neoliberal political rationality. Our contribution lies in showing: (1) how the social logics of EUSIP can be understood as both 'roll-out' and 'roll-with-it' neoliberalization, thereby relegitimizing and naturalizing neoliberalism; (2) how the political logics of EUSIP pre-empt the critique of 'roll-back' neoliberalization and thus legitimize decreased public expenditure; and (3) how the fantasmatic logics make EUSIP ideologically useful in relegitimizing neoliberalism through the win-win-win fantasy and the ethical responsibilization of subjects. We argue that resisting the neoliberalizing power of EUSIP discourse implies resisting the fantasmatic grip Post-print version Organization, 2017, Vol. 24(6) driven by a replication of best practices, we need to understand SIs as conceived and suited for particular social issues in particular contexts: we call for a different win-win mindset that does not blind innovators to possible negative impacts of SIs.

Entrepreneurial co‐creation: societal impact through open innovation

“…We also suggest that when the social value is co‐created through technology development, having an effective IP strategy and the availability of public funding are essential. Recent literature has highlighted the greater likelihood of businesses co‐patenting with non‐competitive actors, such as universities (Belderbos et al, ), and the need for public funding for social innovation (Fougère et al, ). Yet, the originality of our findings is in highlighting the types of co‐creation for which these factors are more important.…”

Innovative activity development of social entrepreneurs

“…M. Fougere, B. Segercrantz, and H. Seeck presented a critical look at the formation of the European policy in social innovation. They claim that in order to perceive social innovation as the result of replication of best practices, it is necessary to understand social innovation as suitable for solving specific social problems in specific contexts, rather than government spending cuts [14].…”

How to deal with an "essentially contested concept" on the field? Sampling social innovations through the Delphi method

“…Openness might also refer to the increased interest in the discursive analysis of social innovation (Evers & Brandsen, 2016;Fougère, Segercrantz, & Seeck, 2017;Giraud et al, 2014;Montgomery, 2016;Wittmayer et al, 2015). On the one hand, many authors understand the "weak" approach of social innovation as a neoliberal critique of the traditional welfare state.…”