In the last decades, citizen initiatives have become more important for neighbourhood development. This applies as well to sustaining urban green and the (temporary) development of urban food gardening and small parks. Development through citizen initiatives is not a straight-forward task for planners as it means a new way of planning and legitimizing of planning decisions. Although citizen initiative and involvement in planning has gained much attention in planning practice in the last decades, planners still struggle with it. Citizen and entrepreneurial initiators of land-use projects for green and urban farming also have difficulty to understand the process of project approval or denial. Following the analysis of Schatz and Roberts (2016) of an ‘untenable governance ménage à trois’ of relational, participatory and neoliberal planning, it seems that in bottom-up planning three types of planning come together: technocratic, deliberative, and neoliberal. This makes the current struggles of planners and initiators involved in bottom-up spatial planning no surprise. In this paper we explore, based on a literature review, ingredients for a tool that could help professional planners (civil servants) and initiators to better understand each other and the planning process and improve the substantive discussion on land-use initiatives and in this way the accountability, credibility and thus, legitimacy of decision. To come to our list of ingredients, we take inspiration from the work of Mouffe and others who have stressed the conflicting views and interests involved in any policy issue. Taking her ‘agonistic approach’ to policy-making we aim to develop a tool that gives more room to substance in policy making: the different motivations, ambitions and political views of people in planning processes. Following scholars that take the work of Mouffe one step further, we look at concepts of boundary work and boundary objects (Metze, 2010), policy arrangements (Buizer, 2009) and a trading zone approach (Saporito, 2016) to come to a better understanding of, and a practical solution to, how to work with conflicting views in practice on planning process as well as substance. Second, we turn to social psychology and conflict resolution (Illes et al. 2014, Nash et al. 2010) to better understand the conflicts at stake around land-use decisions and to identify productive and counterproductive strategies to work with these conflicts. Third, we take inspiration in business literature to better understand how we can depict conflicting views for land-use and how we can come to a workable and integral concept of how to use a specific plot of land.
This paper focuses on the topical and problematic area of social innovations. The aim of this paper is to develop an original approach to the allocation of social innovations, taking into account characteristics such as the degree of state participation, the scope of application, the type of initiations as well as the degree of novelty, which will be elaborated on further in this article. In order to achieve this goal, the forty-two most successful social innovations were identified and systematized. The results of this study demonstrated that 73.5% of social innovations are privately funded, most of them operating on an international level with a high degree of novelty. Moreover, 81% of all social innovations are civic initiatives. Social innovations play an important role in the growth of both developed and less developed countries alike as highlighted in our extensive analysis
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of innovative forms of collaboration between different types of enterprises – aimed at scaling social impact – and address the challenges and complexities inherent to these specific types of partnerships. The particular focus is on strategic collaboration between workintegration social enterprises (WISEs) and mainstream, or for-profit enterprises (FPEs) with the shared objective to create more and better employment opportunities for disadvantaged individuals in the labour market. Design/methodology/approach – This study used a qualitative research design. The total sample consisted of 16 small- and medium-sized enterprises (both WISEs and FPEs), which were selected for their proven,business-to-business revenue model and their explicit ambition to create more inclusive jobs for disadvantaged individuals. Data collection and analysis took place between 2021 and 2023 and consisted of: semi-structured interviews with representatives of the participating enterprises to get a better understanding of the way in which current partnerships operate; and co-creative research methods to facilitate change processes – within and outside these partnerships – aimed at creating more social impact. Findings – Most collaborations between WISEs and FPEs start purely transactional, with the exchange of products or services, but once they become more familiarised with each other, the realisation of (joint) social impact becomes more significant. The ambition to further coordinate and integrate operations is prominent, but the partnership process is not without challenges and requires time, commitment and trust. So far, only few collaborations can be considered truly transformational. Originality/value – This study contributes to the discussion on strategic alliances and cross-sector collaborations by providing a conceptual framework and a practical instrument to shape strategic collaboration between social enterprises and FPEs that aim to create more social impact.
LINK
