The focus on power relations also centralises the position that for social innovations to generate systemic social change, as the discourse frequently suggests, then those innovations must disrupt the social dynamics that form the basis of the social problem in the first place (Nicholls, Reference Nicholls2017). This frame is useful because it encompasses the multiple forms of endeavour – social enterprise, social finance, social and Indigenous entrepreneurship – that occur across multiple levels – micro, meso, macro – that comprise this confused and contested space. The definition adopted for this article sees social innovation as ‘the development and delivery of new ideas and solutions (products, services, models, markets, processes) at different socio-structural levels that intentionally seek to change power relations and improve human capabilities, as well as the processes via which these solutions are carried out’ (Nicholls & Ziegler, Reference Nicholls and Ziegler2015: 2). These definitions range across innovations that seek institutional change (Heiskala, Reference Heiskala2007), are for social purposes (Mulgan et al., Reference Mulgan, Tucker, Ali and Sanders2007), for the public good, or address market failure (OECD, 2000). Pol and Ville ( Reference Pol and Ville2009) argue that a number of contested and contestable definitions of social innovation, while illustrative of the activities scholars are seeking to understand, are frequently too vague for empirical validation. After presenting the case study of O’Sullivan and the initiative Manawa Ora, Korokoro Ora (iMOKO) innovation, we discuss how the innovation addresses specific social problems as they pertain to primary healthcare provision and how this alters social power dynamics.Ĭontemporary understandings of social innovation as a concept hold as defining features new forms of social relationships that generate new ideas for new solutions, with those solutions having a positive societal impact (Ayob, Teasdale, & Fagan, Reference Ayob, Teasdale and Fagan2016). We then relate this literature to that of Indigenous enterprise to establish a more closely integrated theoretical backdrop. This includes the consideration of the principal aim of social innovation as changes to power relations for the improvement of human capabilities (Nicholls & Ziegler, Reference Nicholls and Ziegler2015 von Jacobi, Edmiston, & Ziegler, Reference von Jacobi, Edmiston and Ziegler2017). We draw on the practices of Dr Lance O’Sullivan, medical doctor and social innovator in the Far North of Aotearoa New Zealand, to explicate the interplay between cultural capital and social innovation in a context of market failure and structured disadvantage.įirst we outline the theoretical background of social innovation as a response to the structured nature of systemic market failure. This article begins to address that gap through the analysis of a contemporary case study of a Māori social innovator, his innovative enterprise model, and how the opportunity, idea development and execution strategy emerged from the cultural, geographic, and socio-economic context in which he is embedded.
Of particular note are the organisational and institutional practices of Indigenous populations, for which there is a significant gap in the social innovation and social entrepreneurship literature. Ayob, Teasdale, & Fagan, Reference Ayob, Teasdale and Fagan2016). Although the explosion of social innovation in the public narrative and its increased presence in policy agendas globally is relatively recent, many aspects of what we now call social innovation are not new (cf. For researchers, policymakers, and practitioners across a range of organisational contexts, the promise of new (often hybrid) organisational logics, institutional arrangements, or public service modalities represents a compelling agenda for social change. Social innovation is an emergent conceptual frame for understanding the creation of new initiatives to address systemic social and environmental issues.