Social innovation and urban development: tracing prospects and challenges in Athens
Arampatzi Athina|Iliopoulou Eirini|Nalmpantis Stratos|Tzekou Eirini-Erifili
Social economy
2024 | Jul
Social innovation holds a central role in relevant studies focusing on solutions to challenges facing contemporary cities. Related studies identify the relationship between emerging forms of social innovation and the field of Social and Solidarity Economy and the important role of social innovation in local development, through the deployment of local material and intangible resources. In these approaches, social innovation marks broader transformations of socioeconomic practices and relations that respond to forms of exclusion and inequalities in cities, while contributing to the democratization of urban governance. Recently in Greece, a number of institutional initiatives indicate the resonance of social innovation in terms of its potential to promote sustainable solutions in local development. The article contributes to the debate on the potential of social innovation to address key social needs and challenges in the city of Athens [1]. Through original empirical research with social economy actors, as well as informal civil society groups in the greater Athens area, it contributes to current debates around sustainable urban development by examining the characteristics of socially innovative practices identified in activities around food, energy and the environment, education, culture, etc. Alongside the prospects associated with the development of social innovation, the discussion also focuses on the challenges that social innovation encounters in establishing itself in urban policy paradigms.
Social Innovation and Urban Development: Tracing Prospects and Challenges in Athens
Social innovation holds a central role in current debates focusing on finding solutions to challenges facing contemporary cities (BEPA, 2014). Related studies identify the inextricable link between emerging forms of social innovation and the field of the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) and the important role of social innovation in urban development, through the deployment of local tangible and intangible resources, knowledge and human capital (Moulaert et al., 2010). In these approaches, social innovation marks broader transformations of socioeconomic practices and relations that respond to forms of exclusion and inequalities in cities, while contributing to the democratization of urban governance (Arampatzi, 2022). Recently in Greece, a number of institutional initiatives also indicate the resonance of SSE and social innovation in terms of their potential to promote sustainable solutions in local development, such as the National Action Plan for the Social Economy and Social Innovation of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs [2], as well as related initiatives and synergies between local government and SSE actors and local communities.
The main objective of the article is to contribute to the emerging debate on the potential of social innovation to respond to key social needs and challenges in the city of Athens. Through original empirical research [3] with SSE actors, as well as informal civil society groups in the greater area of Athens, we examine the characteristics and goals of these actors and groups that contribute to socially innovative practices in a range of activities around food, energy and environment, education, culture, etc. At the same time, the discussion outlines the key challenges that socially innovative practices face in establishing themselves in urban development paradigms.
The contribution of social innovation to contemporary urban challenges
Social innovation is conceptualized as “a combination of processes and practices that aim to meet social needs that are not met – or insufficiently met – by the market or the public sector” (Galego et al., 2021: 4). Emphasizing their transformative potential “bottom-up”, the literature identifies socially innovative processes and practices in social and solidarity economy actors and networks, collective civil society initiatives, grassroots projects and “community economies”, e.g. non-market transactions and informal economic networks, which aim at the social, environmental and economic sustainability of cities (Gibson-Graham and Roelvink, 2009; Gritzas and Kavoulakos, 2015; Amanatidou et al., 2021). Subsequently, social innovation develops by creatively harnessing local resources and knowledge and acquires three main characteristics, in which we identify key spatial dimensions: (i) collective action that aims to respond to various forms of exclusion and inequalities in urban space, such as poverty, skills, participation in decision-making etc. (ii) the transformation of existing socioeconomic practices and the empowerment of vulnerable populations, through the formation of new collective identities, subjects’ organizational capacities, and internal operational and governance models; and (iii) the contribution to the democratization of forms of urban politics and governance in cities (Moulaert et al., 2010; Galego et al., 2021).
In the context of successive crisis conditions during the last decade in Greece, such as economic austerity and its impact on the degradation of urban space and public infrastructure, as well as the worsening environmental crisis, the development of a series of practices by SSE and civil society actors aimed at providing socially innovative responses to current social needs, introducing the principles of reciprocity, solidarity and sustainable development in new forms of socio-economic activity (Arampatzi, 2022). Indicatively, this activity in the Athens metropolitan area can be located in projects and services set up around food, energy and environment, education, health and culture, new digital media and advisory services, housing and other services (Map 1).
Map 1: Distribution of SSE actors by activity, Source: Desktop field research
Source: Desktop field research
The concentrations of this activity, based on the mapping conducted, are located in the central municipality of Athens, as well as in neighboring municipalities, following the population densities and the overall socioeconomic activity (Map 2). Alongside SSE actors, a number of civil society initiatives and groups develop informal socioeconomic activity, within the scope of the social and solidarity economy, such as informal exchange networks and initiatives, time banks, solidarity courses etc. (Map 3).
Map 2: Distribution of SSE actors in relation to population
Source: Desktop field research
Map 3: Distribution of groups with legal entity and informal groups
Source: Desktop field research
Developing socially innovative practices in Athens: characteristics and operation of SSE actors and projects
Examining the characteristics and operation of SSE actors and projects operating in the urban area of Athens, we identify socially innovative practices in a number of sectors of activity and in the synergies or networks they develop (Figure 1). These aim to respond to a wide range of social needs, including sustainable development, food security, good management of natural resources, combating the climate crisis and inequalities, access to quality and affordable housing, etc. Also, a wide range of activities cover the needs of services, mainly in the tertiary sector, and much less in the secondary or primary sector, where we locate a significant deficit of activity.
Figure 1: Sectors of activity of SSE actors
Source: Field research
The majority of the actors that have a legal entity operate in the framework of social cooperative enterprises and civil, non-profit companies. Of particular interest is the size of the human resources of these actors, which in most cases ranges between 1 and 25 members (Figure 2), following the Greek average of small businesses, but also, respectively, groups of citizens organized at the neighborhood level. At the same time, the period of their establishment and operation is mostly located between 2-10 years, however the increasing trend of the related activity noted during the past decade seems to be decreasing in the last five years (Figure 3).
Figure 2: Number of participants in SSE projects
Source: Field research
Figure 3: Operation period of SSE projects
Source: Field research
Regarding the operational and decision-making model, the majority of actors and projects adopt the participatory model, i.e. decisions are the product of consensus or voting among all members, which underlines their democratic operation and, by extension, their internal governance (Figure 4). Moreover, there is a plurality of models for the allocation of tasks, management and organization of the projects, which alternate from case to case, indicating the development of expertise and specialization in defined roles, as well as the sharing of know-how (Figure 5).
Figure 4: Decision-making model of SSE actors
Source: Field research
Figure 5: Allocation of tasks in SSE projects
Source: Field research
We can also observe trends in the development of partnerships and networking, primarily among SSE actors, namely without any institutional mediation, and with state and non-state actors (such as private companies, foundations etc.) (Γράφημα 6). The characteristics of partnerships and networking vary, as actors develop respective activities depending on the sector to which they belong, but also synergies with other sectors of activity, which, according to relevant studies, creates potential conditions for the production of social innovation (as in cases of cross-sectoral activity). Thus, based on their diagnosis of needs, they develop synergies or networks to promote services, goods, interests and the dissemination of know-how. It is particularly interesting, however, that while networking and cooperation are recognized as a key objective and a constitutive component of their sustainability, the degree of maturity achieved in such networks thus far is assessed as relatively low, in relation to the objectives set by SSE actors and their outcomes (for example, in securing jobs and/or creating new jobs, creating financial reserve, or reinvesting profit in similar or other networking activities).
Figure 6: Synergies of SSE actors
Source: Field research
Transforming socioeconomic practices, contributing to urban policies: prospects and challenges
Constitutive of their internal functioning and the synergies that actors and projects occasionally develop is the process of developing collective identities, new subjects and perceptions around socially innovative practices. Specifically, SSE actors conceptualize their activity, and by extension social innovation, by emphasizing and prioritizing its social benefit and impact in finding solutions to current social needs. In particular, their approach emphasizes the social benefit, the new relationships and practices created and their transformative impact on existing paradigms (e.g. work, production, consumption, environment etc.), with the aim of combating inequalities, and social well-being (Γράφημα 7).
Figure 7: Conceptualizations of social innovation
Source: Field research
These conceptualizations are dominated by the notion of social innovation as primarily a relationship and practice and, then, as a product or technological invention. Thus, the emphasis is placed on the potential transformative output for all parties involved, through the development of social impact of actors and, by extension, an enhanced role for society in this activity. Regarding the transformative potential of social innovation, we may notice indicative new activities and examples, such as self-production and consumption of energy, through energy communities, education on environmental issues, and the dissemination of know-how in cases of recycling at source or alternative fuel management, the promotion of sustainable agri-food production and consumption systems, democratic models of organization and operation, novel financing programs and institutional tools and participatory planning initiatives.
However, in the present context, there is a small-scale footprint, largely related to the internal functioning of SSE projects, and local communities. As a result, we may notice the development of niche innovative activity, as well as a low degree of diffusion of innovative practices on a wider socio-spatial scale, contrasting the range of needs they aim to address.
Concerning the development of socially innovative practices aimed at sustainable urban development and the contribution of social innovation to targeted urban policies, the prospect of more democratic forms of governance is emerging, even at an early stage. This prospect is being tested through ongoing initiatives that establish synergies between SSE actors (such as social enterprises and cooperatives) with local government bodies and services, and the active participation of civil society in consultation and participatory planning actions, including EU funded projects [4].
Acknowledging the crucial role that local government actors can play in these processes, we observe, however, significant challenges and obstacles to the further development of socially innovative practices, mostly stemming from inadequate and ineffective existing institutional frameworks and policy tools. For example, key challenges include the limits of the administrative competences of local government bodies, the short-term duration of funding programs and the scope of local initiatives, the unstable or incomplete functioning of consultation bodies and spaces for civil society participation in urban policy-making, and the lack of central planning for the development of social innovation. As a result, we may notice a significantly low degree of diffusion and transfer of know-how to other levels of governance and sectors of activity, a low degree of maturation of socially innovative practices and social impact and, ultimately, critical obstacles to the development of broader examples and new institutional instruments of urban policy.
Conclusion
To sum up, the potential and prospects of social innovation in terms of its contribution to critical issues of urban sustainable development may be located in the activity of SSE actors and civil society groups, in networking and synergies promoted across sectors, as well as with local government bodies in examples of participation of such bodies and groups in actions and initiatives that include and address local communities. Nevertheless, we may stress the need to further strengthen this activity, through initiatives to upgrade existing, and create new stable spaces for consultation and active participation of SSE and civil society actors in urban issues, aiming to operationalize and diffuse socially innovative practices, across different spatial scales and levels of governance. Moreover, creation of new policy tools is considered crucial, which will be foregrounded on a diagnosis of needs at the local level, by mapping the conditions, opportunities and challenges for the development of such activity, ensuring the long-term sustainability of social innovation through the establishment of networks with the public and private sectors, as well as with educational institutions. Eventually, an important contribution to the above would be the creation of a more favorable legislative and financial framework at central state level, towards the active promotion of sectoral synergies between SSE actors, local authorities and the civil society.
[1] Acknowledgements: The research project was supported by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (H.F.R.I.) under the “3rd Call for H.F.R.I. Research Projects to support Post-Doctoral Researchers” (Project Number:7096).
[2] ypergasias.gov.gr/apascholisi/ethniko-schedio-drasis-gia-tin-koinoniki-oikonomia-kai-tin-koinoniki-kainotomia
[3] The research was carried out in the framework of the project “Social innovation for urban development: the cities of Athens and Thessaloniki in a comparative perspective (INNOVATur)”, at the School of Spatial Planning and Development, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Methodologically, the research used a mapping of SSE actors and civil society initiatives focusing on food, energy and environment, education, health and culture, new digital media and advisory services, housing and other services. The mapping included a total of 622 SSE actors (out of a total population of 676 in the above-mentioned activity sectors, based on the Social and Solidarity Economy Register of the Greek Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs) and 69 informal civil society initiatives (their total population is not officially recorded). The maps presented are the product of desktop field research and processing by the research team, using the following online sources, which are publicly available and freely accessible: geospatial data (geodata.gov. gr), Social and Solidarity Economy Registry of the Hellenic Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (kalo.yeka.gr), Solidarity4all.gr and Enallaktikos.gr websites, online websites and social media of SSE and informal groups, 2021 Population Census of EL.STAT (www.statistics.gr/2021-census-res-pop-results). The survey also used an online questionnaire, with qualitative and quantitative questions to participants from SSE and informal civil society initiatives, focusing on the sectors of food, energy and environment, education, health and culture, new digital media and advisory services, housing and other services. The topics included in the questionnaire covered the characteristics of the groups (legal form, sector of activity, size of human resources, time-span of operation, decision-making model, distribution of tasks), partnerships with other actors and their evaluation, qualitative characteristics of social innovation and needs to which it responds to, evaluation of relevant policies and, finally, demographic data of the participants. A total of 36 responses were received, 29 from SSE actors and 7 from civil society initiatives (total targeted population in the above-mentioned activity sectors 253, of which 201 SSE and 52 informal civil society initiatives). Finally, 25 semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out with SSE, civil society initiatives, policy advisors and representatives of local authorities active in the metropolitan area of Athens.
[4] Recent “good” examples of synergies between municipal authorities, SSE and civil society groups include the Kypseli Municipal Market (agorakypselis.gr) and InnovAthens (innovathens.gr) in the Municipality of Athens, as well as the Hadrian Aqueduct (culturalhidrant.eu) in the Municipality of Halandri.
Entry citation
Arampatzi, A., Iliopoulou, E., Nalmpantis, S., Tzekou, E.E. (2024) Social innovation and urban development: tracing prospects and challenges in Athens, in Maloutas T., Spyrellis S. (eds) Athens Social Atlas. Digital compendium of texts and visual material. URL: https://www.athenssocialatlas.gr/en/article/social-innovation-and-urban-development/ , DOI: 10.17902/20971.122
Atlas citation
Maloutas T., Spyrellis S. (eds) (2015) Athens Social Atlas. Digital compendium of texts and visual material. URL: https://www.athenssocialatlas.gr/en/ , DOI: 10.17902/20971.9
References
- Amanatidou, E., Tzekou, E.E. and Gritzas, G. (2021). Successful niche building by social innovation in social economy networks and the potential for societal transformation. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1-30. DOI:10.1080/19420676.2021.1952478
- Arampatzi, A. (2022). Social solidarity economy and urban commoning in post-crisis contexts: Madrid and Athens in a comparative perspective. Journal of Urban Affairs, 44(10), 1375-1390. DOI:10.1080/07352166.2020.1814677
- Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA) (2014). Social Innovation: A Decade of Changes. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
- Galego D., Moulaert, F., Brans, M., Santinha, G. (2021). Social innovation and governance: a scoping review. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 1-26. DOI: 10.1080/13511610.2021.1879630.
- Gibson-Graham, J.K. and Roelvink, G. (2009). Social innovation for community economies. In: MacCallum D, Moulaert F, Hillier J and Haddock SV (eds.) Social Innovation and Territorial Development. UK: Ashgate, 25–37
- Gritzas, G. and Kavoulakos, I. (2015) Alternative economic and political spaces: facing the crisis or creating a new society?, in Maloutas, T., Spyrellis S. (eds.) Athens Social Atlas. Digital compendium of texts and visual material. URL: https://www.athenssocialatlas.gr/en/article/alternative-spaces/ (accessed 1 April 2024), DOI: 10.17902/20971.15
- Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., Gonzalez, S. (2010) (eds.). Can neighbourhoods save the city? UK: Routledge.
